# Structure of Atonalism



## guy (Jan 4, 2014)

I have a hard time understanding atonal pieces. Not necessarily 12-tone pieces, but that would be helpful? In tonal music, you have tonic-dominant harmony. The dominant creates tension, and the tonic resolves it. I guess what I'm getting at is for someone to help me "get" atonal music. All I hear is a mess of chaotic disorder.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Well, you're correct that there's not a one size fits all harmonic progression that holds the key to understanding chromatic post-tonal music (the word atonal doesn't actually mean what it purports to mean). But this is also not the case for some late Romanticism or Impressionism, for example.

One of the problems with "breaking into" 20th century music is that composers pretty much had to find unique solutions to the dilemma of how to structure a piece that did not follow traditional circle-of-fifths hierarchies, so there are fewer templates that apply across the board, so to speak, even for those composers generally called "tonal" (which means in this context that triads and diatonic scales predominate, not that they follow traditional tonal methods). Of course, for those of us who love 20th century music, this diversity is one of its greatest strengths.

So, you have to get in through a specific piece or composer, and one composer may not necessarily make another immediately easier to grasp.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*I Don't Know*

As I have stated in other threads, with the exception of Berg, I did not start getting atonal music until I was in my fifties. Why? I don't know.

When a person asks this question, I really do not know the answer.

I also believe that there is no crime against western civilazation if a person does not get atonal music. There is plenty of great tonal music out that one can soak up.

If a person really feels the need to understand atonal music, I would start with Berg.

Maybe one day you will have a moment like me and go, "Wow, I get it." And then you will get into all sorts of trouble with the tonal only crowd.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Mahlerian has the logical stamina to support the theory behind this style. I used to study theory back when I played the guitar, and I'm sure I could get into the "atonal" structure, but I don't even consider theory when I listen to music anymore. I just love the way it sounds. Simple as that.


----------



## guy (Jan 4, 2014)

Is there any kind of flowing, lyrical like atonal compositions, or are they all kinda choppy?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

guy said:


> Is there any kind of flowing, lyrical like atonal compositions, or are they all kinda choppy?


I'm not sure whether you're referring to the frequent seventh/ninth leaps in the melody or the odd/irregular/overlapping phrase lengths, but both were prominent and pervasive features of Schoenberg's style (as well as that of his greater and lesser imitators). I find a good deal of lyricism in his music, but it is usually somewhat restless...Berg's music, I suppose, is seen as "less" angular in general. His most popular piece (and the last one he completed) is the Violin Concerto in two movements.






The structure is more or less a palindrome, as the movements are broken up Slow-Fast and Fast-Slow respectively. The work strikes me as very lyrical, although it certainly has its moments of violence (particularly the outburst at the beginning of the second movement).


----------



## guy (Jan 4, 2014)

I suppose I have no idea what I'm looking for.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Berg's violin concerto was the first non-tonal work I came to love. I too was completely lost when listening to it for quite awhile. It sounded random and totally unappealing. I found a BBC audio analysis of the work by Charles Noble that broke the work down part by part and played those parts. I listened several times to this analysis and finally started to make progress. After a few more listenings, I suddenly realized that I found the work beautiful. The rest is history. Unfortunately, the link to that analysis no longer works. If anyone knows where that analysis can be found, I'd love to know. 

Anyway, I found that method particularly helpful in working my way through the music. The analysis did not really talk about music theory but rather what was generally happening in the piece. Hearing Noble's description followed by a short excerpt of the music (sometimes on the piano and sometimes from the actual concerto) seemed to allow me to digest the work in small enough pieces that I could hear the beauty. I do wish I could find similar descriptions for many other works.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

I found that what helped me to get into large scale and apparently structureless work is not to look for structure too desperately. This goes even for tonal work: Mahler's symphonies are so huge it is almost impossible to discern much of a structure at first. In fact, even after many listenings I still cannot always follow his logic, if indeed there is any. But his philosophy was that a symphony is like the world - it must include everything, from the dramatic to the sad to the sublime to the banal. So I experience a Mahler symphony as a kind of aural world into which you can wander around and look (well, listen actually!) at all the fascinating sounds on display. It is a bit like a real landscape: it doesn't necessarily make sense, but that doesn't prevent it from being beautiful or fascinating.

With much of atonal work it is the same thing. I do not have much knowledge of music theory, and thus I am an intuitive listener rather than an analytic one. Instead of trying to discern themes or melodies or structure, I just let it flow through me and try to enjoy the fascinating sound. After many listenings, I may begin to discern that there is a structure after all.

But I think that just as composers let go of tonalism in the 20th century, to some extent they also let go of traditional notions of structure. Sonata form is after all not a law of nature. Debussy tended to invent his own structures when it suited him. It is not necessarily wrong to just make it up as you go along!

Another thing that has helped me along in appreciating the Second Viennese school has been my enjoyment of visual art. I find their work to be marvelous to paint to, at least when I'm doing somewhat modernist pieces, and moreover, I sometimes put up slideshows of my favourite modern art to look at while listening to Schoenberg or Berg (I never really could get into Webern, I have to say). A lot of Schoenberg and Berg seems to me to be, in some sense, the musical equivalent of artistic styles like German expressionism, fauvism and much of what Picasso did. Somehow the music and the art seem to go together, at least in my own dubious philosophy.

Here are examples of the kind of art I am talking about, picked pretty much at random from my collection.

Emil Nolde:

















And Maggie Laubser:









Of course, to many people these kinds of pictures are ALSO just a load of horse manure, so it may not be very helpful. 

Anyway, as others have pointed out, you will not go to hell for the sin of not liking some approaches or genres. I am notorious for my dislike of opera, for example.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

guy said:


> Is there any kind of flowing, lyrical like atonal compositions, or are they all kinda choppy?


No, almost by definition. If you are searching for lyrical, then need to go back to mainly tonality.


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

Interesting thread...


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

guy said:


> I suppose I have no idea what I'm looking for.


You might be looking for something like this:
Luigi Dallapiccola ~ Piccola Musica Notturna 
Serial, 12-tone, and intensely lyric, 'in the Italian tradition,' as it were. This, too, is twelve tone music, as pliable to a composer's whim and intentions as was common practice tonality -- any 'method' of music composition and what results depends upon which composer is holding the pen.


----------



## Andolink (Oct 29, 2012)

Instead of listening for structure, which I think is a pretty nebulous concept anyway, the first time through a piece, just let the music wash over you to allow yourself to acclimate to the composer's individual idiom or sound-world. Then, on subsequent listenings, start to try to find a center of interest or focal point running through the music. This focal point running through the piece can be melodic, rhythmic, harmonic or two or all three of these together but which is given emphasis by the composer to draw the listener's ear and brain through the music. Of course there's also atonal music which is specifically static in nature having no linear thread at all such as Ligeti's Atmospheres, etc., in which case just stick with allowing the music to wash over you focusing on the shifting colors and timbres, etc.


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> No, almost by definition. If you are searching for lyrical, then need to go back to mainly tonality.


This is totally false and I wish you would stop acting like you're any kind of authority on atonal music.

I see the introduction of sprechstimme by Schoenberg to be a big push forward for expression in vocal music, by making it a great deal closer in nature to speech. That was at the heart of early atonal and serial music, on Schoenberg's part; to have expressive power and it seemed the logical progression from late romantic tonality.

Certainly I feel the vocal lines of say, moses and aron are much more expressive and far less artificial than those of any Handel opera, for example. Of course I love Handel's operas, but its apples and oranges. Pointless to compare the two, or to make sweeping statements about 'lyricism' and earlier tonality.











I would argue there's no such thing as truly 'atonal' music, but that's a different matter.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

A work which I strongly recommend for what I perceive to be intense lyricism is Schoenberg's Piano Concerto. It remained my favourite piano concerto for quite some time after I discovered it for myself aged eleven.

Uchida talks here:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> No, almost by definition. If you are searching for lyrical, then need to go back to mainly tonality.


Yet another recklessly irresponsible and outrageously misinformed opinion based upon a thing wholly misunderstood.

Here is a piece I've posted elsewhere in the thread, so others can listen and decide for themselves and not rely upon such stated blatant falsehoods...


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

guy said:


> Is there any kind of flowing, lyrical like atonal compositions, or are they all kinda choppy?


I think the Schoenberg Opus 11 pieces Mahlerian posted in his first response are actually relatively easy to get into. While "choppy" on the surface, there are hints of traditional phrase structures, highly expressive motives systematically developed, and dramatic oppositions played out over the length of the piece. The first one especially. Maybe try listening to one multiple times taking cues from the pianist's expressive behavior?


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Jobis said:


> I see the introduction of sprechstimme by Schoenberg to be a big push forward for expression in vocal music, by making it a great deal closer in nature to speech


Should that be the goal, though? Because if you want to get as close as possible, nothing is "closer in nature to speech" than the speech itself. So why sing/perform in sprechstimme at all, why not simply speak? That's so true! It puzzles me how some people think that vocal expression can be achieved by renouncing what they call "artificial" aspects of singing. For me, it's one of most false steps in music ever taken and I'm not talking about Schoenberg school only but also about the first people, way back in the history of music, who said "hey, when people talk, they don't do melismas, ornaments, they don't talk in binary form! Let's be true to the nature of speech!". Schoenberg just brought the notion to the extreme and that is why I have zero interest in his vocal music.

JUST A DIGRESSION.


----------



## Guest (Jan 11, 2014)

I'm with Feldman on this one, structure is for bridges.

