# Different Flavors of Atonalism



## Melvin (Mar 25, 2011)

Hello folks!

Now that I have been listening to atonal music from time to time for a couple of years, I have come to be able to truly enjoy it. But it depends on the composer. Some sound great to me, and others sound like a cacophony. 

So here is my thought; atonalism can come in many different flavors.

For example, I've always found Webern's music to be much more attractive sounding and approachable as compared to that of Schoenberg. It took me much longer to come around to Schoenberg.

Ginastera's atonalism sounds so colorful that you may forget you are listening to atonal!

And as for Olivier Messiaen, Maurice Ohana? Yes Please!!

Jacques Hétu's classical developments and clearly stated musical ideas makes his 12-tone style sound excellent to my ears.

Samuel Adler sounds good, James Dillon sounds good, Carl Ruggles sounds great...

Yet, I will still find other things to be a torture to try to sit through.

Any thoughts on this?

I know nothing about music theory or any thing like that; I am just an intuitive music listener. Perhaps some one with more knowledge could shed light on this phenomenon?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

A lot comes down to individual composers that have done some atonal music along with other kinds, although there were certain broader movements. The early 12-tone of Schoenberg, Webern, and Berg. The 50's avant garde like Penderecki, Stockhausen. Indeterminate music like Feldman, Cage. Free atonal which actually have elements of tonality like Toch, Stravinsky, early Schoenberg, Bartok. New Complexity like Ferneyhough, Dillon. Total Serialism like Messaien, Boulez.


----------



## Melvin (Mar 25, 2011)

Thanks Phil. The harmonic possibilities of atonalism amaze me. I'm having a lot of fun listening to music!


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Melvin said:


> Hello folks!
> 
> Now that I have been listening to atonal music from time to time for a couple of years, I have come to be able to truly enjoy it. But it depends on the composer. Some sound great to me, and others sound like a cacophony.
> 
> ...


I have had the same experiences that you have had. Atonal music is like tonal. Some of it is better than others.


----------



## Daniel Atkinson (Dec 31, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> Total Serialism like Messaien,


Messiaen? Messiaen? Messiaen? since when was he 1. Atonal and 2. A serialist? 

He composed *1* piece, *1*, *1*

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Atkinson (Dec 31, 2016)

The fact that a thread like this had to be made really shows how low conservative audiences have gotten. All music is different and you can have a hundred composers working with the same tools, yet producing completely different things. It's never been about the tools (tone rows often being a subject of persecution), it's about what they create. The things that have come out of those innovations have been gargantuan and highly diverse, but some people just want to whistle their piano sonata in an elevator. 

It's a sad world, life just isn't fair people 





Daniel


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Daniel Atkinson said:


> Messiaen? Messiaen? Messiaen? since when was he 1. Atonal and 2. A serialist?
> 
> He composed *1* piece, *1*, *1*
> 
> Daniel


It was highly influential and influenced Boulez. There were at least 2 works


----------



## Daniel Atkinson (Dec 31, 2016)

Messiaen influenced a lot of people, not just Boulez. The people he influenced is a long list and varies from movement to genre. 

Soixante-quatre durées is not atonal or serialist but a good organ work




Daniel


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

It's a good organ work. It could also be atonal or serialist but I don't care.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Melvin said:


> So here is my thought; atonalism can come in many different flavors.
> 
> ... Perhaps some one with more knowledge could shed light on this phenomenon?


Well, I'm still trying to settle in on the different flavors of beer, pretzels, and hot wings. And I probably know more about the different flavors of quarks and other small matters than I do atonal music. But what I find encouraging is that you are listening to a wide range of modern composers, and that's good. You needn't like everything. But you'll find favorites and follow them, and way will lead to way. If you like Messiaen and Webern, for instance, you'll eventually pursue composers who were their students or who were influenced by them in one way or another. And way will lead to way, and soon you will have broken into ever new areas of musical expansion. And that's good.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> It was highly influential and influenced Boulez. There were at least 2 works


I don't know why, but I prefer this recording :lol:


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Ohana and Messiaen are two of my very favorite composers, but I'm not sure their music could be considered atonal.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

I don't even consider Ginastera to be 'atonal'.

