# Listening Intelligently to Atonal Music II



## millionrainbows

This time, the music is Stockhausen.






This is all woodwinds, so the piece is connected to human breath, and its capacity to make notes, so this is naturally translated into the factor of time; how long can a player sustain a note, how fast can a player play a sequence of notes, and other human factors which are part of what creates the actual form of the piece. "Zeit" is time, and so this piece consists of "masses" or "measures" of time, as gestures.

WIK provides valuable information:

There are five general categories of "time measures", which are found both separately and in various combinations:


Metronomically measured tempos, in twelve different degrees, measured as a chromatic scale
"As fast as possible", dependent on the abilities of the player and the nature of the musical passage
"As slow as possible", with the passage to be performed in one breath
Fast, slowing down to about a quarter the initial speed
Slow, speeding up to "as fast as possible"
An important aspect of the piece is an absence of thinking in terms of separate voices. Instead, there are note complexes (or "chords") which may be shaped in several ways. The notes may be struck together and then drop out one by one, or do the opposite by entering one at a time and building up into a dense structure. During a sustained chord the internal dynamics may change as different instruments enter or fade away. Individual lines tend to disappear in favour of changing statistical densities, and transitions between the linear and the simultaneous is always present.

Although it is a serial composition, this matters most on the levels of rhythm, polyphony (control of density), and articulation. Serial pitch (dodecaphonic) procedures are not terribly important from the listener's perspective. The decisive thing is a very homogeneous and rigorous harmonic texture conforming to the principles of Webernism. 
Put another way, what matters most is gesture, which is the product of contour, intensity, and note density. However, in both the melodic and harmonic realms, and especially in slow passages, Stockhausen strongly favours the succession of a semitone and a major or minor third.

With this information in mind, listen to the music as "gestures." The music does begin to take on an animated character, as if there was an intelligence "in" the sound itself, like some sort of meta-voice.

It's a wind quintet. Starting out slowly, with chirps of isolated instruments, then quickly forming into coordinated events, producing interesting "chords." Notice how "gesture" plays a role; seemingly unrelated linear elements suddenly slow and "fuse" into dense harmonic textures; then single-note runs are executed in sync, and just as suddenly separate and diffuse into disparate lines. Certain passages begin exactly together, then separate into disjointedness.

At this point, it's interesting to try to hear how the above-listed instructions (as fast as possible, etc) are affecting what we are hearing. There are rather extended sections where all the instruments are playing exactly in sync; it is the contrasting 'chaotic' passages which cause us to wonder how this is all being coordinated and controlled, and how tightly.

It's a wonderful piece of music, and one of the first pieces that propelled Stockhausen to fame in the 1950s.

Did you "like" it? Or is that a rather absurd question, considering that this "sound object/statement" seems to be self-sufficient and quite fulfilling on a basic level beyond our mere whim.


----------



## Phil loves classical

I think a large part of my enjoyment is in the timbre of the winds, especially on the the denser parts, and they are all still clearly articulated. If it was on synthesizers, I wonder doubt I could still like it. It is not that clear on Wikipedia how he actually came up with the sequences of pitches and tempi in the lines. Whether they were random generated, or carefully selected to integrate with the other voices. I find it a lot easier on the ears than Cage's Music of Changes total serialism which is random, and wonder if it is the woodwinds, or because it is not random (if that is the case).


----------



## Guest

How dare you try to tell me how to listen to this!!!


----------



## Guest




----------



## fluteman

My college flute teacher went to Germany on a Fulbright scholarship and studied with a Stockhausen, so I'm along-time student of his music. This is a great example of what I was discussing earlier, how when harmony is de-emphasized (not abandoned entirely in this case, as the WIK notes mention), other elements, such as timbre, texture, dynamics, tempi, and sometimes most importantly of all (but not here, I think) rhythm, become much more important and noticeable. As Phil loves classical points out, this is a woodwind quintet, where there is a lot of potential for contrasts in timbre. If the composer's goal was to create a piece most compelling from a rhythmic standpoint, other instrumentation might work better.


