# Atonal Music and Feelings



## fugueforthought (Nov 28, 2013)

I have read some of the threads (one over 100 pages!) about atonal music and feelings. While this may tend to sound like an amateur question or amateur sentiments, I want to get thoughts. 
I have spent the past few years doing my level best to make a study of music theory and begin to compose a bit. One of my first posts last year was in regard to coming to appreciate modern classical music (specifically the more chromatic or completely atonal pieces; I specifically mentioned Schoenberg, and have since come to quite enjoy some of his [very] early works). 
My question is this: if the purpose of atonal (twelve-tone or wholly serial) music is NOT to elicit emotions of 18-19th century tonal music (and obviously it is not), then by what criteria does one determine 'good' from 'bad' serial music? 
This is an egregiously subjective question, I understand, even with wholly tonal music. Some symphonies may be accepted by the general public (of the time) to have been terrible flops, but are now considered great successes (Schubert's ninth comes to mind; as does Hans Rott's first symphony, which Brahms apparently detested), but can we try to speak aside from matters of taste and opinion? It is generally accepted that in the tonal system, there were masters of that structure. Chopin in the Romantic era, and on the other end of that spectrum, the piano sonatas of Berg (his only one) and Scriabin (specifically 8 and 9) while highly chromatic and dissonant, are still NOT atonal, and they are gorgeous. They accomplish *something* (emotional expression) through a *different* use of harmonies. While not everyone will enjoy them, they are still successful/important/well-crafted works of art. 
If from the qualities of music (pitch, harmony, tempo, duration, dynamic, attack, orchestration) we remove (or greatly limit) the variables of pitch and harmony (and with total/multiple/integral serialism, even those of duration and dynamic, etc.) and we are NOT speaking in a language with the purpose of moving an audience or being 'pretty,' then what is the goal of atonal music?
In a fantastic little speech during an interview with Krystian Zimerman (available on YouTube), he talks about how playing Chopin 'adequately' will produce beautiful music, because that's what it's written to be, while playing Prokofiev 'adequately' may not be beautiful because (some of it) was intended to be grotesque or angry or frolicking. The purpose is different.
Just as in the tonal scheme, one can identify masterful use of voice-leading or harmonic progressions or structure, one can also identify really crappy use of those same principles (parallel fifths, etc.) that even a non-professional can identify as amateur or even 'bad.' 
Since we are not speaking in terms of tonality or 'pretty' music, then based on what criteria does one judge or estimate atonal music (either that which I try to write, or that which one hears by other composers)? 
I do not have perfect pitch, so I cannot listen to a piece and identify _why_ it works (Chopin's use of some modulation or key change) beyond the major and minor, but one _feels_ those changes. I am hard-pressed (as I suspect many listeners would be) to identify patterns or "good use" of a twelve-tone series in a work beyond the prime or retrograde or something. Some works establish and use the prime series straightforwardly to establish that progression, but beyond that, it wound be hard for me to identify the progression or use of that pattern in its many different permutations (in chords or other rhythms, or spread across staves or many bars of music). How then, am I to distinguish 'good' atonal writing, from 'poor'? I am 100% unable to comprehend Boulez's piano sonatas in any manner. I accept that as my fault, and not a flaw of the compositions, but in an effort to understand them (and aspire to begin to toy with the idea of writing simple serial works), what is my goal? What should one have in mind beyond 'interesting' which is also extremely subjective?


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

The answer is: whatever you enjoy the most, whether it be because it's dark, colorful, perky, meditative, humorous, contemplative, fun, serious, devastating, or whatever in between. Boulez isn't my favorite serial composer (although others like him a lot): I prefer the second Viennese school, and the Italians Dallapiccola, Berio, and Nono.

As far as technical considerations go, you'll have to read a book on atonal music theory, which is beyond anything I know but the experts here could give you some suggestions. But before composing music yourself, at least get familiar with more pieces from the masters I mentioned above.

The 12-tone style is not one simple blanket thing, for the composers I mentioned above used 12-tone in totally different ways. Schoenberg and Berg had a more linear narrative romantic mentality, the Italians had a more static sound-color, meditative Renaissance-ish style (but when they needed to get dramatic they _really_ got dramatic!), and Webern is almost his own thing.