What I find fascinating is that guy mentions no names, no pieces. It's just a vague "it." Consequently, there is nothing to go on, nothing to respond to. And yet there are all sorts of responses. 

"Atonal" describes nothing. If guy really wants some help in this matter, if there really is a "this matter," then he is going to have to tell us what he's heard. We have no idea, really, what he wants or needs.

"A mess of chaotic disorder"? What? What piece is this that sounds like this to you? Non tonal musics are no more alike than tonal ones. Buxtehude and Berlioz. Mozart and Mahler. Weber and Wagner. Vivaldi and Verdi. All very different from each other.

"All kinda choppy." Again, what are the pieces that have precipitated this hasty conclusion about even the pieces you haven't heard yet? (Haydn's often kinda choppy. Chopin has some very choppy pieces. Beethoven? Don't get me started. Stravinsky's often pretty choppy, too.)

Choppiness is not a characteristic of non tonal music any more than it is a characteristic of tonal music. Some pieces are, some aren't. And pieces is most definitely wrong. Some parts of some pieces are choppy. That bit in the Romeo & Juliette symphony in Juliette's tomb. Quite choppy. The love scene, however, quite smooth.

I must say, I'm amazed at how many responses have been made already to this request, given that there's been nothing much, yet, to respond to. (I'm even more amazed at how practical most of the responses have been, too. With no cues other than "atonal music," which points nowhere, there have been a lot of really useful remarks about how to listen to music generally. Good times!)


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

Aramis said:


> Should that be the goal, though? Because if you want to get as close as possible, nothing is "closer in nature to speech" than the speech itself. So why sing/perform in sprechstimme at all, why not simply speak? That's so true! It puzzles me how some people think that vocal expression can be achieved by renouncing what they call "artificial" aspects of singing. For me, it's one of most false steps in music ever taken and I'm not talking about Schoenberg school only but also about the first people, way back in the history of music, who said "hey, when people talk, they don't do melismas, ornaments, they don't talk in binary form! Let's be true to the nature of speech!". Schoenberg just brought the notion to the extreme and that is why I have zero interest in his vocal music.
> 
> JUST A DIGRESSION.


Its one strand of vocal music that I think we ought to explore. As much as I love opera for what it is; as Harry Partch said it has become 'too specialised'; there are so many unexplored possibilities in western opera that other traditions, like the Beijing Opera for example, have looked at. This is not a slight against opera, just an observation.

Blurring the lines between speech and singing is an idea I find exciting because of the dramatic possibilities, and it seems to be following on from the progress made of blurring lines between aria and recitative. It does no deny the possibility of music, what would be the point of just having a play accompanied by an orchestra? There are more subtleties to music of the human voice than just full out singing and normal speech.

There's nothing wrong with artificiality in music, when justified with aesthetics. That's all it is, different styles. I'm sure there are many who will continue the traditional operatic singing route, whereas others will push the boundaries (for better or worse).


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Anyone having a problem with atonal music, please listen to the Berg violin concerto 5-10 times.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> I think the Schoenberg Opus 11 pieces Mahlerian posted in his first response are actually relatively easy to get into. While "choppy" on the surface, there are hints of traditional phrase structures, highly expressive motives systematically developed, and dramatic oppositions played out over the length of the piece. The first one especially. Maybe try listening to one multiple times taking cues from the pianist's expressive behavior?


That was exactly the reason why I posted videos that showed the performers. Too bad I've never been able to find a video with Pollini playing Op. 11 on Youtube. Opus 19, yes (and a great performance, too), but I have a feeling that would be tougher for someone who's not already enamored of the style.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Another terrific atonal piece-William Schuman's Symphony #10 (American Muse). Again play 5-10 times.
It's second movement larghissimo is so beautiful, I would want it played at my funeral, assuming anyone picks up the body.

Yes! Atonal music can be beautiful!


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

hpowders said:


> Anyone having a problem with atonal music, please listen to the Berg violin concerto 5-10 times.


Or they could stick with tonal music.  But thanks for the recommendation. Time to listen to more Schumann.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> A work which I strongly recommend for what I perceive to be intense lyricism is Schoenberg's Piano Concerto. It remained my favourite piano concerto for quite some time after I discovered it for myself aged eleven.
> 
> Uchida talks here:
> 
> [snip]


Oh Mitsuko...if only you weren't 40 years my senior.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

neoshredder said:


> Or they could stick with tonal music.  But thanks for the recommendation. Time to listen to more Schumann.


Schuman or Schumann? They are both fine!


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Anyone having a problem with atonal music, please listen to the Berg violin concerto 5-10 times.


I don't think I started appreciating "Classical Music" until I heard Berg's Violin Concerto for the first time in my late teens, such a revelation hearing it played by Henryk Szeryng. It really made me want to explore music! And the more You explore, the more knowledge You amass, the more fun music becomes!

/ptr


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

ptr said:


> I don't think I started appreciating "Classical Music" until I heard Berg's Violin Concerto for the first time in my late teens, such a revelation hearing it played by Henryk Szeryng. It really made me want to explore music! And the more You explore, the more knowledge You amass, the more fun music becomes!
> 
> /ptr


Mine was with Arthur Grumiaux. Memorable.


----------



## revdrdave (Jan 8, 2014)

PetrB said:


> You might be looking for something like this:
> Luigi Dallapiccola ~ Piccola Musica Notturna
> Serial, 12-tone, and intensely lyric, 'in the Italian tradition,' as it were.


PetrB: WOW! This is glorious stuff. I knew the name Dallapiccola but this is the first of his music I've actually heard. I'm not particularly invested in the tonal/atonal debate...I just know when music resonates with me and when it doesn't. This resonates. So, pardon a question slightly tangential to this particular thread, but are there other pieces by Dallapiccola that you recommend for someone just discovering his work?

Thanks!


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

PetrB said:


> You might be looking for something like this:
> Luigi Dallapiccola ~ Piccola Musica Notturna
> Serial, 12-tone, and intensely lyric, 'in the Italian tradition,' as it were. This, too, is twelve tone music, as pliable to a composer's whim and intentions as was common practice tonality -- any 'method' of music composition and what results depends upon which composer is holding the pen.


In a similar vein, Rautavaara used to write what amounts to 12-tone Bruckner:


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

guy said:


> I have a hard time understanding atonal pieces. what I'm getting at is for someone to help me "get" atonal music. All I hear is a mess of chaotic disorder.


For most listeners with this problem, the chaotic disorder is the result of perceived constant dissonance. It seems to distract some from hearing the "structure" of a piece. My suggestion is to listen to some shorter pieces (yes, the Schoenberg Op. 11 is good) repeatedly until the motives and what they do and where they go becomes apparent.

My list of short pieces that whose structure can be discerned without too much effort:

*Ives - Unanswered Question
Varese - Hyperprism
Webern - Concerto for 9 Instruments
Carter - 90+
Perle - Fantasy-Variations
Dallapiccola - Quaderno musicale di Annalibera
Knussen - Flourish with Fireworks
Lutoslawski - Funeral Music
Penderecki - Threnody*


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Vasks said:


> My suggestion is to listen to some shorter pieces (yes, the Schoenberg Op. 11 is good) repeatedly until the motives and what they do and where they go becomes apparent.


I'm not convinced that repeated, consecutive listenings of something which makes no sense to the listener will do much good, frankly.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

guy said:


> I have a hard time understanding atonal pieces. Not necessarily 12-tone pieces, but that would be helpful? In tonal music, you have tonic-dominant harmony. The dominant creates tension, and the tonic resolves it. I guess what I'm getting at is for someone to help me "get" atonal music. All I hear is a mess of chaotic disorder.


You may never "get" it. But if you ever do, it's because you made the effort to expose yourself to some of the great pieces named on this thread. Repetition is the name of the game. If you listen to the Berg violin concerto 10 different times over say a month and you still draw a blank, fine, but there's also a good chance that you may be pleasantly surprised, as a great many of us have been.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

guy said:


> Is there any kind of flowing, lyrical like atonal compositions, or are they all kinda choppy?


I put this link to Luigi Dallapiccolo's _Piccola musica notturna_ elsewhere in this thread





... and here, sounding somewhat richly colorist in a manner similar to the music of his fellow countryman Takemitsu, 
*Takashi Yoshimatsu ~ Threnody for Tokii, for piano and strings*





... a listen to Dallapiccolo's _Piccola musica notturna_ followed by Yoshimatsu's _Threnody for Tokii_ should convince just about anyone but the deaf that "all 12-tone music does not the same."

oh.... and for good measure toss in that famous Symphonic Dance segment from Leonard Bernstein's _West Side Story_


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Music not for Beethoven.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

guy said:


> I have a hard time understanding atonal pieces. Not necessarily 12-tone pieces, but that would be helpful? In tonal music, you have tonic-dominant harmony. The dominant creates tension, and the tonic resolves it. I guess what I'm getting at is for someone to help me "get" atonal music. All I hear is a mess of chaotic disorder.


Your listening is wrong. You are listening tonally to music that is atonal. That's why it sounds wrong; you are expecting it to be something it is not. Instead of blaming the music, you need to acknowledge the possibility that you have not achieved a proper understanding of atonal music. It is possible to gain such an understanding, but it will require you to "suspend your judgement" and listen in a more open, unbiased, neutral, inquisitive way, and drop the negative mindset and old expectations.


----------



## Guest (Jan 11, 2014)

Funny.

