# What Should a Person Listen for in Atonal Music?



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

I think this is a good question, because I think part of the problem, when it comes to enjoying Atonal music, is that people are baffled by what they hear. Do you have any suggestions or advice to help the novice understand and appreciate what she hears?


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I think people might like to spot patterns in development of the sound. Otherwise it all sounds random.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

ArtMusic said:


> I think people might like to spot patterns in development of the sound. Otherwise it all sounds random.


Very good answer.

{edited} _I should say_, I really like your answer.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I never understood the "sounds random" response. Does that mean listeners equate non-conventional tonality with traffic noise?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

I think you need to define what you mean by atonal, either by citing examples or in specifically musical terms. Do you mean free atonal as in 1910s Schoenberg? Are you including serial and integral serial works? Cluster filled works like Threnody Hiroshima? Presumably there would be very different answers for each of these, right?



starthrower said:


> I never understood the "sounds random" response. Does that mean listeners equate non-conventional tonality with traffic noise?


He's not talking about non-conventional tonality, he is talking about (some kind of) atonality. News flash - we don't have to pretend there's no such thing anymore


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> I think you need to define what you mean by atonal, either by citing examples or in specifically musical terms. Do you mean free atonal as in 1910s Schoenberg? Are you including serial and integral serial works? Cluster filled works like Threnody Hiroshima? Presumably there would be very different answers for each of these, right?


Schoenberg will do just fine.


----------



## Autocrat (Nov 14, 2014)

Klassic said:


> Schoenberg will do just fine.


The same as what you listen for in any other music. Melody, rhythm, timbre, textures, orchestration, dynamics, tension and resolution, thematic development, form, whatever is on your personal list.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Don't listen for anything. Just relax and let it happen. That's what worked for me. If we try too hard it becomes work and that's no fun. After several months of just letting non-common practice music wash over me I then started listening for patterns, and they became much more clear, the unconventional idioms and gestures being a little more familiar. 

(I'm not saying it's a breeze for me - it probably never will be, but I do enjoy serial, spectral, and other unconventional harmonic methods now.)


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

ArtMusic said:


> I think people might like to spot patterns in development of the sound. Otherwise it all sounds random.


You are good!....................


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

If one definition of music (and I'm unsure if it's the right one) is "organized sound," then I think you listen for the organization. Which separates it, I think, from listening to the sound of a bulldozer.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

That depends on which atonal music. Schoenberg and Berg, you really can and should listen to just as you would Wagner, Mahler and Strauss. Their music succeeds or fails on those terms.

Boulez and Messiaen, you should listen to like later Debussy.

With most of it you have to take it work by work, composer by composer. For example in Elliott Carter's music the big idea is often that there are multiple tempos are going at once and they intersect in various ways. The pitch content is often limited, and secondary. You have to decide for yourself whether you think this is interesting (I usually don't).

Webern is probably key to a lot of this. I love Webern, but couldn't really tell you why. Someday maybe I'll be able to tell you.


----------



## Rosie (Jul 4, 2016)

I discovered Schoenberg's music in the past few months, through a music magazine. I listened to about 7-8 pieces afterwards. 
As someone more familiar with the classical era, I was surprised that I enjoyed it. It definitely didn't sound random to me.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

It is not insignificant that one hardly starts with Atonal music, _nearly_ all of us had to progress in our hearing before we could appreciate it. Think about this.


----------



## Gradeaundera (Jun 30, 2016)

Klassic said:


> It is not insignificant that one hardly starts with Atonal music, _nearly_ all of us had to progress in our hearing before we could appreciate it. Think about this.


My wife would like a word with you matey


----------



## Gradeaundera (Jun 30, 2016)

ArtMusic said:


> I think people might like to spot patterns in development of the sound. Otherwise it all sounds random.


Sounds like a "I don't like it, so you don't" Comment to me kid


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Gradeaundera said:


> My wife would like a word with you matey


I get this all the time, I am always in high demand, but my schedule is pretty damn full. I am a celebrity on TC.


----------



## Poodle (Aug 7, 2016)

What is a atonal music?


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Poodle said:


> What is a atonal music?