----------



## fugueforthought (Nov 28, 2013)

Thank you for these insights and suggestions. 
I do know better than to clump many of these guys together, since they do tend to use or approach the concept of serialism differently. I will say that what I've heard of Nono and Berio is.... frightening to me in a very literal way; it borders on grotesque in my opinion. 
Not previously mentioned are people like Milton Babbitt. While atonal but _not_ serial, people like Ferneyhough also baffle me. I am incapable of enjoying such music, and as a result of not being able to _understand_ it, it is therefore very difficult for me to _distinguish_ one style or approach from another. 
Early Schoenberg and Berg I can appreciate (his earlier works are _not_ atonal, and I was just listening to and quite enjoying his first string quartet). Something else of mention would be this:
I am assuming that a fundamental understanding of the rules of harmony and tonality is NOT a prerequisite for composition of atonal music. One obviously has to understand the most basic ideas in music theory. In that structure, one is no longer dealing with things like key modulations and sonata form and cadences and harmonic progressions, so I don't see them being a necessary step in that specific school of thought. Granted, Schoenberg made a _conscious_ effort to _avoid_ any consonant harmonies in his atonal works, which I realized I did not do in a few little experiments with twelve-tone series; rather, it was almost an effort to _make_ harmonies out of the series I had to work with because it's what I know. 
Anyway, I am interested to learn more about what is, as of yet, a still-incomprehensible form of music. Thanks!


----------



## Alypius (Jan 23, 2013)

fugueforthought said:


> My question is this: if the purpose of atonal (twelve-tone or wholly serial) music is NOT to elicit emotions of 18-19th century tonal music (and obviously it is not), then by what criteria does one determine 'good' from 'bad' serial music?


Two points of reflection: First, When you listen to two different 19th-century composers, both more or less trying to portray the same emotions (joy, anguish, whatever), how do you judge one of them bad and one good? Or this one better, that one worse? I don't suspect you say: "Oh, that one just _feels_ better." Your feelings might be OK as an initial intuition, but if you want to make an informed aesthetic judgment, you do more. My guess is that you pull out the score, you study the melodic patterns and harmonic structures, you ask yourself about the musical grammar that the passage uses to articulate those emotions, you ask how that particular passage fits in (or doesn't fit in) within the larger architecture of the work as a whole, and then you make a judgment on that analytical basis (perhaps confirming your initial intuition, perhaps reversing it). Well, I think you go through exactly the same sort analytic / critical process when the work comes from the musical grammar that Schoenberg and Berg chose to use. "Atonality" and later serialism were just that: a grammar. You can use the grammar well or badly. But most importantly, you still have to say something with it. I think the method of aesthetic judgment isn't all that different, even if the grammar is.

Second, since many of the works of the Second Vienna School are vocal, look at the words. Take maybe just a few lines from a work, whether it be one of Schoenberg's song cycles or Berg's operas. Meditate on the meaning of the words themselves without the music, meditate on their emotions, their poetic imagery / allusions, as well as how those selected words fit in with the larger script or poem. Then listen to the music. Ask yourself: Did Schoenberg get those words right (in an artistic sense)? Did Berg find a musical idiom that expressed what the character in the opera was saying at that point? That's how we judge any musical drama of any idiom. Why should such an artistic evaluation in this case be any different just because the musical idiom is "atonal" or "serial" or whatever? I think a close analysis will show that Schoenberg and Berg are unusually capable of wedding words to music. They certainly spent a lot of effort doing so. And their works have held up to a century of public performances and critical scrutiny and are recognized precisely for their artistic coherence, cogency _and expressiveness._

I guess that I should make one other point with regard to historical distance. Ask yourself how you judge such-and-such a Bach piece is better than such-and-such a Telemann piece? or how this Guillaume Dufay motet is not as artistically remarkabl as that Palestrina motet? I cite these because "emotions" in Baroque and Renaissance music are not so apparent to us. Their emotional grammar is not so transparent to our ears (though it certainly was to theirs). Once again, I think you would go through the very same analytic process, but in the case of Renaissance you're dealing with modes and polyphony as opposed to the major/minor system. Because of the historical distance, you probably have to do some special historical research to appreciate the context (e.g. court practices, the Latin liturgy). Well, there is a certain historical distance that we now feel from early 20th-century Vienna. Its emotional landscape is somewhat removed from our own. And so in making an aesthetic judgment, we probably need to do a little historical research to understand what Schoenberg or Berg or Webern were doing, were worrying about artistically.