What I'm having trouble understanding is what, exactly, guy is having trouble understanding.

But that lack of information has affected no one else so far. And the "solutions" keep pouring in to an undefined, imprecise, unspecified "problem."

For everyone who has contributed so far, what, exactly, has been giving guy problems? See. You simply do not know. Varese's _Hyperprism?_ Wellesz's symphony nr. 9? Gerhard's harpsichord concerto? Boulez's _Le marteau...?_ Xenakis' _Pithoprakta?_

It's entirely possible that guy has listened to and liked every single piece that's been advanced so far as a solution to his problem. Not likely; I understand that. But possible. Without we hear again from him, with specifics, we can only flail around in the dark, hoping we hit something worth hitting. Hoping we don't break something precious that shouldn't be broken.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Admittedly, many aspects of atonal music are "ugly" or grotesque. This is especially evident in pieces like Schoenberg's Wind Quintet (1921) where the "themes," which act like themes, and recur like themes, are gangly, leaping, un-melodic constructs; but Schoenberg uses them as themes, and that's what the ugly things are. Schoenberg was an Expressionist, so it's got that "ugly" aesthetic built-in. No wonder the Nazis couldn't stand this kind of art. They took themselves way too seriously.

Schoenberg's 12-tone system is not based on harmonic principles, or harmonic function, so it basically dispenses with the notion of "consonance and dissonance." To me, this is one of the things that atonal music must overcome if it is to sound good. Apparently, Schoenberg was not concerned with any differences in consonance and dissonance when he wrote the wind quintet; it seems to be predicated solely on structural concerns of the row. Perhaps this dissonance created was intentional, reflecting his Expressionist aims. And we're doing him a favor by saying that.

But it doesn't have to be that way. Serial music can be made to have harmonic contrasts, by using certain intervals in certain ways, with the consonance and dissonance factor in mind. Webern was already using "areas" of intervals to create these sorts of harmonic areas of contrast. George Perle has also made the 12-tone system yield to his desires to create a more consonant music. David Froom, too.

Besides all this, more modern music (Bartok, Stravinsky, Ives) has more dissonance anyway, so it's rather unfair to generalize in the way you have done in the OP. Instead of befuiddlement, why not tackle a specific composer, like Berg, and try to approach the art in a more enlightened way, and be more receptive? Any "success stories" in this area would certainly make more interesting reading.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Strategies for listening to atonal music, if you don't like it:

Listen to the players, and appreciate the extreme virtuosity required to pull-off such music.
Read the liner notes, and realize that even if you don't, somebody else understands this music enough to write about it.
Listen to the sheer sensuous beauty of the instruments: violins, pianos, winds, horns, percussion.
Pretend that this is not music: this is just sound. Listen to it as pure sound.
Listen to the mastering and recording, and think about if it's good or better.
Get yourself into an Eastern mindset, and listen to it as chaotic, yet beautiful sound, as if it were some random structure of nature, like dried leaves or mud-cracks in a dry river bed.
Say to yourself over and over, "I am not a conservative from Idaho. I am not a conservative from Idaho."


----------



## Guest (Jan 11, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Admittedly, many aspects of atonal music are "ugly" or grotesque. This is especially evident in pieces like Schoenberg's Wind Quintet (1921) where the "themes," which act like themes, and recur like themes, are gangly, leaping, un-melodic constructs; but Schoenberg uses them as themes, and that's what the ugly things are. Schoenberg was an Expressionist, so it's got that "ugly" aesthetic built-in.


Nope.

I ain't admitting it, anyway. I can think of several pieces that I think are ugly. Nothing to do with whatever system they're using, though. Or lack of system. And not everyone would agree with me that they are ugly.

It's because "ugly" doesn't describe the object but the perception.

I know. Life is much MUCH easier if the objects have all the qualities. But truly, judgmental terms are all terms about perception, not descriptions of the things being perceived.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I can now listen to atonal pieces and they sound as natural to me as traditional music.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

You make "ugly" sound like a bad thing. I love ugliness.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

_guy_: I feel I understand your views fairly well since I had very similar thoughts years ago. "Atonal" music can seem completely foreign, and it's difficult to even express why you don't "get" it. I would be very interested to hear your response to the posted music especially the Yoshimatsu and the Dallapiccola. Do they sound different from other "atonal" you've heard?



ahammel said:


> I'm not convinced that repeated, consecutive listenings of something which makes no sense to the listener will do much good, frankly.


Having tried repeated listening to some "atonal" or avant-garde works without success, I tend to agree with this. Perhaps I did not listen often enough, but I tend to believe that one needs to listen in a different or more focused manner. On the other hand, I do believe that repeated listening to new music does help in "conditioning" one's mind to better accept that style. Basically one can become more comfortable with unfamiliar music, and that familiarity can aide in eventually appreciating it. So I think it definitely takes listening and listening, but maybe eventually listening in a different way or for different things.

Finally, thank you PetrB for posting the Yoshimatsu: Threnody for Tokii and the Luigi Dallapiccola: Piccola Musica Notturna. I had heard both composers, but not those works. The Yoshimatsu is strikingly beautiful, and the Dallapiccola was lovely. I now want to explore both composers more. And thank you CoAG for the Uchida video. I have listened to Schoenberg's Concerto but never connected. The little I heard from this video along with Uchida's explanations definitely makes me want to listen again.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

some guy said:


> Nope.
> 
> I know. Life is much MUCH easier if the objects have all the qualities. But truly, judgmental terms are all terms about perception, not descriptions of the things being perceived.


But music is a two-way street; it maps the experience of the composer, as represented by the music, onto your perception as listener. Certain universal meanings are conveyed, resulting from commonalities of experience. So, to draw a strict dividing line between "the music as object, and the music as my experience" is artificial, and ignores the fact that music is an interactive experience. It also ignores any obvious "experiential truths" about the music. We can start with basics:

Music that is low in register reminds humans of big things, things that are bigger than they are.
Music in high pitches reminds humans of smaller entities. Etc, etc.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Some of Beethoven's music one can call "ugly"-parts of the Hammerklavier Sonata, parts of his late string quartets, etc; but within the context of the movements, they are magnificent contrasts to what came before. "Ugly" can be intentional for an artistic purpose.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

some guy said:


> Nope.
> 
> I ain't admitting it, anyway. I can think of several pieces that I think are ugly. Nothing to do with whatever system they're using, though. Or lack of system. And not everyone would agree with me that they are ugly.
> 
> ...


I think O.D.E's (Obvious / Overkill Displays of Education / Erudition) are probably not helpful in this sort of situation either, and indeed may read uglier to the neophyte than the music is perceived to be ugly by the neophyte.

Talking about how someone listens to common practice harmony as if they have a thorough and thought-about working theoretic knowledge of that in order to help them shift the axis of their old listening habits is also at least worth a few giggles.

Since just about every Joe and Jane has breezed through a listen of that pretty famous Symphonic Dance segment from Bernstein's West Side Story, the fact so many have sailed through a 12 tone atonal piece and not only survived, but enjoyed it while for not one moment feeling lost is some indication the problem is neither with atonality or 12-tone serialism.

Subjectively more or less Conjunct vs. Disjunct re the musical line(s) I thought worth taking a stab at by providing links to some appropriate repertoire.


----------



## Guest (Jan 11, 2014)

PetrB said:


> I thought worth taking a stab at by providing links to some appropriate repertoire.


It was worth doing just for mmsbls's response!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

hpowders said:


> Some of Beethoven's music one can call "ugly"-parts of the Hammerklavier Sonata, parts of his late string quartets, etc; but within the context of the movements, they are magnificent contrasts to what came before. "Ugly" can be intentional for an artistic purpose.


"Pretty is not Beautiful."


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

PetrB said:


> the fact so many have sailed through a 12 tone atonal piece and not only survived, but enjoyed it while for not one moment feeling lost is some indication the problem is neither with atonality or 12-tone serialism.


There is no problem at all, actually, with anything here. Unless you want to assume that existence of people who are not into atonal music is a problem. For you and some other people it seem to be one.

Well, then there are the undone moaners who keep bringing the subject up for no good reason other than sheer annoyance - that might be a problem, which you perhaps feel inclined to solve. In such case, I'd like to present you the high wisdom:










Might be easier for you when you acknowledge it.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

some guy said:


> It was worth doing just for mmsbls's response!


I'll thank mmsbls back right here and now. Whenever something I've recommended 'takes' with another it gives me satisfaction.

I usually recommend only that which I think well worthwhile, and _when it gives someone else pleasure or opens up a door it feels so good_ it could be argued the primary motivation was selfish


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Aramis said:


> There is no problem at all, actually, with anything here. Unless you want to assume that existence of people who are not into atonal music is a problem. For you and some other people it seem to be one.
> 
> Well, then there are the undone moaners who keep bringing the subject up for no good reason other than sheer annoyance - that might be a problem, which you perhaps feel inclined to solve. In such case, I'd like to present you the high wisdom:
> 
> ...


If you would step outside of yourself for a moment you might recall the entries you seem to think are here due to some personal agenda are actually here because someone asked for help in understanding the music.

Surprise, some people, both young and old, have not closed down their curiosity circuits. Those who have adamantly closed those circuits down, well, I'll admit, I have a bit of a problem with them.

P.s. I've blocked just about all "the undone moaners who keep bringing the subject up for no good reason." That's as near a relief as unplugging a bell which signals nothing but is nonetheless going off every fifteen seconds  ...which is somewhat like the impulse of your post addressing me, I think, but hey that's just a guess, since I'm not you and I'm sure you're glad of it.

