# Chromaticism vs. free atonality vs. serialism?



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

I guess chromaticism is using a scale consisting of all 12 tones, freely, without actively trying to make it sound atonal, and free atonality is the same thing, but with active avoidance of tonality.
And then serialism or 12 tone technique is use of a special technique to make sure that there's no trace of tonality in a piece.
Am I right?
If so, then I guess, of all those things chromaticism makes most sense. I'd compare it with free verse in poetry. So it's freedom achieved. You don't have to stick to a key, but you don't need to avoid tonality either. Just compose as you wish, tonal or atonal, depending on what you want to achieve. A little bit of tonality/atonality, here and there...
I think this is the most suitable way of composition for expressing real creativity of a composer. On the other hand, both strict tonality, as well as strict atonality can be limiting.

Here's an example how a chromatic piece can be extremely catchy:





Other opinions?


----------



## Mood Drifter (Apr 11, 2018)

You understand these things better than me, but as for _listening_ to it, it's pretty insufferable.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

I've read on another forum that the beginning of Metallica song "Master of Puppets" uses all 12 tones...


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Miles Davis and his soloists used chromaticism in recordings such as The Cellar Door Sessions; there was always a groove underneath like a bass line, and this rooted everything to a key note. It was almost as if they were playing chromatically over a drone. So in this case, "chromaticism" is melodic, not harmonic, and very tonal.

So you have to decide if you want the chromaticism of 12 notes to function melodically or harmonically.

If the 12 notes are functioning harmonically, as if the chromatic notes are roots of chords, or functions, then this makes the music 'non-tonal' insofar as the root stations are constantly shifting.

What makes music truly 'atonal' is when there is no single harmonic reference. This reference must be created by root stations and functions. In tonality, root stations and functions must be referenced to a single key note.

If the 12 notes in question are used in relationship to a single note, then tonality is created. If the 12 notes are used "only in relationship to each other," as in 12-tone, then tonality is not created.




> You don't have to stick to a key, but you don't need to avoid tonality either. Just compose as you wish, tonal or atonal, depending on what you want to achieve. A little bit of tonality/atonality, here and there…


The tonality or lack of it is not created by just the 12 notes; it's created by how they are used in relation to what, a single key note or each other.

Harmonic "meaning," or whether we hear a note as a minor third or fifth, etc. of a chord, is created by having reference to a chord, and the root of that chord. This is still not "tonality" until a large enough series of relationships (a harmonic progression) exists. 
Otherwise the note is simply melodic, if used like counterpoint, or has a fleeting, momentary harmonic meaning as a chord or scale member in a "harmonic aggregate." This "aggregate" may not really be a "chord" in a tonal sense, but simply a 'harmonic entity' which has a bass note perceived as an anchor or 'root' to reference the stack of notes above it.

So, serialism and 12-tone music can have fleeting references and sensations of being 'tonal' to some ears, but this is really only a fleeting harmonic sensation created by the way we hear, from bottom to top. A low bass note gives the sensation of being a 'root' or fundamental tone, and the notes stacked above it are experienced as subsidiary components or 'harmonics' of that note. This is not 'tonality,' but harmonic hearing.

This is an area of confusion to many listeners, since even the most abstract series of chords can be interpreted as making "harmonic sense," but in reality have no underlying system of tonality which refers to a single note. So if you are going to deal with chromaticism, 12-tone, and 'free atonality,' these are the things you have to deal with. It's not a simple matter of being "tonal or not tonal."


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Thanks, it's a very good explanation. In what category would you put "Entry of the Gladiators" ?
What about some stuff by Gesualdo?


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

A little too structured a definition. Chromaticism involves using steps and modulation not based solely on the diatonic scale -- and runs the gamut from just using a bunch of accidentals to Tristan und Isolde. Free atonality runs freely among tonal centers -- or none at all -- without worrying about the primacy of a particular one, but not avoiding tonal chords or passages, And simiilarly covers a spectrum from Strauss's bitonal ending to Zarathustra, to Bartok, to ... Serialism is a further extension of 12-note music, which tries to methodolize rhythm as well as pitch. And 12-note music is an attempt to formalize the democratization of pitches by assigning none priority over another.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Chromaticism was used since Renaissance, and usually refers to tonal music. Free atonal is more extreme, in moving away from traditional music techniques. Serial is based on a series to obtain the note values, and can also affect rhythms, duration, etc. Serialism usually sounds more formless than the others, and toughest to crack, like encrypted code. You change a note, nobody will notice.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

I think that this thread has the potential to become Wagnerian in proportions.