Hope all that helps.


----------



## fugueforthought (Nov 28, 2013)

Alypius said:


> Two points of reflection: ... Hope all that helps.


Brilliantly well said. 
I am an English major (with training in foreign language) working as an editor/translator. Thinking of tonality vs. atonality and use of music as grammar makes lots of sense. I suppose it would be like trying to make sense of language without understanding the grammar. 
Thanks for the perspective and the ideas. These will be some good mental exercises.
While truth be told, I cannot bear to listen to most of these works (the post-Romantic, very early works of Schoenberg and Berg and even Webern aside; them I can manage), something about the process and the idea fascinates me...


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

If you "cannot bear to listen to listen to most of these works" try working your way up from more accessible to less accessible, just like one shouldn't start with Mahler's 7th as the first symphony of his you listen to.

Schoenberg string quartet 3 



 (very classical/romantic in mentality and style, but 12-tone in harmony)
Berg violin concerto 



 (gentle, dark, and haunting: a very famous piece)
Dallapiccola Quaderno Musicale di Annalibera 



 (a piano piece much more gentle than Schoenberg's)

Actually Dallapiccola is probably the best to start off with as he's the gentlest. I'll just link a post I made on the current listening thread:

http://www.talkclassical.com/32210-current-listening-vol-ii-392.html#post702710

I highly encourage you to listen to the Dallapiccola I suggest there. Good luck!


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

fugueforthought said:


> My question is this: if the purpose of atonal (twelve-tone or wholly serial) music is NOT to elicit emotions of 18-19th century tonal music (and obviously it is not), then by what criteria does one determine 'good' from 'bad' serial music?


I don't determine the quality of an 18th-19th century work by the emotions it attempts to elicit, so why should I do that for a 20th century work?



fugueforthought said:


> If from the qualities of music (pitch, harmony, tempo, duration, dynamic, attack, orchestration) *we remove (or greatly limit) the variables of pitch and harmony* (and with total/multiple/integral serialism, even those of duration and dynamic, etc.) and *we are NOT speaking in a language with the purpose of moving an audience or being 'pretty'*
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


All of the bolded statements are strictly false, but sadly all too commonly found.

So-called "atonal" music (the term is incoherent) is based on harmony and pitch and duration and dynamics, even if these are guided (not determined, but guided) by a series.

There is music written in atonal/serial language for the same range and diversity of expression as in any other.

You can find all sorts of common chords in Schoenberg's works, even triads or seventh chords, although other kinds of harmonies are certainly more prevalent. A lot of the harmonies, voiced differently and in different contexts, wouldn't be the least bit out of place in jazz music.

The idea that one does not need to understand traditional music to compose atonally is perhaps true, but one does not need to understand traditional music to compose tonally, either. To write like Schoenberg certainly would require a very thorough knowledge of traditional music theory.

I find much of it is quite beautiful, and it's actually no harder to tell a good piece from a bad than it is in any other style you know.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

Finally, in Mahlerian's blog http://www.talkclassical.com/blogs/mahlerian/1635-weberns-symphony-second-movement.html we have a very good discussion with aleazk on some of the ideas that serial composers had in mind when constructing their pieces.

Also, this book chapter is a good introduction to how a 12-tone row is actually used. In particular, it mentions that triads are not antagonistic to the idea of 12-tone serialism, and that they are sometimes put right into the tone row, in particular in the Berg violin concerto (which is why it is gentle-sounding!).


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

> Mahlerian: I don't determine the quality of an 18th-19th century work by the emotions it attempts to elicit, so why should I do that for a 20th century work?


Fair shooting.

But then, I wouldn't automatically 'up-market' the aesthetic quality of a twentieth century work just because it uses a probability calculus or a tone row in its compositional structure.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Fair shooting.
> 
> But then, I wouldn't automatically 'up-market' the aesthetic quality of a twentieth century work just because it uses a probability calculus or a tone row in its compositional structure.