P.p.s Pas de problème.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

some guy said:


> Funny.
> 
> What I'm having trouble understanding is what, exactly, guy is having trouble understanding.
> 
> ...


You appear to have difficulty accepting other people's dislike and or lack of understanding of atonal music, avant-garde stuff.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Here, Guy. This might help. You might want to look into atonal pieces that are already in forms that resemble what you know. Are you familiar with sonata form? Here's an atonal piece practically in sonata form, of course without the same key relations. It might help.






It may also help to dispose of some pre-concieved notions you may have about atonal music. For example, the dominant-tonic relationship is not the only way to build tension and release. There are many ways you can build tension and release that have nothing at all to do with harmony (dynamics, texture, the phrasing of the themes).

Also, most atonal works do have clearly distinct and recognizable themes. For example, in the link I gave you the driving rhythm that the viola and 2nd violin start the piece off with is heard throughout nearly the entire piece, usually with the same or a similar contour in terms of the notes used. Then when the 1st violin and cello come in, they are clearly creating a melody together, each completing each other's phrases.

I hope you can hear this and I hope this helps.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> You appear to have difficulty accepting other people's dislike and or lack of understanding of atonal music, avant-garde stuff.


That's absurd, with those holding those anti-atonal anti avant-garde opinions seeming to advertise it about as regularly as is possible, even within contexts where the ads are a complete non sequitur as per the discussion at hand -- as it seems you well know.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Well to sum it all up, we've heard from guy and some guy. Waiting for wonderful guy to chime in (no pun intended).


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

hpowders said:


> Well to sum it all up, we've heard from guy and some guy. Waiting for wonderful guy to chime in (no pun intended).


And after Wonderful Guy, we'll really need this one to truly wrap it up and make it replete:
Sum Guy.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

PetrB said:


> And after Wonderful Guy, we'll really need this one to truly wrap it up and make it replete:
> Sum Guy.


Perhaps he would like some more guy-dance.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

PetrB said:


> And after Wonderful Guy, we'll really need this one to truly wrap it up and make it replete:
> Sum Guy.


Of course guy can transform himself into wonderful guy if he decides to take some of the valuable advice offered on this thread.


----------



## guy (Jan 4, 2014)

some guy said:


> Funny.
> 
> What I'm having trouble understanding is what, exactly, guy is having trouble understanding.
> 
> ...


I suppose I would like a music theory lesson in atonal music, if possible. I'm not going to pay $90 for some book that supposedly does that.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Guy talking to some guy. lol


----------



## Guest (Jan 12, 2014)

ArtMusic said:


> You appear to have difficulty accepting other people's dislike and or lack of understanding of atonal music, avant-garde stuff.


Your comment appears to have absolutely no relationship to anything I said; just a random accusation that also, just by the way, does not express my position at all in any way shape or form.

You appear to have difficulty reading, but that's not really it, is it? You can read perfectly fine. But to quote something and then perpetrate a non sequitur is really creepy.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

ArtMusic said:


> You appear to have difficulty accepting other people's dislike and or lack of understanding of atonal music, avant-garde stuff.


Wish I could give you more likes. Superb observation.


----------



## stevederekson (Jan 5, 2014)

If you look at the basis of atonal music, much of the "beauty" it is supposed to hold is derived from intellectual principles. Think of a canvas, a purple square surrounded by green. At first it says nothing, but once you understand that purple is life, and green deception and hatred, you could percieve the canvas as "deception eats life". Fine, I get it, but no goosebumps.

When I listen to Schoenberg, I feel nothing. The whole point of music is emotional response, without it I might aswell go do something else. While I might "get" the intellectual principles, these still fail to provide me with emotions. Hence, if I cannot get emotions from the music, then it is not music for me, it is noise.

If you truly like music, then you must feel a wide range of emotions when listening to it. If that is your case, then all the power to you. But, a lot of people consciously "try" to get the music. Unfortunately, in this case, repetition doesn't cut it.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

stevederekson said:


> If you look at the basis of atonal music, much of the "beauty" it is supposed to hold is derived from intellectual principles.


As a statement of the goals of the composers in question, this is certainly untrue. The second Viennese school came out of the expressionism movement, which was not so-called just because somebody decided that every movement in the visual arts needs its musical counterpart.

If anything, I find Schoenberg _too_ emotional. Even the emotionally-cooler Webern wrote that virtually all of his music related to the death of his mother.


----------



## Guest (Jan 12, 2014)

stevederekson said:


> Think of a canvas, a purple square surrounded by green. At first it says nothing, but once you understand that purple is life, and green deception and hatred, you could percieve the canvas as "deception eats life". Fine, I get it, but no goosebumps.


I get that you're making stuff up that has no relation to anything in the real world and then successfully destroying it.



stevederekson said:


> When I listen to Schoenberg, I feel nothing.


Too bad for you, then. It's a pity, but it says absolutely nothing about Schoenberg's music, only about your limitations.


----------



## stevederekson (Jan 5, 2014)

> As a statement of the goals of the composers in question, this is certainly untrue. The second Viennese school came out of the expressionism movement, which was not so-called just because somebody decided that every movement in the visual arts needs its musical counterpart.
> 
> If anything, I find Schoenberg too emotional. Even the emotionally-cooler Webern wrote that virtually all of his music related to the death of his mother.


The reason music affects us so deeply is because it seems to replicate and intensify emotions that are felt otherwise (to a lesser degree) in nature. I'd go as far as to argue that tonality itself revolves around this fact. Hence why so many of us agree that minor is sad and major is happy.

A complete disregard for this results in emotionless music. I can smash my fist onto a piano, and call it a Requiem, but that won't make it emotional music.



> Too bad for you, then. It's a pity, but it says absolutely nothing about Schoenberg's music, only about your limitations.


Many people seem to agree that Schoenberg's music fails to transmit emotion. Regardless, this is a subjective statement, and this group can only speak for itself. If you garner tears from Schoenberg, then that is wonderful. It is a difficult scenario for me to imagine, but in art everything is possible.


----------



## Guest (Jan 12, 2014)

neoshredder said:


> Superb observation.


Yes, except for the teensy-weensy fact that it is an observation of nothing that exists in the real world.

I do not, just for the record, have any difficulty accepting other people's dislike of avant garde stuff. I've been accepting it for over forty years.

Besides, as I already pointed out, nothing in ArtMusic's comment had any relation to the quote he was supposedly responding to.

Here's how it looks to me:

Me: "That bridge looks like it's going to collapse."

ArtMusic: "You have a problem accepting that rivers are made of water."

neoshredder: "Superb observation."

Hmmm. Well, OK then. Non sequitur is the new black.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

stevederekson said:


> The reason music affects us so deeply is because it seems to replicate and intensify emotions that are felt otherwise (to a lesser degree) in nature. I'd go as far as to argue that tonality itself revolves around this fact. Hence why so many of us agree that minor is sad and major is happy.
> 
> A complete disregard for this results in emotionless music. I can smash my fist onto a piano, and call it a Requiem, but that won't make it emotional.


The you are arguing that only music written between about 1600 and 1910 (the common practice period) is capable of transmitting emotion, and ignoring the experiences of people who do find non-CPT music emotional (and there are a great many of them), besides.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

The thread started off productive... then the same tired nonsense gets spilled again and again. I'm running out of mops here... and I don't need any more infractions over people who are quite obviously disingenuous about this topic. I think most are pretty clear how this game works about now.


----------



## Guest (Jan 12, 2014)

To ahammel: Well, be fair. He is acknowledging that other people have different experiences. And he's acknowledging that through an admitted difficulty in imagining it.

We can always cut him some slack while keeping him under intense scrutiny, you know.

And to Vesuvius: I'm not convinced that the thread started out productive. No one knew what music guy was struggling with, and guy has still not gotten any more specific than "atonal."

A) It's not a real category.

B) Even if it were, it's not useful without some specifics. Vivaldi and Verdi are both "tonal." Any other similarities, though? Pretty much not. Bach and Mahler are both "tonal" as well. And so forth. So even "tonal" is not a very useful category.

The structure of this vague thing that I'm not going to specify. I'm just going to refer to it as "it." And a whole lot of responses about how "it" had this or that quality. I dunno, Vesuvius. "It" just ain't cuttin' it for me. (Or cuttin' "it" for me.)

Still, things have sorta declined from the surprisingly useful remarks that the topic first elicited. I'll give you that.


----------



## stevederekson (Jan 5, 2014)

I don't personally find the music emotional. That is the only 100% fact that I have. Any other statements are pure theorization.

But, one of the beautiful things about art, and what makes it art, is that we don't understand it. In fact, any attempt to understand it will undermine its effects. Therefore, if it does have an effect on you, then I encourage to continue listening. The only thing I am curious about is whether it is an acquired taste. 

I compare this to Prokofiev or Mahler, who cannot be appreciated before a few listens. Purely atonal music I can listen to 10 times and it still does nothing.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

some guy said:


> Well, be fair. He is acknowledging that other people have different experiences. And he's acknowledging that through an admitted difficulty in imagining it.
> 
> We can always cut him some slack while keeping him under intense scrutiny, you know.


Any more scrutiny and I'll surely be banned at the rate I'm collecting infractions. I think I'll go the way of the river now and just flow.

