# 12 tone is the language of the serious composer



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

“While the tonal system, in an atrophied or vestigial form, is still used today in popular and commercial music, and even occasionally in the works of backward-looking serious composers, it is no longer employed by serious composers of the mainstream, it has been replaced or succeeded by the 12-tone system.”

Here is an interesting quote I came across by Wuorinen in 1978. Nothing sparks the forum like some good tonal vs atonal talk. 

Roll over Beethoven, and tell Tchaikovsky the news :devil:


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Phil loves classical said:


> "...it is no longer employed by serious composers of the mainstream..."


Such composers, one would hope, having a second and potentially more lucrative specialty in pizza delivery.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Wrong, the late Elliott Carter, who was certainly a major composer like his music or not, never used the 12 tone system . His music is atonal, but he developed his own arcane and hermetic system of composition , which is actually even more complex and intimidating than the Schoenbergian system , at least as practiced by Schoenberg, Berg and Webern . Other composers, such as Milton Babbitt , took the 12 tone system and made it even more complex and daunting .


----------



## Gordontrek (Jun 22, 2012)

Phil loves classical said:


> "and even occasionally in the works of backward-looking serious composers..."


Pretentious nonsense. Since when did the "mainstream" become a serialists-only club?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Given that the comment came from 1978, I think we can cut Wuorinen some slack. It was only a couple of years after _Einstein on the Beach_ and _Music for 18 Musicians_, after all...

Anyway, here's Richard Taruskin in 1997:


> Big Talk. But of course it is the sheerest and silliest ''vulgar Darwinism'': the view of evolution that sees it as having Us (whoever We may be) as its desired goal. Like its bloodier cousin, vulgar Marxism, it offered a marvelous rationale for intolerance (and, when in power, aggression) toward Neanderthals, social democrats, tonalists and other underevolved species whose continued existence was only foiling Nature's plan.
> That was then. By now, outside of a few reactionary music departments and journalistic diehards, vulgar Darwinism has been repudiated everywhere, turning the old academic avant-garde into a congregation of crybabies, spouting paranoid speculations and conspiracy theories, railing at ''society'' for failing to support their projects of self-indulgence and social contempt.
> Ralph Shapey, a Chicago veteran, contends that European conductors of American orchestras deliberately program the worst local stuff to discredit ''American serious composers'' like him. Donald Martino of Harvard now declares that ''Serial'' is just a term of journalistic abuse. Mr. Wuorinen likes to pretend nowadays that ''the word's meaning has always escaped me.'' The chorus of denial has a familiar ring to anyone who has been listening lately to the likes of the East German spymaster Markus Wolf or the Albanian widow Hoxha, relics of another discredited elite.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

1978 was the peak before the reaction. 12 tone is now another tool in the box. Amateur composers who have made it past the 'concert waltz' tend to adopt it in the hope of becoming a 'serious' composer.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Rigid, complex systems usually go in tandem with inflexible minds. That is not to say that an inflexible mind cannot be creative but one of the hallmarks of the great composers (e.g. Beethoven, Mahler, Sibelius) is that they pushed the systemic boundaries and reinvented themselves with almost every major work.

Note: I am now going to take a sabbatical from the forum until the impending storm blows over :lol:


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

As I recall, Wuorinen loved the sound of his own voice making headlines back in the '70s -- more even than most people liked the sound of his music. There was even a controversy one summer at Tanglewood where the orchestra at the festival of contemporary music rebelled at his excessive use of leger lines which made one score almost impossible to play correctly.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Phil loves classical said:


> ". . . it is no longer employed by serious composers of the mainstream, it has been replaced or succeeded by the 12-tone system."


I never trust anyone who uses comma splices.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

And that's why God made semicolons for the righteous.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

KenOC said:


> And that's why God made semicolons for the righteous.


I personally worship the Greek god Typos.


----------



## Bluecrab (Jun 24, 2014)

Although I like quite a bit of his music, Wuorinen has long been known for his arrogance and intolerance of viewpoints that don't agree with his. Nothing in that quote should really surprise any of us.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

My initial thought was: "Wuorinen? Never heard of him".


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I'll come back with my old arguments that you are familiar with, Phil, that there is no right or wrong way to compose and that you should do what you are driven to do whatever that may be.

My tools for music composition are my emotions, not theory, as we have discussed many times before.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

One of the striking things about some composers of that era is the contempt they felt for most of the musical public. Here's Milton Babbitt in 1958, suggesting that the music he and his friends write should be fully subsidized, since most listeners don't have the ability to appreciate it and never will.

"Granting to music the position accorded other arts and sciences promises the sole substantial means of survival for the music I have been describing. Admittedly, if this music is not supported, the whistling repertory of the man in the street will be little affected, the concert-going activity of the conspicuous consumer of musical culture will be little disturbed."

Mr. Babbitt does not say exactly who _would _care if it simply went away.


----------



## Guest (Mar 11, 2018)

Blancrocher said:


> I personally worship the Greek god Typos.


Ah yes, isn't he the husband of Stet?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Phil loves classical said:


> "While the tonal system, in an atrophied or vestigial form, is still used today in popular and commercial music, and even occasionally in the works of backward-looking serious composers, it is no longer employed by serious composers of the mainstream, it has been replaced or succeeded by the 12-tone system."
> 
> Here is an interesting quote I came across by Wuorinen in 1978.


The "tonal system" - meaning common practice tonality, the system of harmonic relationships developed in the 17th century, solidified in the 18th, expanded in the 19th, and mixed with other tonalities and renounced (by some) in the 20th, has indeed had its heyday, and is now utilized as one way among others, if still an important way, of structuring music. But tonality as a basic principle - the organizing of the notes of a scale in specific relationships around a central tone serving as a point of resolution or gravity - retains its importance in music of all genres (classical and popular), and the 12-tone system is just another technique available to composers. 12-tone manifestos produced by mid-20th-century evangelists like Wuorinen, Babbitt and Boulez seem amusingly quaint, and those gentlemen will just have to be content to be judged on the quality and appeal of their music. I don't know anyone who cares much about any of them, except, to an extent, Boulez.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> The "tonal system" - meaning common practice tonality, the system of harmonic relationships developed in the 17th century, solidified in the 18th, expanded in the 19th, and mixed with other tonalities and renounced (by some) in the 20th, has indeed had its heyday, and is now utilized as one way among others, if still an important way, of structuring music. But tonality as a basic principle - the organizing of the notes of a scale in specific relationships around a central tone serving as a point of resolution or gravity - retains its importance in music of all genres (classical and popular), and the 12-tone system is just another technique available to composers. 12-tone manifestos produced by mid-20th-century evangelists like Wuorinen, Babbitt and Boulez seem amusingly quaint, and those gentlemen will just have to be content to be judged on the quality and appeal of their music. I don't know anyone who cares much about any of them, except, to an extent, Boulez.


Oh but Babbitt's quartets are wonderful!


----------



## BiscuityBoyle (Feb 5, 2018)

> Mr. Babbitt does not say exactly who would care if it simply went away.


It is clearly implied: the music lover whose attitude is not that of a consumer, who has infinite curiosity for the unfamiliar and the challenging.

I'm hardly an evangelist for serialism, but some music written within that system is strikingly beautiful, such as this short piano concerto by Stravinsky.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

KenOC said:


> Such composers, one would hope, having a second and potentially more lucrative specialty in pizza delivery.


Probably true for 99.9 percent of tonal composers as well.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

starthrower said:


> Probably true for 99.9 percent of tonal composers as well.


haha, lol!  
Very true.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

It's funny, I used to care a lot about being unusual and unique (though I never forced anything), now I just want to make music that makes me happy. I hope it has a strong individuality to it, but some of this atonal just feels forced to be unusual.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

starthrower said:


> Probably true for 99.9 percent of tonal composers as well.


Likely true!

Q: What's the difference between a composer and a large pizza?
A: The large pizza can feed a family of four.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> Oh but Babbitt's quartets are wonderful!


For keeping cats out of the garden.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

All those tone row melodies rattling around in the brains of the average person. 12 tone ear worms are a blight on the modern aural world.

*mimics an over modulated AM top 40 DJ*
"Yes that was the new song from The Dodeckaphonics, _The 12 Semitones of Christmas_. Now here's a fave rave pick, The Retrogrades with their big hit, _My End Is My Beginning._"


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I’ve read somewhere that the 12-tone movement has survived in America up till the present. Some younger composers I’ll never be able to remember the names of have kept it alive. You need the password to join, it is a certain tone row. Ok, last part is a joke, but I’m glad it is kept alive.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Room2201974 said:


> All those tone row melodies rattling around in the brains of the average person. 12 tone ear worms are a blight on the modern aural world.
> 
> *mimics an over modulated AM top 40 DJ*
> "Yes that was the new song from The Dodeckaphonics, _The 12 Semitones of Christmas_. Now here's a fave rave pick, The Retrogrades with their big hit, _My End Is My Beginning._"


We're lucky nowadays to have 3-tone "melodies" rattling around in the brains of the average person. I've more than once had the experience of hearing some pathetic, repetitive piece of would-be music broadcast in a retail establishment, wondering what happened to the art of writing tunes and who could possibly enjoy or remember such stuff, and then hearing some customer in the store "singing" along as if this situation were perfectly normal. I then walked out of the store, and - sure enough - I was stuck with a 3-note earworm which had me longing for a good, convoluted, dreary, totally forgettable tone row.

It's a harsh world out there.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Seems an appropriate time for the classic 12-tone commercial.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Wuorinen was against the view of "the response of the untutored becomes the sole criterion for judgement" (both quotes in thread taken from Wikipedia). A common criticism of serialism was the processes used in its composition do not reflect human processes in response to music. I can see where Wuorinen is coming from. It is on the extreme side of the untrained public that prefers top 40 pop music to classical, in particular modern. I see an anology like someone trying to judge a work by Shakespeare who is not that competant in the English language. 

Beethoven is considered the greatest composer, but it more limited only to common practice. Personally I do find something to admire in the works of Stockhausen, Babbitt, Carter and company, even though I can’t quite grasp fully their music (it is not just a matter of digging disonnance which could be achieved randomly). Coincidentally Stockhausen is hostile to Postmodernists, who he consider are lazy.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> "While the tonal system, in an atrophied or vestigial form, is still used today in popular and commercial music, and even occasionally in the works of backward-looking serious composers, it is no longer employed by serious composers of the mainstream, it has been replaced or succeeded by the 12-tone system."


No surprises then that the bulk of people prefer the work of non-serious composers.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

brianvds said:


> No surprises then that the bulk of people prefer the work of non-serious composers.


I was enjoying a Schoenburg disc I own earlier this evening, though!


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Wuorinen was against the view of "the response of the untutored becomes the sole criterion for judgement" (both quotes in thread taken from Wikipedia). A common criticism of serialism was the processes used in its composition do not reflect human processes in response to music. I can see where Wuorinen is coming from. It is on the extreme side of the untrained public that prefers top 40 pop music to classical, in particular modern. I see an anology like someone trying to judge a work by Shakespeare who is not that competant in the English language.
> 
> Beethoven is considered the greatest composer, but it more limited only to common practice. Personally I do find something to admire in the works of Stockhausen, Babbitt, Carter and company, even though I can't quite grasp fully their music (it is not just a matter of digging disonnance which could be achieved randomly). Coincidentally Stockhausen is hostile to Postmodernists, who he consider are lazy.


Stockhausen, at least, was so progressive that to call him a serialist seems conservative. A lot of the difficulty of his music is for other reasons. He has some very melodic/harmonic works:





(People who think they dont like stockhausen please listen to this, you will be surprised)





One of my all time favs


----------



## BiscuityBoyle (Feb 5, 2018)

KenOC said:


> Seems an appropriate time for the classic 12-tone commercial.


This is a very good example of how brutally unfunny self-consciously nerdy stabs at humor are. I do wonder though if they actually thought that the arrestingly beautiful Pierrot Lunaire is a 12 tone work.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

superhorn said:


> Wrong, the late Elliott Carter, who was certainly a major composer like his music or not, never used the 12 tone system . His music is atonal, but he developed his own arcane and hermetic system of composition , which is actually even more complex and intimidating than the Schoenbergian system , at least as practiced by Schoenberg, Berg and Webern . Other composers, such as Milton Babbitt , took the 12 tone system and made it even more complex and daunting .


Love Carter. I wonder if he is even atonal. Definitely not his earlier period.


----------



## christomacin (Oct 21, 2017)

I'd like to see a commercial for "Penderecki for Baby" or "Hooked on Dodecaphonics". Aside from the idiocy of lumping Stravinsky in with the rest of that dreck, I don't have much of a problem with the video. Come on, seriously, The Rite of Spring is pretty sexy and in spots quite beautiful


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BiscuityBoyle said:


> This is a very good example of how brutally unfunny self-consciously nerdy stabs at humor are. I do wonder though if they actually thought that the arrestingly beautiful Pierrot Lunaire is a 12 tone work.


I must be a self-conscious nerd, because I think the concept is inspired and the realization hilarious. The use of '50s images makes fun of both the pretentiousness of the mid-century atonal music world and of those embarrassing commercials for "greatest hits" classical collections made to appeal to the stunted cultural aspirations of the musically clueless American TV audience. Whether you're part of the defunct dodecaphony-is-music's-destiny movement, the commercial media industry, or the horde of boob-tube addicts who like classical music as long as it's in a Bugs Bunny cartoon, this satire is aimed at you. I find its aim pretty sharp, and only wish the musical selections were longer.

(The filmmaker doesn't say that Pierrot is 12-tone, but only that it's by a 12-tone composer, if that makes watching this less painful.)


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

BiscuityBoyle said:


> This is a very good example of how brutally unfunny self-consciously nerdy stabs at humor are. I do wonder though if they actually thought that the arrestingly beautiful Pierrot Lunaire is a 12 tone work.


The video is a bit of after-hours fun by Matthias Bamert, a well-known conductor and composer who studied with (among others) Stockhausen and Boulez. I have quite a few of his recordings and assume he knows music tolerably well. For something "brutally unfunny" it certainly made me chuckle!

Bamert conducted a very large series of "Contemporaries of Mozart" CDs, most of which are sadly OOP.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Anyone notice the film footage from the bombing of Nanking by the Japanese in the satirical 12 tone commercial? There's also footage of Wallace Shawn snoozing before he ever appeared in _My Dinner with Andre_. This was a brilliant satire and Stravinsky was probably included because his music could be just as violent. Is all 12 tone music disturbing? Of course not. But it does have certain elements that opens it up to this kind of humor. It's not exactly date night music, is it? This witty commercial has been around for years and long been considered a classic by those with a sense of humor. It's been posted by a wide variety of people over the years on different forums and is likely to continue.


----------



## christomacin (Oct 21, 2017)

I've never had a problem with Bartok or Stravinsky, and it wouldn't occur to me to lump them in with 12 tone (serialists, non-tonal, atonal, whatever) composers. That's a bit reactionary, even for me. I did find that video funny, though


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

It is very difficult for me to believe 12 tone was the language of anyone serious about music, especially since no one practices it any longer. It was just another change but one that signaled a more significant amendment in the art form.

12 tone was followed in the 20th century by electronic music from Wourinen, Stockhausen and others. While many important composers -- Elgar, Vaughan Williams, Sibelius and Shostakovich to name a few -- ignored 12 tone and successfully clung to the traditions of the art form, there were composers like Kabelas in Czechoslovakia and Rautavaara in Finland that tried to merge these elements into the traditions of sonata form. 

The next movement was minimalism which was a return to forms of the very distant past when Gregorian chant morphed into the more complex Baroque style. To me, this century-long period was classical music losing its identity, not gaining a new one. More than anything, I believe this is what resulted in classical music declining.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Actually, I was present at the world premiere of Wuorinen's opera "Brokeback Mountain", back in 2014, that is written in 12-tone.

You know?. It sounded as démodé as an aria written in C major.


----------



## Guest (Mar 12, 2018)

Larkenfield said:


> This witty commercial has been around for years and long been considered a classic by those with a sense of humor.


In that case I do not have a sense of humour. Either that or "a sense of humour" is not an either/or attribute.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Wuorinen's comments are eerily reminiscent of the 'Punkt-Kontrapunkt' piece in Hoffnung's 1958 Music Festival. YouTube seems to have a copyright block on this piece, sadly. In it, Hoffnung and John Amis acted the roles of two Mittel-European music professors introducing the eponymous new work by Bruno-Heinz Jaja. 