----------



## isorhythm

millionrainbows said:


> Did you "like" it? Or is that a rather absurd question, considering that this "sound object/statement" seems to be self-sufficient and quite fulfilling on a basic level beyond our mere whim.


I do like it but I have no idea what you mean by this.


----------



## millionrainbows

_Did you "like" it? Or is that a rather absurd question, considering that this "sound object/statement" seems to be self-sufficient and quite fulfilling on a basic level beyond our mere whim._



isorhythm said:


> I do like it but I have no idea what you mean by this.


Well, "Did you like it?" sounds a bit like American Bandstand. _"Yes, it's got a good beat, and you can dance to it! I'll give it a 90, Dick!"
_


----------



## FranzS

millionrainbows said:


> With this information in mind, listen to the music as "gestures."


music is a sensory experience, when the sensory experience leaves you cold there is no information/erudition/whatever to make it better. I have listened to this piece for seven minutes, then I have decided that I had had enough of it, reading the information in your opening post it is interesting, but the appreciation of the music cannot come from it: music is fundamentally useless and stupid, there is no way to listening to it intelligently and if there is then it is a waste of intelligence.


----------



## JeffD

This one leaves me cold. It seems to be attempting to avoid meaning at every turn. Scrambling the sense it might make at every opportunity. Its hard to stay focused as it seem deliberately trying to remove objects upon which I might focus.

Compare, for example, to Stockhausen's Formel, which to me sounds like there is great meaning just out of reach, in a different language or not quite audible. It keeps me "in the game" pulling me along straining to "get it". Like attending a lecture in a branch of mathematics I am not familiar with. I know its math but I can't quite follow.


----------



## Woodduck

This is the sort of music that engenders in me three successive feelings: 1. "Oh dear, not another one of those honking, quacking, burping, shapeless, dated, serialist, mid-20th-century things!" 2. "Hmmm... These are rather interesting sounds. Let's follow along and see how long the composer's inventiveness with timbres and gestures holds my interest." 3. "OK, I get it. I'm tired of ejaculatory noises. I can stop it now, go fix a snack, and put on, say, Sibelius, for whom harmony, timbre, and rhythm - and, oh yes, melody (!) - interesting in themselves, are fused into a higher vision."

I can't help thinking of Tom Wolfe's "The Painted Word," which describes the way in which abstract painting from that era was "explained" - and made more attractive and fashionable for otherwise clueless viewers - by art critics who presumed to tell people how to look at it and what it meant. The essay is quite funny - much funnier than serialist theory, I suspect (or maybe not).


----------



## KenOC

millionrainbows said:


> This is all woodwinds, so the piece is connected to human breath, and its capacity to make notes, so this is naturally translated into the factor of time; how long can a player sustain a note, how fast can a player play a sequence of notes, and other human factors which are part of what creates the actual form of the piece. "Zeit" is time, and so this piece consists of "masses" or "measures" of time, as gestures...


I find myself quite unable to respond to this without severely testing the boundaries of acceptable discourse here. For instance, I might refer to it as "pretentious artspeak", but even such a mild characterization could be construed as unacceptable in this age of political correctness, where the avoidance of giving offense is valued over honesty and common sense. So, sensibly, I will remain...silent.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

I like it..............................


----------



## isorhythm

Woodduck said:


> This is the sort of music that engenders in me three successive feelings: 1. "Oh dear, not another one of those honking, quacking, burping, shapeless, dated, serialist, mid-20th-century things!" 2. "Hmmm... These are rather interesting sounds. Let's follow along and see how long the composer's inventiveness with timbres and gestures holds my interest." 3. "OK, I get it. I'm tired of ejaculatory noises. I can stop it now, go fix a snack, and put on, say, Sibelius, for whom harmony, timbre, and rhythm - and, oh yes, melody (!) - interesting in themselves, are fused into a higher vision."


million - I like the piece better than Woodduck does, but agree that he's identified a basic problem with this kind of music. The problem is that it is, like you say, about "gestures." That's not enough! I mean it's enough to keep me reasonably interested for the length of this piece but it's just not as interesting as music where pitch and rhythm carry more meaning, and never will be.

