# Musical Education from Schoenberg



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

*"...my situation with the audience is often as follows: those of my works that might interest them (that is, those they consider atonal and dissonant) they refuse to listen to, and those works that are not called atonal but are less dissonant are not interesting enough -- to people who do not know them at all. Atonality or dissonance are no yardsticks for evaluation. Superficiality might base its judgements on such qualities. True love and understanding of music will wonder: What has been said? How was it expressed? Was there a new message delivered in music? Has a new personality been discovered? Was the technical presentation adequate? Of course, to identify the style is easier and procures for one the glory of a connoisseur. But the love of the friend of art does not derive so indirectly --if it is appreciation that is aimed for."* Schoenberg, Style and Idea, pg.77 University of California Press 1984


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Quite a philosophical way of expressing his thoughts. An interesting read. I wonder what Schoenberg might write today over ninety years on since his pioneering work on atonal music started. Also good to read that Schoenberg himself used the terms "atonal" and "atonality" without any negative connotations, correctly so.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> Quite a philosophical way of expressing his thoughts. An interesting read. I wonder what Schoenberg might write today over ninety years on since his pioneering work on atonal music started. Also good to read that Schoenberg himself used the terms "atonal" and "atonality" without any negative connotations, correctly so.


Uh...you haven't read much of Schoenberg's writings, have you?

"I reject the expression 'atonal.' Nowadays this method of composition is, alas, generally so referred to"

"I believe that composition with twelve tones and what many erroneously call 'atonal music' is not the end of an old period, but the beginning of a new one."

"Permit me to point out that I regard the expression atonal as meaningless"

"I find above all that the expression, 'atonal music,' is most unfortunate-it is on par with calling flying 'the art of not falling', or swimming 'the art of not drowning'."

"I, who have the hope that in a few decades audiences will recognize the _tonality_ of this music today called _atonal_, would not then be compelled to point out any other difference than a _gradual_ one between the tonality of yesterday and the tonality of today. Indeed, tonal is perhaps nothing else than what is understood today and _atonal_ what will be understood in the _future_."


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Yes, I have read a lot of Schoenberg's writings. As far as I am concerned, he was quite sympathetic to usage of various terms and his opinion was as valid as any other in history, right up to this present day.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> Yes, I have read a lot of Schoenberg's writings. As far as I am concerned, he was quite sympathetic to usage of various terms and his opinion was as valid as any other in history, right up to this present day.


Artmusic, you may have read them, but you have no understanding of them if you think that he was okay with the term "atonal."


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Mahlerian said:


> "I find above all that the expression, 'atonal music,' is most unfortunate-it is on par with calling flying 'the art of not falling', or swimming 'the art of not drowning'."


I don't see anything wrong with either of those actually


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

isorhythm said:


> I don't see anything wrong with either of those actually


I agree! Those are a couple of the best practical definitions I've heard, in part because they acknowledge it doesn't have to be pretty - as long as one doesn't hit the sidewalk at terminal velocity, it counts - and because they are funny.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Artmusic, you may have read them, but you have no understanding of them if you think that he was okay with the term "atonal."


My understanding is just fine.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> My understanding is just fine.


Then you understand that he rightly loathed the term atonal as more or less meaningless?


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> I agree! Those are a couple of the best practical definitions I've heard, in part because they acknowledge it doesn't have to be pretty - as long as one doesn't hit the sidewalk at terminal velocity, it counts - and because they are funny.


I agree. And I think it does atonal music best service in understanding with a broad usage of the word.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Then you understand that he rightly loathed the term atonal as more or less meaningless?


I think so and I find it fascinating as a historian to see how usage of the word changes over time (i.e. from Schoenberg's to ours today).


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> I think so and I find it fascinating as a historian to see how usage of the word changes over time (i.e. from Schoenberg's to ours today).


Yes, in Schoenberg's time the word was understood as being a kind of catch-all for modern music from Bartok to Hindemith to Shostakovich to Schoenberg to Debussy to Ravel to Mahler to Strauss...

Today it's just applied as a marker to indicate any kind of non-triadic and fully chromatic language (or just whatever the writer dislikes).