"Music has begun when Arnold Schoenberg was inventing the tone row. Before 12-tone composing was chaos absolute..."


----------



## Barelytenor (Nov 19, 2011)

Mandryka said:


> Oh but Babbitt's quartets are wonderful!


Well, I sampled Part 2 of Babbitt's Quartet No. 4 ... accompanied by a video that seemed to be showing broken bits of DNA. Or maybe that was my ears. I made it two minutes in. I may never whistle again. I guess I missed the wonderful part.

Kind regards,

George


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

dogen said:


> In that case I do not have a sense of humour. Either that or "a sense of humour" is not an either/or attribute.


Maybe what's needed is not a sense of humour but a sense of humor. You may have the latter and just not realize it.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

KenOC said:


> Seems an appropriate time for the classic 12-tone commercial.


The Stravinsky doesn't belong here...


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

"In the 1950s, Stravinsky began using serial compositional techniques such as dodecaphony, the twelve-tone technique originally devised by Arnold Schoenberg."






Not that anything is intended to be taken literally in satire, but in the spirit of fun of the 12 tone video, its makers evidently felt that he belonged in their soundtrack to The Great Train Robbery of 1903. After all, the composer was later to be booked.  https://goo.gl/images/SGVfWF


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Maybe what's needed is not a sense of humour but a sense of humor. You may have the latter and just not realize it.


Oh you crazy Americans with your quaint spellings!:lol:


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Larkenfield said:


> "In the 1950s, Stravinsky began using serial compositional techniques such as dodecaphony, the twelve-tone technique originally devised by Arnold Schoenberg." Not that anything is intended to be taken literally in satire, but in the spirit of fun in this video, its makers evidently felt that he belonged in their soundtrack to The Great Train Robbery of 1903. After all, the composer was later to be arrested.
> 
> https://goo.gl/images/SGVfWF


Apparently he wasn't arrested - https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2016/06/30/stravinsky/rfnaZtqjCQXZAobdv7kVkI/story.html


----------



## Forss (May 12, 2017)

This is certainly a most crucial question. To me, alas, it seems as though the future of classical music - whether it be a natural progression of dodecaphonic patterns, a (sort of) regression to old, harmonic forms or a combination of both (and of others) - is one of defining "music" itself, as a _living_ entity. Is it music proper, _really_, if there is no harmony involved? Naturally, if one looks to the history of classical music, the very term "music" could, in many cases, be equated with "harmony", etc.

For me, in my opinion, many (not all) twelve-tone compositions - like the writings of, say, Adorno or Derrida, or the films of Godard - are nothing but rationality devoid of feeling, intellect without the living, beating _heart_.

"Tell me, can one at all denote thinking and feeling as things entirely separable? I cannot imagine a sublime intellect without the ardor of emotion." (Webern.)

Also, one mustn't forget that Schoenberg wrote a colossal book on the theory of harmony.

What is your opinion on this? (I am not entirely sure about my own position.)


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

What a grave mistake it is for anyone to assume that 12-tone/serialism/dodecophony came along and then every "serious" composer adopted it and is still adopting it wholesale to remain "serious". False, utterly false.

Like every other cultural force it has become part of the musical firmament, no longer the main approach. Just like writing social-realist kitchen-sink dramas is no longer the main approach for young writers.

The break in tonality was beneficial as far as I'm concerned, but there's no sense in talking about Stravinsky or Shostakovich or Bartok in the same breath as "12-tone" because they were not 12-tone composers. These three made use of the new tonal freedoms (Shostakovich I see more as a polystylist) to let their creative energies out of the straitjacket.

There are plenty new composers who are not strict 12-tone composers, or even 12-tone composers at all, even though they may use it and benefit from it. Really anyone still fighting this ancient battle is stuck in the past; it's been already been fought.


----------



## BabyGiraffe (Feb 24, 2017)

Forss said:


> Is it music proper, _really_, if there is no harmony involved? Naturally, if one looks to the history of classical music, the very term "music" could, in many cases, be equated with "harmony", etc.
> 
> What is your opinion on this? (I am not entirely sure about my own position.)


Rhythm and melody (melody is basically rhythm + pitch (rhythm so fast that human distorts)) are more basic elements of the musical art than harmony... Anyone can clap a rhythm with his hands and whistle or sing some kind of melody. Technnically, harmony is just a kind of polyrhythm, but we don't really hear it that way.


----------



## Michael Diemer (Nov 12, 2017)

So many problems with this statement. First, what is "serious?" Can it be defined? Is it a meaningful distinction? Is it, like so much in music, relative to the listener? As in, "serious" is in the eye of the beholder?" Is Beethoven serious, but Gershwin not? And so on.

Then, why does "serious" music only have one valid way of doing things? And a very circumscribed way at that. Are there not many effective ways to compose? 

Finally, if Twelve Tone is the only valid way to compose, then Bach, Beethoven, Mozart etc. were not serious composers. Not a statement most would take seriously.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

As a fan of 12 tone, atonal, polytonal classical of the mid to late 20th century, I always love a good "_random hated modern technique or composer_ VS common practice" thread!

I usually just sit back and watch the melee.

I do, however, find it interesting that so many people, that are not fans of mid to late 20th century (and contemporary) classical, find it necessary to open and/or comment threads (usually condescending in tone) putting down the music. I really don't understand it.

Here we are, fans of classical music, far in the minority of music fans in general, with the majority of that minority, putting down the music that those of us in even a smaller minority, love.

I find classical from before around 1920 to be, predictable, boring, trite and obvious. I can't help it, that's how I perceive it. But I don't open threads, or comment on threads, stating those feelings.

I do, however, like following these threads.

Carry on...


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Simon Moon said:


> As a fan of 12 tone, atonal, polytonal classical of the mid to late 20th century, I always love a good "_random hated modern technique or composer_ VS common practice" thread!
> 
> I usually just sit back and watch the melee.
> 
> ...


Hmm, apparently you do.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Simon Moon said:


> As a fan of 12 tone, atonal, polytonal classical of the mid to late 20th century, I always love a good "_random hated modern technique or composer_ VS common practice" thread!
> 
> I usually just sit back and watch the melee.
> 
> ...


I'm also a fan of the same 12-tone etc, but also of music before 1920 (I see no need for either/or), so I think I might perhaps have a wider body of comparison and appreciation than you have. Do correct me if I'm wrong, but you have previously stated that you either know nothing of pre-modernism or don't listen to it? I don't think this puts you in a much better position that those who only listen to pre-modernism. It also makes any judgements you make of music c.1920 and before rather worthless as an opinion, wouldn't you say?


----------



## Forss (May 12, 2017)

BabyGiraffe said:


> Rhythm and melody (melody is basically rhythm + pitch (rhythm so fast that human distorts)) are more basic elements of the musical art than harmony... Anyone can clap a rhythm with his hands and whistle or sing some kind of melody. Technnically, harmony is just a kind of polyrhythm, but we don't really hear it that way.


You are right, sir! I meant rhythm, melody _and_ harmony as fundamental principles for the very concept of "music", as it were.

To occasionally transgress the boundaries of harmony, like Mahler did, is to convey, to express an emotion of our common human experience; but to dwell, to work _solely beyond_ those boundaries - i.e. in disharmony - is _not_ an expression of (my, at any rate) human experience, and thus _utter_ nonsense (for me).


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

It's rather remarkable to see someone actually put down in print that they can't understand why people make negative comments in threads about mid to late 20th century music and then in the next breath trash virtually all classical music prior to 1920 which would be considered by most as the very heart of the genre.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

…and I’m always surprised and a little perplexed when I see it implied, and not for the first time, that people who dislike 12-tone music “are not fans of mid to late 20th century (and contemporary) classical.” Those are two different things, and the difference seems quite obvious.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

eugeneonagain said:


> I'm also a fan of the same 12-tone etc, but also of music before 1920 (I see no need for either/or), so I think I might perhaps have a wider body of comparison and appreciation than you have. Do correct me if I'm wrong, but you have previously stated that you either know nothing of pre-modernism or don't listen to it? I don't think this puts you in a much better position that those who only listen to pre-modernism. It also makes any judgements you make of music c.1920 and before rather worthless as an opinion, wouldn't you say?


I have continued to try to get into pre-modernism for years, decades even. I hear it on classical radio, I used to have a pretty big collection of most of the major composers from pre-20th century, I hear it at friend's houses. It just does nothing for me.

I also see no reason for either/or. It's not like I ever made a conscious decision to not like pre-modernism.

Why would my *opinion* of music I don't enjoy, be worthless? I don't find the opinions of those that don't like modernism worthless. My complaint is the condescending tone.

A couple of months ago, there was a thread started with the title, "your favorite 12 tone piece". There were multiple posts by non-fans like, "the shortest one". Again, I have no problem with those that are not fans, just the snarky, condescending comments.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

DaveM said:


> Hmm, apparently you do.


There have been many anti-modernism threads that I have not posted on. I read them, but almost never post.

I made an exception here, just so there was a differing opinion on the thread.

I will bow out now.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Simon Moon said:


> Why would my *opinion* of music I don't enjoy, be worthless? I don't find the opinions of those that don't like modernism worthless. My complaint is the condescending tone.


I agree that there is a great deal of condescension, but it comes from both sides. Perhaps the dice are weighted in favour of pre-modern music on this particular forum.

I mentioned opinion because I don't think there is much store to be put in an opinion (that is, a view that may or not be based in knowledge, since it's not all aesthetic pronouncements) based upon pure dislike or disinterest. I learnt my lesson about this with regard to Bruckner's music.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Simon Moon said:


> There have been many anti-modernism threads that I have not posted on. I read them, but almost never post.
> 
> I made an exception here, just so there was a differing opinion on the thread.
> 
> I will bow out now.


I re-read this entire thread and didn't find anything substantially anti-modernism about it. There were posts questioning the present-day relevance of 12-tone music, but that was in keeping with the OP. So, I'm not sure what your 'differing opinion' was about.

I would also add that in the last few years, the mods have made it particularly clear that if a thread is started that is obviously meant to be pro-modern music, then that is no place for posts critical of the genre. It is a legitimate perspective and as someone who who doesn't like most mid 20th century music and on, I have had to monitor my own posting. In any event, there have been a number of threads supportive of modern music where there have been no condescending remarks.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Some of Wuorinen's own later music has suspiciously tonal tendencies, to my ear:


----------



## BiscuityBoyle (Feb 5, 2018)

Simon Moon said:


> I have continued to try to get into pre-modernism for years, decades even. I hear it on classical radio, I used to have a pretty big collection of most of the major composers from pre-20th century, I hear it at friend's houses. It just does nothing for me.
> 
> I also see no reason for either/or. It's not like I ever made a conscious decision to not like pre-modernism.
> 
> ...


Asking out of genuine curiosity: when does your interest pick up in the transition to modernism? Do you enjoy Debussy or Prokofiev? Perhaps late Scriabin? Or just serialism?


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Simon Moon said:


> I have continued to try to get into pre-modernism for years, decades even. I hear it on classical radio, I used to have a pretty big collection of most of the major composers from pre-20th century, I hear it at friend's houses. It just does nothing for me.


this is unfortunate. You can train your brain to start enjoying a particular music. I always liked rock, but did not like jazz. Then I learned to enjoy jazz by reading about the best jazz albums and I slowly started listening and enjoying. Like you, I could enjoy modernism and romantism almost from the start and did not like classical era and baroque. Again, you can train yourself by picking a couple of the best works and listening patiently over and over again. At least it worked for me and I am glad it did. I can enjoy almost any music, with the exception of some pop


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

isorhythm said:


> Some of Wuorinen's own later music has suspiciously tonal tendencies, to my ear:


This video is not available.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

The only modern piece I continue to find interesting (thus far) is Stockhausen's 'Gruppen'.


----------



## Guest (Mar 13, 2018)

This forum really needs Some Guy to return.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Rather than have this thread degenerate into a pro/anti serial discussion, I choose to think the OP was just calling attention to an obnoxious statement made 40 years ago by a composer who thrived on making obnoxious statements.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

Some political and other off-topic comments have been removed.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Phil loves classical said:


> "While the tonal system, in an atrophied or vestigial form, is still used today in popular and commercial music, and even occasionally in the works of backward-looking serious composers, it is no longer employed by serious composers of the mainstream, it has been replaced or succeeded by the 12-tone system."


A true statement when 'serious' is defined as Wuorinen would (presumably) have done so - but, of course, he did not, nor does anyone, have a right to assume objectivity.

I'd never heard of him till this thread.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

I've known a group of composers representing three generations of writing. While I make no claims that this group is a representative population sample, I'd like to point out that only one of them was/is a dedicated serialist. The rest had studied 12 tone, written in 12 tone, and decided that it was *a* method of organizing composition, and not *the* only method of organizing composition.

One particular composer out of this group used to misquote Shakespeare and say, "I'm here to hold 'as twere, the mirror up to nature; to show virtue her own feature, scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time my own form and pressure.' And I don't always need a tone row to do it."


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

janxharris said:


> I'd never heard of him till this thread.


Hhmmm ... if you've never heard of Charles Wuorinen before, then you aren't a 'serious' listener/collector of contemporary classical albums.  Discs of Wuorinen's music have been produced throughout four decades.










https://www.discogs.com/artist/163993-Charles-Wuorinen?page=2


----------



## BiscuityBoyle (Feb 5, 2018)

Personally I love the idea of not having a tonal center everything gravitates towards but the problem with the 12 tone technique is that it precludes repetition, which is something I love too much about music. This means the pleasures of percussive modernism, as in Prokofiev and Bartok, are nowhere to be found there.

There's some interesting twelve tone-ish Soviet music, perhaps most notably Nikolai Karetnikov. There's a certain low-key dark beauty to this piano piece, I find






This symphony is straight up amazing


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

BiscuityBoyle said:


> Personally I love the idea of not having a tonal center everything gravitates towards but the problem with the 12 tone technique is that it precludes repetition, which is something I love too much about music. This means the pleasures of percussive modernism, as in Prokofiev and Bartok, are nowhere to be found there.


This being the case (regarding repetition), then it is a wonder such a restrictive method of composing was ever taken seriously...


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

The quote in the OP is actually from 1979 and is in the opening paragraph of the first chapter of Wuorinens book 'Simple Composition'. It is really a popular manual of 12-tone composition. (I have a copy of it in front of me right now). I'm going to read it.

Listening to some of Wuorinen's work on you tube, it's clear that he has shifted his ideas and aesthetic somewhat since 1979. His _Microsymphony_ from 1992 is a good work. but it really sounds a lot like Paul Hindemith's music from 60-odd years earlier.

Looks like 'serious' became old.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

BabyGiraffe said:


> Rhythm and melody (melody is basically rhythm + pitch (rhythm so fast that human distorts)) are more basic elements of the musical art than harmony... Anyone can clap a rhythm with his hands and whistle or sing some kind of melody. Technnically, harmony is just a kind of polyrhythm, but we don't really hear it that way.


I believe this is backwards, melody came from harmony. Melody is just vertical harmony unstacked horizonally (according to Scriabin from what I recall), while adding a rhythm. 12-tone concept is freeing previous associations of harmony. 12 tone composers like Webern went out of their way sometimes to deliberately avoid traditional harmonic associations.

I posted the quote just for fun. I don't in fact agree with Wuorinen's view. He was known to be presumptive. In a later interview he cast ambiguity on the definition of serialism itself. 

Personally I think serialism is as relevant today as a century ago. But it is not the only "serious" way to compose. What is serious music anyway?

Scriabin's actual words "Harmony becomes melody, and melody becomes harmony. For me there is no difference between Harmony and melody".


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

eugeneonagain said:


> The quote in the OP is actually from 1979 and is in the opening paragraph of the first chapter of Wuorinens book 'Simple Composition'. It is really a popular manual of 12-tone composition. (I have a copy of it in front of me right now). I'm going to read it.
> 
> Listening to some of Wuorinen's work on you tube, it's clear that he has shifted his ideas and aesthetic somewhat since 1979. His _Microsymphony_ from 1992 is a good work. but it really sounds a lot like Paul Hindemith's music from 60-odd years earlier.
> 
> Looks like 'serious' became old.


Am just listening to _Microsymphony_ now...what would say is an example of a 'bad' work in this style (doesn't have to be Wuorinen)?