Bah...'atonal'. Composers have been masking the tonic since Chopin and it had already broken down by Wagner's time. But really I don't want to go here again. It's exhausting.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

cimirro said:


> I don't know why, but I prefer this recording :lol:


Hey, you played it at about 160% the speed of the other version. Is that considered moderate speed (modere)?

What do you think Cimirro, is that and the Livre d'Orgue, considered atonal? Excuse my non-use of accent marks.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Daniel Atkinson said:


> Messiaen? Messiaen? Messiaen? since when was he 1. Atonal and 2. A serialist?
> 
> He composed *1* piece, *1*, *1*
> 
> Daniel


I'm not sure about this, but are the pieces in livre d'orgue "atonal" in some sense?

(Oh I see someone else has asked the same question!)


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

Melvin said:


> Hello folks!
> 
> Now that I have been listening to atonal music from time to time for a couple of years, I have come to be able to truly enjoy it. But it depends on the composer. Some sound great to me, and others sound like a cacophony.
> 
> ...


 Likewise. I love Webern but Schoenberg just bores me.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> Hey, you played it at about 160% the speed of the other version. Is that considered moderate speed (modere)?
> 
> What do you think Cimirro, is that and the Livre d'Orgue, considered atonal? Excuse my non-use of accent marks.


Moderé means Moderato which is often from 108-120, So there is a range of possibilities - I focused in the idea of its maximum.
Anyway, I'm not that crazy about metronomes, often I try to follow my impression of the word (Moderé) in a consensus with my heartbeats.
So this is my own time, I didn't tried to make comparison with metronome to check the result. I enjoyed the "flux", so that is what I wanted.
I know my recording is fast if in comparison with others, but since in the piano all the notes "die" at some point after your playing, i think this speed helps the listener to have a continuous musical idea while listening my version, 
In the others recordings it can sound "lost" or even (in some cases) "boring".

Concerning "Atonal", often we use this word. which is wrong since we deal with different compositional approaches and call all of them "atonal".
In the sense of "tonalism" - Yes, Messiaen is not "tonal" = so it is out of tonal = it is "atonal"
but this is a generic and even a wrong name, see:
Since Messiaen created "modes de valeurs", "modes d'intensités" and a modal melodic line - this is a "modal work" (yes, this is not in the so called "7 Greek modes")
Messiaen made his own "sound environment" with his modes. He is not just "out of tonal" - so "atonal" is wrong.
Anyway I don't care if someone says "atonal", I only care if a professional composer or a composition student says that - then we have a problem.

late Scriabin is another example - "atonal" is wrong to use because he made a system based in the 4ths and the Mystic Chord used in Prometheus,

The dodecaphony, on the other hand, was created to "completely get out of the tonal world" - so* in some aspects* this would be the best use for "atonal" - Anyway Schoenberg must be very angry with me now since he disliked the use of the word "atonal" - and because of our respect to him we do not use the word to described his music.

Anyway, this are too much "names" and few "musical acts" for a forum.
so for general people in a forum, mostly not interested in music after 1850 - Atonal is fine. :lol:

All the best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## Melvin (Mar 25, 2011)

Thanks for responding everyone. I had expected that the label "atonal" would be disputed. And I was hoping to learn some of the insights of other forum members, and to provoke disputes. I don't know anything about modes or modulations or what not, I only know when something sounds not tonal.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

cimirro said:


> Moderé means Moderato which is often from 108-120, So there is a range of possibilities - I focused in the idea of its maximum.
> Anyway, I'm not that crazy about metronomes, often I try to follow my impression of the word (Moderé) in a consensus with my heartbeats.
> So this is my own time, I didn't tried to make comparison with metronome to check the result. I enjoyed the "flux", so that is what I wanted.
> I know my recording is fast if in comparison with others, but since in the piano all the notes "die" at some point after your playing, i think this speed helps the listener to have a continuous musical idea while listening my version,
> ...


So it sounds like you're differentiating the meaning of atonal in the lack of tonal centre from the lack of organization based on tones?


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> So it sounds like you're differentiating the meaning of atonal in the lack of tonal centre from the lack of organization based on tones?