My favorite Stockhausen piece is _Mantra_ - a piece where he's found a way to make pitch meaningful again.


----------



## JeffD

millionrainbows said:


> Starting out slowly, with chirps of isolated instruments, then quickly forming into coordinated events, producing interesting "chords." Notice how "gesture" plays a role; seemingly unrelated linear elements suddenly slow and "fuse" into dense harmonic textures; then single-note runs are executed in sync, and just as suddenly separate and diffuse into disparate lines. Certain passages begin exactly together, then separate into disjointedness.


Three people on right side of the stage. Then one person moves to the left. Two on one side one on the other. Then they all go to the couch, but only two sit, while one walks back and forth flailing hands about. I don't know the rules of the game but I think we won.

I will call the above play Zeitmasse II. And hire mrainbows to write up the playbills.


----------



## mmsbls

I'm generally not a big fan of Stockhausen, but I did enjoy this to some extent. I'd probably have to listen more to see if I felt there were enough for me put it on my list of works to get.


----------



## millionrainbows

_


millionrainbows said:



This is all woodwinds, so the piece is connected to human breath, and its capacity to make notes, so this is naturally translated into the factor of time; how long can a player sustain a note, how fast can a player play a sequence of notes, and other human factors which are part of what creates the actual form of the piece. "Zeit" is time, and so this piece consists of "masses" or "measures" of time, as gestures…

Click to expand...

_


KenOC said:


> I find myself quite unable to respond to this without severely testing the boundaries of acceptable discourse here. For instance, I might refer to it as "pretentious artspeak", but even such a mild characterization could be construed as unacceptable in this age of political correctness, where the avoidance of giving offense is valued over honesty and common sense. So, sensibly, I will remain...silent.



So with these ideas in mind, it is obvious that a new way of listening is called for here, in order to "intelligently" grasp the piece. How many listeners are prepared enough, experienced enough, open enough, adventurous enough, to even attempt an understanding of music such as this?

It seems to me that music like this is for 'special people' with special abilities of "being," and not for closed minds. The average American "classical music" enthusiast is very likely to view this music, this paradigm, this mindset, this artistic intuitiveness, as "suspect" and "irrational."


----------



## millionrainbows

_


millionrainbows said:



With this information in mind, listen to the music as "gestures."

Click to expand...

_


FranzS said:


> music is a sensory experience, when the sensory experience leaves you cold there is no information/erudition/whatever to make it better. I have listened to this piece for seven minutes, then I have decided that I had had enough of it, reading the information in your opening post it is interesting, but the appreciation of the music cannot come from it: music is fundamentally useless and stupid, there is no way to listening to it intelligently and if there is then it is a waste of intelligence.


I agree that art and music are essentially "useless" in that there is no strict utilitarian use for it, except when it is made to be that. But I must strongly disagree with the rest of this, since I feel that music embodies "intelligent sound" or "sound with meaning." I'm sure that most right-thinking people here would agree.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> I can't help thinking of Tom Wolfe's "The Painted Word," which describes the way in which abstract painting from that era was "explained" - and made more attractive and fashionable for otherwise clueless viewers - by art critics who presumed to tell people how to look at it and what it meant. The essay is quite funny - much funnier than serialist theory, I suspect (or maybe not).


And Andy Warhol agreed with this, fully, and was opposed to the Abstract Expressionists, so he gave the people what they wanted: Marylin Monroe, death scenes, Elvis, soup cans, celebrity and socialite portraits…and everyone ate it up like candy.

According to this view, "who needs all this high-falootin' art with inner meaning?" That's a very "American" sensibility. Let's go have a cheeseburger.


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> million - I like the piece better than Woodduck does, but agree that he's identified a basic problem with this kind of music. The problem is that it is, like you say, about "gestures." That's not enough! I mean it's enough to keep me reasonably interested for the length of this piece but it's just not as interesting as music where pitch and rhythm carry more meaning, and never will be.
> 
> My favorite Stockhausen piece is _Mantra_ - a piece where he's found a way to make pitch meaningful again.