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit (Oct 20, 2014)

Who cares. The whole "pretty music" vs. "out-there music" debate is full of people with either incredibly pedestrian taste, or are consumed by a vapid intellectual ideal of linear progress in music.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

janxharris said:


> Am just listening to _Microsymphony_ now...what would say is an example of a 'bad' work in this style (doesn't have to be Wuorinen)?


I don't think I could even objectively designate anything as 'bad': you either like a particular work or you don't.

I'm sure there'll be a good deal of Wuorinen's and others' output that will appeal to me and some that won't. I'm not fixated upon the method of composition chosen (though I'm interested in the composition process), if a work appeals to me I will listen to it.


----------



## BiscuityBoyle (Feb 5, 2018)

janxharris said:


> This being the case (regarding repetition), then it is a wonder such a restrictive method of composing was ever taken seriously...


Because 1) it produced some great music and 2) was developed by composers who wrote genuinely great music using other compositional methods and therefore the world owed it to them to take it seriously. Schoenberg's music from his earlier post-Romantic and freely atonal eras is stunning.

AND I believe there's some great serialist music, although I'm very far from being an advocate for the method.



> The whole "pretty music" vs. "out-there music" debate is full of people with either incredibly pedestrian taste, or are consumed by a vapid intellectual ideal of linear progress in music.


This is very well put. The few times in my life I caught myself sounding like the champion of serialism etc that I'm not, it was in an argument with Rachmaninov fanatics. Whose Études-Tableaux from Op. 39 I like very much, I hasten to add.


----------



## Michael Diemer (Nov 12, 2017)

[QUOTE=

I posted the quote just for fun. I don’t in fact agree with Wuorinen’s view. He was known to be presumptive. In a later interview he cast ambiguity on the definition of serialism itself.  
[/QUOTE=
Intuitively, I thought you did post this tongue-in-cheek. Good to know my intuition still works. I'll probably need it more if time keeps on going faster and faster, the way it's been doing lately...


----------



## BabyGiraffe (Feb 24, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> I believe this is backwards, melody came from harmony. Melody is just vertical harmony unstacked horizonally (according to Scriabin from what I recall), while adding a rhythm. 12-tone concept is freeing previous associations of harmony. 12 tone composers like Webern went out of their way sometimes to deliberately avoid traditional harmonic associations.


We can break down all music to rhythm. Computers are more than capable transforming a sine wave into a timbre that can be used to play a melody or layer more waves to form a more complex timbre or a chord (when sped up).

The sentence "melody is just a vertical harmony" is complete nonsense. What is the implied harmony of oriental scale with neutral microtonal intervals played on their typical squeaky reed or double reed instruments ? I hope you also know about the ancient chromatic and enharmonic Greek scales - what is their implied harmony? Tell me.

If we for some reason decide to abandon 12 ET and go to 19 or 31, because they have way better intonation, do serious composers have to use just tone rows cycling through the whole gamut? :lol:


----------



## BiscuityBoyle (Feb 5, 2018)

> The sentence "melody is just a vertical harmony" is complete nonsense.


I think it's important to take into account the context of the statement. Scriabin was not a musicologist concerned with theoretical validity and historical perspective, he was a practitioner who spoke about the moment in time he was operating in: working within tonality but testing and stretching its limits. I think the statement works in the sense that a "melody" as we understand it in the West is not just a linear succession of notes but a sequence dependent on the tensions and gravitation to the tonic you get in tonality, no?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

^^ Different timbres have different waveforms. A chord is multiple waveforms of diffeerent frequencies. Rhythm doesn’t come into play at this time scale. 

You can have altered chords for passing notes in melody. With quartertonal there is often implied harmony with adjacent tones belonging to the 12 tone scale for those tones in between. Different scale systems have differenet uses of harmony, but can be reduced to a series of chords, or else tone clusters. You could also have multiple simultaneous chords in polytonality. I’m sure Scriabin did his homework.

Who ever said other tone systems have “better intonation” than the 12 tone?


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> I believe this is backwards, melody came from harmony. Melody is just vertical harmony unstacked horizonally (according to Scriabin from what I recall), while adding a rhythm.


This can't be right. Solo voice and monophonic instruments pre-date harmony. So harmony (particularly that resulting from counterpoint) is "vertical melody". Rhythm is an attribute of melody, not harmony.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

BiscuityBoyle said:


> Because 1) it produced some great music and 2) was developed by composers who wrote genuinely great music using other compositional methods and therefore the world owed it to them to take it seriously. Schoenberg's music from his earlier post-Romantic and freely atonal eras is stunning.
> 
> AND I believe there's some great serialist music, although I'm very far from being an advocate for the method.


'The world owed it to them to take it seriously'? Really?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> This can't be right. Solo voice and monophonic instruments pre-date harmony. So harmony (particularly that resulting from counterpoint) is "vertical melody". Rhythm is an attribute of melody, not harmony.


Harmony always existed even with solo voices. Bach's suites for solo Cello, and solo violin pieces make use of vertical harmony unstacked. Rhythm is as you say, although it could exist on its own without a melody.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> Who cares. The whole "pretty music" vs. "out-there music" debate is full of people with either incredibly pedestrian taste, or are consumed by a vapid intellectual ideal of linear progress in music.


And here we thought the issue was complicated. But 'who cares' indeed. You are apparently reading the thread.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Phil loves classical said:


> Harmony always existed even with solo voices. Bach's suites for solo Cello, and solo violin pieces make use of vertical harmony unstacked. Rhythm is as you say, although it could exist on its own without a melody.


How do you know that "harmony always existed"? Have you always been around to hear it?

The idea that primitive man, howling or chanting and beating on a hollow log, was "unstacking harmony" is daft. Harmony certainly began to guide the intervals in melody as humans became conscious of it, but intervallic relationships in primitive melody have prior sources in basic affective speech patterns in which certain intervals (the minor third, notably) occur naturally.

Bach comes at a very late stage in the evolution of music when, obviously, composers have learned to think in a thoroughly harmonic way. But even at that stage melody has its own prerogatives.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> How do you know that "harmony always existed"? Have you always been around to hear it?
> 
> The idea that primitive man, howling or chanting and beating on a hollow log, was "unstacking harmony" is daft. Harmony certainly began to guide the intervals in melody as humans became conscious of it, but intervallic relationships in primitive melody has prior sources in basic affective speech patterns in which certain intervals (the minor third, notably) occur naturally.
> 
> Bach comes at a very late stage in the evolution of music when, obviously, composers have learned to think in a thoroughly harmonic way. But even at that stage melody has its own prerogatives.


Harmony is just based on laws of nature. It sounds to me like asking if I knew the sun existed before I was born. We just discover it through music. Harmony/ harmonics also exists in electric power, it is not only confined to music.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Phil loves classical said:


> Harmony is just based on laws of nature. It sounds to me like asking if I knew the sun existed before I was born. We just discover it through music. Harmony/ harmonics also exists in electric power, it is not only confined to music.


This doesn't answer my (or other people's) objections. I didn't ask you whether harmony exists in nature; I asked how you know that it preceded melody IN MUSIC, as you claim. Melody is also based in nature, the nature of vocal utterances. No one had to "unstack" harmony to create melody, or follow any particular harmonic system even after harmony was discovered. Cultures all over the world, as well as archaeological evidence and the history of our own music, make clear that harmonic relationships in music evolved gradually and in varied ways. We do not "just discover it through music." We MAY discover it if we're exposed to certain kinds of music. There are harmonic relationships in the structure of sound, but music has never been obliged to reproduce them.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Twelve tone systems we're just a stage on the gradual appropriation by composers of the full spectrum of sound that has been going on since music started. There was a need of a system to give structure to the equal use of all tones, chords, (etc) which started to happen in the context of late romanticism/expressionism. That there were versions of the systems opposed to tonal tropes on purpose is just the natural dialectic of art, so there were reconstructions of tonality as is famously sometimes the case with Berg.

Today almost every avant-garde composer uses microtones one way or another.


----------



## BabyGiraffe (Feb 24, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> ^^ Different timbres have different waveforms. A chord is multiple waveforms of diffeerent frequencies. Rhythm doesn't come into play at this time scale.
> 
> You can have altered chords for passing notes in melody. With quartertonal there is often implied harmony with adjacent tones belonging to the 12 tone scale for those tones in between. Different scale systems have differenet uses of harmony, but can be reduced to a series of chords, or else tone clusters. You could also have multiple simultaneous chords in polytonality. I'm sure Scriabin did his homework.
> 
> Who ever said other tone systems have "better intonation" than the 12 tone?


Hm... everyone???

I hope you understand that the unequal pythagorean, meantone and well temperament systems that majority of Western classical music was based on pre-mid 19th century are just subsets of bigger gamuts.

Scale systems are just metrics.

What sounds good on in a harmony is based on the timbre of the instrument - if you want to synthesize a basic string sound, you will use sine waves in this arithmetic sequence 1f, 2f,3f,4f,5f,6f etc. Or just take a saw wave and filter the high partials for the same effect. Let's look at the octave dissonance minima of such a string - 2/1 = octave, 3/2 - perfect 5th (G), 4/3 - perfect fourth (F), 5/3 - major sixth (A) 5/4 - major third (E), 6/5 - minor third (Eb/D#). The sound of the string already suggests which notes to use. 12, 19, 31 equal notes on a log scale systems have good approximation of the basic consonances.

The modes of vibration of something like a metal bar (example - Gamelan orchestra) or an Indian, Arabic etc reed instrument suggest different "consonances" and scales.

Playing something like Bach using "inharmonic" timbre sounds like a parody - try synthesizing some complex FM timbre and playing some Renaissance or Baroque sacred music.

If you want to read some 12 tone, serial and atonal music criticism, check this article:

http://www.bussigel.com/lerdahl/pdf/Cognitive Constraints on Compositional Systems.pdf


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> This doesn't answer my (or other people's) objections. I didn't ask you whether harmony exists in nature; I asked how you know that it preceded melody IN MUSIC, as you claim. Melody is also based in nature, the nature of vocal utterances. No one had to "unstack" harmony to create melody, or follow any particular harmonic system even after harmony was discovered. Cultures all over the world, as well as archaeological evidence and the history of our own music, make clear that harmonic relationships in music evolved gradually and in varied ways. We do not "just discover it through music." We MAY discover it if we're exposed to certain kinds of music. There are harmonic relationships in the structure of sound, but music has never been obliged to reproduce them.


Harmony and melody are inseparable, in that they co-exist, I didn't say harmony preceded melody. All tonal systems, etc. pre-existed before human produced a single note, and they already had harmonic relationships within the system. We just explore them in music. Yes, music never had to reproduce them, they simply are.



BabyGiraffe said:


> Hm... everyone???
> 
> I hope you understand that the unequal pythagorean, meantone and well temperament systems that majority of Western classical music was based on pre-mid 19th century are just subsets of bigger gamuts.
> 
> ...


Consonance is independent of timbre, because it is the (base) tone frequency, not shape of waveform (timbre) that dictates it. The ear cannot pick up the individual waves comprising a waveform or timbre, but only it's overall sound, just like your eye can't see over 60 frames per second. So timbre has no effect on harmony.
Different tone systems and scales produce different harmonic relationships. Consonance does depend some on context, the ear can adjust to certain intervals within a piece of music, like the tritone, which appears logically in the use octatonic scales, but not in traditional western harmony


----------



## BabyGiraffe (Feb 24, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Consonance is independent of timbre, because it is the (base) tone frequency, not shape of waveform (timbre) that dictates it. The ear cannot pick up the individual waves comprising a waveform or timbre, but only it's overall sound, just like your eye can't see over 60 frames per second. So timbre has no effect on harmony.
> Different tone systems and scales produce different harmonic relationships. Consonance does depend some on context, the ear can adjust to certain intervals within a piece of music, like the tritone, which appears logically in the use octatonic scales, but not in traditional western harmony


Grab any recent  book on acoustics and psychoacoustics. I hope you will stop typing nonsense.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Harmony and melody are inseparable, in that they co-exist, I didn't say harmony preceded melody. All tonal systems, etc. pre-existed before human produced a single note, and they already had harmonic relationships within the system. We just explore them in music. Yes, music never had to reproduce them, they simply are.


Actually you did say that - or cited from Scriabin to make the point. The business of exploring and developing (or in your Socratic conception: _uncovering_ what is already extant) has been a process of melody to harmony and you suggested the reverse.

I will brook no backtracking! ut:


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit (Oct 20, 2014)

Sorry if this is not especially pertinent to the question posed by the OP, but since people keep mentioning microtones....One thing I wonder is, why composers have more often insisted on using tones in between the semitones of the western classical scale, presumably in an attempt to create novel sounds and harmonies, rather than try dividing the octave up in a way that has no reference to the western classical scale, kind of like the pelog and slendro scales, but adjusted to whatever idiom or aesthetic the composer has in mind. To me it seems like the latter would be more likely to produce something that would keep a variety of listeners' attention, while creating a novel sound. I imagine that if used with classical instrumental forces it would probably just sound out of tune, but I also speculate that perhaps new instruments could be imagined and developed that would facilitate such harmonies in a way that gives the impression of artifice.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Phil loves classical said:


> Harmony and melody are inseparable, in that they co-exist, I didn't say harmony preceded melody. All tonal systems, etc. pre-existed before human produced a single note, and they already had harmonic relationships within the system. We just explore them in music. Yes, music never had to reproduce them, they simply are.


What you said, verbatim, is "melody came from harmony. Melody is just vertical harmony unstacked horizonally." You appear to be making an assertion about the origins of melody in the evolution and/or creation of music. Unless you have some meaning in mind for the words "came from" that other people don't have, your statement is simply incorrect.

That you actually mean what you said is supported by your present statement, "All tonal systems, etc. pre-existed before human produced a single note." This makes no sense. Systems of composition can't exist before the music that employs them.

What exists before music is not any harmonic "system" but only the overtone structure of tones. No one disputes that the awareness of audible overtones has affected the development of harmony and the intervallic structure of melodies. But it affects these things differently - very differently - in different musical systems; it imposes no pre-existing system of its own.


----------



## BiscuityBoyle (Feb 5, 2018)

janxharris said:


> 'The world owed it to them to take it seriously'? Really?


When one writes Erwartung, Pierrot lunaire, the orchestral pieces op. 16, the piano pieces op. 11 etc - works that are masterpieces aesthetically and are on the cutting edge of experiments with the limits of tonality - then yes, one's theoretical experimentation is ought to be taken seriously. Not crazy about appeals to authority, but someone who did take it seriously after lengthy examination is one Igor Stravinsky, who wrote some wonderful serial works.

You don't like the Karetnikov symphony I posted? I find it wonderful. I haven't seen, much less parsed, the score, but I have a feeling it's less rigid than some of the 12 tone stuff that was written in the West around that time (it was written in 1968).

Again, not a huge fan of 12 tone/serialism. My favorite composer from the second half of the 20th century is Ligeti, who mostly shunned various movements and -isms.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> Actually you did say that - or cited from Scriabin to make the point. The business of exploring and developing (or in your Socratic conception: _uncovering_ what is already extant) has been a process of melody to harmony and you suggested the reverse.
> 
> I will brook no backtracking! ut:





Woodduck said:


> What you said, verbatim, is "melody came from harmony. Melody is just vertical harmony unstacked horizonally." You appear to be making an assertion about the origins of melody in the evolution and/or creation of music. Unless you have some meaning in mind for the words "came from" that other people don't have, your statement is simply incorrect.
> 
> That you actually mean what you said is supported by your present statement, "All tonal systems, etc. pre-existed before human produced a single note." This makes no sense. Systems of composition can't exist before the music that employs them.
> 
> What exists before music is not any harmonic "system" but only the overtone structure of tones. No one disputes that the awareness of audible overtones has affected the development of harmony and the intervallic structure of melodies. But it affects these things differently - very differently - in different musical systems; it imposes no pre-existing system of its own.


When you look at the context my original statement was posed, it was in response to melody and rhythm being more basic elements than harmony, and the composition of melody.

"Quote Originally Posted by BabyGiraffe View Post
Rhythm and melody (melody is basically rhythm + pitch (rhythm so fast that human distorts)) are more basic elements of the musical art than harmony... Anyone can clap a rhythm with his hands and whistle or sing some kind of melody. Technnically, harmony is just a kind of polyrhythm, but we don't really hear it that way."
"I believe this is backwards, melody came from harmony. Melody is just vertical harmony unstacked horizonally (according to Scriabin from what I recall), while adding a rhythm. 12-tone concept is freeing previous associations of harmony. 12 tone composers like Webern went out of their way sometimes to deliberately avoid traditional harmonic associations. "

What I refer to tonal systems, are not systems of composition, but rather a system of tones, or harmonic series.



