# Greatest Atonal Composer



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

This is for all the modern / contemporary fans out there. Who is the greatest atonal composer? After listening to many old and newer, I'm convinced that Schoenberg and Webern were really the greatest, since they were able to express atonality within the classical context, losing none of the drama, while gaining harmonic freedom. Not style over substance like some. Or do you think they are all alike?


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

I have no idea who is the greatest. My favorite is Carter.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I much prefer Webern or Berg, who broke away from Schoenberg and went more their own way. For me, Schoenberg was more psychological than spiritual, and it wasn't always a very healthy psychology either, as far as I'm concerned, with his dark tale of _Erwartung_ being a good example, a work that I don't find particularly uplifting at all. The other two composers were less neurotic, more sensitive, in my estimation, and I think that counts for a great deal. But I consider Schoenberg the true pioneer. He changed everything and provided a language in sound for the unconscious in human experience that had never had the means of expression before, and he was often reviled for it because the music didn't necessarily sound pretty. Film scores, for example, would be unthinkable without his liberating influence-his vocabulary has been completely absorbed to dramatically widen music's emotional range-but I find that I'm rarely interested in hearing him directly except for reasons of historic interest.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

as we all know, notes have not only letters as denomination but also numerals for same purpose, which makes a perfect tool for using as a secret code to encode text messages... so 'greatest atonal composer' here would be the one who encodes the largest chunks of text.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Zhdanov said:


> as we all know, notes have not only letters as denomination but also numerals for same purpose, which makes a perfect tool for using as a secret code to encode text messages... so 'greatest atonal composer' here would be the one who encodes the largest chunks of text.


Is that music to my ears or just a collection of "if this, then, else" statements? Do ears of the present decode? If you listen to Machaut do you hear the color and talea? How many listeners can?

I don't know much, but if I'm just an encoder I'd rather be a left-handed second baseman.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Room2201974 said:


> Do ears of the present decode?


why ears when you can read the score?.. as for recordings and concert performance, they only serve as heads-up to mark the fact a score has been composed and some messages encrypted into it.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

Sofia Gubaidulina's favorite is Anton Webern.


----------



## Gallus (Feb 8, 2018)

Larkenfield said:


> I much prefer Webern or Berg, who broke away from Schoenberg and went more their own way. For me, Schoenberg was more psychological than spiritual, and it wasn't always a very healthy psychology either, as far as I'm concerned, with his dark tale of _Erwartung_ being a prime example. The other two were less neurotic, more sensitive, in my estimation, and I think that counts a great deal.


I think this is very accurate: 'neurotic' is exactly the world I'd use to describe Schoenberg in a way which Webern and Berg and others don't quite follow. I enjoy many of his works, but if I listen to Schoenberg for longer than an hour at a time I feel like I'm on the verge of a nervous breakdown...


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> This is for all the modern / contemporary fans out there. Who is the greatest atonal composer? After listening to many old and newer, I'm convinced that Schoenberg and Webern were really the greatest, since they were able to express atonality within the classical context, losing none of the drama, while gaining harmonic freedom. Not style over substance like some. Or do you think they are all alike?


I too like Schoenberg -- but there's one other who I know much less well who, I think, may be every bit his equal in terms of depth and spirituality in his atonal music, if not his better -- Ernst Krenek. I feel slightly disappointed in myself that I haven't given him more attention, and so this thread is a welcome reminder.

Schoenberg's music is consistently rewarding to hear. I'm thinking really of Moses and Aaron, some of the big sets of variations, the last two quartets, the trio and, more and more, I'm finding lots of interesting things in the piano music.

I've seen Lulu many times, and Wozzeck twice. I certainly wouldn't object if someone invited me to see them again. I feel similarly about Stravinsky's Agon which I've seen once in my life and I could sense it was interesting. I enjoyed the music more than the other Stravinsky ballets I think.

Webern I've explored much less, so far his music hasn't aroused my interest.

Of other non tonal composer of this type, Babbitt's quartets are as special to me as Schoenberg's


----------



## Bluecrab (Jun 24, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> Webern I've explored much less, so far his music hasn't aroused my interest.