Unless you plan to discuss the new possibilities of conceptualizing the words, "Atonal" must be the opposite to "Tonal".
In music, "atonal" will not represent most part of modern music, since there are different techniques for organizing sound, some related to tonal music, and some not.
Several compositional systems will not make a "standard major/minor chrod" looks like a problem if used - check Scriabin, Busoni, Sorabji, Szanto, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Varese, Messiaen, etc etc. So it will not be the real opposite to tonalism - so not atonal at all.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> It was highly influential and influenced Boulez. There were at least 2 works


Artur, what do you think of Tanke's performance then?


----------



## Myriadi (Mar 6, 2016)

cimirro said:


> Anyway I don't care if someone says "atonal", I only care if a professional composer or a composition student says that - then we have a problem.


Uh, about that...



The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians said:


> *Atonality*. A term that may be used in three senses: first, to describe all music which is not tonal; second, to describe all music which is neither tonal nor serial; and third, to describe specifically the post-tonal and pre-12-note music of Berg, Webern and Schoenberg. [...] Atonality may be seen roughly to delimit two kinds of music: (1) That in which there is no such contextual definition with reference to triads, diatonic scales or keys, but in which there are, nonetheless, hierarchical distinctions among pitches. This category would include some of the works of Schoenberg, Stravinsky and Hindemith. The inadequacy of theories of tonality in dealing with this music lends support to such a classification. (2) That in which such hierarchical distinctions are not so explicit, though sometimes present. This includes some of the pre-serial music of Webern, Schoenberg and, to a lesser extent, Berg.


----------



## Melvin (Mar 25, 2011)

That's a nice one there Myriadi.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Casebearer said:


> Artur, what do you think of Tanke's performance then?


I'm unable to make a critic on the performance since I do not know the score (Most part of my collection is for piano solo - I have almost no organ works composed after Duruflé in score format)
So, If I make a critic at all, this will be only about a taste based in the sound heard here and in the lack of knowledge (from my part) of this score - 
As a professional I don't do that because - 1 - it is just an useless personal opinion - and 2 - I'm an ignorant if I criticize something I don't know.

If you really wants me to share my opinion here i'll need you to provide me the score... but i don't think my opinion is that important... maybe Kevin Bowyer is the right "organ guy" to ask! 

All the best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Myriadi said:


> Uh, about that...


Well, being a musician using "The New Grove" is the same that working with NASA just by reading Wikipedia - I can't see this with "good eyes".

But ok, let me be a boring guy



> "first, to describe all music which is not tonal:"


So, early renascence is "atonal"



> "second, to describe all music which is neither tonal nor serial"


Ok, so here dodecaphony (which is not "serialism") is allowed since it is "atonal" together with all modal music written and earlier works composed/written since the world began?



> "and third, to describe specifically the post-tonal and pre-12-note music of Berg, Webern and Schoenberg."


Nice, Scriabin, Stravinsky, Busoni, Szanto, Prokofiev, Bartok, etc etc - all of them use the same compositional methods! the "Atonality" isn't it easy to teach and learn? Now please, make a composition in this style and let's see where are the similarities with these composers...

The people can use the word "atonal" in any sense they want, that means nothing.

Maybe the new grove is (still) nice when you are starting a research, but it is full of mistakes and we have several people who wrote a lot of bulls**t inside it. (and it is far, too far, too much far, terrible far, stupidity far, hell what a darkness of far, of being a complete book(s))

sorry... 
All the best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## Myriadi (Mar 6, 2016)

cimirro said:


> Well, being a musician using "The New Grove" is the same that working with NASA just by reading Wikipedia - I can't see this with "good eyes".


How is that? Anybody can edit Wikipedia, but last time I checked, Grove was only written by professionals. My own experience with it has been very positive.



cimirro said:


> So, early renascence is "atonal"


Did you mean "Renaissance"? And yes, understanding tonal as TSDT etc., I can see the logic behind that definition, although I wouldn't go with it myself. Same goes for the next sentence in your reply.



cimirro said:


> Nice, Scriabin, Stravinsky, Busoni, Szanto, Prokofiev, Bartok, etc etc - all of them use the same compositional methods!