BabyGiraffe said:


> Grab any recent  book on acoustics and psychoacoustics. I hope you will stop typing nonsense.


 It sounds to me you are confusing pitch with partials, and just intonation with ET. Show me anywhere that says timbre affects harmony.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

The problem with tonality, like language using 26 letters, is that it is already 'codified' into predictable cliché-forms, not unlike words in language. Thus, people expect a certain range of 'musical meaning' from tonal music, just as they do from language. These cliché-forms are the result of harmonic organization, and resonates with the ear more than the brain.

Twelve-tone and other chromatic music is music _about_ music; it uses all 12 tones, and is organized in a logical 'brain' style, more akin to mathematics than harmony. Thus, it is self-referential; it is 'music about music,' not about a set of agreed-upon meaning modules.

Thus, tonality is for those who wish to continue the long tradition of 'art' as it is understood as a set of agreed-upon historical meanings and gestures; atonality is for those who are concerned with sound and pitch as primary, undefined material.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> The problem with tonality, like language using 26 letters, is that it is already 'codified' into predictable cliché-forms, not unlike words in language. Thus, people expect a certain range of 'musical meaning' from tonal music, just as they do from language. These cliché-forms are the result of harmonic organization, and resonates with the ear more than the brain.
> 
> Twelve-tone and other chromatic music is music _about_ music; it uses all 12 tones, and is organized in a logical 'brain' style, more akin to *mathematics than harmony*. Thus, it is self-referential; it is 'music about music,' not about a set of agreed-upon meaning modules.
> 
> Thus, tonality is for those who wish to continue the long tradition of 'art' as it is understood as a set of agreed-upon historical meanings and gestures; atonality is for those who are concerned with sound and pitch as primary, undefined material.


I don't think that is what Wuorinen is saying. He is saying 12 tone is the language of the serious composer, and not all sounds and pitches. The reason for use of 12 tones is for harmony, though not necessarily tonality, or else you could use grunts, and other sounds. He was basically implying the much-loved piece of 4'33" is not serious music either, since it is not 12 tone.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> The problem with tonality, like language using 26 letters, is that it is already 'codified' into predictable cliché-forms, not unlike words in language. Thus, people expect a certain range of 'musical meaning' from tonal music, just as they do from language. These cliché-forms are the result of harmonic organization, and resonates with the ear more than the brain.
> 
> Twelve-tone and other chromatic music is music _about_ music; it uses all 12 tones, and is organized in a logical 'brain' style, more akin to mathematics than harmony. Thus, it is self-referential; it is 'music about music,' not about a set of agreed-upon meaning modules.
> 
> Thus, tonality is for those who wish to continue the long tradition of 'art' as it is understood as a set of agreed-upon historical meanings and gestures; atonality is for those who are concerned with sound and pitch as primary, undefined material.


I'm speechless...but at least I can still write though barely except to say that the '_ear more than the brain_' and _'music about music; it uses all 12 tones and is organized in a logical 'brain' style'_ raises several questions. Why does 12-tone not appear in songs? Why does it not appear in any other music genre except perhaps in occasional parts of soundtracks? Why does 12 tone not appear in any love themes? My guess is that the brain is involved in those situations.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

DaveM said:


> Why does 12-tone not appear in songs?


I'll try to answer your questions in the way I think you mean them, without insisting on absolute 'correctness.' (there are 12-tone songs by Webern & Schoenberg).

The language of tonality has its own forms and conventions. Popular and folk musics are tonally based. Tonality is a quite natural harmonic reality, which comes naturally to our ears, and is thus ubiquitous throughout the world.

12-tone and related musics (serialism) are new systems of organizing sound, and relate to the 'brain' side of music in the same way the Greeks saw music as part of the Quadrivium, with mathematics and astronomy.



DaveM said:


> Why does it not appear in any other music genre except perhaps in occasional parts of soundtracks?


Its dissonance seems to be the factor there.



DaveM said:


> Why does 12 tone not appear in any love themes? My guess is that the brain is involved in those situations.


Yes, but you need to understand the distinction I am making whern I say "ear vs. brain." Read about the quadrivium.

12-tone thinking is a totally different way of thinking about music. It can be made to 'fit in' somewhat with the context of Western art music, as in Schoenberg, but it is a pure art form which seems to be resistant to being 'assimilated' by cinema, folk, or pop music, as most tonal music is.

Tonality is thus seen as part of a much larger paradigm, a paradigm which defines 'music' as a certain kind of meaningful sound, and of art.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Phil loves classical said:


> When you look at the context my original statement was posed, it was in response to melody and rhythm being more basic elements than harmony, and the composition of melody.
> 
> *"Quote Originally Posted by BabyGiraffe View Post
> Rhythm and melody (melody is basically rhythm + pitch (rhythm so fast that human distorts)) are more basic elements of the musical art than harmony*... Anyone can clap a rhythm with his hands and whistle or sing some kind of melody. Technnically, harmony is just a kind of polyrhythm, but we don't really hear it that way."
> ...


I think BabyGiraffe (gosh, what a cute name!) is right. We know that the harmonic series existed in nature before anyone made music. That doesn't make harmony a more basic or essential component of music than rhythm or melody. There is rhythm in nature too, and it's much more open to observation and imitation than the overtones of pitched sounds. Likewise, melody (sequences of pitches) occurs in expressive speech and other vocal expression, human and non-human - as does rhythm - even when there is no awareness of harmony. At a certain point in music's evolution, melody begins to incorporate harmony and to systematize pitch relationships. It doesn't grow out of harmony, and doesn't need it; it needs only pitch and rhythm.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

The thing about harmony, and harmonic phenomena, is that it is free of time, of sequence. It does not depend on the unfolding of events in time for its meaning. It is a simultaneity. Therefore, harmony came first; it is the primal essence from which melody springs.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> The thing about harmony, and harmonic phenomena, is that it is free of time, of sequence. *It does not depend on the unfolding of events in time* for its meaning. It is a simultaneity. Therefore, harmony came first; it is the primal essence from which melody springs.


It does when it is achieved by means of counterpoint, as a lot of harmony is. There's way too much mystical twaddle written about music.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> I think BabyGiraffe (gosh, what a cute name!) is right. We know that the harmonic series existed in nature before anyone made music. That doesn't make harmony a more basic or essential component of music than rhythm or melody. There is rhythm in nature too, and it's much more open to observation and imitation than the overtones of pitched sounds. Likewise, melody (sequences of pitches) occurs in expressive speech and other vocal expression, human and non-human - as does rhythm - even when there is no awareness of harmony. At a certain point in music's evolution, melody begins to incorporate harmony and to systematize pitch relationships. It doesn't grow out of harmony, and doesn't need it; it needs only pitch and rhythm.


Most definitions of melody seem to specify tones or notes, but I did see at least one with sounds.



millionrainbows said:


> The thing about harmony, and harmonic phenomena, is that it is free of time, of sequence. It does not depend on the unfolding of events in time for its meaning. It is a simultaneity. Therefore, harmony came first; it is the primal essence from which melody springs.


I think I agree with the gist of this, except the harmony of a piece can evolve, so there may be still sequence. Getting kinda abstract.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> Sorry if this is not especially pertinent to the question posed by the OP, but since people keep mentioning microtones....One thing I wonder is, why composers have more often insisted on using tones in between the semitones of the western classical scale, presumably in an attempt to create novel sounds and harmonies, rather than try dividing the octave up in a way that has no reference to the western classical scale, kind of like the pelog and slendro scales, but adjusted to whatever idiom or aesthetic the composer has in mind. To me, it seems like the latter would be more likely to produce something that would keep a variety of listeners' attention, while creating a novel sound. I imagine that if used with classical instrumental forces it would probably just sound out of tune, but I also speculate that perhaps new instruments could be imagined and developed that would facilitate such harmonies in a way that gives the impression of artifice.


There have been works written along these lines for almost 100 years. They are alternatives to 'tonal' works based on the most often used diatonic and chromatic scales that only use whole-step and half-steps between tones. The quarter-tone scale has some textures, colors, and harmonic possibilities that are capable of amazing subtleties-that is, if the music is played with subtlety, and unfortunately that's not always the case. Still, there are a number of works based on the quarter-tone scale that have been done, because there have been alternative ways of composing other than the 12-tone system, and the 12-tone system and the neverending promotion of it with technical explanations that usually only a trained musician can understand, really needs to be knocked off its perch and on its *** as the only alternative to what's generally referred to as the predictability of 'standard' tonality. This is not to suggest that the 12-tone system does not have its place, because it has had tremendous impact on the 20th century and opened up a new avenue of emotional and psychological expression, but that it was not the only way that the use of tones could be expanded.

Charles Ives: Three Quarter-Tone pieces (1903/1923)






Ivan Wyschnegradsky ~ 24 Preludes for Two Quarter-Tone Pianos (FULL)






Alois Hába: Sonata for quarter tone piano, op.62 (1946/1947)






Scott Crothers: Quarter-tone Music for Orchestra, No. 1


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

"Melody is music, the basis of music as a whole, since a perfect melody implies and calls into being its own harmonic design. Melodic invention is the composer's vital, most melodic aim." -Rachmaninoff.

Bravo.

Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Schumann, Tchaikovsky, Verdi, Scriabin, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, and a host of others, might have said the same thing.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> The thing about harmony, and harmonic phenomena, is that it is free of time, of sequence. It does not depend on the unfolding of events in time for its meaning. It is a simultaneity. Therefore, harmony came first; it is the primal essence from which melody springs.


Would you explain how harmony came before melody, I would have thought the opposite.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

I wouldn't bother, the claim is a false claim in any case. Propped up with metaphysical quackery.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Dan Ante said:


> Would you explain how harmony came before melody, I would have thought the opposite.


Zorg was a great musician, the world's first. He had a hollow log that he struck with a rock. People gathered from afar to hear his booming sounds.

In time, since he always passed his rhamphorhynchus-skin hat around, he grew rich and could afford a second hollow log, a smaller one.

But did he then strike them together, for harmony, or separately, for a melody? Alas, we shall never know because Zorg had no recording contract, and the only surviving music of those times is on a few CDs of burp-music of the hill people collected by specialists from the Cave of Learning.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Larkenfield said:


> "Melody is music, the basis of music as a whole, since a perfect melody implies and calls into being its own harmonic design. Melodic invention is the composer's vital, most melodic aim." -Rachmaninoff.
> 
> Bravo.
> 
> Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Schumann, Tchaikovsky, Verdi, Scriabin, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, and a host of others, might have said the same thing.


That is a good quote.

Who likes this one?

"Everything we do is Music" - Cage.


----------



## David OByrne (Dec 1, 2016)

Notes and sounds are the language of a serious composer (it doesn't matter whether it's diatonic or 12 tone). Once you impose rules on how people should use them, regardless of the system - then it ceases to be art. Luckily we are not living under Fascist society, although the society we are living in highly promotes certain genres over others.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

KenOC said:


> Zorg was a great musician, the world's first. He had a hollow log that he struck with a rock. People gathered from afar to hear his booming sounds.
> 
> In time, since he always passed his rhamphorhynchus-skin hat around, he grew rich and could afford a second hollow log, a smaller one.
> 
> But did he then strike them together, for harmony, or separately, for a melody? Alas, we shall never know because Zorg had no recording contract, and the only surviving music of those times is on a few CDs of burp-music of the hill people collected by specialists from the Cave of Learning.


No matter how many times that story is told it will have new meaning for everyone. The fact that Zorg could not get a contract for burp-music of the hill people continues to be an outrage.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

David OByrne said:


> Notes and sounds are the language of a serious composer (it doesn't matter whether it's diatonic or 12 tone). Once you impose rules on how people should use them, regardless of the system - then it ceases to be art. Luckily we are not living under Fascist society, although the society we are living in highly promotes certain genres over others.


Notes and sounds are the language of a serious composer. But there are few rules on how they should be used if the music is to be reasonably accepted. One of those is that too much dissonance limits the audience. Dissonance can cause discomfort and can signify danger and fear which is why it is used in movies where those things are present, but too much of it elsewhere is counterproductive.

And just because someone creates something doesn't make it art.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

DaveM said:


> Notes and sounds are the language of a serious composer. But there are few rules on how they should be used if the music is to be reasonably accepted. One of those is that too much dissonance limits the audience. Dissonance can cause discomfort and can signify danger and fear which is why it is used in movies where those things are present, but too much of it elsewhere is counterproductive.
> 
> And just because someone creates something doesn't make it art.


Dissonance can be used in different ways, and there are varying degrees. The fact the audience is limited shouldn't be a factor in the artist, but if he is concerned about making a living from an accepting audience then that's a different story. Actually one thing Wuorinen said that could hold true in some ways, is that Art doesn't need to be accepted or judged by the general public.

There is just some music that can't be appreciated without familariy with some conventions. It is no one's fault, the Composer doesn't have to feel like a failure (being unable to please the general audience), but he doesn't have to feel angry either. Intolerance on either side leads to war.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> The thing about harmony, and harmonic phenomena, is that it is free of time, of sequence. It does not depend on the unfolding of events in time for its meaning. It is a simultaneity. *Therefore, harmony came first; it is the primal essence from which melody springs.*


"Therefore" and "springs" in this sentence are both imaginary. They assume facts not in evidence, and they depend on the presence of your conclusions in your premises. You're beginning with the unstated (or maybe unconscious?) premise that melody has no origin in, and is not shaped by, any phenomenon that doesn't contain or imply harmony. By defining melody as essentially shaped by harmony, you (and Phil, I think) have no choice but to draw from that unproven idea the conclusion that harmony is more fundamental in music. You're also asserting that simultaneity is a necessary foundation for sequentiality. This sounds like (to quote eugeneonagain) metaphysical quackery.

The function of harmony in shaping melody depends on the development of harmonic awareness and harmonic systems. Melody doesn't begin to exist because of harmony, and there are other factors than the harmonic sense that shape it. To quote myself: "The harmonic series existed in nature before anyone made music. That doesn't make harmony a more basic or essential component of music than rhythm or melody. There is rhythm in nature too, and it's much more open to observation and imitation than the overtones of pitched sounds. Likewise, melody (sequences of pitches) occurs in expressive speech and other vocal expression, human and non-human - as does rhythm - even when there is no awareness of harmony. At a certain point in music's evolution, melody begins to incorporate harmony and to systematize pitch relationships. It doesn't grow out of harmony, and doesn't need it; it needs only pitch and rhythm."


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Phil loves classical said:


> Dissonance can be used in different ways, and there are varying degrees. The fact the audience is limited shouldn't be a factor in the artist, but if he is concerned about making a living from an accepting audience then that's a different story. Actually one thing Wuorinen said that could hold true in some ways, is that Art doesn't need to be accepted or judged by the general public.
> 
> There is just some music that can't be appreciated without familariy with some conventions. It is no one's fault, the Composer doesn't have to feel like a failure (being unable to please the general audience), but he doesn't have to feel angry either. Intolerance on either side leads to war.


I've never agreed with the premise that Art doesn't need to be accepted or judged by the general public. That can infer that the judges of what is Art would be relegated to academia and/or the elites which is unfortunately what I think was somewhat behind the rise of much of atonal music in the early 20th century. Were audiences tired of traditional tonal romantic music or was academia tired of it and newer composers determined to compose what they wanted regardless of public opinion? People might say that even Beethoven bucked public opinion, but the the changes in music in the early to late 19th century was nothing compared to the introduction of atonal and extreme dissonance.

Too much dissonance is cacophony. IMO, the more cacophony in music, the harder it is to judge the competence of the composer and the value of the output. In the end, taken to an extreme, anybody can lay down random noise and call it wonderful music.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> "Therefore" and "springs" in this sentence are both imaginary. They assume facts not in evidence, and they depend on the presence of your conclusions in your premises. You're beginning with the unstated (or maybe unconscious?) premise that melody has no origin in, and is not shaped by, any phenomenon that doesn't contain or imply harmony. By defining melody as essentially shaped by harmony, you (and Phil, I think) have no choice but to draw from that unproven idea the conclusion that harmony is more fundamental in music. You're also asserting that simultaneity is a necessary foundation for sequentiality. This sounds like (to quote eugeneonagain) metaphysical quackery.
> 
> The function of harmony in shaping melody depends on the development of harmonic awareness and harmonic systems. Melody doesn't begin to exist because of harmony, and there are other factors than the harmonic sense that shape it. To quote myself: "The harmonic series existed in nature before anyone made music. That doesn't make harmony a more basic or essential component of music than rhythm or melody. There is rhythm in nature too, and it's much more open to observation and imitation than the overtones of pitched sounds. Likewise, melody (sequences of pitches) occurs in expressive speech and other vocal expression, human and non-human - as does rhythm - even when there is no awareness of harmony. At a certain point in music's evolution, melody begins to incorporate harmony and to systematize pitch relationships. It doesn't grow out of harmony, and doesn't need it; it needs only pitch and rhythm."