He's easy explore, given that his body of work is really not large. Several years ago, I bought his complete works on Sony (3 CD set) by Boulez for a ridiculously low price-$10.00 IIRC. I really like his music.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

As I don't really categorise composers into tonal and atonal groups this is not such an easy task. Also, many of the composer who I might consider are really quite recent and I don't really think we can be sure of greatness until the music has been around for 50 years of more. And then, of course, there is the difficulty of saying who I prefer more than who. Schoenberg, Webern and Berg are each so different that I wouldn't know how to choose between them. They were all great. More recently I certainly agree (with Arpeggio) that we have to count Carter as a major force in post-WW2 CM and also Boulez. But I have many other favourites who are probably more or less atonal.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I love Ewartung, and many other Schoenberg works. And I think Berg's Lyric Suite is one of the greatest string quartets I've listened to. I like some Carter pieces but I haven't warmed to his quartets yet. I really feel like Schoenberg and Webern are steeped in the romantic tradition. Berg is a different bird.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Berg's Violin Concerto is my favorite atonal piece, but I guess I'd go with Schoenberg for how innovative and remarkable his music was.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I don't know what works of Krenek are non tonal, but I like the quartets I've listened to. I have two CDs by the Petersen Quartet. And I picked up two CDs on the Toccata label that sound amazing. But the symphonies on CPO just aren't doing much for me for some reason.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Schoenberg, Berg, Lutoslawski, Penderecki, Carter, Henze - those are all I cared about so far. Who is the best of them? I don't know. Each of them has written a masterpiece and also music, that is not that great. I cannot really pick.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

In regards to free atonalism/non-serialism, I feel Webern is the best. Schoenberg's free atonalism is very different from Webern's. Schoenberg's rhythms and melodic phrases are generally reminiscent of classical models, but Webern's are not. More often than not in Schoenberg, you are not so much dealing with atonality as much as you are with _obscured tonality_ and obscured triadic note-formations. Webern's free atonality is a calculated avoidance of all triadic or other tonal associations. Schoenberg does not always use the total-chromatic on a consistent basis, while Webern uses this to the fullest possible degree and the note-orders of his work have many similarities with serial music. In the Six Bagatelles for String Quartet Op. 9 for example, a free atonal masterpiece, Webern often does not sound a note until all other notes of the chromatic scale have sounded, just like the creation of a tone row (even though in the actual use of tone rows in writing serial music, it is okay to repeat notes). He is concerned with note fatigue and cycling through the notes to achieve a fully chromatic sound.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Interesting comments so far. I find Weber more cold and ugly (though brilliant in its own way), and Schoenberg way warmer, and actually beautiful, dramatic and surprisingly sort of emotional like Berg's violin concerto. His string quartets and piano concerto in particular. His music sounds more natural to me.


----------



## ribonucleic (Aug 20, 2014)

The name is Berg. Alban Berg.


----------



## Vaan (Nov 17, 2018)

My favorite is Danish composer Per Nørgård.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

Whoever was the least prolific.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

The composer who suffered with triskaidekaphobia - of course!


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

I'm glad I'm not the judge...


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Room2201974 said:


> The composer who suffered with triskaidekaphobia - of course!


Which is of course why he stopped at twelve tone.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> Interesting comments so far.* I find Weber more cold and ugly* (though brilliant in its own way), and Schoenberg way warmer, and actually beautiful, dramatic and surprisingly sort of emotional like Berg's violin concerto. His string quartets and piano concerto in particular. His music sounds more natural to me.


Try Der Freischütz, nothing cold or ugly about it.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Just kidding.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

I think Bartok deserves a mention


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Improbus said:


> Whoever was the least prolific.


Copland? The tonal Copland was very prolific, but the 12-tone Copland wrote only a few pieces, and they still sound like Copland - open, bracing, free of expressionistic angst.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

hammeredklavier said:


> I think Bartok deserves a mention


I don't think Bartok is generally considered an 'atonal' composer, though perhaps the odd piece here or there could be considered as such, its the same with Debussy. These guys were essentially tonal, or 'tone-centric' to use a millionrainbows term.

Bartok considered his music tonal.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

tdc said:


> I don't think Bartok is generally considered an 'atonal' composer, though perhaps the odd piece here or there could be considered as such, its the same with Debussy. These guys were essentially tonal, or 'tone-centric' to use a millionrainbows term.
> 
> Bartok considered his music tonal.