I've got love for all. Even the ones I seem to insult quite easily. No hard feelings, really. :tiphat:


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

How can anyone listen to the Berg violin concerto a few times or the larghissimo movement of Schuman's 10th symphony (American Muse) and not be astonished at how beautiful and moving atonal music can be? There's a good chance those atonal haters have never even heard this music or for that matter any atonal music. They simply want to stir up the pot and can offer no defense to their cause except saying "I hate that stuff!"


----------



## stevederekson (Jan 5, 2014)

hpowders said:


> How can anyone listen to the Berg violin concerto a few times or the larghissimo movement of Schuman's 10th symphony (American Muse) and not be astonished at how beautiful and moving atonal music can be? There's a good chance those atonal haters have never even heard this music or for that matter any atonal music. They simply want to stir up the pot and can offer no defense to their cause except saying "I hate that stuff!"


What else is there to say? Music is art, you either like it or you don't.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Vesuvius said:


> Any more scrutiny and I'll surely be banned at the rate I'm collecting infractions. I think I'll go the way of the river now and just flow.
> 
> I've got love for all. Even the ones I seem to insult quite easily. No hard feelings, really. :tiphat:


I didn't report you. I don't want you banned either. We do have difference in opinions. But I hope we don't let that interfere with our otherwise enjoyable experience of a great forum.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ahammel said:


> perhaps he would like some more guy-dance.


groan ....................


----------



## guy (Jan 4, 2014)

I suppose I may be searching for something that doesn't exist. I am looking for how themes in Schoenberg and Berg type atonal (free or twelve tone) pieces are developed and transformed throughout the piece. Hope I got descriptive enough this time :B


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

guy said:


> I suppose I may be searching for something that doesn't exist. I am looking for how themes in Schoenberg and Berg type atonal (free or twelve tone) pieces are developed and transformed throughout the piece. Hope I got descriptive enough this time :B


Actually, development of themes was a huge concern of Schoenberg's. One of his important ideas was 'developing variation'. The idea is that the way give a unified sound to a piece of music is by deriving all the musical events in the work from a single, central idea (such as, but not necessarily, a tone-row). I'm sure somebody who knows the theory better than me will be along to expand on this shortly.

What Schoenberg doesn't do-pretty much ever-is repeat themes verbatim, so if that's what you're looking for, yeah, it's not there.

I suppose this would be pretty easy to hear in a theme-and-variations format, so maybe give the _Variations for Orchestra_ a go?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

guy said:


> I suppose I may be searching for something that doesn't exist. I am looking for how themes in Schoenberg and Berg type atonal (free or twelve tone) pieces are developed and transformed throughout the piece. Hope I got descriptive enough this time :B


Did you see my post back there? I tried to point out some things about that.


----------



## guy (Jan 4, 2014)

violadude said:


> Did you see my post back there? I tried to point out some things about that.


Yes, I did. Sadly, it only half-answered my question that I had not yet asked. :B


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

guy said:


> Yes, I did. Sadly, it only half-answered my question that I had not yet asked. :B


Alright, give me some time and I'll give a more in depth explanation of a piece.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

some guy said:


> Your comment appears to have absolutely no relationship to anything I said; just a random accusation that also, just by the way, does not express my position at all in any way shape or form.
> 
> You appear to have difficulty reading, but that's not really it, is it? You can read perfectly fine. But to quote something and then perpetrate a non sequitur is really creepy.


You were defending avant-garde music or atonal music in this case (this thread). That's fine. You are obviously entitled to that, of course.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Sometimes I have a weird suspicion that Artmusic and Neoshredder are the same person.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

guy said:


> I suppose I may be searching for something that doesn't exist. I am looking for how themes in Schoenberg and Berg type atonal (free or twelve tone) pieces are developed and transformed throughout the piece. Hope I got descriptive enough this time :B


I suggest you download the score of Pierrot Lunaire and you do t even hav to look further than the fist song in the cycle to notice a traditional use of motific development. The motif representing the character "Pierrot" is made up of the notes G sharp, E, C, D, B flat, C sharp, G, all semiquavers and beginning with a semiquaver rest. The task for you is to find out how the motif is developed. Look especially at what is done with the motif in bars 5-6, the piano at 26-29, the flute at 29-30, bars 35 to 37. Analyse the new melody that begins halfway through bar 15 (make note of the rhythm and how it can be related to other rhythmic fragments like what the flute does at the beginning of that very bar). Look at te use of register, word painting for dramatic effect (how does Schoenberg try to make the music relate to the text?). This is more than just analysing a "theme" and it's transformation. If you know how to look, his music is a goldmine....


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

violadude said:


> Sometimes I have a weird suspicion that Artmusic and Neoshredder are the same person.


Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!


----------



## Guest (Jan 12, 2014)

ArtMusic said:


> You were defending avant-garde music or atonal music in this case (this thread). That's fine. You are obviously entitled to that, of course.


But Art, that was just my point. In the post of mine that you quoted, in its entirety, there was not even a whisper of defense of avant garde music. It was very specifically limited to the lack of useful information from guy about what he was having trouble with.

And even if it had been a defense, how is a defense of avant garde music an example of having difficulty understanding or accepting that some people don't like it?

Non sequitur still stands.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Are you saying all atonal music is "avant-garde"?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ahammel said:


> Actually, development of themes was a huge concern of Schoenberg's.


First, look back in the thread for that link with the pianist Uchida discussing the Schoenberg piano concerto. Listen carefully, she is wonderfully intelligent, very clear-spoken and she does demonstrate the basic tone-row (pitch materials) Schoenberg used in that piece. ALL music in this concerto is derived from one twelve-tone row and its permutations of retrograde, inversion or retrograde inversion

Similarity, though your ear might have a harder time with the intervals and pitch content than you are used to, abounds in that piece. For the rest, so much of it is relatively quiet, with episodes of say, a very sweet late romantic inflected Viennese Waltz, and all sorts of other rather 'sentimental' bits -- because Schoenberg never strayed so far from 'romantic' expression and he was deeply sentimental about the music of the country and culture he was forced to flee.

See where that gets you.

In much more condensed and tight form, Stravinsky's _In memoriam Dylan Thomas_ uses only a series of five tones in the setting of Dylan Thomas' _Do not go gently into that good night._ There is an introduction using four trombones, the verses of the poem with tenor and string quartet, and a postlude also for the four trombones. It is pretty much in simple strophic form. (Serial is a series, no law about using all twelve chromatic pitches)
The following link has the plus of showing the score.


----------



## Guest (Jan 12, 2014)

Interestingly enough, there is also no "law" about not using pitch in a piece until all the other pitches have been used. That's only a matter for creating a row. What you do with a row is different from what you do to create the row.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

guy said:


> I suppose I may be searching for something that doesn't exist. I am looking for how themes in Schoenberg and Berg type atonal (free or twelve tone) pieces are developed and transformed throughout the piece. Hope I got descriptive enough this time :B


Part of the problem is that the transformations are so complex and pervasive as to make comprehensive description more time-consuming than it's worth (either to read or to write). Getting into an "easier" Schoenberg work may help, because the way he treats ideas really never changed, no matter what the style.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

stevederekson said:


> What else is there to say? Music is art, you either like it or you don't.


True IF one has at least given atonal music a chance. One can't dislike something you have never heard! There's a lot of music there!


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

hpowders said:


> One can't dislike something you have never heard!!!


One might logically think so, and literally, perhaps you are right, but you can certainly despise the idea of something without ever having experienced it.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> One might logically think so, and literally, perhaps you are right, but you can certainly despise the idea of something without ever having experienced it.


As in having to get vaccinated. Can't see anyone looking forward to the procedure, even if one has never been vaccinated before.


----------



## Guest (Jan 12, 2014)

I look forward to the results, however.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

stevederekson said:


> When I listen to Schoenberg, I feel nothing. The whole point of music is emotional response, without it I might aswell go do something else. While I might "get" the intellectual principles, these still fail to provide me with emotions. Hence, if I cannot get emotions from the music, then it is not music for me, it is noise.


When I listen to Schoenberg (and not just early Schoenberg), I feel an intense surge of emotion. Whether nostalgia as in the second of the Five Orchestral Pieces, anger as in the Accompaniment to a Cinematographic Scene or the slow movement from his Fourth Quartet, or a rush of mad joy as in the finales to the Piano Concerto or the Suite for Piano, everything is taken to its utmost. Every time I encountered a new piece by Schoenberg, early or late, I found the same kind of burning emotional fire, no matter how difficult the piece may have seemed. Every time I looked or listened more closely, I found the same level of craft, down to the smallest detail.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

hpowders said:


> Some of Beethoven's music one can call "ugly"-parts of the Hammerklavier Sonata, parts of his late string quartets, etc; but within the context of the movements, they are magnificent contrasts to what came before. "Ugly" can be intentional for an artistic purpose.


Exactly! And lest we follow Someguy's assertion that "qualities" are not objective ("in" the object"), but are merely opinions or judgements, this assertion is trumped by shared human experience: we all have arms, legs, and tongues.

Take the case of lemon and sugar: it is agreed that lemons taste sour; this is not only opinion, but, we might say, exists as an objective, separate characteristic of the lemon, regardless of our experience. The same with sugar; "sweet" is inherent to the sugar; sweetness does not exist because of our opinions. Sweetness is an objective quality of sugar, sure to manifest as a quality no matter who tastes it.

But then again, isn't the separation of objective "qualities" like sour and sweet somewhat impossible to separate from our experience of it? In other words, like the old "if a tree fell over in the woods" quandary, "if a lemon was sour in the woods, all by itself, would anyone taste it?" The same old useless philosophical quandary arises.