I fail to see how you've inferred this from the Grove text. To me it doesn't suggest anything of the kind.



cimirro said:


> Maybe the new grove is (still) nice when you are starting a research, but it is full of mistakes and we have several people who wrote a lot of bulls**t inside it. (and it is far, too far, too much far, terrible far, stupidity far, hell what a darkness of far, of being a complete book(s))


Not sure what you're so worked up about, but like they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. NG and MGG are the two de facto standard reference works (nobody said an article in an encyclopedia is the same as a book on its topic) in the professional music world. Which is why I've quoted NG to you - you implied professionals shouldn't use the term atonal in some way or other. Can you give us a list of some of the "bullsh**t", as you call it, in NG, together with academic studies rebuking said "bullsh**t"?



cimirro said:


> sorry...


Frankly, I find your attitude extremely arrogant, and I'm very tempted to reply "you should be."


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

cimirro said:


> So, early renascence is "atonal"


The Grove entry should have limited the statement to "all music of the modern era." In my experience, the term is never used for pre-tonal music.



cimirro said:


> Nice, Scriabin, Stravinsky, Busoni, Szanto, Prokofiev, Bartok, etc etc - all of them use the same compositional methods! the "Atonality" isn't it easy to teach and learn? Now please, make a composition in this style and let's see where are the similarities with these composers...


No, they did not all use the same compositional methods. Not even close.



cimirro said:


> The people can use the word "atonal" in any sense they want, that means nothing.
> 
> Maybe the new grove is (still) nice when you are starting a research, but it is full of mistakes and we have several people who wrote a lot of bulls**t inside it. (and it is far, too far, too much far, terrible far, stupidity far, hell what a darkness of far, of being a complete book(s))


Grove is just describing, pretty accurately, how the term has been used by theorists, historians and musicians. The entry is not prescriptive - it is not telling us how the term should be used or indeed whether it should be used at all.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

_Quote Originally Posted by The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians
Atonality. A term that may be used in three senses: first, to describe all music which is not tonal; second, to describe all music which is neither tonal nor serial; and third, to describe specifically the post-tonal and pre-12-note music of Berg, Webern and Schoenberg. [...] Atonality may be seen roughly to delimit two kinds of music: (1) That in which there is no such contextual definition with reference to triads, diatonic scales or keys, but in which there are, nonetheless, hierarchical distinctions among pitches. This category would include some of the works of Schoenberg, Stravinsky and Hindemith. The inadequacy of theories of tonality in dealing with this music lends support to such a classification. (2) That in which such hierarchical distinctions are not so explicit, though sometimes present. This includes some of the pre-serial music of Webern, Schoenberg and, to a lesser extent, Berg._

The problem seems to be the use of the words tonal, serial, and atonal containing different meanings by different people.

In the first sense of atonal by New Grove, 'Tonal' seems to be used, at least when defining atonal, to include modal music in having a tonal centre, although technically modal music is the larger definition and includes tonal as here: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Musical_mode

On the second sense, some people describe dodecaphony as 12-tone serialism, which is why they later use the term total serialism for that in additional to pitch/tones.

In the third sense, the post-tonal pre-12 tone music of Berg, Webern and Schoenberg has been called "free atonality" by some. This would include some Scriabin, Bartok.


----------



## Myriadi (Mar 6, 2016)

Just to be clear, I've only quoted the beginning of the Grove article. I'm assuming quoting the entire thing would be in violation of copyright.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Myriadi said:


> How is that? Anybody can edit Wikipedia, but last time I checked, Grove was only written by professionals. My own experience with it has been very positive.
> 
> Did you mean "Renaissance"? And yes, understanding tonal as TSDT etc., I can see the logic behind that definition, although I wouldn't go with it myself. Same goes for the next sentence in your reply.
> 
> ...


A lot of people enters this forums quoting books they barely read and using definitions based in their own opinions (actually not their own opinions since these opinions are available to read in CD booklets and/or critics about CDs), often they argue mentioning "but Mr.X told that" (meaning they never had a deep study on anything - and I am the arrogant?
I'm not here to accept your opinion as a true one and be a nice guy.

I'm a professional, and If I'm telling you Grove is full of errors why don't you think about it?
You want proves? Check my CD booklets and go back to grove THERE ARE ALL THE EVIDENCES YOU WANT.

Have you ever checked the several posts I made in this forum about my work?