Is blowing in the wind a form of chromaticism ?


----------



## St Matthew (Aug 26, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Chromaticism was used toughest since tonal, and usually moving to Serialism music. Free atonal is more refers extreme, in away from nobody traditional music techniques. Serial is based on a series to obtain the note , and can also affect values, duration, etc. Renaissance usually sounds more formless than the others, and to crack, like encrypted rhythms. You code a note, change will notice.


Very great point, you got it completely correct in every way 100%


----------



## St Matthew (Aug 26, 2017)

Mood Drifter said:


> You understand these things better than me, but as for _listening_ to it, it's pretty insufferable.


Well, it's insufferable when you don't listen to it but listening to it brings joy to many peoples lives, myself included. It'd be rude to insult those people wouldn't it? just because you would rather listen to Madonna


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

St Matthew said:


> Well, it's insufferable when you don't listen to it but listening to it brings joy to many peoples lives, myself included. It'd be rude to insult those people wouldn't it? just because you would rather listen to Madonna


I'm not sure it is rude to express an opinion but do wonder how much people who hate contemporary music have tried to find out what it has to offer. There are composers who are widely recognised by people I respect as great but who I can't get on with. Many of these are not actually modern or contemporary but they are still closed doors to me. I do try, though, and sometimes it suddenly clicks for me and I get to enter a wonderful world that had previously been closed to me. With others it is still a work in progress.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

> Chromaticism was used since Renaissance, and usually refers to tonal music. Free atonal is more extreme, in moving away from traditional music techniques. Serial is based on a series to obtain the note values, and can also affect rhythms, duration, etc. Serialism usually sounds more formless than the others, and toughest to crack, like encrypted code. You change a note, nobody will notice.


You change a note, nobody will notice?
Is this a proof that serial music is just simply bad? Like they devised a complicated and sophisticated system to achieve the same effect that could be much more easily achieved simply by having a totally incompetent musician, or a kid, or a monkey play piano randomly. Perhaps atonality is not only the last, but also the FIRST stage in development of music. For example, I had zero hours of piano lessons. If I sat at the piano and started improvising freely, using all the keys, I guess my output would be rather atonal, unintentionally of course.

On the other hand, I've heard the opinion about Beethoven's 5th symphony, which is described as perfect because it can't be improved any more. Every note has its place, its function. Whatever change you make, you'd just spoil it.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

ZJovicic said:


> You change a note, nobody will notice?
> Is this a proof that serial music is just simply bad? Like they devised a complicated and sophisticated system to achieve the same effect that could be much more easily achieved simply by having a totally incompetent musician, or a kid, or a monkey play piano randomly. Perhaps atonality is not only the last, but also the FIRST stage in development of music. For example, I had zero hours of piano lessons. If I sat at the piano and started improvising freely, using all the keys, I guess my output would be rather atonal, unintentionally of course.
> 
> On the other hand, I've heard the opinion about Beethoven's 5th symphony, which is described as perfect because it can't be improved any more. Every note has its place, its function. Whatever change you make, you'd just spoil it.


I agree with Phil - I think some atonal music wouldn't sound that much different if some of the notes were changed. For example, some of the tone clusters in Ligeti's Requiem:










I assume that this is a reason some folk are sceptical as to the value of music in this style.

(I'm not asserting that such music has no value, though I do struggle with most of it.)


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Actually - is Ligeti's Requiem serial????


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Maybe there could be analogy between atonal music and abstract art... in that a lot of uninitiated people think

a) they could do it as well
b) it's random

for example this:









A lot of us would think... oh, I could do it easily in MS Paint. This is a work by Theo van Doesburg, from 1917, called "Three graces"...