It still hasn't managed to become a particularly meaningful technical term, though.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I think it's quite a mercurial term ("atonal") and will likely remain elusively defined / broadly used, maybe as a reflection of listeners' view of history (or lack of) and as you said "just whatever they dislike". I have asked this question before (not here) about why that might be so and the discussion turned into a linguistics one for some answers.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Atonality - the view from the streets:


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

I find the repeated rejection of the term 'atonal' rather tiresome. If there was some alternate term that was understood and accepted that would be one thing. But there isn't so let's finally move on. Reading the same reasons thread after thread why the term 'atonal' sucks takes minutes of my life I can never get back.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

DaveM said:


> I find the repeated rejection of the term 'atonal' rather tiresome. If there was some alternate term that was understood and accepted that would be one thing. But there isn't so let's finally move on. Reading the same reasons thread after thread why the term 'atonal' sucks takes minutes of my life I can never get back.


The problem is that there doesn't need to be a term at all. "Atonal" doesn't meaningfully describe any category of things, and it's not understood, which is clear from the way it is abused.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> The problem is that there doesn't need to be a term at all. "Atonal" doesn't meaningfully describe any category of things...


Perhaps it should be made illegal. There is precedent! Can we write this into the TOS perhaps?

Seriously, I share the tiredness of some other members. People use the term "atonal" knowing well enough what it means for their purposes. I grow weary of many and continuing posts from one member objecting to its use.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2016)

KenOC said:


> Perhaps it should be made illegal. There is precedent! Can we write this into the TOS perhaps?
> 
> Seriously, I share the tiredness of some other members. People use the term "atonal" knowing well enough what it means for their purposes. I grow weary of many and continuing posts from one member objecting to its use.


If a word means something in the mind of the poster, that should not be enough. He could've made the word up himself if that's the standard. I, for one, have no clue what people are talking about when they make vague statements about "hating atonal music" because I don't see what elements Schoenberg, Stockhausen, Cage, Xenakis, and Grisey all have in common that no tonal composer does.

And of course, someone will say "but that's just it...the thing they have in common is that they aren't tonal", but then I think of Schoenberg's tonal and atonal works that sound pretty much like the same kind of music, or Rautavaara's 3rd symphony which is "atonal" but compared more with Bruckner than anyone else. I suppose if negatives are the best descriptors we can come up with here, I'd better start describing composers as "Not Bach" and tell my friend that this new electronica artist basically sounds exactly like what you'd expect from someone who isn't The Beatles.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

nathanb said:


> If a word means something in the mind of the poster, that should not be enough.


It should mean something in your mind as well? An interesting viewpoint.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2016)

KenOC said:


> It should mean something in your mind as well? An interesting viewpoint.


Gleek Zoop Emeex Dulk Tey Vuhc


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

nathanb said:


> If a word means something in the mind of the poster, that should not be enough. He could've made the word up himself if that's the standard. I, for one, have no clue what people are talking about when they make vague statements about "hating atonal music" because I don't see what elements Schoenberg, Stockhausen, Cage, Xenakis, and Grisey all have in common that no tonal composer does.


When a poster uses a word in a way I don't understand or find vague, I ask the poster to be more specific. I haven't noticed posters making words up. However, that too is permissible. Of course the word "atonal" is in common use, so it would seem most sensible just to ask people what they mean when they use it.

"Atonal" seems really objectionable to just a small handful of people. It isn't even the most problematic or contested word on this forum. Perhaps we really ought to purge terms of aesthetic judgment such as "profound," "great," and "beautiful," or any attempt to describe or define what music means to us. In fact, we might do away with all words which may be understood in more than one sense or may give rise to arguments. Then we can all just say things like "Wow!" and go home.