Have you checked my book (Scientific System of Interpretation or Musical Hermeneutics)?

Have you listened my free master-class on Beethoven available on internet?

If all the answers are NO, of course, probably you are expecting me to make a lot of text here to explain several of these errors. I just don't understand why you think an artist needs to work for free. (probably artists, since they do what they want, they do not need money, eat, sleep, etc etc - this is what society often think...)

Concerning Scriabin, Stravinsky, Busoni, etc. They all made what people call "atonal" music. Anyway if you really study music you will notice they made a new approach to their works which will never be the same as calling all of them "atonalists". So you need to label each one in a better way then call them atonalists. So it is a wrong use.
By the way, I teach composition and I'm a composer myself, the free "Meridional Seasons Op.30" I'm posting monthly (which you probably have never checked) is just a very simple suite of miniatures, check my website for my complete list of works, and there is a CD with my compositions made in the Stuart & Sons pianos - do you know this pianos or you still live under the rules of Steinway? - So if you have any doubts about what I do, you can check.

So, no, I'm not arrogant, there is a huge difference in being arrogant and being a professional speaking to people who are writing things in a very arrogant way that hardly could comes from a professional.

Here is my link: www.arturcimirro.com.br if you want to check my background
I encourage you to make the same giving yours or at least, check all my references (book, cd booklets, etc) and prove me wrong.
Then, if you prove me wrong, ok, you can call me arrogant again.

If you are not open to learn something here I'm pretty sure you are someone I have nothing to learn from.

Yes, I mean "Renaissance" (I'm not from English speaking country so this kind of mistake is not that bad I think.)

And again, Grove can be a "starting book" for a research, but is FULL of errors, and I NEVER recommend it as a "great reference book", I always prefer to make the research based in the letters inside the libraries. 
And, yes, people can use "Atonal" where they want. But this will not make a truth when it comes to the deep teaching in composition and music.



EdwardBast said:


> The Grove entry should have limited the statement to "all music of the modern era." In my experience, the term is never used for pre-tonal music.


The problem is not the grove, is the use the people do of it and the way they understand what is written inside it.



EdwardBast said:


> No, they did not all use the same compositional methods. Not even close.


Yes, this is what I mean, I teach this.



EdwardBast said:


> Grove is just describing, pretty accurately, how the term has been used by theorists, historians and musicians. The entry is not prescriptive - it is not telling us how the term should be used or indeed whether it should be used at all.


Again, the problem is not the grove, is the use the people do of it and the way they understand what is written inside it.
Of course they are describing how the term is used, but "being used" is different of "being correct for professional use"

Someone who can't understand the difference between Serial and Dodecaphony is not able to discuss such difference.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2017)

Melvin said:


> So here is my thought; atonalism can come in many different flavors.


Typically, when a "style" is only defined by the absence of another singular "style", that does tend to yield infinite results by definition. For instance, there is only one poster classified as Melvin, but there are tens of thousands that could reasonably be classified as aMelvin (and an incomprehensibly large number of combinatorial possibilities of letters and numbers that could yield new aMelvin posters). Not a particularly useful term, but there you have it.

Examples of composers who often did not compose tonal music include Debussy, Stockhausen, Cage, Ferrari, Karkowski, Lucier, Yoshihide, Dumitrescu, etc etc etc.... Personally, if someone told me that they lumped all of those guys together under one tag, I'd be a tad bit puzzled.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Seems like whenever the word 'atonal' gets thrown around it leads to some heated discussions and awkward moments. Let's introduce a banning of that word on the forum. Do we need a poll :lol:


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> Seems like whenever the word 'atonal' gets thrown around it leads to some heated discussions and awkward moments. Let's introduce a banning of that word on the forum. Do we need a poll :lol:


We can ban it only if someone can suggest a useful alternative that would get broader support.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> The Grove entry should have limited the statement to "all music of the modern era." In my experience, the term is never used for pre-tonal music.


Actually, the term atonal _has _been applied to Renaissance music, in Edward Lowinsky's book Tonality and Atonality in Sixteenth-century Music: https://books.google.com/books?id=L... atonality in sixteenth-century music&f=false I personally don't agree with Lowinsky's use of this term for pre-tonal music, and I think it reflects the overall tendency to use the term too loosely - but in any case, the Grove article does accurately describe the broad usage of the term, even though I (and some others) may deplore that usage.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

JAS said:


> We can ban it only if someone can suggest a useful alternative that would get broader support.