And bellow are some things that I actually did in MS Paint:


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

ZJovicic said:


> Maybe there could be analogy between atonal music and abstract art... in that a lot of uninitiated people think
> 
> a) they could do it as well
> b) it's random
> ...


I can't see any value in the Doesburg.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Well, if I had to compare Theo with another guy who just played with MS Paint, like I did, I am really not sure I would be able to notice any difference, or to judge who is a real artist, and who is just a bored guy who plays with MS Paint.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

ZJovicic said:


> I guess chromaticism is using a scale consisting of all 12 tones, freely, without actively trying to make it sound atonal, and free atonality is the same thing, but with active avoidance of tonality.
> And then serialism or 12 tone technique is use of a special technique to make sure that there's no trace of tonality in a piece.
> Am I right?


Chromaticism refers to using non-diatonic pitches within a diatonic system. It doesn't have to mean using a chromatic scale. It can mean using passing tones and secondary dominants. Mozart and Beethoven, for example, used chromaticism all the time. It definitely has nothing to do with free atonality. Serialism does not necessarily require the elimination of tonal implications, though in academic settings it has often been taught that way.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Aside from correct terminology, the issue is really the 12 notes.

First, I think you need to define tonality more precisely, so you can say what makes something tonal, in order to understand how chromaticism, or the use of 12 notes, can either undermine that or reinforce it.

Tonality references all notes and chords in a scale to the 'starting note' of that scale, which becomes the tonic note.

To a degree, the more notes that are added to the octave, the weaker tonality becomes. 5-note pentatonic scales are 'more tonal' than 7-note scales. So the simplest scales are the 'most tonal.'

Of course, tonality is not determined _solely_ by the quantity of notes present, but it's a major factor.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MarkW said:


> A little too structured a definition. Chromaticism involves using steps and modulation not based solely on the diatonic scale…


Steps, yes, as in passing notes, but modulation is more problematic. in chromaticism, such as Wagner, the modulations are to new keys, and are relatively stable. When tonic centers change more rapidly, the connection to tonality becomes more tenuous.

Right there you are defining aspects of tonality: steps, modulation, diatonic scales. So we are still in the realm of tonality. The extra chromatic notes are adjuncts to the diatonic scale. Bach Sinfonia Nr. 9 in F minor is a good example, using all 12 notes, yet still sounding tonal. Wagner always sounds tonal as well.



MarkW said:


> Free atonality runs freely among tonal centers -- or none at all -- without worrying about the primacy of a particular one, but not avoiding tonal chords or passages…


So really it's 'free tonality,' but unlike chromaticism, is now using the 'other extra' non-diatonic notes as tonic centers, not just passing or melodic notes. This makes it more radical (less tonally stable) than mere chromaticism, since new tonal centers and momentary modulations are taking place.

Free atonality uses all 12 notes pretty consistently, and lacks a firm sense of tonality, and is thus called a form of 'free' atonality. It's 12-tone without the system. It 'doesn't worry' about tonal centers because there are so many now; of 12 notes, any one can be considered as a tonic station. It 'doesn't avoid' tonal chords and passages because these are stylistic remnants of tonality; so 'free atonality' is really a form of chromatic tonality based on past traditional forms.



MarkW said:


> Serialism is a further extension of 12-note music, which tries to methodolize rhythm as well as pitch.


This definition works for some cases, but serialism is really more than that, dealing with set theory and mathematics.



MarkW said:


> …and 12-note music is an attempt to formalize the democratization of pitches by assigning none priority over another.


It 'assigns no priorities' because it contains all 12 notes most of the time. 12-tone is a chromatic language which seeks to keep all 12 notes in circulation, and the consequence of this is 'no primacy' of a single note. This really didn't have to be a conscious attempt to 'not assign' priorities; the lack is the result of proliferation of notes.

Also, in 12-tone the tonality is completely severed by the ordering of the notes, which creates an abstract relation-system of intervals rather than note identities. The ordered set is not a scale. 
Scales are unordered, using the 'starting note' as a tonic. Twelve-note rows are ordered, in order to do away with specific pitches, and replace this with the abstract notion of interval relationships (as Schoenberg said, "notes related only to each other, meaning the preceding and following notes").