MillionR's statement is not saying that harmony is more fundamental to music, and is not necessarily different than what you're saying. I interpret what he is saying as melody (and music) sprung from harmony. But I would disagree with his statement that harmony has meaning without the unfolding of events (or passage of time which is part of music to me). To me, where there is music, there is melody: harmony and rhythm, but that harmonic series / system can exist untapped without music. For the listener this last part is unimportant, but for the composer he/she taps into the system to create music, and decides how and which one to tap from.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

DaveM said:


> I've never agreed with the premise that Art doesn't need to be accepted or judged by the general public. That can infer that the judges of what is Art would be relegated to academia and/or the elites which is unfortunately what I think was somewhat behind the rise of much of atonal music in the early 20th century. Were audiences tired of traditional tonal romantic music or was academia tired of it and newer composers determined to compose what they wanted regardless of public opinion? People might say that even Beethoven bucked public opinion, but the the changes in music in the early to late 19th century was nothing compared to the introduction of atonal and extreme dissonance.
> 
> Too much dissonance is cacophony. IMO, the more cacophony in music, the harder it is to judge the competence of the composer and the value of the output. In the end, taken to an extreme, anybody can lay down random noise and call it wonderful music.


My question would be how much dissonance is too much. My point is a music can be composed according to certain principles without regard for disonance, even if the result has a lot of disonance, or that piece of music can't be judged by how much dissonance there is alone. You're right, that there is a possibilty that random noise could be judged wonderful. It takes a trained ear with knowledge of conventions and principles, to be able to judge what is random and what actually follows something more, and is more substantial. But don't depend on the general public or the untrained ear to make that judgement is what I'm saying.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Phil loves classical said:


> My question would be how much dissonance is too much. My point is a music can be composed according to certain principles without regard for disonance, even if the result has a lot of disonance, or that piece of music can't be judged by how much dissonance there is alone. You're right, that there is a possibilty that random noise could be judged wonderful. It takes a trained ear with knowledge of conventions and principles, to be able to judge what is random and what actually follows something more, and is more substantial. But don't depend on the general public or the untrained ear to make that judgement is what I'm saying.


And therein lies the problem with classical music where dissonance reigns and accessible melody recedes: The listener has to be trained and the general public is not the target audience. And so the genre becomes less relevant to the common man/woman.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

DaveM said:


> And therein lies the problem with classical music where dissonance reigns and accessible melody recedes: The listener has to be trained and the general public is not the target audience. And so the genre becomes less relevant to the common man/woman.


This is a problem? I think it's a great thing honestly, as the music doesn't pander as most other genres do: I don't think it's a matter of dissonance either these days, unlike about 70 years ago.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Lisztian said:


> This is a problem? I think it's a great thing honestly, as the music doesn't pander as most other genres do: I don't think it's a matter of dissonance either these days, unlike about 70 years ago.


Creating music that more people can understand and enjoy is pandering?


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

DaveM said:


> Creating music that more people can understand and enjoy is pandering?


Absolutely if that's the reason you are writing it, rather than writing the music that your aesthetic/musical studies has suggested to you: which is usually not one that has the general public as the 'target audience.' That's what most pop music does: do you want classical music to become more like pop?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DaveM said:


> Creating music that more people can understand and enjoy is pandering?


It's always pandering if somebody writes music that appeals to people of lower quality than yourself.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

KenOC said:


> It's always pandering if somebody writes music that appeals to people of lower quality than yourself.


This has nothing to do with what I said, and is really a thinly veiled ad-hominem.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Lisztian said:


> This has nothing to do with what I said, and is really a thinly veiled ad-hominem.


I was responding to DaveM's post. It might be taken as critical of your own post, but no personal attack was intended, thinly veiled or even thickly!


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Lisztian said:


> Absolutely if that's the reason you are writing it, rather than writing the music that your aesthetic/musical studies has suggested to you: which is usually not one that has the general public as the 'target audience.' That's what most pop music does: do you want classical music to become more like pop?


I want classical music to survive. At least you and Phil have confirmed what I've come to believe, that much of modern classical music is for the selected relatively few and certainly not for the unwashed masses.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

DaveM said:


> I want classical music to survive. At least you and Phil have confirmed what I've come to believe, that much of modern classical music is for the selected relatively few and certainly not for the unwashed masses.


It's not for the 'select few' and I sure as hell wasn't selected for anything: it simply requires proactive listeners. Some of it is very difficult (but often very rewarding) but a lot of it is very accessible also. Classical music will survive as long as the music is rewarding for those who put in the effort (as far as the music itself, but also being patient enough to figure out what one likes and what one doesn't without having knee-jerk reactions before getting to this point), and this is, IMO, generally the case for older and for modern classical music. Of course, we all have different tastes and neither modern or older is for everyone.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Lisztian said:


> It's not for the 'select few' and I sure as hell wasn't selected for anything: it simply requires proactive listeners. Some of it is very difficult (but often very rewarding) but a lot of it is very accessible also. Classical music will survive as long as the music is rewarding for those who put in the effort (as far as the music itself, but also being patient enough to figure out what one likes and what one doesn't without having knee-jerk reactions), and this is, IMO, generally the case for older and for modern classical music. Of course, we all have different tastes and neither modern or older is for everyone.


There has always been a bit of a learning curve to classical music, but the changes that occurred particularly in the early 20th century with less and less accessible melody and more and more 12-tone->atonal music resulted in an especially steep learning curve that has contributed to a diminishing audience that would be relatively minimal if it weren't for traditional classical music.

Listen to the well known Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto #2 (1901) or the lesser known Schmidt Symphony #1 Langsam (1899) and compare them to works of Schoenberg starting after 1908. The difference is startling if not jarring. Were audiences driving that change? Well, we know they weren't.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

DaveM said:


> I want classical music to survive. At least you and Phil have confirmed what I've come to believe, that much of modern classical music is for the selected relatively few and certainly not for the unwashed masses.


Unfortunately, there is a lot of Classical not for the "unwashed masses", including pre-20th century. Most of those around me don't like Classical, even when I exposed more accesible Clasical music to them, and definitely no modern. They just prefer pop. I know some who have finished music lessons and basic theory that still go back to sappy pop instead of even classic rock, pop, blues, etc. My Claasical radio station plays more pop/ classical crossovers than Mahler, Wagner, Bruckner, Brahms. Definitely no modern except the most catchy and tuneful, like Kachaturian Sabre Dance.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Phil loves classical said:


> Unfortunately, there is a lot of Classical not for the "unwashed masses", including pre-20th century. Most of those around me don't like Classical, even when I exposed more accesible Clasical music to them, and definitely no modern. They just prefer pop. I know some who have finished music lessons and basic theory that still go back to sappy pop instead of even classic rock, pop, blues, etc. My Claasical radio station plays more pop/ classical crossovers than Mahler, Wagner, Bruckner, Brahms. Definitely no modern except the most catchy and tuneful, like Kachaturian Sabre Dance.


The 'unwashed masses' was a purposely exaggerated reference to the general public and those with an 'untrained ear' to use your words.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Question: Atonal and 12-tone music has been around for perhaps a century. Obviously it has its audience because…well…it’s still here.

But the real problem for this music isn’t the size of its audience, small though that may be, but its negative effect on more staid classical music fans, who seem to find it repellant. It’s seldom heard on classical radio and just as seldom encountered in the concert hall. Why? Not because it doesn’t put bums in seats, but because it actively drives bums from those seats.

A century, more or less, has passed! Has there been a comparable situation, over a comparable period of time, in all of musical history?


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

Why 12-tone music?


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

DaveM said:


> There has always been a bit of a learning curve to classical music, but the changes that occurred particularly in the early 20th century with less and less accessible melody and more and more 12-tone->atonal music resulted in an especially steep learning curve that has contributed to a diminishing audience that would be relatively minimal if it weren't for traditional classical music.
> 
> Listen to the well known Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto #2 (1901) or the lesser known Schmidt Symphony #1 Langsam (1899) and compare them to works of Schoenberg starting after 1908. The difference is startling if not jarring. Were audiences driving that change? Well, we know they weren't.


I actually also find Schoenberg and a lot of 12-tone music to be difficult and I don't get much out of it yet (I haven't been listening to it for long), with some exceptions, but I also know lots of people who love it and I generally consider it to be my problem. That being said, there is a lot of 20th-21st century music that I, as a relative novice, have taken to immediately: there's also a lot that I don't quite 'get' yet but find absolutely fascinating (lots of Stockhausen, for example). There are so many different styles and composers that any generalizations regarding this era baffle me quite a bit.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

My issue with 12-tone music is that it all seems to end up speaking of one and the same theme - that of 'madness' - in myriad shades. In Sibelius's _Tapiola_ there is a section that certainly seems to express just such a mental state - but that is just a section and not an entire music movement (such as serialism).






...and a little later - here:


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

I'm listening to Berg's _Violin Conerto_...and feel myself being drawn in the disturbing world of the mental asylum...

Ditto with Wuorinen's _Microsymphony_.

And Stockhausen's _Gruppen_, Schoenberg's _Pierrot Lunaire_..........


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Is there a piece in such a style that does not speak of such mental disquiet? - or at least one where it isn't predominant?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Question: Atonal and 12-tone music has been around for perhaps a century. Obviously it has its audience because…well…it's still here.
> 
> But the real problem for this music isn't the size of its audience, small though that may be, but its negative effect on more staid classical music fans, who seem to find it repellant. It's seldom heard on classical radio and just as seldom encountered in the concert hall. Why? Not because it doesn't put bums in seats, but because it actively drives bums from those seats.
> 
> A century, more or less, has passed! Has there been a comparable situation, over a comparable period of time, in all of musical history?


It's hard to compare. I know the trend of audiences preferring older music precedes the appearance of serialism and atonality, but it became much more pronounced as the 20th century progressed. But it's easier to keep a niche genre alive when radio and recordings mean the music can still reach its target audience even in the absence of concerts. And I suppose quicker long-distance travel makes it easier to have dedicated festivals too. In the absence of those technologies, I wonder would audiences have started to come round to serialism and atonality, or would such music have quickly died? Given that it's been, as you say, a century now, I suspect the latter.


----------



## BabyGiraffe (Feb 24, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> The thing about harmony, and harmonic phenomena, is that it is free of time, of sequence. It does not depend on the unfolding of events in time for its meaning. It is a simultaneity. Therefore, harmony came first; it is the primal essence from which melody springs.


This sounds like a logical fallacy. You draw a conclusion that doesn't have anything to do with the premise which is also shaky - harmony parts sound in time.

My suspicion is that million and phil think about the harmony as a something out of the abstract algebra. The problem is that even abstract structures consist of smaller elements with certain operations acting on them.

People have tried to compose music in 12ET using group theory, but it doesn't quite work, because certain note combinations sound good only because of the natural vibrational models of the string, woodwind, brass and vocal instruments, not because of the algebraic models of the temperament system (these algebras have really practical use only in quantum physics or chemistry, not in composition ).

I've experimented in the past with FM synthesizers and while you can make timbres that don't "clash" playing augmented, diminshed or other microtonal chords, these timbres will be "out of tune" playing major/minor chords. The notion that you can play anything and it will sound good is absurd.

12 tone, serial and atonal experiment is just a game of combinatorics. It is ironic that someone can be original composer with ambitious ideas about structure etc, but the end result sounds like an abomination, but others (for example: any pop/folk musicians) - limited imagination and technique giving more pleasing the ear results.

In the end, music that sounds bad can be interesting or useful (invoking feelings of horror, madness etc), but most people listen to music to feel happy or relaxed, to dance or in various rituals, not to solve combinatoric sound puzzles.

Psychedelic and horror noises managed to drive away big parts of the audience. The job of the serious composer is to create music that people like.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

It's not a matter of exposure to atonality or 12 tone.
It's not a matter of pandering to the masses.
It's not a matter of musical intelligence or musical listening skills.

It's simply a matter of how our brains work. Our brains process consonance better than dissonance. The whole trend of atonal music bucks this inherent concept, thus the division between audience and composer that arose in the 20th century that was not there previously.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

janxharris said:


> I'm listening to Berg's _Violin Conerto_...and feel myself being drawn in the disturbing world of the mental asylum...
> 
> Ditto with Wuorinen's _Microsymphony_.
> 
> And Stockhausen's _Gruppen_, Schoenberg's _Pierrot Lunaire_..........


I understand where you're coming from, cause it wasn't 'natural' for me in my experience either with atonal music. I used to look for emotion and imagery in music, and came to this road block even when I tried to open my ears. I just wanted to prove to myself the music sucks after giving it my all. How could I get emotion out of it? Later I found out that was the problem, I wasn't listening to it on its own terms, but mine. I used to even have a problem with a lot of Prokofiev, even though he was against atonal, to me he sounded pretty much the same. It just came to me later after damning it for good, I thought I would give it a try just for fun, not to prove anything more, and I found the music spoke! The mind processes it differently than traditional tonal music, because they are organized differently.

Over listening and time, I think it subconsciously kept looking for patterns, and ended up finding certain conventions, certain intervals used I think, that became building blocks. Also atonal music often don't contain themes or thematic development or narratives. It is mostly music for its own sake, rather than containing messages, etc. Music previously was used like a tool in some ways to get messages across. I developed a curiousity which led me to discover more, and how they are orgainized. I found after I read about a concept, I wanted to listen to how it sounds. Later I can detect what musical concepts are used in a piece, and which are so loose they are randomly generated. Even random music can be interesting in its sounds, and the tones on different insturments. I don't actually care if I like the music (but it turns out I do in different degrees), as long as it is interesting to me.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Phil loves classical said:


> I understand where you're coming from, cause it wasn't 'natural' for me in my experience either with atonal music. I used to look for emotion and imagery in music, and came to this road block even when I tried to open my ears. I just wanted to prove to myself the music sucks after giving it my all. How could I get emotion out of it? Later I found out that was the problem, I wasn't listening to it on its own terms, but mine. I used to even have a problem with a lot of Prokofiev, even though he was against atonal, to me he sounded pretty much the same. It just came to me later after damning it for good, I thought I would give it a try just for fun, not to prove anything more, and I found the music spoke! The mind processes it differently than traditional tonal music, because they are organized differently.
> 
> Over listening and time, I think it subconsciously kept looking for patterns, and ended up finding certain conventions, certain intervals used I think, that became building blocks. Also atonal music often don't contain themes or thematic development or narratives. It is mostly music for its own sake, rather than containing messages, etc. Music previously was used like a tool in some ways to get messages across. I developed a curiousity which led me to discover more, and how they are orgainized. I found after I read about a concept, I wanted to listen to how it sounds. Later I can detect what musical concepts are used in a piece, and which are so loose they are randomly generated. Even random music can be interesting in its sounds, and the tones on different insturments. I don't actually care if I like the music (but it turns out I do in different degrees), as long as it is interesting to me.


I can certainly appreciate moments in this type of music - even in the pieces I referred to - so I have an idea of what you mean.

I still remain unconvinced that it's beyond anyone to make such seemingly interesting music by throwing some random and not so random chords and melodic lines together and achieve the same result.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

Room2201974 said:


> It's not a matter of exposure to atonality or 12 tone.
> It's not a matter of pandering to the masses.
> It's not a matter of musical intelligence or musical listening skills.
> 
> It's simply a matter of how our brains work. Our brains process consonance better than dissonance. The whole trend of atonal music bucks this inherent concept, thus the division between audience and composer that arouse in the 20th century that was not there previously.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this only true to the extent that we are conditioned, from birth, to process it better?


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

BabyGiraffe said:


> Psychedelic and horror noises managed to drive away big parts of the audience. The job of the serious composer is to create music that people like.