Why not be honest, and admit the same thing about consonance, dissonance, and beauty/ugliness: these are qualities which, indeed, are manifest in the objects themselves, and are simultaneously manifest by our experience of them. So what makes the difference? 
Whether or not we *accept* these qualities, and further ascribe them as "good/acceptable" or "bad/unacceptable." This is where our brains come into play, as arbiters of our experience, tolerance, and acceptance of things "as they are." I'm sure this is what John Cage was after: acceptance of all sounds as "music."


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

some guy said:


> ... I'm not convinced that the thread started out productive. No one knew what music guy was struggling with, and guy has still not gotten any more specific than "atonal."
> 
> A) It's not a real category.


"Atonal" has proven to be a problematic term, but I know what is meant by it.

Music which has no hierarchy of tonality (i.e. in which all notes of an unordered scale refer to a "key note") can be called "atonal" with relative security. Some academics might go further and say "if no horizontal function is present as derived from said hierarchy, then it's atonal," but I find this to be a restricting definition.



> B) Even if it were, it's not useful without some specifics. Vivaldi and Verdi are both "tonal." Any other similarities, though? Pretty much not. Bach and Mahler are both "tonal" as well. And so forth. So even "tonal" is not a very useful category.


"Tonal" is a general term, encompassing stylistic aspects of Vivaldi & Verdi, and I think is adequate to describe the difference between what *is *and* isn't *tonal.



> The structure of this vague thing that I'm not going to specify. I'm just going to refer to it as "it." And a whole lot of responses about how "it" had this or that quality. I dunno, Vesuvius. "It" just ain't cuttin' it for me. (Or cuttin' "it" for me. Still, things have sorta declined from the surprisingly useful remarks that the topic first elicited. I'll give you that.


I think if you made an effort, someguy, you could see what the problem is. Some people can't accept dissonant music and sounds, just as some people don't like overly sweet foods (thus, French pastry was born). Forget about the philosophical quandary of whether or not these qualities "exist objectively" in the music, and you will no longer need to defend the music. It is all dependent on whether we, as listeners, find these qualities to our liking.

And it's OK to say "that's ugly because I don't like ugliness."


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

stevederekson said:


> If you look at the basis of atonal music, much of the "beauty" it is supposed to hold is derived from intellectual principles. Think of a canvas, a purple square surrounded by green. At first it says nothing, but once you understand that purple is life, and green deception and hatred, you could percieve the canvas as "deception eats life". Fine, I get it, but no goosebumps.
> 
> When I listen to Schoenberg, I feel nothing. *The whole point of music is emotional response,* without it I might aswell go do something else. *While I might "get" the intellectual principles, these still fail to provide me with emotions. Hence, if I cannot get emotions from the music, then it is not music for me, it is noise.
> *
> If you truly like music, then *you must feel a wide range of emotions when listening to it.* If that is your case, then all the power to you. But, a lot of people consciously "try" to get the music. Unfortunately, in this case, repetition doesn't cut it.


Even if I were a hard-core tonalist, I couldn't agree with that. Mozart, Haydn, and the whole "Apollonian" Classical aesthetic goes down the drain with that.

Suffice it to say, that music (being part of the Greek Quadrivium of geometry, arithmetic, and astronomy) has always exhibited a struggle between the "Dionysian" and "Apollonian" aspects of its art. There has always been a struggle between emotion and intellect. Most listeners of CM seem to be stuck in a form of Romanticism, even ascribing this to their experience of Mozart, and I think it's unbalanced.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Even if I were a hard-core tonalist, I couldn't agree with that. Mozart, Haydn, and the whole "Apollonian" Classical aesthetic goes down the drain with that.
> 
> Suffice it to say, that music (being part of the Greek Quadrivium of geometry, arithmetic, and astronomy) has always exhibited a struggle between the "Dionysian" and "Apollonian" aspects of its art. There has always been a struggle between emotion and intellect. Most listeners of CM seem to be stuck in a form of Romanticism, even ascribing this to their experience of Mozart, and I think it's unbalanced.


What don't you get? He made an honest effort at listening to Schoenberg, and he felt nothing. At least he tried!

I agree with him. There has to be an emotional response to the music. I find it in some of Alban Berg's and William Schuman's music. I don't in Schoenberg. No crime!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

ahammel said:


> Actually, development of themes was a huge concern of Schoenberg's. One of his important ideas was 'developing variation'. The idea is that the way give a unified sound to a piece of music is by deriving all the musical events in the work from a single, central idea (such as, but not necessarily, a tone-row). I'm sure somebody who knows the theory better than me will be along to expand on this shortly.
> 
> *What Schoenberg doesn't do-pretty much ever-is repeat themes verbatim, so if that's what you're looking for, yeah, it's not there.
> *
> I suppose this would be pretty easy to hear in a theme-and-variations format, so maybe give the _Variations for Orchestra_ a go?


In Schoenberg's Wind Quintet (1924), you can hear the "themes" being *literally repeated verbatim*...that is, if you know what you're listening to. The "themes" are gangly, leaping, dissonant constructs; but, structurally, and aurally, they are themes which repeat literally.

The problem is, these "themes" are so unlike any other previous melodic construct that they are virtually unrecognizable as "contoured melodies." They certainly make no concession to the listener. We normally think of "melodies" or themes as having relatively speech-like contours, and stepwise movement. Wide leaps of minor ninths and leaps "out of the octave" inherently exceed what is easily comprehensible. I think this is connected with aspects of speech recognition and hard-wired aspects of brain structure. Still, I myself have gained the ability to hear these themes, and I enjoy the music more for it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

hpowders said:


> What don't you get? He made an honest effort at listening to Schoenberg, and he felt nothing. At least he tried!
> 
> I agree with him. There has to be an emotional response to the music. I find it in some of Alban Berg's and William Schuman's music. I don't in Schoenberg. No crime!


When did "guys" become experts in detecting and feeling emotions? I admit it's hard to ferret-out feelings, and always has been. But I think that "emotions" are being over-simplified. In Schoenberg's "Five Pieces for Orchestra," I feel "emotions" that are hard to define; they lie halfway between feelings and intellect. They are complex; yet Schoenberg manages to manifest it.

Listen to "Vergangenes" from this set.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> When did "guys" become experts in detecting and feeling emotions? I admit it's hard to ferret-out feelings, and always has been. But I think that "emotions" are being over-simplified. In Schoenberg's "Five Pieces for Orchestra," I feel "emotions" that are hard to define; they lie halfway between feelings and intellect. They are complex; yet Schoenberg manages to manifest it.
> 
> Listen to "Vergangenes" from this set.


If you feel it that's fine.

I use "guys" and "he" as neutral terms. I refuse to say "they" and even worse he/she. Many times I address a bunch of women as "hey guys"!!
Get over it.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> In Schoenberg's Wind Quintet (1924), you can hear the "themes" being *literally repeated verbatim*...that is, if you know what you're listening to.


I stand corrected.


----------



## Guest (Jan 12, 2014)

Oh Bill, if only for the sake of our long friendship, at the very least get it right when you cite my assertions.

"...'qualities' are not objective ('in' the object), but are merely opinions or judgements" is a terrible distortion of what I've said.

Or perhaps I mean a terrific distortion.

As for the food analogy, whatever else is true about the molecular structure of lemons or sugar, the concepts of "sweet" and "sour" do not come into play until you add human tongues and human brains to the mix. Sweet and sour are not qualities of the objects; they are descriptions of the experiences. It's not really all that hard.

And no amount of effort will turn "Some people can't accept dissonant music and sounds" into "the problem." I could make all the effort in the world and "some people can't accept..." will still not be "the problem."

We've got a long long ways to go before we get to "the problem." And since it's not very much about music, really, we here at a musical talk board might never get to it.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

stevederekson said:


> If you look at the basis of atonal music, much of the "beauty" it is supposed to hold is derived from intellectual principles.


Ditto for all classical and 'formalist' procedures of the past, all are intellectual contrivances, somewhat arbitrary and utterly synthetic, with as many or more 'intellectual principles' at their root level and their primary aesthetic of 'how to proceed.' Those principles underlie all that repertoire in which you find 'beauty,' and for which you do have an emotional response.



stevederekson said:


> The whole point of music is emotional response.... While I might "get" the intellectual principles, these still fail to provide me with emotions. Hence, if I cannot get emotions from the music, then it is not music for me, it is noise.


The whole point of music being for emotional response is true for many, including you, obviously, but it is not the whole point of music. That you look only for emotional response makes you a listener who is into music for exclusively that one thing, which is simple, and selfish, but no more selfish than for other reasons people listen to music. Where it goes quite south is then stemming from that same selfishness is your dismissal of any music which does not 'speak emotion' to you as 'noise.' It is I think fairer to say if you do not understand the language you are hearing, it "says nothing" or "Its Greek to me." That is I think more what you meant, and more truly your response to music which does not "Speak emotion" _to you._



stevederekson said:


> If you truly like music, then you must feel a wide range of emotions when listening to it.


 Again, speaking for yourself and what you personally require of music, which may be identical to how others also use music while it is not at all a fundamental truth or fact about what music is, why and how it is written, and why many listen to it.