Some of us, after careful consideration - and others of us based mostly on intuitive perception - are comfortable using the word "atonal" to designate music using the twelve notes of the chromatic scale, in which those notes are employed to create harmonic progressions and structures which purposefully avoid systematic reference to tonal centers, or even, for the most part, the evocation by means of triadic harmony of tonal idioms. I believe this is a fairly accurate description of the way musicians and other musically knowledgeable people use the tern "atonal." Music may conform more or less to that description, so the term may apply more or less precisely to any given piece, but there is no need for quibbling about mixed or borderline cases. This is not an eccentric or unacceptable way to use a word, and no one is forced to use any particular term if they don't find it useful.

I get the feeling that dislike of the term is based less on the fact that it doesn't describe a specific style of music - after all, an "a-" word doesn't have to do that - than on its use as a pejorative term by people who find some music too dissonant for their taste or hard to understand. Well, there's nothing stopping anyone from explaining to them why they're wrong, and showing them where the work's tonal relations are. After that, it's up to them.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> [...] "Atonal" seems really objectionable to just a small handful of people. It isn't even the most problematic or contested word on this forum [...]


Personally, I have no particular objection to the term though there are perhaps more apt and less-loaded ones. Arnold Whittall in his book _Serialism_ (Cambridge University Press, 2008) has this to say (p. 16):

_Serialism has often been paraded as the ultimate demonstration of that negative side of musical modernity, in which long-established, well-tried tradition based in nature and human aural sensibility are jettisoned in a misguided, arrogant concern to elevate the desperate ambitions of composers who desire to be thought of original at all costs, and who dogmatically disregard as irrelevant what mattered most to their predecessors and precursors down the centuries. Attempts in recent decades to replace the negative term _*atonal*_ (i.e. entirely lacking tonality) with the more constructive _*post-tonal*_ have so far failed to provide a cast-iron defense of serial composition against its detractors. Small wonder, their argument continues, that classical music - even if not explicitly serial - has become increasingly devalued during the decades since the 1920s, and that those kinds of popular music rooted in emotional and technical directness are commonly seen as much more significant, both culturally and commercially_.

So Whittall (no fool, he) prefers post-tonal. On the other hand, on p. 19 of the same book, he goes on to mention part of an analysis by Bryan Simms (no fool he, either) of Schoenberg's Piano Piece Op. 11 No. 1 (Simms, Bryan R., _The Atonal Music of Schoenberg, 1908-1923_ (New York: OUP, 2000):

[the piece] _'begins to show an important change in Schoenberg's thinking about atonal music' [Simms prefers 'atonal' to 'post-tonal', [...]_.

Staying with Whittall, in the Glossary (_Serialism_, p. 271) he gives this as a definition of ATONALITY:

_(Also FREE ATONALITY) The absence of tonality. Given the difficulty of providing conclusive evidence for this absence in musical compositions, POST-TONAL is often preferred. This implies that elements of tonality might persist even in music which is dominated by other features, like twelve-tone serialism_.

So, let us assume that the above sums up the position _vis-à-vis_ the 'semantics' of the issue in academia. To this we should in all fairness take on board what Mahlerian tells us about the term as perceived during Schoenberg's and Berg's lifetime, who quite clearly were against it.

In my view, Woodduck and EdwardBast use the term completely neutrally and without disparagement, even though I think Whittall gives a more convincing argument for an alternative. On the other hand, I understand Mahlerian's exasperation with people who do indeed employ the term 'atonal' (with an implied snarl and a spit) as a blanket term for "_music which I perceive as (highly) dissonant and without easily-whistled melodies that I don't like_".

To conclude, I think it's pretty easy to tell when the term _atonal_ is being used sensitively or blindly. Or maybe deaf-ly? Still, _post-tonal_ gets my vote, but let's not fall out over it.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

TalkingHead said:


> On the other hand, I understand Mahlerian's exasperation with people who do indeed employ the term 'atonal' (with an implied snarl and a spit) as a blanket term for "_music which I don't like_".