Music for really smart people, kids are not allowed to listen to it, they have to stick with silly Mozart.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

One is not going to get a good answer to the question in the OP because most of the members who follow and understand atonal music like Mahlerian, Some Guy, PetrB have left.

I like to listen to some atonal music. I understand it some of it. I am not an expert so I can not tell you why.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

"And I only am escaped alone to tell thee."


----------



## Andolink (Oct 29, 2012)

What a skilled composer (or even improviser) generally does, whether in a tonal or atonal idiom, is create a *narrative in sound*. Listen for a center of interest or focal line (as opposed to focal point in the visual arts) and follow that line through the piece.

The focal line can be a melody, a harmonic progression, a rhythm, etc. or, more commonly, combinations of these elements.

I find this listening technique works just as well for music employing dense clusters such as Ligeti's Atmospheres, Penderecki's Threnody, etc., it's just a matter of the focal line consisting of the ever shifting harmonies, timbres, dynamics and such with these pieces.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Klassic said:


> Very good answer.
> 
> {edited} _I should say_, I really like your answer.


Why thank you sir.


----------



## Guest (Sep 29, 2016)

Klassic said:


> It is not insignificant that one hardly starts with Atonal music, _nearly_ all of us had to progress in our hearing before we could appreciate it. Think about this.


Are you suggesting that people aren't thinking about 'this', or haven't thought about 'this' ('this' being the idea that you have to listen to music in some sort of order)?

So when I was 5-7, it could only be nursery rhymes, but I could cope with _Eine Kleine Nachtmusik _by the time I was 11, and then graduate to the Eroica once I'd reached the age of consent?

I think you'll find that most people's musical journeys were not quite so well structured.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Pugg said:


> You are good!....................


That is a matter for ongoing endless debate, particularly by those who are afflicted by "_Modernmusicsucksiosis"@

@(Copywrite Xenakiboy 2016)
_


----------



## Bartfromthenetherlands (Sep 29, 2016)

Klassic said:


> Music for really smart people, kids are not allowed to listen to it, they have to stick with silly Mozart.


So are you a kid then?


----------



## Bartfromthenetherlands (Sep 29, 2016)

ArtMusic said:


> I think people might like to spot patterns in development of the sound. Otherwise it all sounds random.


It's fair to say you don't like something but to state something as subjective and completely offensive as that, IS a personal attack and I DON'T like it


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Bartfromthenetherlands said:


> It's fair to say you don't like something but to state something as subjective and completely offensive as that, IS a personal attack and I DON'T like it


I have as low an opinion of ArtMusic's bait as the next guy, but he didn't attack anyone personally in the post you're quoting. Deal with the points, ignore the tone, not that the points have much in the way of substance.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

EdwardBast said:


> He's not talking about non-conventional tonality, he is talking about (some kind of) atonality. News flash - we don't have to pretend there's no such thing anymore


It was a lot more interesting here with Mahlerian's input.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

starthrower said:


> It was a lot more interesting here with Mahlerian's input.


I agree - on any other topic than this one, at least!


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

starthrower said:


> It was a lot more interesting here with Mahlerian's input.


I haven't been around much lately, what happened to Mahlerian?

As far as what the original poster asked, I can't tell you either. I had to do what Weston said in a sense. Gradually listen and introduce more of it into your listening and you will start to hear things. I started hearing more harmonies over time. There are some works that still just sound like a cat walking on a keyboard, or a 5 year old picking up a violin and just making sounds where I don't hear any pattern, or melody or harmonies, but I find far more modern works listenable than I did several years ago.

Listening to works from Debussy, Prokofiev, Bartok, Liszt, etc. helped me more. To me they are composers who are on the edge of what I think of as "tuneful" writing. When I think of Mozart's Eine Kleine Nachtmusik or Beethoven's 5th I can easily remember and sing the melody and I think that's easiest for most people to enjoy. In my mind it's much harder to do that with Bartok or Prokofiev but after extended listening you hear passages that become familiar and harmonies, etc. and I think that makes it easier to enjoy Schoenberg or Webern once you can just listen. They aren't tuneful melodies to me that you can sing and easily think of. It's more structured with intervals, and harmonies, like sentences being spoken but perhaps in a different language where you can't tell exactly what they are saying, but you can tell from the inflections in the voice that the person is talking about something with anger or happiness or excitedly about something that's really interesting to them.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

arpeggio said:


> I like to listen to some atonal music. I understand it some of it. I am not an expert so I can not tell you why.