The pitch aspect is using Webernian principles, and that sounds good to me. It's not _all_ gesture. I love the sound of those woodwinds, too.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> And Andy Warhol agreed with this, fully, and was opposed to the Abstract Expressionists, so he gave the people what they wanted: Marylin Monroe, death scenes, Elvis, soup cans, celebrity and socialite portraits…and everyone ate it up like candy.
> 
> According to this view, "who needs all this high-falootin' art with inner meaning?" That's a very "American" sensibility. Let's go have a cheeseburger.


Who were the "everyone" that ate up pop art like candy? Not me, I can assure you. And why do you assume that that's what "Americans" want? Admittedly, a lot of self-styled art connoisseurs (i.e. the rich, the beautiful people, and the wannabes) must have been relieved to be spared the brain-paralyzing pretentiousness of abstract expressionist pseudo-theology. We'll never know how far Pollock, Klein and company would have gone without the priesthood of the pretentious. Possibly they'd have sat in their garrets wishing they could afford that cheeseburger.


----------



## Vox Gabrieli

I don't appreciate this American stereotype! 

What's the word? Ad.. Ad.. Ad _American_um?


----------



## isorhythm

millionrainbows said:


> The pitch aspect is using Webernian principles, and that sounds good to me. It's not _all_ gesture. I love the sound of those woodwinds, too.


Webern is an interesting case because he took pains to make pitch relationships intelligible in the absence of tonality: using rows with audible internal relationships, and above all using very spare textures. This is not the case with some later serialist music.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> This is the sort of music that engenders in me three successive feelings: 1. "Oh dear, not another one of those honking, quacking, burping, shapeless, dated, serialist, mid-20th-century things!" 2. "Hmmm... These are rather interesting sounds. Let's follow along and see how long the composer's inventiveness with timbres and gestures holds my interest." 3. "OK, I get it. I'm tired of ejaculatory noises. I can stop it now, go fix a snack, and put on, say, Sibelius, for whom harmony, timbre, and rhythm - and, oh yes, melody (!) - interesting in themselves, are fused into a higher vision."


From this description the listener has provided, I can say that this is a good example of what not to do when listening to this Stockhausen piece.



Woodduck said:


> 1. "Oh dear, not another one of those honking, quacking, burping, shapeless, dated, serialist, mid-20th-century things!"


This statement shows an immediate bias, as it is stereotyping the Stockhausen piece. That's obstacle number one.



Woodduck said:


> 2. "Hmmm... These are rather interesting sounds. Let's follow along and see how long the composer's inventiveness with timbres and gestures holds my interest."


The listener is on the right track here.



Woodduck said:


> 3. "OK, I get it. I'm tired of ejaculatory noises. I can stop it now, go fix a snack, and put on, say, Sibelius, for whom harmony, timbre, and rhythm - and, oh yes, melody (!) - interesting in themselves, are fused into a higher vision."


The comparison with Sibelius is revealing; the listener is not grasping the meaning of the piece because he is using the old paradigm of classical music, which is narrative in nature.

The "meaning" of the Stockhausen piece is being revealed continuously, moment by moment. This way of listening in "moment" time seems to be foreign to most listeners of traditional classical music.

Even in late Webern, such as the Symphony, we encounter structural aspects of the row which only exist in the moment, as harmonic singularities. Webern's brevity had distilled all the structural aspects into "moments" of time.

This seems illogical to me. It's as if one were outside in nature, looking up at the clouds, and being "dissatisfied" with the clouds for not displaying some sort of extended, narrative meaning. The beauty of the clouds and their slow changing movement, is lost.

That's all it takes; listening "in the moment" without expectations; appreciating the beauty of the sound, and accepting it on its own terms, and forgetting one's own ticker-tape inner monologue of ego and expectation.


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> Webern is an interesting case because he took pains to make pitch relationships intelligible in the absence of tonality: using rows with audible internal relationships, and above all using very spare textures. This is not the case with some later serialist music.