To be more precise, "music which I find incomprehensible", "music that I find excessively dissonant/strange". Many may strongly dislike Pachelbel's Canon in D but they are unlikely to call it atonal.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2016)

^ My post just before (#22) amended to take this into consideration and credited in the "Reason for editing" box.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

TalkingHead said:


> Personally, I have no particular objection to the term though there are perhaps more apt and less-loaded ones. Arnold Whittall in his book _Serialism_ (Cambridge University Press, 2008) has this to say (p. 16):
> 
> _Serialism has often been paraded as the ultimate demonstration of that negative side of musical modernity, in which long-established, well-tried tradition based in nature and human aural sensibility are jettisoned in a misguided, arrogant concern to elevate the desperate ambitions of composers who desire to be thought of original at all costs, and who dogmatically disregard as irrelevant what mattered most to their predecessors and precursors down the centuries. Attempts in recent decades to replace the negative term _*atonal*_ (i.e. entirely lacking tonality) with the more constructive _*post-tonal*_ have so far failed to provide a cast-iron defense of serial composition against its detractors. Small wonder, their argument continues, that classical music - even if not explicitly serial - has become increasingly devalued during the decades sincs the 1920s, and that those kinds of popular music rooted in emotional and technical directness are commonly seen as much more significant, both culturally and commercially_.
> 
> ...


"Post-tonal" would seem to be a plausible, value-neutral replacement for "atonal," in that it sounds more "technical" and so people are less likely to use it in a careless or disparaging way. It has no historical baggage, although we can never predict what baggage it might eventually pick up.

However, terms beginning with the prefix "post-" imply a chronological relationship, and sometimes even the obsolescence or extinction of what came before. Thus, "post-tonal music" would mean, literally, "music written later than tonal music," and possibly even "music which replaces tonal music." This is obviously absurd, in that A.) there is no time at which tonal music ceased to be written, and B.) if there were such a time, post-tonal music might still be any sort of music at all, even music in styles to which the concept of tonality was never relevant (e.g. music for percussion, musique concrete).

By contrast, words beginning with the "a-"prefix contain no suggestion of chronology, but are always used with the intention of referring directly to the absent characteristic ("a-moral," "a-theistic," "a-thematic"). However sloppily "atonal" may be used by people with ears too tender for "modern music," when musically experienced people use the term they are generally making specific reference to what they do _not_ hear in the music. (If other musically experienced listeners claim to hear "tonal centers" in the same music - well, the debate might better focus not on atonality, but on tonality itself and what elements of structure and perception constitute it.)

"Post-tonal" could be used accurately with specific reference to, e.g., the later music of Schoenberg, because it corresponds to the chronology of his stylistic development, but not to describe the development of Western music as a whole, in which tonality has expanded and added new forms but not been left behind. Composers will always have the choice of writing music with or without tonality, or with any mixture of the two principles, but it seems rather absurd to talk about anyone writing "post-tonal" music while tonal music is being composed and enjoyed all over the world.

I agree with TalkingHead's conclusion: it's pretty easy to tell when the term "atonal" is being used sensitively or blindly. And it's perfectly legitimate to ask when we aren't sure, and argue our case if we then disagree about the music in question.


----------



## kanishknishar (Aug 10, 2015)

Mahlerian said:


> The problem is that there doesn't need to be a term at all. "Atonal" doesn't meaningfully describe any category of things, and it's not understood, which is clear from the way it is abused.


Wow, well that's surprising. So can't we just refer to it as radical music? Why persistent use of such a vague term? If it is vague - as has been said - then how do so many people articulate their view effectively? Or is it lost?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Herrenvolk said:


> Wow, well that's surprising. So can't we just refer to it as radical music? Why persistent use of such a vague term? If it is vague - as has been said - then how do so many people articulate their view effectively? Or is it lost?


I don't see why there needs to be a term to encompass a vague category without any defining characteristics.

It works in conversation only because it is left undefined and thereby means whatever the reader wishes it to mean, or because as so often the music to which it applies is misunderstood (like saying that Schoenberg's music is devoid of tonal reference). "Radical music" wouldn't be much better for the same reason: its definition is subjective.


----------



## kanishknishar (Aug 10, 2015)

Mahlerian said:


> I don't see why there needs to be a term to encompass a vague category without any defining characteristics.
> 
> It works in conversation only because it is left undefined and thereby means whatever the reader wishes it to mean, or because as so often the music to which it applies is misunderstood (like saying that Schoenberg's music is devoid of tonal reference). "Radical music" wouldn't be much better for the same reason: its definition is subjective.