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

I have a question: how much different the result would be, if, instead of serial technique, a composer used random number generator, and asked it to generate a given amount of random numbers from 1 to 12, and then just used another function to substitute numbers with tones.
Next step would be working with these tones manually, giving them appropriate duration, according to composer's discretion, what he feels most appropriate for giving a good rhythm to the piece...
Or perhaps, if he wants a "total serialism feel", instead of serializing pitches, he could randomize them too, he just decides which durations he wants to work with... for example whole note, half note, quarter note, etc... let's say, he decides on using 6 different durations. Again he can ask a random number generator to generate given amount of random numbers, this time, from 1 to 6, and then use another function to substitute numbers for durations.
As a final step, he'd just join the sequence of tones with the sequence of durations and the composition is complete.

I guess it could sound a bit more tonal, because in random number sequence there's some repetition. For example when you throw a dice, you can get 6 twice in a row, and you don't have to wait for all the remaining numbers to be shown... you can have sequence like this, 6, 5, 6, 4, 1, 3, 2, 3, ...


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I've tried those experiments before. There isn't really a perceived difference overall, at least to my ears, since the expected value is still 1/12 for each note and the brain doesn't pick up any noticeable pattern.

Check out Cage's Music of Changes which follows this type of experiment.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Well, if there's no perceivable difference to you, and I guess you're an advanced listener, just imagine how it feels for an average listener. No wonder people doubt the value of these compositions if you can get the same result with random number generator. I try to have an open mind, but I also want to be real, and the critical part of my mind highly doubts the value of pieces which achieve roughly the same effect on a listener as a random sequence of tones would...

I guess if computers existed in early 20th century, maybe the Second Viennese School would take themselves a little less seriously, if they realized that practically the same result can be achieved with a rather simple computer program.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

ZJovicic said:


> maybe the Second Viennese School would take themselves a little less seriously, if they realized that practically the same result can be achieved with a rather simple computer program.


Of course they realized it. They were not so lost in their own heads that they didn't anticipate this exact reaction. Schoenberg once wrote to a friend, "Now that I've emancipated the dissonance, anyone can be a composer." The most hilarious moment in his output is "Der Mondfleck" from the (pre-serial) _Pierrot lunaire_: on paper, the movement is a strict fugue between piccolo, clarinet, and piano, plus a loose fugue between voice and piano, PLUS a canon between viola and cello, AND the whole movement is a total palindrome. What makes this hilarious is that Schoenberg knew perfectly well that writing an atonal fugue or an atonal palindrome is no feat at all. Anyone can do it. That's why it's so fitting that he chose this movement to do so: the text of "Der Mondfleck" describes Pierrot the clown seeing the reflection of the moon on his coat and, thinking it's a stain, tries futilely to wipe it off. The pointlessness of the triple palindromic fugue mirrors the pointlessness of Pierrot's scrubbing.

Schoenberg was not deterred by the near impossibility of hearing the elaborate logic behind his music. He had several reasons for this, few of which are likely to convince anyone who is not already onboard. I'll mention one, though, because it's probably the one Schoenberg considered the most important: pursuing one's vision even in the face of a skeptical public had been an artistic article of faith since Beethoven. Sticking to one's individuality, and not being discouraged by someone else's inability to comprehend it, is exactly what we praise the Romantics for. Since Schoenberg saw himself as the direct inheritor of the Romantic tradition, we shouldn't be surprised that the rationale for his music is Romanticism taken to its extreme. Granted, few listeners today hear Schoenberg this way, but would that have stopped Berlioz, Liszt, or Mahler? Probably not, so it didn't stop Schoenberg either.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Eschbeg said:


> Of course they realized it. They were not so lost in their own heads that they didn't anticipate this exact reaction. Schoenberg once wrote to a friend, "Now that I've emancipated the dissonance, anyone can be a composer." The most hilarious moment in his output is "Der Mondfleck" from the (pre-serial) _Pierrot lunaire_: on paper, the movement is a strict fugue between piccolo, clarinet, and piano, plus a loose fugue between voice and piano, PLUS a canon between viola and cello, AND the whole movement is a total palindrome. What makes this hilarious is that Schoenberg knew perfectly well that writing an atonal fugue or an atonal palindrome is no feat at all. Anyone can do it. That's why it's so fitting that he chose this movement to do so: the text of "Der Mondfleck" describes Pierrot the clown seeing the reflection of the moon on his coat and, thinking it's a stain, tries futilely to wipe it off. The pointlessness of the triple palindromic fugue mirrors the pointlessness of Pierrot's scrubbing.
> 
> Schoenberg was not deterred by the near impossibility of hearing the elaborate logic behind his music. He had several reasons for this, few of which are likely to convince anyone who is not already onboard. I'll mention one, though, because it's probably the one Schoenberg considered the most important: pursuing one's vision even in the face of a skeptical public had been an artistic article of faith since Beethoven. Sticking to one's individuality, and not being discouraged by someone else's inability to comprehend it, is exactly what we praise the Romantics for. Since Schoenberg saw himself as the direct inheritor of the Romantic tradition, we shouldn't be surprised that the rationale for his music is Romanticism taken to its extreme. Granted, few listeners today hear Schoenberg this way, but would that have stopped Berlioz, Liszt, or Mahler? Probably not, so it didn't stop Schoenberg either.


I am getting an impression that some 20th century schools of classical music were a bit like deliberate trolling. Perhaps it's completely right and justified reaction to huge advances in science and technology, combined with atrocities of World Wars, dictatorships, genocides, etc.
So I see atonal movement, as a bit nihilistic in its approach... like, world is crazy, nothing makes any sense anymore, everything is going to hell, now who cares about making nice music anymore, we could as well just ditch whole music theory, and compose something deliberately that will sound as dissonant and as random as possible.
I say, maybe it's an adequate reaction to what was going on in 20th century, but I think this reaction is ultimately hypocritical. Because, no matter how dire the circumstances, we must carry on. We can for a while get into sort of resignation and apathy, but eventually, if we want to continue to live, we must continue to fight and to search for meaning. Not meaning in some absolute philosophical sense, but for meaning, in sense of having a reason to get up each morning instead of staying in bed.

I think some of contemporary music is perhaps hypocritical for another reason too. I am quite sure that many of composers of such works actually listen to something totally different. I wouldn't be surprised if their musical diet didn't differ much from ours, a nice combo of common practice period classical music, some contemporary music, and a fair share of popular music as well. I doubt anyone would choose a Schoenberg piece as something to bring on a desert island (including Schoenberg and likes of him themselves).

I fully agree that innovation is important and necessary, just making derivative works in the style of old masters is boring and unnecessary. They have already composed enough stuff to provide us with many hours of listening. But does innovation have to go in this direction?

Popular music genres of 20th century are innovative as well. Maybe hard rock is not as complex as a Mahler symphony, but factually it IS an innovation. It is a completely new sound that didn't exist before. It has its own philosophy, esthetics, etc. and it has produced some songs with artistic value, just as it has also produced some kitsch.

There was SO MUCH innovation in popular music in 20th century. When people think of popular music they usually think of pop as a narrow genre, or of things that are popular in literal sense... hits that make it to the charts. But the fact is that there is a huge ocean of technically "popular music" which is neither pop, nor charting, and has its own aesthetics, and artistic value.

Even electronic music has countless genres. Just look at the list at this page... It's mindblowing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_electronic_music_genres

I am wondering why classical composers didn't make some innovation in such directions? 20th century classical music seems to be very radical, in certain sense, but also extremely conservative. Why is electric guitar so sparingly used in classical music? etc... there are many questions to be asked.

Why is Harry Partch considered an outsider? Isn't it much greater innovation to invent whole new scale, with 43 tones, to build new instruments, etc... than just to say, who cares about tonality, let's compose as random as possible?