You've clearly announced your taste, that it is circumscribed as per your individual set of criteria (or is that one criterion only?) That particular set is not wholly universal to how others use or consume music, nor is it a prevailing aesthetic in any given era by most composers past and present (I am aware of the "Doctrine of Emotions" which only further includes yet another intellectual contrivance applied to the writing which partially determined the actual musical materials the composer used.). Your denial of intellectual principles as associated with only the music which does not work for you is also denying _that same process is very responsible for the works which do work for you_.

About all anyone can rightly say, without also stating a blunder highlighting a misunderstanding of something so fundamental as the intellect as a _force majeur_ in the music itself is "this music does not float my boat."

Thank goodness you said, "it is not music for me."


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> When did "guys" become experts in detecting and feeling emotions?


Probably around the same time they started thinking of themselves as artists and being genius artists. Maybe earlier, as on this business card discovered on a carved and painted cave wall in Southern France
_Neolithic Shamans, Head Honcho Druids and Sons ~ Bringing you fine art since 45,000 B.C.E._


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

some guy said:


> As for the food analogy, whatever else is true about the molecular structure of lemons or sugar, the concepts of "sweet" and "sour" do not come into play until you add human tongues and human brains to the mix. Sweet and sour are not qualities of the objects; they are descriptions of the experiences. It's not really all that hard.


I disagree; "acidity" is a quality of lemons, and in human terms this means "sour." The term "sour" is simply a term humans have invented to describe this quality. The term "sour" refers simultaneously to the objective quality of the lemon, as well as our experience of it.

Humans habitually ascribe qualities such as "sour" to lemons, because the interactive experience with them is universal to all humans. This becomes a "universal truth" which describes both objective qualities and experience.

Like wise with dissonance/consonance. These are measurable, objective ratios. 3:2 is more consonant than 8:7. Our ears hear it also. Our ears are receptive to wave ratios. These ratios are audible, as well as being "objective" ratios of vibrating waves. Our eardrums "model" these wave interactions, and these waves are experienced as more consonant or less consonant. The simpler the number-ratio, the more consonant we will hear it.

The only crucial question is: do we accept these sounds? Do we call them pleasant or unpleasant?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Atonal, unpleasant at first; pleasant after putting in the effort to train one's ears; at least from my experience. Glad I put in the effort.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

hpowders said:


> Atonal, unpleasant at first; pleasant after putting in the effort to train one's ears; at least from my experience. Glad I put in the effort.


Unpleasant is an understatement. Sorry I don't think there is any hope for me in atonal music. I've tried multiple times.


----------



## Anterix (Jan 24, 2010)

The first composer I liked from XX century was Anton Webern. I heard Variations Op 27 and it made sense to me and was immediately very pleasant. I think it was because I understood easily the structure. The motives, the phrases (even with the pointillism). Understanding this, other things like harmony may come together automatically.

Webern usually uses structures from the classical period like the sonata-form and variations. For me it worked well.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

neoshredder said:


> Unpleasant is an understatement. Sorry I don't think there is any hope for me in atonal music. I've tried multiple times.


I hear there is a proposal in Houston to outlaw tonal music and to change its name from Houston to Schoen-Berg. It probably won't pass the legislature.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Anterix said:


> The first composer I liked from XX century was Anton Webern.


Really? Good start.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Some people don't like vegetables, or spicy foods, or cilantro. I must admit, I can't understand it, but it doesn't really bother me, and I don't really need them to keep telling me. After all, it's not as if I were smoking cigarettes and blowing the smoke in their face.


----------



## Anterix (Jan 24, 2010)

ahammel said:


> Really? Good start.


I had to. By the time I had to study xx century music I was completely illiterate on the matter. So I was kind of forced. But it went very well.

There are other composers that may be easy to like. Messiaen, for instance, his music is usually very powerful, very coherent, and full of resonance.

But Webern is also good in my opinion because his music is succinct, clear as water, almost transparent. For me was easy to like.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> Unpleasant is an understatement. Sorry I don't think there is any hope for me in atonal music. I've tried multiple times.


You're not supposed to "enjoy" it; you're supposed to writhe in agony, in the throes of an existential torture; the Hell of existence. Ahh, pain! I love pain!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Nope. You can actually enjoy it.


----------



## Guest (Jan 13, 2014)

His tongue was in his cheek.

At least, I took it to be so.


----------



## Anterix (Jan 24, 2010)

hpowders said:


> Nope. You can actually enjoy it.


I second that. But everyone is free!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Anterix said:


> I second that. But everyone is free!


Of course! Nobody's shoving it down anyone's throat.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

hpowders said:


> I hear there is a proposal in Houston to outlaw tonal music and to change its name from Houston to Schoen-Berg. It probably won't pass the legislature.


Ah, the beautiful Texan mountains.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> You're not supposed to "enjoy" it; you're supposed to writhe in agony, in the throes of an existential torture; the Hell of existence. Ahh, pain! I love pain!


*No Pain, No Gain.*


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Ah, the beautiful Texan mountains.


I long for the days when this country will go completely atonal; when men can be men and women would be glad of it; when one can order "eggs sunny side down and don't turn them over!" and they won't look at you like you're nuts!

Welcome to my atonal world!


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

I'm quite fond of Schoenberg's string quartets (which really do have the Mozart dissonance flavour) as well as all Berg and some of the 'almost atonal' pieces of Bartók (love all his stuff). Learning some vocal atonal pieces can be quite useful to fill up awkward silences or for self-defence: when somebody wants to hurt you, you just start singing loudly and with a terrifying expressionist acting _Den Wein, den man mit Augen trinkt..._


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> Unpleasant is an understatement. Sorry I don't think there is any hope for me in atonal music. I've tried multiple times.


Can I have that Xenakis cd you bought then? You used to like Xenakis...what happened?


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> I'm quite fond of Schoenberg's string quartets[/I]


Mmm, those quartets are some of the best around. So fresh and progressive, yet not without a warmth of emotion reminiscent of the Romantic era.


----------



## SARDiver (Jan 6, 2014)

I have to admit, this style of music sounds like a soundtrack written for every awkward kid who is too afraid to ask the pretty girl for a dance. Or an aural autopsy. If you like it, more power to you.

My brain is trying, straining, to find some system, some progression, some order. I have failed. My brain has failed. I will now cut my pinky finger off, Yakuza-style, to atone (HA!) for my transgression.


"I don't understand it. They say music can help children learn math. I don't understand why little Johnny's grades are suffering. Apparently, he can't count anymore."


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

hpowders said:


> I long for the days when this country will go completely atonal; when men can be men and women would be glad of it; when one can order "eggs sunny side down and don't turn them over!" and they won't look at you like you're nuts!
> 
> Welcome to my atonal world!


You've got my vote! :tiphat:


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

hpowders said:


> I long for the days when this country will go completely atonal; when men can be men and women would be glad of it; when one can order "eggs sunny side down and don't turn them over!" and they won't look at you like you're nuts!
> 
> Welcome to my atonal world!


The one really great advantage of atonal music is that, thank be to ye gods, it will never be turned into "Hooked on classics" style pop music. Perhaps that is even why composers write that kind of thing in the first place: to make sure that the musical vandals will not come anywhere near it. 



SARDiver said:


> I have to admit, this style of music sounds like a soundtrack written for every awkward kid who is too afraid to ask the pretty girl for a dance. Or an aural autopsy. If you like it, more power to you.


When I first started listening to 20th century classical music, much of it sounded to me like the soundtrack of a horror movie. And that was precisely one of the things that attracted me to it.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

brianvds said:


> The one really great advantage of atonal music is that, thank be to ye gods, it will never be turned into "Hooked on classics" style pop music. Perhaps that is even why composers write that kind of thing in the first place: to make sure that the musical vandals will not come anywhere near it.


Aw, you just have to give people more time. They'll surely funk everything up.

It'll be the "Can't Quite Find the Hook: Atonal Classics!"


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Vesuvius said:


> It'll be the "Can't Quite Find the Hook: Atonal Classics!"


Lol...that's a good one.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

brianvds said:


> The one really great advantage of atonal music is that, thank be to ye gods, it will never be turned into "Hooked on classics" style pop music. Perhaps that is even why composers write that kind of thing in the first place: to make sure that the musical vandals will not come anywhere near it.
> 
> When I first started listening to 20th century classical music, much of it sounded to me like the soundtrack of a horror movie. And that was precisely one of the things that attracted me to it.


I know what you mean-music soundtrack like that of a horror movie, but for me it's the Toccata and Fugue in d Minor by JS Bach.


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

Here's my thoughts on this subject. 

I love classical music. I listen morning, day and night. I just finished listening to some Mendelssohn with my sons and now I'm checking out Schuman's 10th Symphony (Thanks to you know who). I've read many people's stories on how they came to classical. Some by way of upbringing. Other's from schooling. Many on their own. There's also a fairly common gateway, through the likes of the Mozarts and Bachs. Some never leave this comfort zone while others continue on. I frequently check out recommendations of members here, and rarely offer feedback. Why would I comment on something I have such little exposure to?

Having said that, I think there may be four types who venture into the "modern music sound". (Opinion Disclaimer Time!!!)