No, the job of the serious composer is to create good and/or interesting music, or even simply to explore music.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Phil loves classical said:


> I understand where you're coming from, cause it wasn't 'natural' for me in my experience either with atonal music. I used to look for emotion and imagery in music, and came to this road block even when I tried to open my ears. I just wanted to prove to myself the music sucks after giving it my all. How could I get emotion out of it? Later I found out that was the problem, I wasn't listening to it on its own terms, but mine. I used to even have a problem with a lot of Prokofiev, even though he was against atonal, to me he sounded pretty much the same. It just came to me later after damning it for good, I thought I would give it a try just for fun, not to prove anything more, and I found the music spoke! The mind processes it differently than traditional tonal music, because they are organized differently.
> 
> Over listening and time, I think it subconsciously kept looking for patterns, and ended up finding certain conventions, certain intervals used I think, that became building blocks. Also atonal music often don't contain themes or thematic development or narratives. It is mostly music for its own sake, rather than containing messages, etc. Music previously was used like a tool in some ways to get messages across. I developed a curiousity which led me to discover more, and how they are orgainized. I found after I read about a concept, I wanted to listen to how it sounds. Later I can detect what musical concepts are used in a piece, and which are so loose they are randomly generated. Even random music can be interesting in its sounds, and the tones on different insturments. I don't actually care if I like the music (but it turns out I do in different degrees), as long as it is interesting to me.


Do you believe that composers of such music actually consider the harmonic effect their music has at each chord change when they are writing it - or do you think that that is not their priority - that the horizontal flow is more important?

To my ears one dissonant tone cluster after another different tone cluster all sound very much alike.

I should say (I have mentioned it before) that _The Rite of Spring_ remains one of my all time favourites (and I realize it's not 12-tone).


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

janxharris said:


> To my ears one dissonant tone cluster after another different tone cluster all sound very much alike.


I have the same issue with Mozart in terms of repeated chord progressions - especially the cadences - so it's not just a 12-tone problem. (I do love some Mozart though).


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

janxharris said:


> I can certainly appreciate moments in this type of music - even in the pieces I referred to - so I have an idea of what you mean.
> 
> I still remain unconvinced that it's beyond anyone to make such seemingly interesting music by throwing some random and not so random chords and melodic lines together and achieve the same result.


But the results are not actually the same. It is more in the organizing principles and concepts. I think it is obvious that random organization would be less interesting than others. You can have music that uses all 12 notes and still be tonal ( or can be polytonal). Sometimes it is like having more than 1 strain of music interacting with another, while the price it pays is it would introduce disonances, more or less, the rewards are far greater, IMO. But it is all up to the listener to explore as far as they want to go.

Personally I think there has been some damage done to how people think of Modern music, when some would say they hear it the same way as traditional music, and why can't you. It is not the same, and it only frustrates those who try to listen to it using the same way even more.


----------



## Myriadi (Mar 6, 2016)

Room2201974 said:


> It's simply a matter of how our brains work. Our brains process consonance better than dissonance.


This kind of message simply begs the "citation needed" kind of reply, but instead I'll bite and ask you this: what do you mean by "better processing"?

Or actually, here's an even better reply to this. Let's say Mark A. enjoys tonal music of the 18th and the 19th centuries, and doesn't care at all for 12-tone music. But his sister Stephanie A. enjoys _both_ tonal music and 12-tone music. Assuming they both actually understand what's going on in the actual music (as in, they can hear false recapitulations, interesting development sectoins, unusual harmonic solutions, and so on), does this mean that Stephanie's brain is _better_ than Mark's? After all, you say our brains process consonance better, and Stephanie whose brain is equally good with consonance and dissonance... I'm sure you can see the troubling implications.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

stop arguing and listen to the beauty


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

janxharris said:


> Do you believe that composers of such music actually consider the harmonic effect their music has at each chord change when they are writing it - or do you think that that is not their priority - that the horizontal flow is more important?
> 
> To my ears one dissonant tone cluster after another different tone cluster all sound very much alike.
> 
> I should say (I have mentioned it before) that _The Rite of Spring_ remains one of my all time favourites (and I realize it's not 12-tone).


Most composers consider harmony, sometimes just to stretch it and force certain harmonic relationships on the listener. The only ones that don't, or less, are those that use the aleatoric (random) concepts. The Introduction to Rite of Spring itself is a whole world on its own, with a lot of interaction of chords / melodies of different keys.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Phil loves classical said:


> But the results are not actually the same. It is more in the organizing principles and concepts. I think it is obvious that random organization would be less interesting than others. You can have music that uses all 12 notes and still be tonal ( or can be polytonal). Sometimes it is like having more than 1 strain of music interacting with another, while the price it pays is it would introduce disonances, more or less, the rewards are far greater, IMO. But it is all up to the listener to explore as far as they want to go.
> 
> Personally I think there has been some damage done to how people think of Modern music, when some would say they hear it the same way as traditional music, and why can't you. It is not the same, and it only frustrates those who try to listen to it using the same way even more.


I did say random and non-random.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Jacck said:


> stop arguing and listen to the beauty


I don't see it as an argument 

Listening to this I am instantly and unwillingly transported back to that mental asylum I mentioned.
I respect, though, that you find it beautiful - and can even agree if I consider some moments of it - but just not for 30 minutes.

I suspect that Sibelius leaves tonality behind in this passage of his fourth symphony before regaining it moments later. I think it is a special moment - but just that he doesn't over do it.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

I think with music like this, you need to stop listening through musical prejudices and just take it for it is. There is both rythm and melody in the atonal Schoenberg pieces. And the more you listen to the music, the better it gets. I recently relistened to both Schoenbergs Chamber symphonies in their entirety and was not once bored and enjoyed the music the whole time. The music is analogous to the surreal paintings of say Salvator Dali and if you can enjoy his images, why couldnt you enjoy the bizarre soundscapes of Schoenberg?


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Jacck said:


> I think with music like this, you need to stop listening through musical prejudices and just take it for it is. There is both rythm and melody in the atonal Schoenberg pieces. And the more you listen to the music, the better it gets. I recently relistened to both Schoenbergs Chamber symphonies in their entirety and was not once bored and enjoyed the music the whole time. The music is analogous to the surreal paintings of say Salvator Dali and if you can enjoy his images, why couldnt you enjoy the bizarre soundscapes of Schoenberg?


I intend to keep trying.

I'm not necessarily prejudiced.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

"Far be it from me to question the rights of the majority. But one thing is certain: somewhere there is a limit to the power of the majority; it occurs, in fact, wherever the essential step is one that cannot be taken by all and sundry." Arnold Schoenberg, March 22, 1931; 
this is an astonishing piece and also recording.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

and the Berg violin concerto that you mentioned. I honestly find it very delicate and beuatiful. I really do


----------



## Guest (Mar 17, 2018)

KenOC said:


> It's seldom heard on classical radio


I put the radio on on most days, and always BBC Radio 3. I have not found what is broadcast to be dominated by any particular century or style of composition. For me, part of the enjoyment of listening to Radio 3 is the variety. (For non-Brits, BBC Radio 3 is the national art music radio station).


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Lisztian said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this only true to the extent that we are conditioned, from birth, to process it better?


No, I'm not talking about operant conditioning. It's really a matter of how our neurons transfer information.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Myriadi said:


> This kind of message simply begs the "citation needed" kind of reply, but instead I'll bite and ask you this: what do you mean by "better processing"?
> 
> Or actually, here's an even better reply to this. Let's say Mark A. enjoys tonal music of the 18th and the 19th centuries, and doesn't care at all for 12-tone music. But his sister Stephanie A. enjoys _both_ tonal music and 12-tone music. Assuming they both actually understand what's going on in the actual music (as in, they can hear false recapitulations, interesting development sectoins, unusual harmonic solutions, and so on), does this mean that Stephanie's brain is _better_ than Mark's? After all, you say our brains process consonance better, and Stephanie whose brain is equally good with consonance and dissonance... I'm sure you can see the troubling implications.


Stephanie's brain isn't "equally good with consonance and dissonance." The transfer of information from one neuron to another favors consonance in us all. She may understand tone row and like it, but that doesn't alter basic brain function.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Room2201974 said:


> It's not a matter of exposure to atonality or 12 tone.
> It's not a matter of pandering to the masses.
> It's not a matter of musical intelligence or musical listening skills.
> 
> It's simply a matter of how our brains work. Our brains process consonance better than dissonance. The whole trend of atonal music bucks this inherent concept, thus the division between audience and composer that arose in the 20th century that was not there previously.


What does "our brains process consonance better than dissonance" mean? In what way better? Your "explanation" above (#164) doesn't actually say anything. Please support it and assume I have studied neurophysiology (because I have).

You seem to assume some necessary relationship between atonal or 12 tone music and dissonance. What is your basis for this? After all, there is much extended tonal music by Prokofiev, for example, that is objectively more dissonant than atonal works of Schoenberg.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

EdwardBast said:


> What does "our brains process consonance better than dissonance" mean? In what way better?
> 
> You seem to assume some necessary relationship between atonal or 12 tone music and dissonance? What is your basis for this? After all, there is much extended tonal music by Prokofiev, for example, that is objectively more dissonant than atonal works of Schoenberg.


Would you cite a particular example (of Prokofiev's) please?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Jacck said:


> stop arguing and listen to the beauty


There is still some tonality to that Op.10 which is considered a transitional work. It was his Op.11 where he dispenses with tonality altogether.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> What does "our brains process consonance better than dissonance" mean? In what way better? Your "explanation" above (#164) doesn't actually say anything. Please support it and assume I have studied neurophysiology (because I have).
> 
> You seem to assume some necessary relationship between atonal or 12 tone music and dissonance. What is your basis for this? After all, there is much extended tonal music by Prokofiev, for example, that is objectively more dissonant than atonal works of Schoenberg.


https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20930-why-harmony-pleases-the-brain/

Are there consonant atonal or 12 tone works? Examples?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

janxharris said:


> Would you cite a particular example (of Prokofiev's) please?


Scherzo of the second piano sonata, first movement of the sixth, 2nd movement of the first violin sonata. There are many, many examples.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Room2201974 said:


> https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20930-why-harmony-pleases-the-brain/
> 
> Are there consonant atonal or 12 tone works? Examples?


That article is poorly written and reasoned. If the experimenters actually made any of the statements and conclusions the author derived from their work, which I doubt, then it is junk science. It is difficult to tell who is responsible for the errors in reasoning, but let's just look at a few.

The article starts with the assumption that what makes music pleasant is consonance and then, bizarrely, anthropomorphizes individual neurons, attributing to them sensations of pleasure.  Talk about dumbing down. This whole spiel is tautological and silly. In any case, music with piquant dissonance is extremely pleasurable to nearly all listeners, as when the Bachs use chain suspensions resulting in series of highly dissonant seconds followed by their brief resolutions. This brings up the most glaring global problem with the article: Musical pleasure and perception does not depend on the qualities of isolated intervals, which is the only data these researchers considered. It depends on hearing dissonances and consonances within broad structural contexts. For this reason alone, this article has nothing to say about the perception of actual music. One can't extrapolate from isolated intervals to complex tonal or atonal structures.

It gets no better. Consider the fallacious analogies to information theory, particularly the statement that "a random signal carries very little information; a signal with a discernible pattern carries more." In what way is a third less random than a tritone? What would such a question even mean? Clearly whoever is responsible for this "thought" is drawing an analogy between "dissonant" and "random." There is no basis for this analogy. The article is, in a word, moronic.

Your question is theoretically meaningless. Virtually all art music has both consonance and dissonance.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Room2201974 said:


> https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20930-why-harmony-pleases-the-brain/
> 
> Are there consonant atonal or 12 tone works? Examples?


"In the terms of information theory, a random signal carries very little information; a signal with a discernable pattern carries more. So naturally, the consonant notes carry more information than dissonant ones. They then used this to calculate the information content of the pulse trains generated by consonant and dissonant tones."

I admit I'm no expert in thjs field. The first statement seems obvious to me, but my question is how it implies the 2nd statement, which is not so obvious. The 3rd, which leads to the whole conclusion that "sweet sounds carry more information than harsh ones" is based on that step.

Also, were the subjects trained in modern music?


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

It's such a bogus study that another researcher found the same thing:

https://physicsworld.com/a/physicists-in-tune-with-neurons/


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

I see a trend developing.

https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2001.tb05727.x


----------



## Guest (Mar 17, 2018)

Room2201974 said:


> It's such a bogus study that another researcher found the same thing:
> 
> https://physicsworld.com/a/physicists-in-tune-with-neurons/


The same thing found is physical in nature. It is the extrapolation to musical evaluation that can be considered to be rather questionable.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Room2201974 said:


> It's such a bogus study that another researcher found the same thing:
> 
> https://physicsworld.com/a/physicists-in-tune-with-neurons/


From under the heading of Consonance at:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2629434/

_"Consonance is perhaps the most researched emergent property that occurs in chords. To Western listeners, certain combinations of notes, when played in isolation, seem pleasant (consonant), whereas others seem unpleasant (dissonant). Of course, the aesthetic response to an interval or chord is also a function of the musical context; with appropriate surroundings, a dissonant interval can be quite pleasurable, and often serves important musical functions. However, in isolation, Western listeners consistently prefer some intervals to others, and this depends little on musical training [77]. This effect is often termed sensory consonance to distinguish it from the more complicated effects of context [78].

The possible innateness of these preferences has been the subject of much interest and controversy. *Infants as young as 2 months of age appear to prefer consonant intervals to dissonant ones [79-81]*. This is consistent with an innate account, although it is difficult to rule out effects of incidental music exposure that all infants surely have, even while still in the womb."_

_"There is an unfortunate dearth of cross-cultural studies testing whether preferences for consonance are universal [77,82], but the prevalence of dissonant intervals in some other musical cultures [70] could indicate that such preferences may be learned, or at least easily modifiable... *On the other hand, in at least some cultures in which conventionally dissonant intervals are common, they appear to be used to induce tension [84], much as they are in Western music.* It thus remains conceivable that there is a component of the response to dissonance that is universal, and that its prevalence in other cultures is due to alternative uses for tension in music."_

IMO, the best studies to differentiate or compare our perception of consonant vs. dissonant music would be the use of PET scans to show how various areas of the brain respond (light up) to highly tonal vs. highly atonal music in people who are not that experienced in listening to either in classical music. Would the pleasure centers respond differently? As far as I know, no such studies have been done.

Of interest to me but not part of this subject is the fact that when one thinks of a melody that they are familiar with, areas in the auditory cortex light up similar to those when the melody is actually heard.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Room2201974 said:


> It's such a bogus study that another researcher found the same thing:
> 
> https://physicsworld.com/a/physicists-in-tune-with-neurons/


At least in this article the data wasn't summarized by a fool. But nothing about this article or its findings supports any of your assertions about atonal/12-tone music versus tonal music. It was only the erroneous conclusions of the first article that seemed to do that.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

DaveM said:


> From under the heading of Consonance at:
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2629434/
> 
> _"Consonance is perhaps the most researched emergent property that occurs in chords. To Western listeners, certain combinations of notes, when played in isolation, seem pleasant (consonant), whereas others seem unpleasant (dissonant). Of course, the aesthetic response to an interval or chord is also a function of the musical context; with appropriate surroundings, a dissonant interval can be quite pleasurable, and often serves important musical functions. However, in isolation, Western listeners consistently prefer some intervals to others, and this depends little on musical training [77]. This effect is often termed sensory consonance to distinguish it from the more complicated effects of context [78].
> ...


None of this is relevant to the points at issue. An innate preference for isolated sonorities of one type or another has nothing to do with the musical value of consonance and dissonance as used in various systems of composition. People in general might prefer sky blue over puce. This does not mean a painting with lots of sky blue is inherently better or more comprehensible than one with more puce.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> None of this is relevant to the points at issue. An innate preference for isolated sonorities of one type or another has nothing to do with the musical value of consonance and dissonance as used in various systems of composition. People in general might prefer sky blue over puce. This does not mean a painting with lots of sky blue is inherently better or more comprehensible than one with more puce.


Perhaps we have a different opinion about what the points of issue are. That said, the fact that it appears that 'infants as young as 2 months of age appear to prefer consonant intervals to dissonant ones' does suggest that consonance may come more naturally to us and the appreciation of dissonance in music may take more work/learning. Not saying it proves the point, but even a number of posters here admit that the appreciation of 12-tone music required some particularly dedicated learning before full appreciation came.