I think that atonal and even random music has its place. It is indeed perfectly suited for this part of Pierrot Lunaire that you mentioned. It makes sense in that context. But just to make works like this for its own sake? I am not so sure. Maybe it's better to include atonality in larger works, in parts in which you want to convey certain feelings, atmosphere, etc. But if whole works consist just of this, it kind of loses its purpose. Disorder can be appreciated only when it's contrasted with order. Just an opinion. Maybe it can be appreciated on its own too. But quickly it gets old.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

ZJovicic said:


> I think some of contemporary music is perhaps hypocritical for another reason too. I am quite sure that many of composers of such works actually listen to something totally different. I wouldn't be surprised if their musical diet didn't differ much from ours, a nice combo of common practice period classical music, some contemporary music, and a fair share of popular music as well.


Writing difficult music while enjoying less difficult music is hypocrisy? How so? It's hypocrisy only if we're treating music as a zero-sum game, where allegiance to one type of music must come at the expense of another type. That kind of factionalizing did indeed happen in the 20th century; to continue it into the 21st simply perpetuates the very things you're railing against--the "us vs. them" approach to music. I'm not seeing, for example, why it's pertinent to mention all those innovations of non-classical music, as if those innovations were somehow threatened by the existence of atonality. Sure, you'll find sticklers who can't appreciate the innovations of rock n' roll, but if this thread is any indication, sticklers can be found in all genres.



ZJovicic said:


> I am wondering why classical composers didn't make some innovation in such directions?


I'm not sure why you think they didn't. For any genre you can possibly imagine, someone has already blended it with "classical" music. You want classical works with electric guitar? Check out Steve Mackey. You want classical works with electronic dance music? Check out Mason Bates. Sofia Gubaidulina has written classical concertos for accordion. Four decades ago, Lou Harrison was writing piano concertos with Javanese gamelan. These may seem like isolated incidents, but they're no less isolated than, say, rock songs that use oboes.



ZJovicic said:


> But just to make works like this for its own sake?


Art for art's sake is one of the most sacred tenets of Romanticism, so if it bothers you (as it does me, often, for the record), blame the Romantics.



ZJovicic said:


> Maybe it's better to include atonality in larger works, in parts in which you want to convey certain feelings, atmosphere, etc. But if whole works consist just of this, it kind of loses its purpose.


Any attempt to establish what any art or style's "purpose" is, no matter how well-intentioned, cannot possibly claim to be any less narrow-minded than what you've described above.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> Aside from correct terminology, the issue is really the 12 notes.
> 
> First, I think you need to define tonality more precisely, so you can say what makes something tonal, in order to understand how chromaticism, or the use of 12 notes, can either undermine that or reinforce it.
> 
> ...


And yet the critic from The Times wrote regarding 'The Lark Ascending', "It showed serene disregard of the fashions of today or yesterday. It dreamed itself along."The use of pentatonic scale patterns, sometimes criticised as "a steady trickle of pentatonic wish-wash", free the violin from a strong tonal centre, and expresses impressionistic elements.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Eschbeg said:


> Of course they realized it. They were not so lost in their own heads that they didn't anticipate this exact reaction. Schoenberg once wrote to a friend, "Now that I've emancipated the dissonance, anyone can be a composer." The most hilarious moment in his output is "Der Mondfleck" from the (pre-serial) _Pierrot lunaire_: on paper, the movement is a strict fugue between piccolo, clarinet, and piano, plus a loose fugue between voice and piano, PLUS a canon between viola and cello, AND the whole movement is a total palindrome. What makes this hilarious is that Schoenberg knew perfectly well that writing an atonal fugue or an atonal palindrome is no feat at all. Anyone can do it. That's why it's so fitting that he chose this movement to do so: the text of "Der Mondfleck" describes Pierrot the clown seeing the reflection of the moon on his coat and, thinking it's a stain, tries futilely to wipe it off. The pointlessness of the triple palindromic fugue mirrors the pointlessness of Pierrot's scrubbing.
> 
> Schoenberg was not deterred by the near impossibility of hearing the elaborate logic behind his music. He had several reasons for this, few of which are likely to convince anyone who is not already onboard. I'll mention one, though, because it's probably the one Schoenberg considered the most important: pursuing one's vision even in the face of a skeptical public had been an artistic article of faith since Beethoven. Sticking to one's individuality, and not being discouraged by someone else's inability to comprehend it, is exactly what we praise the Romantics for. Since Schoenberg saw himself as the direct inheritor of the Romantic tradition, we shouldn't be surprised that the rationale for his music is Romanticism taken to its extreme. Granted, few listeners today hear Schoenberg this way, but would that have stopped Berlioz, Liszt, or Mahler? Probably not, so it didn't stop Schoenberg either.