Actually "ban" is not useful nor necessary for the word "atonal".
The problem is when someone give an information (like I did) that atonal is not the "right word" to explain a compositional process of several composers no matter which book mention this, and people starts "huuuu you are perverse, and bad, and you do not love people, and you kill animals, and you are arrogant, and your are a son of a devil" - this kind of "act" should be banned from people's head when discussing in a forum.

I just read in another post someone "deciding" that Beethoven was wrong with his metronome markings (and I am the arrogant guy?) because at some point they read quickly on internet about a research made long ago based in a tradition of playing Op106 from XIX century. That kind of research that, in its best use, can be used only as toilet paper.
And I am the arrogant because I can explain what is wrong, but no one wants to check the available material...

weird...


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

cimirro said:


> Actually "ban" is not useful nor necessary for the word "atonal".
> The problem is when someone give an information (like I did) that atonal is not the "right word" to explain a compositional process of several composers no matter which book mention this, and people starts "huuuu you are perverse, and bad, and you do not love people, and you kill animals, and you are arrogant, and your are a son of a devil" - this kind of "act" should be banned from people's head when discussing in a forum.
> 
> I just read in another post someone "deciding" that Beethoven was wrong with his metronome markings (and I am the arrogant guy?) because at some point they read quickly on internet about a research made long ago based in a tradition of playing Op106 from XIX century. That kind of research that, in its best use, can be used only as toilet paper.
> ...


Well, in fairness, if you're going to interepret the word "arrogant" to mean "you kill animals" and "you are a son of a devil", I think it might be reasonable to question your interpretation of the word "atonal"! (j/k)


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Bettina said:


> Actually, the term atonal _has _been applied to Renaissance music, in Edward Lowinsky's book Tonality and Atonality in Sixteenth-century Music: https://books.google.com/books?id=L... atonality in sixteenth-century music&f=false I personally don't agree with Lowinsky's use of this term for pre-tonal music, and I think it reflects the overall tendency to use the term too loosely - but in any case, the Grove article does accurately describe the broad usage of the term, even though I (and some others) may deplore that usage.


The only reference to the "A" word in that excerpt is that the 16th century music was not tonal or atonal in the later used sense. So modal is not atonal, while according to the first definition on New Grove, it would be since it is not tonal. A lot of overlap and exclusions between the terms, and people using it differently makes it quite a mess.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Nereffid said:


> Well, in fairness, if you're going to interepret the word "arrogant" to mean "you kill animals" and "you are a son of a devil", I think it might be reasonable to question your interpretation of the word "atonal"! (j/k)


I'm not "interpreting" any word. 
What I mean is: in a discussion about classical music any kind of "personal attack" must be banned no matter if the word is "arrogant" or any other of my "funny" examples.

I can't believe you really read what is being written in this thread! And it is difficult to believe you are really interested in any discussion about music if you keep going in this way.

Anyway I'm not here to satisfy the "will of power" of wanna-be-critics from a forum, if someone wants to use the information I gave, that's good, if not, no problems. But personal attacks are not supposed to be used in a place where people are supposed to share information about music.
If you do not want to read, study or learn something, that is ok, it is up to you. But if you want to teach something, THEN first you need learn about it. And very often I read people writing wrong informations from wikipedia and bad books here. 
(And while Grove is not "bad", it is not "amazing" too.)

I do my study daily and the results are available easily in the internet and in my works - would like to check? do it! 
If you do not check, your words about me are of no value at all and I'm just wasting time with someone who do not deserve one single second of my life time. I'm not here to change anyone's opinion - you do what you want - and I decide if I want to use my time again or not.

Artur Cimirro


----------



## Melvin (Mar 25, 2011)

Thanks everyone. I'm here to learn.


----------



## Myriadi (Mar 6, 2016)

cimirro said:


> I'm not here to accept your opinion as a true one and be a nice guy.


What "opinion" is that? You've said it's a problem when a professional uses the word "atonal". I quoted Grove's article on the term "Atonality", from which it is quite clear that the term has been used numerous times by musicians, musicologists, composers, and other professionals. It's not an opinion that they use it - it's a fact.