I suspect your knowledge and understanding of the atonal music you like is at least as good as some guy's, and would be worth sharing.


----------



## Guest (Sep 29, 2016)

***Edited For Futility***


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

arpeggio said:


> One is not going to get a good answer to the question in the OP because most of the members who follow and understand atonal music like Mahlerian, Some Guy, PetrB have left.


As much as I enjoyed their contributions, only the listener can listen for him/herself. And as blues stated, you have to put the time in to start hearing things. I suppose the crux of the matter would be when to decide that you've listened enough to a certain piece to know whether you've truly absorbed the music and are able to enjoy it or not. And to ask yourself the question, "do I enjoy the process?". Personally, I enjoy exposing myself to new sounds and compositions. Retreating to the warhorses, or my favorites on a regular basis has never been much of a temptation. But if it is, go for it! It's only music.


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough (Jul 25, 2014)

I tried "listening for a narrative" and the results were 50/50 for me. I've discovered that my enjoyment of any densely contrapuntal music doesn't really begin until I can start hearing individual lines that I like, and my habit was always to, as suggested earlier, plot out some focal points through a piece, memorize that "string," and then learn the rest by noting how the rest of the material interacts with that main line.

But in Schoenberg's wind quintet, for example, there seemed to be so many overlapping focal points that I couldn't really do this. Every moment I'm being bum rushed by 3 or 4 melodies that to my ears sound independent and equally important; I understand that's part of the point and it's something I do sort of like about it, but it does mean I'll have to grind through some brute-force repetition if I want to really enjoy it. 

I bought in to Schoenberg's orchestral stuff more easily simply because it's easier for me to grasp material that's distributed over several easily distinguishable timbres. Of course that's not specific to atonal/12-tone/whatever-it-is music; I feel the same way about Bach.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Since 'atonal' music is highly chromatic, using all 12 notes most of the time, this makes it difficult to pin down a tonal center. So just listen moment-by-moment. The better your ear is, the easier this is to do.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> The better your ear is, the easier this is to do.


Precisely, this is my point about progression, as well. Most people do not start out liking Atonal, or even modern music. There is such a thing as being able to discern what's going on! There is such a thing as a better ear! If this was not the case, then has there been no progress in understanding from the time we were children up to now? (Some will not understand my point, others will simply hate it, but good luck refuting it).


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

But there is more to listening to atonal than trying to hear momentary snatches of "tonality" or tone-centricity, since in highly chromatic music, this doesn't exist except in the moment-to-moment perception of verticalities. In some atonal music, it might be better to listen linearly, as in Schoenberg's Serenade.
In the case of Webern, I try to hear vertically, but not in terms of tonality, just sonority. There is usually some interval type that is predominant from section to section.
In the case of Babbitt, since I know from reading what he is trying to do, I listen for shapes of notes, but not as "themes," just as shapes. Like Schoenberg, Babbitt was interested in breaking the row down into distinctive pitch cells that one might think of as "themes" or motifs in Schoenberg's work, but he didn't use them in that way. He was only interested in their structural significance, and how they might be used in a unifying sense.
With Elliott Carter, I listen longer to lengths and more linearly, to see how the lines interact. I listen for dramatic gesture.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

I always thought you should listen to modern music without any assumptions. For me that means to let go of your own thoughts and let the music take you away. I like that!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> I always thought you should listen to modern music without any assumptions. For me that means to let go of your own thoughts and let the music take you away. I like that!


I listen with all sorts of assumptions, and I add to my collection every time I read a new book about it.

What you are saying is not invalid, although it could apply just as well to Tchaikovsky. It would seem to work well with John Cage as well. But with Elliott Carter or Babbitt? I don't know if that is best.

Being passively receptive has its moments, but so does intense concentration, or coming to the party having done some homework.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> I always thought you should listen to modern music without any assumptions. For me that means to let go of your own thoughts and let the music take you away. I like that!


We all bring assumptions to our listening.