True. I'm assuming some listeners mistake extreme dissonance for atonality.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

starthrower said:


> True. I'm assuming some listeners mistake extreme dissonance for atonality.


I'm one of them, dear friend. I'm mistaking everything regarding this kind of no-music, because I don't care to justify what dissonance and what atonality is. For me both are just a noise. (I repeat it: because I don't like something doesn't automatically makes it bad or useless. There are many people like this kind of music. I respect their taste and I admire their knowledge (really) to understand something sounds like Chinese to me.)


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Dimace said:


> I'm one of them, dear friend. I'm mistaking everything regarding this kind of no-music, because I don't care to justify what dissonance and what atonality is. For me both are just a noise. (I repeat it: because I don't like something doesn't automatically makes it bad or useless. There are many people like this kind of music. I respect their taste and I admire their knowledge (really) to understand something sounds like Chinese to me.)


I'm sure that you like dissonance. You just don't like constant dissonance.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Dimace said:


> I'm one of them, dear friend. I'm mistaking everything regarding this kind of no-music, because I don't care to justify what dissonance and what atonality is. For me both are just a noise. (I repeat it: because I don't like something doesn't automatically makes it bad or useless. There are many people like this kind of music. I respect their taste and I admire their knowledge (really) to understand something sounds like Chinese to me.)


An honest statement that could have come from me at some point in my life. I can't really remember how it was that I went from being at best ambivalent about Bartok (and certainly not feeling whatever Bartok fans claimed to feel) to quite suddenly loving the music greatly. It seemed to go from cold "OK, so what?" to feeling that this is music that is just as great as Beethoven's (I'm thinking piano concertos and quartets). The recognition that Bartok was more concerned with beauty than "Bartokian" percussiveness was a part of it. Some other modern composers, and particularly the ones who are called atonal, were more difficult and my appreciation for them grew more slowly. But I do think Bartok is a key to much that has come after him.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> I'm sure that you like dissonance. You just don't like constant dissonance.


Dissonances are integral part of every music composition. They are cords with beautiful dissonance, they are instruments combinations in the orchestra creating dissonance etc. You are SUPER correct!


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

It's a matter of exposure and absorbtion. Calling Bartok no-music doesn't say anything about Bartok. It's not all hard core dissonant stuff. The concerto for orchestra, violin, and 3rd piano concertos are all quite comprehendable after a few listens. I enjoy digging in. I'd rather try to understand a Dostoevsky novel than breeze through some pablum at the beach.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

This is so hard for me to answer, since the vast majority of my collection of classical is made up of modern and contemporary music.

Carter, Berg, Magnus Lindberg, Webern, Ligeti, Krenek, Penderecki, come to mind.

Wourinen, Boulez, Berio also haves some very good works.



Improbus said:


> Whoever was the least prolific.


I know I shouldn't respond to condescending little remarks like this one, but I can't avoid taking the bait.

What is the motivation some people have to make these types of comments in a thread about a form of classical music that they don't like? Especially since the OP specifically states the following, "This is for all the *modern / contemporary fans* out there.".

Nowhere did the OP state, "This is for all the modern / contemporary fans out there. Oh, and this is also for all those of you who don't enjoy modern/contemporary classical music to make snarky comments".

Oh well, I've been here long enough to know that I am in the minority of tastes here, you'd think I'd get used to the snark by now.


----------



## Bluecrab (Jun 24, 2014)

Simon Moon said:


> Wourinen, Boulez, Berio also haves some very good works.


It's surprising how infrequently one sees any mention of Charles Wuorinen on this forum. I consider him one of the most significant of American contemporary composers.



Simon Moon said:


> I know I shouldn't respond to condescending little remarks like this one, but...What is the motivation some people have to make these types of comments in a thread about a form of classical music that they don't like?


Well, let's see: rank immaturity, an obviously mistaken notion that they're witty, broad ignorance of contemporary classical music... just to name some that leap to mind.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Simon Moon said:


> I know I shouldn't respond to condescending little remarks like this one, but I can't avoid taking the bait.
> 
> What is the motivation some people have to make these types of comments in a thread about a form of classical music that they don't like? Especially since the OP specifically states the following, "This is for all the *modern / contemporary fans* out there.".
> 
> ...