We can do without Grove entirely. Just search Google Scholar for academic publications on "atonal music":
https://scholar.google.ru/scholar?hl=en&q=atonal+music&btnG=&as_sdt=1,5&as_sdtp=

So while the word "atonal" is ambiguous, it's a fact that it is _not_ a problem when a professional uses it (provided they explain their understanding of the term, or it's obvious from the context). It's also a fact that Grove (among other sources) discusses in detail how people have treated the term throughout the years.

As for the rest of your post (and your next posts), it is completely off topic, but I'll offer this one paragraph in reply, because I'm offended by your implications of a personal attack on my part. In your first post you have:
* insulted academics who wrote for NG ("several people ... wrote a lot of bulls**t inside it")
* insulted/dismissed people who use the term "atonal" in general, saying they don't matter ("the people can use the word [but] that means nothing")
* offended me by comparing me to someone using Wikipedia for serious research, and then assumed a condescending attitude ("But ok, let me be a boring guy")
Merriam-Webster's definition of "arrogance" is "an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions", which I thought your insults, condescension, and outrageous claims perfectly fit. And when I asked for evidence of your claims, you once again manage to be condescending and offensive:



cimirro said:


> I'm a professional, and If I'm telling you Grove is full of errors why don't you think about it?


"Because I personally know plenty of professional composers and performers who think otherwise." would be my answer. I'm sure you'd like to talk trash about them just as you did about Grove authors, so please don't bother replying.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

JAS said:


> We can ban it only if someone can suggest a useful alternative that would get broader support.


Maybe the forum should use software that automatically censors out the word atonal. The software could be programmed to replace some letters with asterisks: atonal would become a**nal.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Myriadi said:


> What "opinion" is that? You've said it's a problem when a professional uses the word "atonal". I quoted Grove's article on the term "Atonality", from which it is quite clear that the term has been used numerous times by musicians, musicologists, composers, and other professionals. It's not an opinion that they use it - it's a fact.
> 
> We can do without Grove entirely. Just search Google Scholar for academic publications on "atonal music":
> https://scholar.google.ru/scholar?hl=en&q=atonal+music&btnG=&as_sdt=1,5&as_sdtp=
> ...


Myriadi,

If you do not want to think about what I said, it is ok, but what are you doing in a forum? (quite curious)

I have not insulted all the academics, but, YES, there are a lot of BAD academics who wrote in the new grove since I found some ridiculous informations which are not related to what really happened in several biographies. I can mention several ones, because I started a lot of my research with such books in the past, anyway I'll give one single example: 
Check Carl Tausig biography on Grove and check my CD booklet and you will notice the difference.

And often, it is very hard to me to respect some academics and performers who, for more than 200 years now, still can't read clearly what Beethoven wrote in a musical score and often are called specialists on these matters.
Do you want a prove?
http://opusdissonus.com.br/CIMIRRO_studio-master-class_001.htm

(if you don't want to check what I'm mentioning it is not my fault... I'm sorry - but if you really check it, why don't you reply about that?)

I'm not insulting people who use the word 'atonal'.
I'm saying that using this word means nothing to the act of teaching composition - no matter who says that.
Anyway, it is ok to use the word if you are out of a serious composition class.

I'm not offending "you", because I'm not comparing "you" - I don't know you as far as I remember...
I'm saying that ANYONE who use Grove as a "great" reference is doing a bad job. (Actually I have no idea what is your job, so how can this be a personal thing?) These books (Grove) are staring points for a research, not the final point.

I think (and here is my real opinion) when people are not professionals and try to discuss with a professional claiming he is wrong but at the same time shows no interest at all in checking what the person is offering as reply, then here we have a good example of real arrogance. Not sure if this is your case. But I admit I have this impression since I'm offering a lot of information which you do not want check - reference to my book, the link, cds booklet, and any other information necessary.

Do you still prefer to say "I personally know plenty of professional composers and performers who think otherwise."?

Then there is nothing I can do, this is not a decent end for a discussion... but ok... be happy with your "Grove acknowledgement".
Sometimes I have the impression some people here discuss more about their beliefs than about any knowledge, and are more interested in "appear" than "discover". (and no, I'm not insulting all the forum members, there are a lot of good people here which I'm very happy to read and learn things from time to time).