One thing I am certain of is that the subject of the appreciation of consonance vs dissonance in music is far more complex than the preference of sky blue over puce.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I read of an interesting experiment, of sorts, a while back. The subjects were two or three idiot savants with an uncanny ability to hear music once and then play it back on the piano accurately, even though the selections might be quite long.

Various styles of music were used. The subjects performed best on music of traditional common practice tonality. The more chromaticism, especially unprepared off-notes, the poorer their performance. For example, they performed amazingly well in previously unheard music of the middle-Romantic period; less well in Debussy; and comparatively poorly in Bartok.

In remembering this, I am thinking: What about (for instance) Chopin? Could it simply be the subjects' conditioning to the diatonic scale from a very early age?


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> At least in this article the data wasn't summarized by a fool. But nothing about this article or its findings supports any of your assertions about atonal/12-tone music versus tonal music. It was only the erroneous conclusions of the first article that seemed to do that.


When you get to implied ad hominems I'm outta here. Whatever point you seem to be trying to make is lost in that kind of dissonance.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

DaveM said:


> Perhaps we have a different opinion about what the points of issue are. That said, the fact that it appears that 'infants as young as 2 months of age appear to prefer consonant intervals to dissonant ones' does suggest that consonance may come more naturally to us and the appreciation of dissonance in music may take more work/learning. Not saying it proves the point, but even a number of posters here admit that the appreciation of 12-tone music required some particularly dedicated learning before full appreciation came.
> 
> One thing I am certain of is that the subject of the appreciation of consonance vs dissonance in music is far more complex than the preference of sky blue over puce.


You might be overlooking an important underlying point. Has anyone even demonstrated that atonal music is objectively more dissonant than tonal music? I would say very comprehensible and easily digestible music by, for example, Prokofiev and Weinberg is considerably more dissonant than most of Schoenberg's free atonal music. This is just my subjective impression. But no one has answered that objection yet.

I imagine the general preference for blue over puce, if it exists, would require similarly complex work to explain.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Room2201974 said:


> When you get to implied ad hominems I'm outta here. Whatever point you seem to be trying to make is lost in that kind of dissonance.


I wasn't referring to you or any other denizen of TC. I was referring to the author of the original article you posted, who put a foolish and unwarranted spin on the data of serious scientists. I'm sorry if there was a misunderstanding. The underlying neurophysiological research is interesting and certainly worth reading when presented objectively, as it was in the much better second article you posted. it just doesn't bear in any obvious way on the present debate.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

EdwardBast said:


> That article is poorly written and reasoned. If the experimenters actually made any of the statements and conclusions the author derived from their work, which I doubt, then it is junk science. It is difficult to tell who is responsible for the errors in reasoning, but let's just look at a few.


For anyone who wishes to actually read the paper, here is a link. I'm not sure if everyone will be able to access the paper. The article does a poor job of summarizing the paper partly due to the complex nature of the paper and presumably partly due to trying too hard to make the results relevant to non experts. This paper does not discuss music but rather neuronal responses to two-note chords.

From the abstract:

"Spike train regularity of the noisy neural auditory system model under the influence of two sinusoidal
signals with different frequencies is investigated. ... It is shown that the spike train regularity in the model is high for harmonious chords of input tones and low for dissonant ones."



EdwardBast said:


> It gets no better. Consider the fallacious analogies to information theory, particularly the statement that "a random signal carries very little information; a signal with a discernible pattern carries more." In what way is a third less random than a tritone? What would such a question even mean? Clearly whoever is responsible for this "thought" is drawing an analogy between "dissonant" and "random." There is no basis for this analogy. The article is, in a word, moronic.


The problem was the statement "the consonant notes carry more information than dissonant ones." What the paper says is that the _output of their neuronal model_ results in pulse trains of higher regularity (lower entropy) for consonant dyads and lower regularity (higher entropy) for more dissonant dyads.

It's quite common for summaries of technical work aimed at non experts to misrepresent results of those studies.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Thanks mmsbls. I can read only the abstract, which appears to suggest that the human brain differentiates consonance and dissonance at the neuronal level, and the result of the process is a signal that is farther from random (more orderly) for consonance than for dissonance.

This seemingly calls into question the view that a preference for consonance (or for dissonance for that matter) is entirely learned and has no biological basis.

However, a question: Was this an experiment measuring results from actual subjects, or simply an analysis of the outputs of a neuronal model the researchers had built? If the latter, I would tend to discount it.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

KenOC said:


> Zorg was a great musician, the world's first. He had a hollow log that he struck with a rock. People gathered from afar to hear his booming sounds.
> 
> In time, since he always passed his rhamphorhynchus-skin hat around, he grew rich and could afford a second hollow log, a smaller one.
> 
> But did he then strike them together, for harmony, or separately, for a melody? Alas, we shall never know because Zorg had no recording contract, and the only surviving music of those times is on a few CDs of burp-music of the hill people collected by specialists from the Cave of Learning.


First I am sorry for taking so long in replying to you I have been having problems getting notifications which I hope is now fixed.
Zorg is a well documented musician and any one that knows of him will Immediately know that first there was the beat = Rhythm then melody then harmony, to think otherwise is just a wee bit stupid.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

BiscuityBoyle said:


> Asking out of genuine curiosity: when does your interest pick up in the transition to modernism? Do you enjoy Debussy or Prokofiev? Perhaps late Scriabin? Or just serialism?


My tastes in classical go well beyond serialism.

In fact, serialism is not even close to being a major part of my collection.

As far as Debussy and Prokfience go, I like them well enough, just not something I go to very often in my listening.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

eugeneonagain said:


> I'm also a fan of the same 12-tone etc, but also of music before 1920 (I see no need for either/or), so I think I might perhaps have a wider body of comparison and appreciation than you have. Do correct me if I'm wrong, but you have previously stated that you either know nothing of pre-modernism or don't listen to it? I don't think this puts you in a much better position that those who only listen to pre-modernism. It also makes any judgements you make of music c.1920 and before rather worthless as an opinion, wouldn't you say?


I also see no reason to be wither/or. It's not like I made a conscious decision to dislike pre-modernism.

I actually have a fair amount of premodernism recordings in my collection. Mostly from the Classical era. Before I discovered modernism, I would often listen to them, but they never really did anything for me. It wasn't for lack of trying. As soon as I discovered modernism, there was no going back.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

DaveM said:


> It's rather remarkable to see someone actually put down in print that they can't understand why people make negative comments in threads about mid to late 20th century music and then in the next breath trash virtually all classical music prior to 1920 which would be considered by most as the very heart of the genre.


I don't feel I really trashed classical music pre-1920.

I only gave my opinion. And I think I made that clear that it was only my opinion. Please read my comment again, and let me know if I should have been clearer.

The problem I have seen in the past, not specifically on this thread, is many fans of pre-20th century classical, when making negative modernism comments, seem to make them as if they are objectively true.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Simon Moon said:


> I don't feel I really trashed classical music pre-1920.
> 
> I only gave my opinion. And I think I made that clear that it was only my opinion. Please read my comment again, and let me know if I should have been clearer.
> 
> The problem I have seen in the past, not specifically on this thread, is many fans of pre-20th century classical, when making negative modernism comments, seem to make them as if they are objectively true.


I went back and read the post in question and it's true that you stated your views of pre-1920 music as an opinion, but it came after you indicated your dismay at people commenting in threads about how much they dislike modern music. As someone who probably fits in that category, I'm wondering whether perhaps they were just stating their opinion also.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Thanks mmsbls. I can read only the abstract, which appears to suggest that the human brain differentiates consonance and dissonance at the neuronal level, and the result of the process is a signal that is farther from random (more orderly) for consonance than for dissonance.
> 
> This seemingly calls into question the view that a preference for consonance (or for dissonance for that matter) is entirely learned and has no biological basis.


I think all behavior, including a preference for consonance, is determined by physical (biological) processes, but those processes can be modified by interactions with external inputs. That modification is what we call learning. So a preference could be both learned and completely due to physical processes (neuronal circuits).



KenOC said:


> However, a question: Was this an experiment measuring results from actual subjects, or simply an analysis of the outputs of a neuronal model the researchers had built? If the latter, I would tend to discount it.


The paper states, "It has been shown rather convincingly [11-14] that the behavioral preference of consonant chords is due to some basic principles of neural functionality..." I'm not sure exactly why the authors make this statement other than differentiating between basic (relatively simple) and complex (involving detailed neural circuits perhaps) neural functionality. Given this result, the authors ask, "[W]hich characteristics of physical processes in the brain reflect the differences between
consonance and dissonance perception?"

They constructed a model based on the auditory system's neural functionality which results in a neuron outputting a signal that can be used to differentiate between consonant and dissonant two tone chords. They did not do an experiment identifying this signal but rather hypothesized such a system and signal. Experiments could verify the existence of such signals.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Simon Moon said:


> I also see no reason to be wither/or. It's not like I made a conscious decision to dislike pre-modernism.
> 
> I actually have a fair amount of premodernism recordings in my collection. Mostly from the Classical era. Before I discovered modernism, I would often listen to them, but they never really did anything for me. It wasn't for lack of trying. As soon as I discovered modernism, there was no going back.


I'm curious Simon Moon, do you confirm that Beethoven's 5th symphony, Sibelius's 7th symphony, and Bach's double violin concerto all leave you cold?

I ask respectfully and there is no suggestion that disliking these pieces makes anyone 'odd'. 
Much of Mozart's music leaves me cold - and Haydn...


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit (Oct 20, 2014)

I feel like this whole thread kind of speaks to why western classical music is a dead art form.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> I feel like this whole thread kind of speaks to why western classical music is a dead art form.


In what way is it 'dead'?


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit (Oct 20, 2014)

janxharris said:


> In what way is it 'dead'?


The quote that made me say that was when someone said "pre-1920 music forms the heart of the genre".....just that idea of the canon is something I don't have any sympathy for. The dogma of the greatness of a handful composers and the constant regurgitating of their music is partially what makes it a dead artform with almost nowhere to go. Furthermore (on the other side of the debate), people who insist on an idea of linear progress and a chronological continuity, and have so little creativity that they can't understand how old techniques can still create totally new and unprecedented ideas........... If the art form is dominated by people who are so utterly visionless, I don't see what worthwhile life it has ahead of it.

Now that I think about it, all of that is neither here nor there, compared to the burden placed on modern composers. I think exaggerated notions of what constitutes originality and plagiarism form a plague on newly composed music. People act as if by using a stock gesture of impressionism, you are directly copying Debussy. That's like saying you are copying Bach or Mozart by using a falling fifth-rising fourth sequence. The result is composers probably have to travel to the nether-regions of their imagination to find ideas that are not derivative, even if they are not good ideas (I think they usually aren't).....as though being derivative is a cardinal sin of music composition.

In addition, no one, NO ONE, learns how to write music without copying music that resembles what they want their music to sound like, very closely.

Composers in the baroque, classical and romantic era had the supreme advantage of have a pre-organized musical language to work within. A lot of composers used the same ideas as one another yet have their own voice.

If you listen to modern composers, a lot of them have different ideas yet most of them, quite sadly, are totally characterless.

If it were a living artform, composers would be free to copy (to an extent) and recycle the ideas of others without fearing ridicule or attempts at marginalization. I think then you would see a variety of musical styles that can be allowed to crystallize into great works of art, rather than each composer being an island and desperately trying to have their own heretofore unimagined style.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

In my opinion regarding dissonant chords producing less coherent signal, I think it's an expected finding, but it doesn't mean that dissonance is bad. I think it should be a spice that should be used occasionally to break the predictable patterns, to insert the element of surprise in a work. But if the whole work is dissonant, then it becomes a rule, and it's not a surprise anymore, and can indeed tend towards randomness.

I am not really knowledgeable about 12 tone technique, but I personally think that free atonality is better. In a way, I consider free atonality as liberation from the slavery to keys. Like free verse in poetry. And IMHO, it would really require a great talent to create truly great works which are atonal, but still sound good, and in which the composer freely uses any of the 12 tones, at his own discretion.

On the other hand, I am not a fan of serialism as I consider it just a new slavery. Now instead of being a slave to a key, you become a slave to the rule of non repetition until the end of the tone row, and the slave of giving exactly the same importance to each tone. Which is, IMO, unnecessary.

Regarding the prohibition of copying or deriving, I agree with Gaspard that such prohibition is a bit excessive and probably damaging to the development of music.

I think that short musical ideas, consisting of few tones could be considered words, like individual notes are letters... if we want to make an analogy to language. So using old words in literature is completely normal and it's required if you want to be understood at all. If you just use old words, you can still write completely original novels.

Yet many writers coin their own words as well. But if a novel consisted entirely of neologisms it would be a very difficult read.

Borrowing not only from old composers, but also from folk music, and pop, rock, and countless other new genres of popular music and developing these ideas in creative ways typical of classical music tradition could perhaps give more power to new classical music.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

ZJovicic said:


> In my opinion regarding dissonant chords producing less coherent signal, I think it's an expected finding, but it doesn't mean that dissonance is bad. I think it should be a spice that should be used occasionally to break the predictable patterns, to insert the element of surprise in a work. But if the whole work is dissonant, then it becomes a rule, and it's not a surprise anymore, and can indeed tend towards randomness.


I agree with everything except this part. Sometimes disonnance is used as a spice in otherwise consonant music. But in many other cases, disonance is still not the main idea in the music, but only a by-product of something else going on. The idea is not to have to like the disonance on the surface to like the music, but to hear past it into what really is going on, which sometimes can't be put across without otherwise producing disonance.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

I would not bring information theory into this. Information theory is based on entropy (Shannon entropy) and if the atonal music is structured I don't see why the waveforms could not carry the same amount of infomation content as tonal music. It is rather a problem of psychoacoustics, ie how our brain perceives patterns. Even visually, certain shapes are appealing and pleasant (think for example a crystal of water in the shape of a snowflake) and others not. The same happens with sounds. The key in this is ratio of various tones. It has long been known that ratios based on the Golden ratio are everywhere in nature and are appealing. And the western musical scales are empirically based on such ratios between pure tones which are appealing. When you break these ratios, atonality arises and sounds not pleasant to the human brain. There is however no reason, why it could not carry the same kind of information.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Another thing that occurred to me is that atonality could perhaps make a piece of music age more slowly... because it's unfamiliar, it's surprising, it's confusing... so it takes longer to get familiar with it, unlike a a Haydn or Mozart melody which you can remember after just one listening.

There's a theory that states that things get subjectively more beautiful the more we are familiar with them, but until certain point after which there's diminishing returns with further familiarization, or perhaps even the reversal of this trend.

That's how we can destroy a piece of music for ourselves by listening to it too often.

So I think that atonal works are perhaps uglier on first listening, but with repeated listening can stay fresh for a longer time.
Though I haven't made such experiments yet.
Maybe I should try to find some totally atonal work, full serialism, and listen to it repeatedly and check how my reactions to it change over time.

I expect that it would get better and better to me and that it would grow slower than other works.

Regarding psychoaccusitcs, probably consonance produces more coherent signals initially, but when you listen to something 2nd, 3rd or n-th time, there's another mental process that comes into play... so it's not just perception anymore, but also recognition from memory.

So even noises can become familiar, and we might even learn to like them... sound of thunder, of engine, of waves, of water, of animals, etc... Certain flavors of pure noise can also sound pleasant... even though they are probably maximally entropic.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Jacck said:


> I would not bring information theory into this. Information theory is based on entropy (Shannon entropy) and if the atonal music is structured I don't see why the waveforms could not carry the same amount of infomation content as tonal music. It is rather a problem of psychoacoustics, ie how our brain perceives patterns. Even visually, certain shapes are appealing and pleasant (think for example a crystal of water in the shape of a snowflake) and others not. The same happens with sounds. The key in this is ratio of various tones. It has long been known that ratios based on the Golden ratio are everywhere in nature and are appealing. And the western musical scales are empirically based on such ratios between pure tones which are appealing. When you break these ratios, atonality arises and sounds not pleasant to the human brain. There is however no reason, why it could not carry the same kind of information.