The notion that the Second Viennese School realized that 'practically the same result can be achieved with a rather simple computer program' is pretty shocking is it not?

Are you quite sure about this? You're trashing the whole movement are you not?


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Eschbeg said:


> Writing difficult music while enjoying less difficult music is hypocrisy? How so? It's hypocrisy only if we're treating music as a zero-sum game, where allegiance to one type of music must come at the expense of another type. That kind of factionalizing did indeed happen in the 20th century; to continue it into the 21st simply perpetuates the very things you're railing against--the "us vs. them" approach to music. I'm not seeing, for example, why it's pertinent to mention all those innovations of non-classical music, as if those innovations were somehow threatened by the existence of atonality. Sure, you'll find sticklers who can't appreciate the innovations of rock n' roll, but if this thread is any indication, sticklers can be found in all genres.


I mentioned innovations in other genres because they were big and substantial and produced totally new types of aesthetics and it's a bit hard to grasp that classical music itself failed to produce any true innovations in 20th century that would find certain audience that would like it. The most beloved works of 20th century aren't that innovative. Maybe the only exception is minimalism, which, even though I am not a big fan of it, has indeed produced a truly new, innovative aesthetics, which can give a real, visceral experience. Maybe it can be boring, but it can still move a listener, affect them in some way. And it's also connected with meditative, spiritual experiences, so there is something going on there... It makes some sense.

Regarding hypocrisy... well, of course you can listen to one type of music and compose other type of music. But to me it's a bit hypocritical if you'd *always *prefer to listen to something else, instead of your thing. As a listener, I can feel fooled to a certain degree. If I listen to, say Piano concerto by Schoenberg 10 times, trying to find something there, while there's nothing there actually. I do feel fooled to a certain degree. That being said, I enjoyed it even on the first listening to some degree, but more because of texture, interaction between orchestra and the pianist, perhaps rhythm, etc... It's not unlistenable. But still even after a lot of listening, it's hard to really get into musical logic of it. Perhaps because there isn't any?



Eschbeg said:


> I'm not sure why you think they didn't. For any genre you can possibly imagine, someone has already blended it with "classical" music. You want classical works with electric guitar? Check out Steve Mackey. You want classical works with electronic dance music? Check out Mason Bates. Sofia Gubaidulina has written classical concertos for accordion. Four decades ago, Lou Harrison was writing piano concertos with Javanese gamelan. These may seem like isolated incidents, but they're no less isolated than, say, rock songs that use oboes.


Fair enough, yes. I know there are such piece. I just said they are rare.



Eschbeg said:


> Art for art's sake is one of the most sacred tenets of Romanticism, so if it bothers you (as it does me, often, for the record), blame the Romantics.


Well, on one hand it doesn't bother me and I think it's noble idea. But on the other hand, I am aware that most of us want to get something out of artwork, whatever it is, which gives an utilitarian component to arts, even if we don't want to admit it. You read novel either for pleasure, or to gain some understanding, perspective, etc. You buy a painting either because it's beautiful, or because it's ugly in a meaningful way, or because it represents something that you value. But there's always some reason related to how you relate to it, which has some value to you, hence there's utilitarian component. 
I am not happy about it. I would rather think we can all create and appreciate art for its own sake, but I think it's a bit too idealistic notion.



Eschbeg said:


> Any attempt to establish what any art or style's "purpose" is, no matter how well-intentioned, cannot possibly claim to be any less narrow-minded than what you've described above.


I think I explained what I think about it in the previous paragraph. While ideally, art has no purpose, in practice, we often assign some purpose to it, or relate to it in some meaningful way.


----------