All the best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## Melvin (Mar 25, 2011)

The reason I thought of this topic is because of how *Leonard Slatkin* introduced "Ginastera's Piano concerto no. 1" when they performed it in concert one night at the DSO. (He sometimes likes to give a word of introduction before starting some pieces.) He said "I like to perform this piece because it is an atonal piece that almost sounds tonal." Not an exact quote but something to that extent, if I am remembering correctly... and that for this reason it is more approachable for audiences, that it is so colorful one would forget it was atonal. But he definitely used the words "atonal" and "tonal". Why did he use those words?


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Melvin said:


> The reason I thought of this topic is because of how *Leonard Slatkin* introduced "Ginastera's Piano concerto no. 1" when they performed it in concert one night at the DSO. (He sometimes likes to give a word of introduction before starting some pieces.) He said "I like to perform this piece because it is an atonal piece that almost sounds tonal." Not an exact quote but something to that extent, if I am remembering correctly... and that for this reason it is more approachable for audiences, that it is so colorful one would forget it was atonal. But he definitely used the words "atonal" and "tonal". Why did he use those words?


This use seems ok, he was in front of a public, this is not a place for "teaching" the real sense of words, and this kind of use can maybe make someone from this public become curious enough and start listening to other works which are often called also "atonal" - since a lot of people say "I hate atonal music" before even knowing what kind of compositions were made out of the tonality system.

So probably he used this because the work is not a "tonal work" in the same sense of the most famous pieces of standard repertoire known by the main public (piano concertos by Chopin, Tchaikowsky, Grieg, etc) 
Tonal or Atonal is related to the way the pieces were composed concerning the organization of sounds in its harmony.
(Anyway if you try to find information about the differences of composers who are often called "atonal", you will notice there are too many different techniques and it will be bad to call them simple "atonal" - and this started the discussion I was just involved in  )

All the best
Artur


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Despite the tone of the discussion, I completely agree with Artur Cimirro about the use of 'atonal'. It is used in its general sense because the word as popularly used has made an impression on the general consciousness and is a convenient container term. There are many words like this in many disciplines where the usage among professionals differs markedly.

The problem is this usage ends up replicating the myths and the falsehoods. Composition as it is now taught is really not fixated on the huge chasm that occupies the wider listening public. Modern harmony, for example, really deals with parts of harmony that some here would find "offensive".


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> Despite the tone of the discussion, I completely agree with Artur Cimirro about the use of 'atonal'. It is used in its general sense because the word as popularly used has made an impression on the general consciousness and is a convenient container term. There are many words like this in many disciplines where the usage among professionals differs markedly.
> 
> The problem is this usage ends up replicating the myths and the falsehoods. Composition as it is now taught is really not fixated on the huge chasm that occupies the wider listening public. Modern harmony, for example, really deals with parts of harmony that some here would find "offensive".


Yes, in spite of the pleasant tone, this thread actually cleared up the uses of the word in much less pages than the "most polarizing composer" thread where different uses of the word seemed to have been mistakenly presumed. We can thank New Grove for that.


----------



## Melvin (Mar 25, 2011)

Thanks forum! I think we've actually landed on a good conclusion after all. This has broadened my understanding of the usage of the term and of it's pitfalls, and the problems between the general usage and the specific usage. And of course I am naive on the technical matters, since I am only an enthusiastic listener with no academic knowledge.

And in the least, one mustn't toss around the "A" word on this forum lightly, lest the pitch-fork wielding villagers be upon you!

Happy listening. :cheers:


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Melvin said:


> Thanks forum! I think we've actually landed on a good conclusion after all. This has broadened my understanding of the usage of the term and of it's pitfalls, and the problems between the general usage and the specific usage. And of course I am naive on the technical matters, since I am only an enthusiastic listener with no academic knowledge.
> 
> And in the least, one mustn't toss around the "A" word on this forum lightly, lest the pitch-fork wielding villagers be upon you!
> 
> Happy listening. :cheers:


Like Bettina suggested eloquently, let's use the word "****" for that A- word

Oops, looks like it got consored.


----------