Of course not. An analogue for an earlier work would be the use of a fugue, perhaps, and we all know how much I hate the finale of Tchaikovsky's Manfred!


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> Of course not. An analogue for an earlier work would be the use of a fugue, perhaps, and we all know how much I hate the finale of Tchaikovsky's Manfred!


-- Which is to say: musical formulae and structure are no guarantee of aesthetic appeal.

_Merci beaucoup._ _;D_

_Quod erat demonstrandum._


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Traditional harmony and counterpoint had certain rules that related, at least partly, to what could actually be heard. That is, certain things were not allowed (or used only with extreme caution) because they produced results that were, according to the dogma, unpleasant to hear: too many dissonances, voices merging through parallel movement, disjunct melodies with large interval jumps, things like that.

So there were "rights" and "wrongs", so to speak, by which one could, academically, measure the quality of a piece, or rather its correctness according to the rules of harmony and counterpoint. And the challenge probably consisted in working, for the most part, within this corset of rules and still produce something that was interesting, moving, engaging and diverse.

I don't know if twelve-tone music forbids or rules out anything in a similar way. I'd be surprised if it did. Of course the tone row is the toughest rule in itself. But it leaves most things open: the macro structure of the piece, the dynamic and tempo relationships, moments of tension and release, etc.

Anyway, it seems to me that, generally speaking, there are no rules anymore. Everything is possible. But the challenge of creating something interesting and engaging remains the same, of course.

Maybe one the new criteria for the quality of a work is its level of complexity. High complexity entails a more of some kind: more voices, more relationships, more interconnectedness of motifs/structures, more musical events per second, etc. It is interesting, because none of this is necessarily a sign of quality, but just of quantity.

It is a fair question if there is a way to judge the quality of a piece of music. That is, nowadays, where there are no more rules that dictate what is "good" and "bad". Obviously one could say: why bother asking that question to begin with? Why not simply experience the piece as it is, without evaluating its artistic merits? Well, I think it would be somewhat against our instinct. My impression is that man has always tried to externalise notions of right/wrong and better/worse, mostly in the shape of hierachical societies and books of laws, sacred or secular. So this kind of thinking seems to be somewhat inherent.

But this hardly applies to modern societies anymore, where laws merely serve to prevent harm, but other than that, anything goes. Nothing dictates, what is good taste or style or attitude. Every provocation gets included in the big tent of artictic expression. And rightfully so. Yet - and this is very much to the OP - it does not provide criteria for a qualitative evaluation. Again, perhaps, rightfully so.


----------



## Guest (Aug 15, 2014)

There have always been rule makers. And there have always been creative artists.

The two categories are as mutually exclusive as anyone could desire.

And the rules, such as they are, have always come after the creative artists have made something. The rules don't come first. The works come first. Of course, once the rules have been made (based on the works), another generation of artists can come along and confront those rules as if they were sacrosanct. We see that a lot. (And that's where the "learn the rules before you can break them" cliche comes from. As silly a notion as one could ever wish for.)

And I am almost certain that there has never ever been, nor can ever be (in the nature of things) any criteria for qualitative evaluation. Qualitative evaluation is just not that kind of thing. It is, I'm pretty sure, a chump's game.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Well, a piece either "works" or it doesn't. Either for you, or for the composer, or for someone else. Rules have little to do with it. And if a composer uses one or another of the "atonal" methods, presumably that method worked or spoke to him in the context of composing that particular piece -- whether successfully or not is another matter, but everyone wrote lemons.

A mentor once made a comment in regards to "modern" art, be it a "drip" painting, a sculpture made of automobile bumpers, or whatever: An individual work like that may cause you to over-react ("trash", "my child could do that," etc.). But if you were led into a room full of similar kinds of art, and told you had to pick one to live with in your house for the next year, you would start examining them in a totally different way -- looking them in terms of form, shape, color, craftmanship, aesthetics, etc. -- and the initial reasons for your disparagement would recede. You can treat contemporary music similarly.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Andreas said:


> Traditional harmony and counterpoint had certain rules that related, at least partly, to what could actually be heard.