I know there's no need for the term but most people seem to be talking about this type of music. Language is all about ease of communication. My 'radical' is in a more objective sense: Challenging current notions of music, redefining preconceived boundaries, experimentation, etc.

How does it work in conversation if the term is extremely vague and almost entirely subjective?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Herrenvolk said:


> I know there's no need for the term but most people seem to be talking about this type of music. Language is all about ease of communication. My 'radical' is in a more objective sense: Challenging current notions of music, redefining preconceived boundaries, experimentation, etc.
> 
> How does it work in conversation if the term is extremely vague and almost entirely subjective?


Because the music itself is consistently misunderstood in such a way as to make the notion of "atonal music" seem to apply. This in fact frames perception and influences the way people hear the music, all to its detriment.

It is much more informative and constructive to think of "atonal" music as that written using a different kind of tonality than that possessing no tonality (which, as I have said, makes no sense give how people usually define tonality here).


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

I mean...can I use the word "big"? What does it even mean? Big compared to what? It seems hopelessly imprecise and really could mean anything, encouraging all kinds of misunderstandings and misconceptions.

From now on I describe the sizes of objects in metric units only.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

isorhythm said:


> I mean...can I use the word "big"? What does it even mean? Big compared to what? It seems hopelessly imprecise and really could mean anything, encouraging all kinds of misunderstandings and misconceptions.
> 
> From now on I describe the sizes of objects in metric units only.


Ridicule is not constructive.

As I explained before, this is not a case of having a continuum with recognized points of reference.

It makes no sense to say that Beethoven is "less tonal" than Mozart and Wagner "less tonal" than Haydn. In both common parlance and academic understanding, these are all understood as being tonal, period.

Now, perhaps the tonality that exists in Wagner is less obvious than the tonality of his predecessors, but this doesn't change the fact that the music is constructed on that basis, which is how tonal is usually defined. To change this would be to make the recognition of tonality subjective to the point where not only Wagner, but also Beethoven and Mozart could rightly be called atonal given a certain perceiver.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

It wasn't intended as ridicule. Words are inherently imprecise - whether that imprecision takes the form of a continuum with recognized points of reference, or some other form. Yet people use them anyway.

The fact is lots of people are able to use the word "atonal" to communicate successfully with one another and they aren't going to stop.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

isorhythm said:


> It wasn't intended as ridicule. Words are inherently imprecise - whether that imprecision takes the form of a continuum with recognized points of reference, or some other form. Yet people use them anyway.
> 
> The fact is lots of people are able to use the word "atonal" to communicate successfully with one another and they aren't going to stop.


But that fact says absolutely nothing about whether the term is meaningful in the sense of describing the things it is applied to. In the realms of pseudoscience, for example, you will find all kinds of specialized terms and descriptions that have no referent in the real world and yet are used with apparent meaning and understanding by practitioners and those who are taken in by them. Surely phrenologists, too, had their own jargon, which they considered meaningful and communicative.

Nor is it helpful to understanding the music in question. Not using it does a better job of communicating what the music is, how it is constructed, and so forth than using it does.

Saying that Schoenberg's music is atonal, as the term is often used, says nothing about its melody, harmony, or any other aspect of it other than the vague implication (not always even this!) that it is not common practice.

Describing how the music is chromatic, built from motifs and melodies, uses lots of harmonies built from fourths...these all tell us something about it.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

The point or issue isn't whether the word, atonal, is the best term or even if it is representative of the music in question. We all know that there continues to be controversy over its use; just look at the 'atonal wiki'. The point is that a) we all know here what music is being referred to, b) there has not been a word, universally accepted, to take its place and c) when the same posters continue to use all sorts of analogies and metaphors and raise the same old controversy in any thread that the word 'atonal' appears in, they essentially end up hijacking the thread or, at the very least, driving it off-topic.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

DaveM said:


> The point or issue isn't whether the word, atonal, is the best term or even if it is representative of the music in question. We all know that there continues to be controversy over its use; just look at the 'atonal wiki'. The point is that a) we all know here what music is being referred to, *b) there has not been a word, universally accepted, to take its place* and c) when the same posters continue to use all sorts of analogies and metaphors and raise the same old controversy in any thread that the word 'atonal' appears in, they essentially end up hijacking the thread or, at the very least, driving it off-topic.