1. Those who enjoy what they hear (Probably the rarest of the 4 but not certainly not impossible)
2. Those who don't enjoy what they hear, but are willing to return and try again at some point
3. Those who don't enjoy what they hear, and then proceed to lash out at the world
4. Those who don't enjoy what they hear, and then pretend they did in order to fit in (This type of behavior is certainly not unprecedented)

I keep seeing comments about painful listening, or acquired tastes, or sticking with it until you get it. I have no problem with that and my goal is to hopefully find an appreciation of a broad spectrum of music. What I won't do is constantly subject myself to something I don't enjoy. At least not in the immediate future. Why would someone who loves swimming, and owns a beautiful pool, decide to spend most of their time walking across hot coals (because someone they respect or look up to enjoys it)? Sure, try it but why neglect what you love for something you don't really enjoy? And why spend all your time ranting about how stupid walking on hot coals is? Jump in the damn pool already. The last time I checked, there was no merit badge for listing Schoenberg, Webern, and Berg as three of your ten favorite composers. 

Just today I purchased the entire Ring Cycle, Rossini's Overtures, and Gould playing Bach. A few days back I purchased Corelli's complete sonatas for strings (Yep. I'm at it again). To get a full appreciation and sense of familiarity from just those four sets could take months, if I listened to little else. There is absolutely no rush to dive into the 2nd Viennese School, unless it's what I really wanted to do. If it was, I would, and the last thing I'd do is sit around complaining about how "awful" it is. 

Btw, while composing this monstrous post I finished the Schuman Symphony. Meh. I might return to it someday. I might not. I listened with an open mind and maybe I'll listen again someday. If others love it, I'm happy for them. Why on earth would I even consider arguing about, and bashing something I've only heard once?


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Can I have that Xenakis cd you bought then? You used to like Xenakis...what happened?


That one is ok. Just don't like Berg that much. Or basically the Second Viennese School. And yeah my tastes in Classical Music has changed drastically. I wasn't into Romantic Era Music when I first joined here. Now I can't get enough of it.


----------



## Guest (Jan 14, 2014)

scratchgolf said:


> What I won't do is constantly subject myself to something I don't enjoy. At least not in the immediate future. Why would someone who loves swimming, and owns a beautiful pool, decide to spend most of their time walking across hot coals


Since these are two entirely different activities, a better analogy might be, "Why would someone who loves swimming and owns a beautiful pool, decide to swim in the sea?"


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

hpowders said:


> I long for the days when this country will go completely atonal; when men can be men and women would be glad of it; when one can order "eggs sunny side down and don't turn them over!" and they won't look at you like you're nuts!
> 
> Welcome to my atonal world!


I'm not against it until you come up to the line of eating + retrogrades -- neither fun or pretty.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ahammel said:


> Oh Mitsuko...if only you weren't 40 years my senior.


One of the most phenomenally beautiful of performing classical musicians, 'this babe' is somewhere at or over six feet tall, too.
Striking, stunning, and then the persona, and that she so can play....

I can only agree with any man, woman, or child who develops one powerful crush on Ms. Uchida.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

PetrB said:


> One of the most phenomenally beautiful of performing classical musicians, 'this babe' is somewhere at or over six feet tall, too.
> Striking, stunning, and then the persona, and that she so can play....
> 
> I can only agree with any man, woman, or child who develops one powerful crush on Ms. Uchida.


I'm glad I'm not alone!


----------



## Pennypacker (Jul 30, 2013)

neoshredder said:


> Unpleasant is an understatement. Sorry I don't think there is any hope for me in atonal music. I've tried multiple times.


Sooner or later (I hope) you'll realize how pointless it is making predictions about yourself, especially in that age (which I don't actually know, but I've made an educated guess).

"I love A and B! They're the best in the world!" 
A year later: 
"**** A and B! I love C and D now!" 
Then finally: 
"C and D I can appreciate, but they're just not my taste anymore. E and F are great. And what's this G thing? I don't quite get it but it seems interesting. I'll keep exploring" [blue joke alert]


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> That one is ok. Just don't like Berg that much. Or basically the Second Viennese School. And yeah my tastes in Classical Music has changed drastically. I wasn't into Romantic Era Music when I first joined here. Now I can't get enough of it.


Aha! Just enough proof anyone needs that tastes change, no music can be "superior" to listen to...a small group of members on TC _have_ been making...an image of themselves as haters I suppose. Haters gonna hate, but you've just proved otherwise, everyone here _does_ have some sense to understand that by giving the music they dislike a chance hey can warm up to it and enjoy it.

One day you might be a Schoenberg fan, who knows? I used to hate Elgar and Sibelius and Stravinsky! (Well as for Elgar...I still hate those bloody pomp and circumstance marches....)


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

^^^Have you heard Elgar's violin concerto? This guy could write music when inspired to do so.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*So did Elgar.*



ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> (Well as for Elgar...I still hate those bloody pomp and circumstance marches....)


So did Elgar.

I have the great EMI Elgar set. On one of the CD's are recordings of Elgar conducting. One track is recording of Elgar conducting _Land of Hope and Glory_. Before they play it Elgar addresses the orchestra, "Please play this tune as though you never heard it before."


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Aha! Just enough proof anyone needs that tastes change, no music can be "superior" to listen to...a small group of members on TC _have_ been making...an image of themselves as haters I suppose. Haters gonna hate, but you've just proved otherwise, everyone here _does_ have some sense to understand that by giving the music they dislike a chance hey can warm up to it and enjoy it.
> 
> One day you might be a Schoenberg fan, who knows? I used to hate Elgar and Sibelius and Stravinsky! (Well as for Elgar...I still hate those bloody pomp and circumstance marches....)


Even though I was intrigued by Schnittke, Ligeti, and Xenakis at the time, Baroque and the Classical Era were clearly my favorites. But yeah there's no way of predicting the future. And maybe Berg isn't a good starting place for someone trying to get into modern music.


----------



## Guest (Jan 14, 2014)

As someone in scratchgolf's first group, I simply do not understand "trying to get into modern music."

Trying? Try to keep me out of it, I'd say.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> Even though I was intrigued by Schnittke, Ligeti, and Xenakis at the time, Baroque and the Classical Era were clearly my favorites. But yeah there's no way of predicting the future. And maybe Berg isn't a good starting place for someone trying to get into modern music.


For many, Berg is actually an excellent entry into contemporary styles, _but_ I believe that Berg and the Second Viennese School aren't primarily to _your_ taste because, like Brahms, Mahler, and Bruckner (three composers you do not like much in general) their music is arch-Germanic. It is filled with constant development and counterpoint, and fills out the musical space at all times. You've never shown any preference for Germanic music, so is it really surprising that you don't like it in a style that you are unfamiliar with in general?


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> For many, Berg is actually an excellent entry into contemporary styles, _but_ I believe that Berg and the Second Viennese School aren't primarily to _your_ taste because, like Brahms, Mahler, and Bruckner (three composers you do not like much in general) their music is arch-Germanic. It is filled with constant development and counterpoint, and fills out the musical space at all times. You've never shown any preference for Germanic music, so is it really surprising that you don't like it in a style that you are unfamiliar with in general?


That's possible. But I like Mendelssohn, Schubert, and Schumann. And I really haven't given Brahms much listens outside of his Symphonies which some say aren't as accessible as his chamber works. Maybe Ligeti or Schnittke might be more to my taste though. I tend to like that ambient sound of modern times.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

PetrB said:


> I can only agree with any man, woman, or child who develops one powerful crush on Ms. Uchida.


Interesting that we have similar taste in females; intellect, finger dexterity and length! 
Ms. Uchida are free to fondle my Grand Blüthner any time... 

/ptr


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Mahlerian said:


> For many, Berg is actually an excellent entry into contemporary styles


Many listeners find themselves crashing upon Second Viennese though, thinking that Schoenberg & CO are THE doors to anything breaking away from romantic music, while they are merely one of possible ways to go. If somebody finds it entirely unappealing and still wants to explore XXth century, I'd say it's better idea do give him other hint than just keep trying numerous ways of explainations and suggestions meant to make him get into this particular movement.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ptr said:


> Interesting that we have similar taste in females; intellect, finger dexterity and length!
> Ms. Uchida are free to fondle my Grand Blüthner any time...  /ptr


I guess you're saying she can come over and tickle your ivories just about any time?


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Aramis said:


> Many listeners find themselves crashing upon Second Viennese though, thinking that Schoenberg & CO are THE doors to anything breaking away from romantic music, while they are merely one of possible ways to go. If somebody finds it entirely unappealing and still wants to explore XXth century, I'd say it's better idea do give him other hint than just keep trying numerous ways of explainations and suggestions meant to make him get into this particular movement.


Wholeheartedly agree. Prokofiev, Bartok and Stravinsky brought me to C20 as a young fella and I'd recommend that approach to anyone


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

In the end, they are going to have to find their own way. No two people hear the same way or have the same trip in life. There is more than enough information in this forum, let alone the rest of the web, to have a road-map if one is desired. Just open your ears and get on with it.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Can I have that Xenakis cd you bought then? You used to like Xenakis...what happened?


Doesn't everybody?


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Vesuvius said:


> Aw, you just have to give people more time. They'll surely funk everything up.
> 
> It'll be the "Can't Quite Find the Hook: Atonal Classics!"


This has been posted many time, but once again it is relevant and humourous (and shouldn't be taken too seriously or seen as an insult):


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

brianvds said:


> This has been posted many time, but once again it is relevant and humourous (and shouldn't be taken too seriously or seen as an insult):


That is the best thing ever.

(Aside from the story about Bach and the nanny-goat bassoonist, of course.)


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Matthias Bamert definitely had too much time on his hands.


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2014)

Vesuvius said:


> Aw, you just have to give people more time. They'll surely funk everything up.
> 
> It'll be the "Can't Quite Find the Hook: Atonal Classics!"


Like this?


----------