I think you're leaving an important aspect of Webern out, and stressing the linear aspect. He presented the row to be audible as a linear entity, but also created verticalities and singularities which were, in themselves, the "themes" or meanings he was creating from the series. You have to see both things, or the significance of his brevity is lost.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Who were the "everyone" that ate up pop art like candy? Not me, I can assure you.


Well you are siding with Warhol, in that you are stressing that images be "meaningful" in a literal way, rather than abstract.



Woodduck said:


> And why do you assume that that's what "Americans" want? Admittedly, a lot of self-styled art connoisseurs (i.e. the rich, the beautiful people, and the wannabes) must have been relieved to be spared the brain-paralyzing pretentiousness of abstract expressionist pseudo-theology.


I assume that because Americans don't want to be bothered to think. Painters like Gottlieb, with his references to Jung and the unconscious, and the gestural art of De Kooning and Kline, were too loaded with 'hidden' meaning, and presented too much of a challenge; it was too much "work" to engage with their art. With Warhol, all one had to do was look: "Oh, there's Marilyn Monroe, isn't she glamourous! And look how he's done her makeup!" Warhol's was a homosexual aesthetic, and this took over from the hard-drinking Abstract Expressionist male-dominated aesthetic, and was a portent of how America was to develop in the following decades: talk shows, titillation, gossip, surface persona, glamour, the Kardashians, etc, etc.



Woodduck said:


> We'll never know how far Pollock, Klein and company would have gone without the priesthood of the pretentious. Possibly they'd have sat in their garrets wishing they could afford that cheeseburger.


You have offered no alternative; it's easy to criticize, but harder to fill in the blanks with substance. I see today's environment in America as fluff: talk shows, titillation, gossip, surface persona, glamour, the Kardashians, etc, etc.


----------



## Barbebleu

millionrainbows said:


> I assume that because Americans don't want to be bothered to think.


That's a bit of a sweeping statement MR. Which specific Americans do you have in mind? A whole nation damned with a statement, wow. I am impressed that you have taken on the mantel of spokesman for your continent. But I'm sure you're right. We ancient Europeans always think of America as the country that culture forgot but perhaps that's a bit harsh!


----------



## millionrainbows

Barbebleu said:


> That's a bit of a sweeping statement MR. Which specific Americans do you have in mind? A whole nation damned with a statement, wow. I am impressed that you have taken on the mantel of spokesman for your continent. But I'm sure you're right. We ancient Europeans always think of America as the country that culture forgot but perhaps that's a bit harsh!


Do you need to "understand" music to enjoy it?

Nahh, man, no professor's gonna tell me what I can and can't like. Just lay back and groove to this Mozart. Here, take a hit off this. W-w-w-w-f-f-f-f....ahh, that's good. Whazzat, a symphony? Hey, that Mozart dude's pretty good.


----------



## Barbebleu

millionrainbows said:


> Do you need to "understand" music to enjoy it?
> 
> Nahh, man, no professor's gonna tell me what I can and can't like. Just lay back and groove to this Mozart. Here, take a hit off this. W-w-w-w-f-f-f-f....ahh, that's good. Whazzat, a symphony? Hey, that Mozart dude's pretty good.


Again a post that seems to me to be a bit of a _non-sequitur _. No reference at all to my statement. Just another ramble that has no relationship to anything on the thread.


----------



## millionrainbows

Barbebleu said:


> Again a post that seems to me to be a bit of a _non-sequitur _. No reference at all to my statement. Just another ramble that has no relationship to anything on the thread.


Oh, I'm so sorry, Barbebleu; I didn't mean to incur your temper. What I meant to show, with humor, is the "willful ignorance" many Americans seem to display, as exemplified by a marijuana-smoking adolescent with a dismissive attitude.

Originally, you questioned my statement: "_I assume that because Americans don't want to be bothered to think."

_I still stand behind this, and television programming seems to back this up. This was in response to Woodduck, who said the Americans rejected abstract art because it was too "intellectual," and then was defensive when I said that Ab-Ex was replaced by the vapidity of pop art.

Which part of this do you disagree with? Do you really think that American culture is superior to European? With Donald Trump staring us in the face? You have some explaining to do.


----------



## JeffD

Not big on Americans are you. I can see the depth of _your_ thinking.