There doesn't _need_ to be any word to replace it. The other words we have are fine: tonal and music.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

There are and will continue to be many terms associated with classical music that are loosely defined and broadly used. It is a social and linguistical outcome of language. There is nothing more to it, especially when it comes to the arts. Unless one is writing a formal academic paper on the term, there really isn't a need to be to precise, or under the impression of such. We broadly agree what atonal or profound or genius or whatever all mean in context.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

If someone says "atonal" I know with almost complete certainty that it's supposed to include Schoenberg, Webern, Berio, Boulez, Stockhausen, Carter and a bunch of other music I could list.

Does it include Messiaen or John Luther Adams? I can't be sure, so if it's relevant to the conversation I'll ask. If not, I'll move on. That's it. I don't understand the problem.

I concur with the others who are tired of this.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

isorhythm said:


> If someone says "atonal" I know with almost complete certainty that it's supposed to include Schoenberg, Webern, Berio, Boulez, Stockhausen, Carter and a bunch of other music I could list.


They often also mean tuneless, junk, unlistenable, unnatural, incoherent, intellectual, nonsense, inhuman, academic, and a bunch of other terms too.

Don't you think unpacking the term and showing them that it applies equally to other music that they are probably fine with, like Debussy, Scriabin, some Stravinsky, Bartok, and so forth is helpful to understanding?

Isn't understanding and appreciation of the tradition of classical music the goal here? If not, what?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

The words tonal and music are not sufficient. You (Mahlerian) know it and I know it. If it were true, there wouldn't be this endless circular 'discussion'. It appears to be your agenda to school us on it until we all agree with you. That isn't going to happen. We distinguish between baroque, classical era and so on. Schoenberg knew his music took a drastic different direction and he didn't like the term, atonal, but he didn't come up with a name that was accepted for it.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

DaveM said:


> No they are not. You know it and I know it. If it were true, there wouldn't be this endless circular 'discussion'.


Well, I know it's true, and the discussion still continues.



DaveM said:


> It appears to be your agenda to school us on it until we all agree with you.


I don't have an agenda. I care about music, and I care about truth, and I'm frustrated that the truth doesn't matter to those who dislike certain music that I care about.

My desire, as much as or more than anyone here, is actually to discuss Schoenberg as a composer, but that cannot happen if the term atonal continues to impede understanding of what his music is.



DaveM said:


> That isn't going to happen. We distinguish between baroque, classical era and so on. Schoenberg knew his music took a drastic different direction and he didn't like the term, atonal, but he didn't come up with a name that was accepted for it.


Schoenberg knew that his music was an evolution of what came before, which fact is obvious to everyone who listens to his music. The term atonal was invented _before_ any of the music that is now called atonal (by people who refuse to call late Debussy atonal) was even written! Obviously it wasn't invented to describe the music, the description was just vague enough to allow people to hang their perceptions of what the music was onto it.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Mahlerian said:


> They often also mean tuneless, junk, unlistenable, unnatural, incoherent, intellectual, nonsense, inhuman, academic, and a bunch of other terms too.
> 
> Don't you think unpacking the term and showing them that it applies equally to other music that they are probably fine with, like Debussy, Scriabin, some Stravinsky, Bartok, and so forth is helpful to understanding?


I don't agree that it applies _equally_ - for reasons I've explained in other threads - but put that aside for a moment. It sounds to me as though you're trying to help people not only understand something intellectually, but to become more open to _enjoying _what they call atonal music. That's a good goal, but the evidence on this forum suggests that this particular approach doesn't work. I haven't seen anyone come to enjoy this music more after being persuaded to abandon the term "atonal."