----------



## Guest (Sep 29, 2016)

Autocrat said:


> The same as what you listen for in any other music. Melody, rhythm, timbre, textures, orchestration, dynamics, tension and resolution, thematic development, form, whatever is on your personal list.


This +1.
Honestly, I find the OP question baffling.


----------



## Guest (Sep 29, 2016)

MacLeod said:


> Are you suggesting that people aren't thinking about 'this', or haven't thought about 'this' ('this' being the idea that you have to listen to music in some sort of order)?
> 
> So when I was 5-7, it could only be nursery rhymes, but I could cope with _Eine Kleine Nachtmusik _by the time I was 11, and then graduate to the Eroica once I'd reached the age of consent?
> 
> I think you'll find that most people's musical journeys were not quite so well structured.


My mother listened to atonal music whilst I was in the womb. I am on a journey towards those non-randomised sounds of Mozart.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

It works for me  I don't have to analyse a piece to hear it, but when I hear it again then I guess I have an idea/assumption of what's coming. That's why I like to hear "new music" all the time.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

isorhythm said:


> Webern is probably key to a lot of this. I love Webern, but couldn't really tell you why. Someday maybe I'll be able to tell you.


I have the same problem. And with atonal music, if I like a piece, it isn't so much because I can name why; it is because there is something visceral connecting me to it, and the kick comes from trying to discover why.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Klassic said:


> I think this is a good question, because I think part of the problem, when it comes to enjoying Atonal music, is that people are baffled by what they hear. Do you have any suggestions or advice to help the novice understand and appreciate what she hears?


I personally listen for moments of respite!

Only kidding all you atonalists out there. It's all good. I'm currently listening to Glenn Gould playing Schoenberg and Krenek and it is fine stuff. I have to say I prefer solo instrumental rather than textured orchestral when it comes to atonality. But that's my personal preference.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

I tried btonal but had to change back to atonal, because it B came a bummer...........


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> The better your ear is, the easier this is to do.


Just a tad condescending? I've got a pretty good ear and I don't think it's a pre-requisite for understanding or appreciating atonality. You either get a piece of music or you don't and no amount of listening, I'm my opinion, will alter that state of affairs.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

I suppose there are two ways to listen to Atonal music: emotionally and intellectually.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Klassic said:


> I suppose there are two ways to listen to Atonal music: emotionally and intellectually.


Well that counts me out but why do I like it, that is the question................


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Klassic said:


> I suppose there are two ways to listen to Atonal music: emotionally and intellectually.


To me, the emotion content does not exist with atonal music, and I find that is also the case with many people I know. The value of atonal music however, as evident by Schoenberg, is the intellectual aspect of it. It's a historical observation that Schoenberg wrote much atonal music only after spending a great deal of time thinking it through. (But the same could be said of any classical music).


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

ArtMusic said:


> The value of atonal music however, as evident by Schoenberg, is the intellectual aspect of it.


It's not "evident" to me at all.



ArtMusic said:


> It's a historical observation that Schoenberg wrote much atonal music only after spending a great deal of time thinking it through. (But the same could be said of any classical music).


Then why are you bringing it up?


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

To answer the TS opening question: if you don't enjoy it or at least find it intriguing immediatetely, it's not for you.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Casebearer said:


> To answer the TS opening question: if you don't enjoy it or at least find it intriguing *immediatetely*, it's not for you.


This sounds like the philosophy of pop-music. If the world read Kant thus he would be forgotten to history.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Chronochromie said:


> Then why are you bringing it up?


For discussion. The point is Schoenberg composed his atonal music much like Bach did with his, for the pursuit of "musical science" to some extent.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)




----------



## Guest (Oct 1, 2016)

ArtMusic said:


> To me, the emotion content does not exist with atonal music,


I presume you mean that it does not provoke the feeling of certain (or any) emotions in you. No music has 'emotional content', but many people find that many different types of music induce certain emotional responses.

What tends to be implied by 'emotion' is a narrow range of emotions (often signified by crying or reporting the hairs on the back of the neck or the chills.) IMO, the "intellectual" aspect is inseparably intertwined with the emotional.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

What should a person listen for in this finite life?


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> What should a person listen for in this finite life?


Wisdom that pertains to life.


----------