My impression is that if a casual listener is only looking for a tune to hum, Taylor Swift would produce more meaningful music than Prokofiev. I couldn't differentiate atonal from dissonant tonal before, and both sounded equally confusing, so I just didn't get out as much from that sort of music than from pop, or more traditional melodies.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

I think that it was a pretty stupid idea to break away from tonality completely. Atonality or disonance are OK, but only sometimes to spice up the tonal music. Those theoreticians like Schonberg knew not much about physics or history of music and why those musical scales evolved in the first place. Pure tones are sinus waves that have a frequency. And only certain frequencies can combine constructively, other combine destructively. So tonality and the scales based on tonality are based on ratios between frequencies that are "good", while disonance is based on ratio that are "bad" and produce noise. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interval_ratio


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

a brilliant example of how to mix tonality and atonality and consonance and disonance is the music of Karol Szymanowski


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> I think exaggerated notions of what constitutes originality and plagiarism form a plague on newly composed music. People act as if by using a stock gesture of impressionism, you are directly copying Debussy. That's like saying you are copying Bach or Mozart by using a falling fifth-rising fourth sequence. The result is composers probably have to travel to the nether-regions of their imagination to find ideas that are not derivative, even if they are not good ideas (I think they usually aren't).....as though being derivative is a cardinal sin of music composition.
> 
> In addition, no one, NO ONE, learns how to write music without copying music that resembles what they want their music to sound like, very closely.
> 
> ...


I couldn't agree more. It's the paradox of individuality: we become ourselves by knowing and assimilating others.

Differences are most meaningful when we've lived with and fully appreciate what we're different from, and know why we have to be different in just that way. The real artist doesn't try to be original; he discovers that he's original, and he may be as surprised by the discovery as anyone.

A totally original identity is an impoverished identity. A "new musical language" quickly becomes a personal cliche, and then we have to "find ourselves" all over again.

The desperate attempt to be unlike anyone else ends up throwing a lot of babies out with the bathwater. Eventually there will be no babies, and we'll never know what they might have grown up to become.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Jacck said:


> I think that it was a pretty stupid idea to break away from tonality completely. Atonality or disonance are OK, but only sometimes to spice up the tonal music. Those theoreticians like Schonberg knew not much about physics or history of music and why those musical scales evolved in the first place. Pure tones are sinus waves that have a frequency. And only certain frequencies can combine constructively, other combine destructively. So tonality and the scales based on tonality are based on ratios between frequencies that are "good", while disonance is based on ratio that are "bad" and produce noise.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interval_ratio


If humans are just organic resonators then yes, why produce anything else but consonance. Even "bad" ratios in wave frequencies is not noise. Different frequencies don't combine "destructively".


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

ZJovicic said:


> So even noises can become familiar, and we might even learn to like them... sound of thunder, of engine, of waves, of water, of animals, etc... Certain flavors of pure noise can also sound pleasant... even though they are probably maximally entropic.


Plus the sound of finger nails being scraped across a black board or three singers singing way out of tune and sounds of a dog whimpering while being thrashed. 
Not for me.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

It may be useful to hear what Schoenberg intended with his 12-tone music.

http://www.csun.edu/~liviu7/603/Chapter 4-Schoenberg.pdf


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> It may be useful to hear what Schoenberg intended with his 12-tone music.
> 
> http://www.csun.edu/~liviu7/603/Chapter 4-Schoenberg.pdf


Phil I can't wade through all that stuff, give a concise version pleeeeese.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

ZJovicic said:


> Maybe I should try to find some totally atonal work, full serialism, and listen to it repeatedly and check how my reactions to it change over time.


I've tried this on Webern's Symphony op.21 (inspired by one of the comments on that particular youtube video: "after listening to it a thousand times i try to recall how ridiculously non sensical and non musical it seemed during the first 50 listenings. And also recalling that I knew if I listened to it a thousand times it would start to make sense and would be worth the effort. I haven't really listened to Feldman much. I do like Ben Johnston or at least think I do.﻿")

I'm about 20 listen's in but I'm not sure a I can face another 30. (Sorry Webern).


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> The quote that made me say that was when someone said "pre-1920 music forms the heart of the genre".....just that idea of the canon is something I don't have any sympathy for. The dogma of the greatness of a handful composers and the constant regurgitating of their music is partially what makes it a dead artform with almost nowhere to go. Furthermore (on the other side of the debate), people who insist on an idea of linear progress and a chronological continuity, and have so little creativity that they can't understand how old techniques can still create totally new and unprecedented ideas........... If the art form is dominated by people who are so utterly visionless, I don't see what worthwhile life it has ahead of it.
> 
> Now that I think about it, all of that is neither here nor there, compared to the burden placed on modern composers. I think exaggerated notions of what constitutes originality and plagiarism form a plague on newly composed music. People act as if by using a stock gesture of impressionism, you are directly copying Debussy. That's like saying you are copying Bach or Mozart by using a falling fifth-rising fourth sequence. The result is composers probably have to travel to the nether-regions of their imagination to find ideas that are not derivative, even if they are not good ideas (I think they usually aren't).....as though being derivative is a cardinal sin of music composition.
> 
> ...


Interesting, thanks.
It is saddening to think that Western Classical music is dead. I'm not convinced it is though.

Regarding plagiarism - Beethoven would have been familiar with this Mehul symphony before he wrote his fifth:





.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Dan Ante said:


> Phil I can't wade through all that stuff, give a concise version pleeeeese.


The pdf is not copy text friendly, but it is the last part of first page and first half of second, he talks of "harmony is expression" and liberate from all forms of forms, symbols, and of using harmony as a building blocks, and away from "protracted emotion", but instead a person feels thousands of emotions simultaneously.



janxharris said:


> I've tried this on Webern's Symphony op.21 (inspired by one of the comments on that particular youtube video: "after listening to it a thousand times i try to recall how ridiculously non sensical and non musical it seemed during the first 50 listenings. And also recalling that I knew if I listened to it a thousand times it would start to make sense and would be worth the effort. I haven't really listened to Feldman much. I do like Ben Johnston or at least think I do.﻿")
> 
> I'm about 20 listen's in but I'm not sure a I can face another 30. (Sorry Webern).


I think that is a particularly good 12 tone piece, highly regarded and my favourite! Not all 12-tone music are created equal. I would stop listening for a while, and return to it in a week or 2. I've seen it described as a canon with some inversion. But even without analysing it, I probably because if it, that it has an interesting flow and logical. I forgot who wrote it, but said you don't have to "like" the music, but can still get something out if it.

More accessible and just as great (to me) is Webern's Op. 6 which is free atonal and not 12 tone. It was one of Boulez's favourite works of the century.

Those who get accustomed to modern music will be familiar with how minor seconds, major sevenths, and tritones sound. They are the building blocks of a lot of modern music, like the harmonic triad is to traditional harmony. I think the getting used to is accepting and recognizing those intervals by ear and subconsciously, and having it engrained.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Phil loves classical said:


> I think that is a particularly good 12 tone piece, highly regarded and my favourite! Not all 12-tone music are created equal. I would stop listening for a while, and return to it in a week or 2. I've seen it described as a canon with some inversion. But even without analysing it, I probably because if it, that it has an interesting flow and logical. I forgot who wrote it, but said you don't have to "like" the music, but can still get something out if it.


I will do as you suggest 



> More accessible and just as great (to me) is Webern's Op. 6 which is free atonal and not 12 tone. It was one of Boulez's favourite works of the century.
> 
> Those who get accustomed to modern music will be familiar with how minor seconds, major sevenths, and tritones sound. They are the building blocks of a lot of modern music. I think the getting used to is accepting and recognizing those intervals by ear and subconsciously, and having it engrained.


Will give it a go.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Phil loves classical said:


> I think that is a particularly good 12 tone piece, highly regarded and my favourite! Not all 12-tone music are created equal. I would stop listening for a while, and return to it in a week or 2. I've seen it described as a canon with some inversion. But even without analysing it, I probably because if it, that it has an interesting flow and logical. I forgot who wrote it, but said you don't have to "like" the music, but can still get something out if it.


It's possible to not like a piece but, nevertheless, 'still get something out of it'?


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

I just listened to Webern's Symphony and here are my impressions:

Neither part of it was in any way unpleasant or irritating to me, but the first part was mostly incomprehensible, to me it seemed like just a sequence of tones which don't sound bad, but I didn't notice much coherence in it either.
The second part of the symphony and especially near its end sounded better and I started noticing some patterns, and also I preferred it (the second part) because of more dynamic rhythms and being more lively and dramatic.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Also regarding the whole work, I feel it as rather atmospheric, setting a certain mood, expressing some emotions, for example maybe it would work good as music for some historical documentary.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

ZJovicic said:


> Also regarding the whole work, I feel it as rather atmospheric, setting a certain mood, expressing some emotions, for example maybe it would work good as music for some historical documentary.


Don't you think that most composers of this type of music would feel insulted by your impression? I, too, see the piece as you do - as creating a mood - though I can't say I have any preference for the first or second part; in fact I remain nonplussed as to why he wrote it. I don't deny that the piece appears to have a merit for some though.

(I'm not suggesting you are insulting Webern's piece by the way).


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> You're beginning with the unstated (or maybe unconscious?) premise that melody has no origin in, and is not shaped by, any phenomenon that doesn't contain or imply harmony.


No; I'm saying that in harmonically-based music, melody is always in reference to harmony and gets its meaning from that harmonic underpinning.



Woodduck said:


> By defining melody as essentially shaped by harmony, you (and Phil, I think) have no choice but to draw from that unproven idea the conclusion that harmony is more fundamental in music. You're also asserting that simultaneity is a necessary foundation for sequentiality. This sounds like (to quote eugeneonagain) metaphysical quackery.


If music is strictly melodic, with no harmony, then you can grant that melody defines it, as in Gregorian chant or Thai music.

Still, even strictly melodic music is based on a scale (with instruments built to that end). A scale is similar to harmony in that it is a pre-compositional construct which defines the harmonic color.

This is essentially what "harmonic" phenomena is; a set of pre-compositional conditions which define the notes (scale) within an octave. "Pre-compositional" means those parameters which are defined before any sequence of events, and before the unfolding of time. It is an abstract idea in that it is not time-dependent for its formation. If you think that abstract ideas are 'metaphysical quackery,' then you are being way too literal and sensual.

Any single tone is a 'harmonic model' of its fundamental tone and lesser overtones. This is essentially what scales are: ways of dividing an octave, like the harmonic model does.

BTW, I'm using "harmonic" as a descriptor, not as a noun, so this idea does not have to adhere to any fixed model of "harmonics" as they occur naturally in the overtone series. These scales and harmonic schemes are "models" of an octave, each with its own unique divisions.



Woodduck said:


> The function of harmony in shaping melody depends on the development of harmonic awareness and harmonic systems. Melody doesn't begin to exist because of harmony, and there are other factors than the harmonic sense that shape it. To quote myself: "The harmonic series existed in nature before anyone made music. That doesn't make harmony a more basic or essential component of music than rhythm or melody. There is rhythm in nature too, and it's much more open to observation and imitation than the overtones of pitched sounds. Likewise, melody (sequences of pitches) occurs in expressive speech and other vocal expression, human and non-human - as does rhythm - even when there is no awareness of harmony.


This is true insofar as speech can be seen as "non-harmonic" and totally based on its "melodic" characteristics. When I speak of harmony as being primary, it is usually in the context of harmonically-based music, which includes all Western tonal music. I did not wish to discuss non-harmonic, strictly melodic music.

This also reveals a problem in referring to "melodies" a somehow self-sufficient. Every note in a melody is a specific pitch, and those pitches have a relation to other pitches. Unless it's a 12-tone melody, these melodies imply a scale or main reference tone, which results in tonality. Even Gregorian chant, which is non-harmonic and strictly melodic, cannot avoid making tonal references through repetition and cadence, even though to analyze it as harmonic would be technically incorrect.



Woodduck said:


> At a certain point in music's evolution, melody begins to incorporate harmony and to systematize pitch relationships. It doesn't grow out of harmony, and doesn't need it; it needs only pitch and rhythm."


If you are referring to Bach's unaccompanied sonatas, then the harmony is implied, not explicit; still, the harmony is pre-compositionally determined beforehand, and the melody simply elaborates this in various ways.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

janxharris said:


> Don't you think that most composers of this type of music would feel insulted by your impression? I, too, see the piece as you do - as creating a mood - though I can't say I have any preference for the first or second part; in fact I remain nonplussed as to why he wrote it. I don't deny that the piece appears to have a merit for some though.
> 
> (I'm not suggesting you are insulting Webern's piece by the way).


Probably they would feel insulted but I just expressed how I experienced it. I listened to it 3 times today, and now I can't remember any specific musical phrases, ideas, etc... except for some short parts nearing the end of the piece. But I do remember the mood it set and the general feeling of it.

On the other hand, after listening to a Beethoven symphony, I get not one but multiple earworms, and I could reconstruct large parts of it in my mind.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

ZJovicic said:


> Probably they would feel insulted but I just expressed how I experienced it. I listened to it 3 times today, and now I can't remember any specific musical phrases, ideas, etc... except for some short parts nearing the end of the piece. But I do remember the mood it set and the general feeling of it.
> 
> On the other hand, after listening to a Beethoven symphony, I get not one but multiple earworms, and I could reconstruct large parts of it in my mind.


I feel insulted on their behalf  ... :lol: Seriously, It is not intended to be some background music just for atmosphere, but to fully hear the various tones/ intervals. ot is not important to like/unlike it as much as hear it and experience it. You do have to let go of some previous notions of how music "should" be, if you not yet initiated. This is where the snobbery comes in...


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Phil loves classical said:


> I feel insulted on their behalf  ... :lol: Seriously, It is not intended to be some background music just for atmosphere, but to fully hear the various tones/ intervals. ot is not important to like/unlike it as much as hear it and experience it. You do have to let go of some previous notions of how music "should" be, if you not yet initiated. This is where the snobbery comes in...


I remain curious regarding the relative unimportance of 'liking' such music as you say.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

janxharris said:


> I remain curious regarding the relative unimportance of 'liking' such music as you say.


I feel liking is unimportant because it is based on things too complex to take seriously. From my own angle, I have a soft spot for music that is nostalgic and pleasant. Ravel's Pavane for a Dead Princess makes me feel the most emotion more than anything, but my mind is divided, and is often more interested by music I like less. That is my personal dilemma. 12 tone music is not also for me easy to like, but I find a lot of it fascinating.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Phil loves classical said:


> I feel liking is unimportant because it is based on things too complex to take seriously. From my own angle, I have a soft spot for music that is nostalgic and pleasant. Ravel's Pavane for a Dead Princess makes me feel the most emotion more than anything, but my mind is divided, and is often more interested by music I like less. That is my personal dilemma. 12 tone music is not also for me easy to like, but I find a lot of it fascinating.


Indeed, Ravel's Pavane is an excellent piece.

I'm intrigued by this PLC - so the Webern 'Symphony', you like it or are just fascinated by it?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

janxharris said:


> Indeed, Ravel's Pavane is an excellent piece.
> 
> I'm intrigued by this PLC - so the Webern 'Symphony', you like it or are just fascinated by it?


Mainly fascinated. But after a while I liked it a bit, or some. But I prefer Prokofiev to Webern. Even Schoenberg in the end couldn't deny the power of tonality. Bernstein talked about it in one of his lectures. People thought he was a sell out when one of his last pieces was tonal.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Phil loves classical said:


> Mainly fascinated. But after a while I liked it a bit, or some. But I prefer Prokofiev to Webern. Even Schoenberg in the end couldn't deny the power of tonality. Bernstein talked about it in one of his lectures. People thought he was a sell out when one of his last pieces was tonal.


I've always assumed that we are only fascinated by pieces that we really enjoy; yet, you say that such is 'too complex to take seriously'.

I'm rather baffled PLC.

I hope you don't mind me pressing you - I'm genuinely interested in what you have to say


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

janxharris said:


> I've always assumed that we are only fascinated by pieces that we really enjoy; yet, you say that such is 'too complex to take seriously'.
> 
> I'm rather baffled PLC.
> 
> I hope you don't mind me pressing you - I'm genuinely interested in what you have to say


What does PLC mean, anyway? Couldn't find it in the urban dictionary  I mean us not liking some music doesn't mean that it doesn't have value. I think music that is more interesting is better than well-liked, in a more objective sense. Of course "interesting" can be relative also.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Phil loves classical said:


> What does PLC mean, anyway? Couldn't find it in the urban dictionary  I mean us not liking some music doesn't mean that it doesn't have value. I think music that is more interesting is better than well-liked, in a more objective sense. Of course "interesting" can be relative also.


Sorry:
PLC=Phil loves classical

I see, you can appreciate what seems well constructed music even if it's not quite your thing aesthetically speaking.


----------