If I took the bait I would be banned for six months :scold:


----------



## rodrigaj (Dec 11, 2016)

This is a very timely thread for me.

I've just now have begun to appreciate _some_ modern music but I am not sure I know how to listen to it. Is there a non technical book or article or webpage that explains how to listen to modern music?

On another level, I find I cannot listen to this music over speakers if my wife is reading in another room. It must be with headphones. That is not the case with 18th and 19th century composers.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

I have long said that I prefer dead composers, and this particularly applies to atonalists, if for quite a distinct reason.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

rodrigaj said:


> This is a very timely thread for me.
> 
> I've just now have begun to appreciate _some_ modern music but I am not sure I know how to listen to it. Is there a non technical book or article or webpage that explains how to listen to modern music?
> 
> On another level, I find I cannot listen to this music over speakers if my wife is reading in another room. It must be with headphones. That is not the case with 18th and 19th century composers.


You don't need a book on how to listen. Just listen. And since you're using headphones, that should make it easier without distractions.


----------



## rodrigaj (Dec 11, 2016)

starthrower said:


> You don't need a book on how to listen. Just listen. And since you're using headphones, that should make it easier without distractions.


Let me clarify - listen with understanding.

When I listen to 18th and 19th century, I know something about sonata form, I can listen to harmonic changes, I can listen for changes in tempo, or melodic lines, and so forth.

When I have tried to reach that level of understanding for 20th century atonal music, I am lost. Even my "go-to" teacher, Leonard Bernstein left me far behind when I viewed one of his television videos, intended for the non-technical listeners.

BTW, this applies to atonal music. I have no difficulty listening to and understanding Bartok, Shostakovich, etc...


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Webern's lieder are lovely, but the Second Viennese school is an outgrowth of the Romantic, so it's hard to compare them with say, Boulez or Babbitt. The Americans have produced some really good 12-tone composers, Babbitt and George Perle, Wourinen, Harvey Solberger, and Arthur Berger. I think you have to be out of the Romantic mode to really absorb their music.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

rodrigaj said:


> Let me clarify - listen with understanding.
> 
> When I listen to 18th and 19th century, I know something about sonata form, I can listen to harmonic changes, I can listen for changes in tempo, or melodic lines, and so forth.
> 
> ...


I don't think there is anything to understand. Bernstein says it is like the air from a different planet. It is not supposed to build on harmony like tonal music does. But Webern more than anyone else seems to organize the notes structurally.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

rodrigaj said:


> Let me clarify - listen with understanding.
> 
> When I listen to 18th and 19th century, I know something about sonata form, I can listen to harmonic changes, I can listen for changes in tempo, or melodic lines, and so forth.
> 
> ...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

starthrower said:


>


The apparent lesson to be derived from this little demonstration is that atonal music can be understood as tonal music played with wrong notes.

Somehow I don't think that's what the man intends to say.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Phil loves classical said:


> I don't think there is anything to understand. Bernstein says it is like the air from a different planet. It is not supposed to build like tonal music does.


In all likelihood the "air from a different planet" will be instantly fatal to humans, 1950s sci-fi movies notwithstanding. Just saying.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

rodrigaj said:


> Let me clarify - listen with understanding.
> 
> When I listen to 18th and 19th century, I know something about sonata form, I can listen to harmonic changes, I can listen for changes in tempo, or melodic lines, and so forth.
> 
> ...


This is a question that has been raised many times before and I do not know the answer. I never really appreciated atonal music until I was in my fifties. I can try to explain the essential elements of atonal music to a person but that is no guarantee that they will like it.

Check out the following thread. It may contain suggestions that you may find helpful:

Help me get into modern music

There is also Alex Ross' book _The Rest Is Noise: Listening to the Twentieth Century_


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

arpeggio said:


> This is a question that has been raised many times before and I do not know the answer. I never really appreciated atonal music until I was in my fifties. I can try to explain the essential elements of atonal music to a person but that is no guarantee that they will like it.
> 
> Check out the following thread. It may contain suggestions that you may find helpful:
> 
> ...