Going to television to find high culture is like going to the internet to find the truth. (Like looking for love in a bordello, it might be there, but its not the first place to look.)


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> Which part of this do you disagree with? Do you really think that American culture is superior to European? With Donald Trump staring us in the face? You have some explaining to do.


Hmmmmm, the Trump card again. I can see that this is going to take a lot of time for us to live down. (I hope we get that time.)


----------



## Barbebleu

millionrainbows said:


> Oh, I'm so sorry, Barbebleu; I didn't mean to incur your temper. What I meant to show, with humor, is the "willful ignorance" many Americans seem to display, as exemplified by a marijuana-smoking adolescent with a dismissive attitude.
> 
> Originally, you questioned my statement: "_I assume that because Americans don't want to be bothered to think."
> 
> _I still stand behind this, and television programming seems to back this up. This was in response to Woodduck, who said the Americans rejected abstract art because it was too "intellectual," and then was defensive when I said that Ab-Ex was replaced by the vapidity of pop art.
> 
> Which part of this do you disagree with? Do you really think that American culture is superior to European? With Donald Trump staring us in the face? You have some explaining to do.


I don't think that American culture is superior to European culture nor do I think it is in any way inferior. I thought you were being a bit too sweeping with your generalisation about Americans not wanting to think. We are talking in the main on this forum about, and this is meant in the nicest possible way, a minority interest. America gave us Glenn Gould, Joni Mitchell, Neil Young, Leonard Cohen, Oscar Peterson ....... No wait, they were Canadian. But you get my general meaning! How less our musical and literary heritage would be without the Blues, Steinbeck, Hemingway, Twain, Tex-Mex, Cajun, Country, Johnnny Cash, Dylan, Elvis etc., etc. Now back to atonal music and my musical odyssey accompanied by Glenn Gould and Ernst Krenek and Arnold Schönberg.

Incidentally I was not in a temper. You wouldn't want me to be in a temper. I don't want me to be in a temper. I still want to remain on the forum.


----------



## millionrainbows




----------



## millionrainbows

People are now exposed to more information than ever before, provided both by technology and by increasing access to every level of education. These societal gains, however, have also helped fuel a surge in narcissistic and misguided intellectual egalitarianism that has crippled informed debates on any number of issues. Today, everyone knows everything: with only a quick trip through WebMD or Wikipedia, average citizens believe themselves to be on an equal intellectual footing with doctors and diplomats. All voices, even the most ridiculous, demand to be taken with equal seriousness, and any claim to the contrary is dismissed as undemocratic elitism.


----------



## Barbebleu

millionrainbows said:


> People are now exposed to more information than ever before, provided both by technology and by increasing access to every level of education. These societal gains, however, have also helped fuel a surge in narcissistic and misguided intellectual egalitarianism that has crippled informed debates on any number of issues. Today, everyone knows everything: with only a quick trip through WebMD or Wikipedia, average citizens believe themselves to be on an equal intellectual footing with doctors and diplomats. All voices, even the most ridiculous, demand to be taken with equal seriousness, and any claim to the contrary is dismissed as undemocratic elitism.


On the plus side we take less and less at face value and questioning our "betters" is not such a bad thing. Less chance of us being railroaded I hope.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> The comparison with Sibelius is revealing; the listener is not grasping the meaning of the piece because he is using the old paradigm of classical music, which is narrative in nature.
> 
> The "meaning" of the Stockhausen piece is being revealed continuously, moment by moment. This way of listening in "moment" time seems to be foreign to most listeners of traditional classical music.
> 
> It's as if one were outside in nature, looking up at the clouds, and being "dissatisfied" with the clouds for not displaying some sort of extended, narrative meaning. The beauty of the clouds and their slow changing movement, is lost.
> 
> That's all it takes; listening "in the moment" without expectations; appreciating the beauty of the sound, and accepting it on its own terms, and forgetting one's own ticker-tape inner monologue of ego and expectation.


If I want to feel as if I'm in nature, looking at clouds slowly moving and changing, I'll go out into nature and look at clouds. If I want to experience constructive purpose and expressive meaning which inanimate nature doesn't possess, I'll listen to music.