This is pretty hilarious. Of course you meant 'what and how people listen' vs. what could actually be heard, LOL.

... and all kinds of listeners have their highly varied and personal cut-off lines about 'what they can hear.'

"'what they can hear _and follow_," being radically different from "what can be heard."

But it is 2014 and those who complain they can not hear or follow what is going on in a contemporary piece might be part of a demographic the music business needs to feed (plenty of Mozart, Beethoven, Strauss, etc. for _that._)

But really, by 2014, that much of an audience who still cannot follow or 'get' a serial music simply because they cannot find a melody or a good ole Dominant - Tonic / Subdominant - Tonic chord progression? -- well, those are rather like the pop music listeners of the classical arena -- and they will, most all of them, stay with music where 'they can identify the tune.'

As we sail away from that land of melody, tune, hummable motifs and anchor posts a guy can grab onto out of familiar habit, by gum, we must not feel sorry for those left on that island, for it has many people on it, lots of music, all the sorts so readily appreciated by its populace, and, indeed, new young composers slavishly writing new works very much in the old style.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

If you have not even made preliminary essays into any sort of serial method, the last thing you need concern yourself with is 'what that way of writing can express,' or about what emotions you can express using that approach.

Drop any preconceived notions about it -- those notions you've already mentioned I would say are built upon the opinions of (mostly conservative) music listeners who less than prefer serial music or much modern / contemporary music in general. If you want to try your hand at any number of contemporary classical techniques, that group, clearly then, are not your musical guides or gurus.

As a composer, you delve into a technique or aspect or manner of 'how to write' and _you first see how it works, and then what you can do with it._ Often this requires composing a good handful of shorter pieces with those means before you become even slightly near familiar enough with the approach -- i.e. then you are at the very tip of the iceberg, just the beginning -- before you can think to say you have enough _experiential familiarity with it_ to make it do what you would like it to do.

If you write a (non-pedantic / academic) piece 'that works,' it will be expressive of something.
The only lack of personal expression is within the artist, not the technical means they deploy. Serial music is 'just another way to write,' and if you approach it loaded with preconceptions as to any kind of limits it may have (it does not) then you are already somewhat set up to fail.

P.s. Serial music need not be atonal:
Arthur Berger - Duo for Cello and Piano (1951)
http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNkRPgCwub0


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

PetrB said:


> This is pretty hilarious. Of course you meant 'what and how people listen' vs. what could actually be heard, LOL.
> 
> ... and all kinds of listeners have their highly varied and personal cut-off lines about 'what they can hear.'
> 
> "'what they can hear _and follow_," being radically different from "what can be heard."


Since you left out what followed, I can only presume the misunderstanding was deliberate. But really, your points are good enough on their own, you don't need a springboard for them.


----------



## fugueforthought (Nov 28, 2013)

PetrB said:


> P.s. Serial music need not be atonal:
> Arthur Berger - Duo for Cello and Piano (1951)
> v=wNkRPgCwub0[/URL]


Oh my goodness.... this Berger piece is fantastically beautiful. Thank you for this.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

I found interest in your question "How do you determine the good from the bad?" This is the quandary of all art, and there is no easy answer. But one thing that does seem to matter is time. Often, the living composers celebrated most during a specific era are those who become footnotes some years down the pike. But what makes them interesting in one era but not long lasting? Good question. No easy answer.

We can all nearly agree that certain musical works prove "good": the Brandenburg Concerti, Mozart's _Figaro_, Beethoven's Fifth, etc. But during the contemporary times of Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, there were myriad other composers of note, many who had greater esteem. Some of these are names you would barely recognize today unless you are a musicologist.

The point being ... we probably won't know what is good or bad from modern music for quite some time. Pieces are beginning to surface: Schoenberg's Moses und Aron, Webern's Five Pieces, Berg's Violin Concerto ... but the closer to our contemporary age one gets the more difficult it is to judge quality in art. It's always been that way, with a couple of exceptions, I'm sure.

In the end, the reasons why one art work gains accolade and another is dismissed are complex and multifarious. The society at large does the selection, in whatever ways it happens. Still ...

Time proves much.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

The Schönberg Piano Concerto elicits emotions in my opinion as well as any tonal piece can; at least in me it does.


----------