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

isorhythm said:


> I don't agree that it applies _equally_ - for reasons I've explained in other threads - but put that aside for a moment. It sounds to me as though you're trying to help people not only understand something intellectually, but to become more open to _enjoying _what they call atonal music. That's a good goal, but the evidence on this forum suggests that this particular approach doesn't work. I haven't seen anyone come to enjoy this music more after being persuaded to abandon the term "atonal."


How many people have you seen become persuaded to abandon the term?

I know I have encountered people on this forum whose fear of composers such as Schoenberg and Boulez prevented them from enjoying the music, and the abandonment of that fear led to enjoyment.

I am hoping that people become more open to all kinds of music, but understanding is a good first step to enjoyment.

As I have said before, people hate the _idea_ of Schoenberg, but they often know little about his music.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Mahlerian said:


> How many people have you seen become persuaded to abandon the term?
> 
> I am hoping that people become more open to all kinds of music, but understanding is a good first step to enjoyment.


I seem to remember a few people saying they were persuaded to abandon the term, though I think they were mostly people who already liked the music.

It sounds like you've almost said it yourself. If a particular strategy has a success rate of literally zero...maybe it's time to try another strategy.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

isorhythm said:


> I seem to remember a few people saying they were persuaded to abandon the term, though I think they were mostly people who already liked the music.
> 
> It sounds like you've almost said it yourself. If a particular strategy has a success rate of literally zero...maybe it's time to try another strategy.


But you've changed the subject. You said that you "haven't seen anyone come to enjoy this music more after being persuaded to abandon the term 'atonal.'" This implies that the cause and effect relationship I implied is problematic, but now you admit that you have no or little evidence for this.

In any event, don't you see it as meaningful that those who enjoy the music are more readily persuaded to abandon the term? This is because term only _seems_ meaningful in regard to a misunderstanding of the music, as was created in response to a fear and dislike of the music, which negative connotations you agree it carries today in the minds of those who use it as a term of opprobrium.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Uh...you haven't read much of Schoenberg's writings, have you?
> 
> "I reject the expression 'atonal.' Nowadays this method of composition is, alas, generally so referred to"
> 
> ...


It's funny, but he never said exactly _what_ was wrong with the term. He must have thought that all music was tonal.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Yes, in Schoenberg's time the word was understood as being a kind of catch-all for modern music from Bartok to Hindemith to Shostakovich to Schoenberg to Debussy to Ravel to Mahler to Strauss...
> 
> Today it's just applied as a marker to indicate any kind of non-triadic and fully chromatic language (or just whatever the writer dislikes).
> 
> It still hasn't managed to become a particularly meaningful technical term, though.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Perhaps it should be made illegal. There is precedent! Can we write this into the TOS perhaps?
> 
> Seriously, I share the tiredness of some other members. People use the term "atonal" knowing well enough what it means for their purposes. I grow weary of many and continuing posts from one member objecting to its use.


I think anyone who uses the term 'atonal' should be ostracized and socially rejected, and be forbidden to write music.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Instead of 'atonal,' we should use the term 'gluten free.'


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

DaveM said:


> I find the repeated rejection of the term 'atonal' rather tiresome. If there was some alternate term that was understood and accepted that would be one thing. But there isn't so let's finally move on. Reading the same reasons thread after thread why the term 'atonal' sucks takes minutes of my life I can never get back.


At last, others are beginning to see the light! I've waited almost two years for this moment....


----------



## Autocrat (Nov 14, 2014)

Mahlerian - and I suggest this as someone who largely agrees with you on the term atonal - give it up. Assume that people who use "atonal" as a descriptor are no different than those whose adjectival vocabulary is limited to f***ing (I'm Australian, I know lots of those people). 

Everyone will be a lot happier.


----------



## dieter (Feb 26, 2016)

Autocrat said:


> Mahlerian - and I suggest this as someone who largely agrees with you on the term atonal - give it up. Assume that people who use "atonal" as a descriptor are no different than those whose adjectival vocabulary is limited to f***ing (I'm Australian, I know lots of those people).
> 
> Everyone will be a lot happier.


What part of Australia? I live in sunny downtown Box Hill North, Melbourne.


----------