Some people like to know what is going on technically in a piece. I guess they are musicians or at least musically trained. Some people need to know the social, historical and (/or) biographical context when they are exploring music that is new to them. But many of us just listen to the music and if it starts to "line up" in our heads then we like it and listen further. Personally, I find I have nearly zero interest in the technicalities. I even find that reading about technicalities can be misleading and that many musical writers use technical arguments to advance a view about aspects that, for me, can only come from how I _feel _about the music. And I am only really interested in the contextual stuff when I already like a composer or a piece.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Enthusiast said:


> Some people like to know what is going on technically in a piece. I guess they are musicians or at least musically trained. Some people need to know the social, historical and (/or) biographical context when they are exploring music that is new to them. But many of us just listen to the music and if it starts to "line up" in our heads then we like it and listen further. Personally, I find I have nearly zero interest in the technicalities. I even find that reading about technicalities can be misleading and that many musical writers use technical arguments to advance a view about aspects that, for me, can only come from how I _feel _about the music. And I am only really interested in the contextual stuff when I already like a composer or a piece.


I used to be that way myself. But as I have gotten older I came to realize that such thinking is bogus. There are just too many technically well structure works that I just do not understand. And there are way too many simplistic works that I have found to be fascinating.

I have given up trying to understand why I like or dislike a particular composer or work.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

For some reason I am drawn towards tonally very ambiguous music (if that's the right way to describe it) such as late Scriabin and Roslavets. Their music seems to have traces and shadows of common tonal music, but it never actually reaches that point; it's in a permanent state of suspension. This twilight zone creates a wonderful sense of mystery. When I listen to actual 12 tone music it feels like there's nothing to hold on to anymore, not even a vague trace of tonality and I just don't experience anything pleasant anymore.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> The apparent lesson to be derived from this little demonstration is that atonal music can be understood as tonal music played with wrong notes.
> 
> Somehow I don't think that's what the man intends to say.


How much can you learn from a three minute demonstration? It was just a mini lesson in harmony and intervals. And to refute the silly assumption of randomness in note choice.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

starthrower said:


> How much can you learn from a three minute demonstration? It was just a mini lesson in harmony and intervals. And to refute the silly assumption of randomness in note choice.


Trouble is, it doesn't refute that notion. Showing that changing a few notes gives us something resembling tonal harmony doesn't show that the music as written is coherent. Is there a way to show that in three hours, much less three minutes?


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

This always happens when someone starts a thread about atonal music. It degenerates into a meaningless discussion about the pros and cons of atonal music. Please check out the OP.

For those who want to complain about atonal music may I suggest the following thread: Has the thread run out?

Please go there and leave those of us who like atonal music in piece.


----------



## rodrigaj (Dec 11, 2016)

Sorry to the OP for derailing this thread. 

I will try Ross' book again. I did not find it particularly useful when I first attempted to read it, but I should give it another chance. I feel motivated now.

The 3min demonstration youtube is a pedagogical approach favored by the presenter. 

I'll definitely look through the "Help me get into modern music" thread.

Back on track, I'll throw this out:

Alban Berg, because after seeing the METs production of LULU several years ago (at the AMC), I started to appreciate atonal music.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> Trouble is, it doesn't refute that notion. Showing that changing a few notes gives us something resembling tonal harmony doesn't show that the music as written is coherent. Is there a way to show that in three hours, much less three minutes?


You have more knowledge than I do. I don't know how to analyze a piece of atonal music. I just listen to it. But I seem to enjoy the music of the first generation of 2nd Viennese School composers than the later composers in most instances.


----------



## Bluecrab (Jun 24, 2014)

I've been listening for the past couple of days to Webern's complete works. I really like his music. I hear an austerity and economy of style/sound that remind me of Hindemith.


----------



## R3PL4Y (Jan 21, 2016)

The second viennese school are of course great, but there is a lot of other great atonal music out there. Stravinsky in his last period turned to serialism. Copland wrote two 12 tone orchestral pieces, Connotations and Inscape, which are both excellent imo. Some of Ginastera's later music is twelve tone. Messiaen, although not twelve tone, is mostly atonal, as modes of limited transposition essentially make a tonal center impossible. I quit like what I have heard of Pierre Boulez's music, although some may disagree.


----------