Why should art do what nature does better? I'm concerned with what art alone can do.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> If I want to feel as if I'm nature, looking at clouds slowly moving and changing, I'll go out into nature and look at clouds.


This is just a metaphor, to explain how the uncomprehending, who are having a problem shedding their old habits, can approach "moment time" music which is not narrative.



Woodduck said:


> If I want to experience constructive purpose and expressive meaning which inanimate nature doesn't possess, I'll listen to music.


Suit yourself.



Woodduck said:


> Why should art do what nature does better? I'm concerned with what art alone can do.


Art imitates nature, but in these cases, the artist is creating an environment. Nature is just a metaphor for the "all encompassing" kind of immersive environment or labyrinth that modern art strives to create.


----------



## isorhythm

millionrainbows said:


> This is just a metaphor, to explain how the uncomprehending, who are having a problem shedding their old habits, can approach "moment time" music which is not narrative.


Where are you getting this idea that all atonal music is "moment time music"?


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> Where are you getting this idea that all atonal music is "moment time music"?


You've seen my blog on this, I suppose. Please refer to the definition, and realize that this is a general definition.

New Conceptions of Musical Time

Linear time: Music that imparts a sense of linear time seems to move towards goals. This quality permeates virtually all of Western music from the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic eras. This is accomplished by processes which occur within tonal and metrical frameworks.

Nonlinear time: Music that evokes a sense of nonlinear time seems to stand still or evolve very slowly.

Western musicians first became aware of nonlinear time during the late 19th century. Debussy's encounter with Javanese gamelan music at the 1889 Paris Exhibition was a seminal event.

Moment Form: broken down connections between musical events in order to create a series of more or less discrete moments. Certain works of Stravinsky, Webern, Messiaen, and Stockhausen exemplify this approach.

Vertical Time: At the other extreme of the nonlinear continuum is music that maximizes consistency and minimizes articulation. Vertical time means that whatever structure that is in the music exists between simultaneous layers of sound, not between successive gestures. A virtually static moment is expanded to encompass an entire piece. A vertical piece does not exhibit large-scale closure. It does not begin, but merely starts. It does not build to a climax, does not set up internal expectations, does not seek to fulfill any expectations that might arise accidentally, does not build or release tension, and does not end, but simply ceases.

Minimalism exemplifies vertical time, but instead of absolute stasis, it generates constant motion. The sense of movement is so evenly paced, and the goals are so vague, that we usually lose our sense of perspective.

If serial music is linear and melodic, then of course it can be heard that way; but harmonically, in atonal music, there is no reference to a tonic, so all "connections" that the listener makes have to take place in relative spans which are shorter than tonality's; there is no systematic integrated reference to harmonically-derived phenomena, such as a central pitch reference or a series of triads in an hierarchical relationship to a central note or scale from which they are all derived.

Music doesn't have to be atonal to be in moment time; like Indian raga music, and some jazz.

This Terry Riley piece is very 'tonal' but there is no 'development' in the Western sense; so you are not supposed to follow a narrative sequence of events, but listen 'in the now,' or more vertically, as the music is all about what is happening vertically, in the harmonic realm of consonance.

This is what is meant by "...Vertical time means that whatever structure that is in the music exists between simultaneous layers of sound, not between successive gestures." In other words, harmonic sound.


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> Where are you getting this idea that all atonal music is "moment time music"?


I never said that *all* atonal music is in "moment time." I try to avoid making concrete distinctions like that. There are exceptions to everything.

I do think that this idea of moment time can be very helpful in listening to lots of different kinds of music, including Indian ragas, minimalism, Terry Riley, John Coltrane, The Grateful Dead, Stockhausen, Boulez, Webern, etc.

Schoenberg? He's both. His atonal music is so artfully constructed that most laypeople, and some experts, insist that they are hearing "tonality," when in fact they are not. This is due to the linear connectedness he is able to create, which results in a very logical and artful linear progression of events which follows its own invented logic, but not that of tonality.


----------

