# I don't get atonality



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

After listening to several of Schoenberg's Klavierstücke, I have decided that I just don't "get" atonal music. Perhaps someone would help enlighten me?

From what I've read so far, it seems to me that atonality was devised merely for the sake of doing something different. However, the tone of many of the articles I've found about atonality seem to suggest that its development should be viewed as the greatest achievement in music history, and (at the extreme end) that all good music should be atonal. I've read that the use of all twelve tones of the chromatic scale equally is supposed to add color to music, but I've found that to my naïve ears, Schoenberg's Klavierstücke are the musical analog to the vacuum of space or a cold Antarctic winter--dark, empty, cold, and lifeless. Perhaps I'm not listening "correctly." 

I'm sorry, but I just don't get the point of it. Perhaps someone could explain.


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2011)

First, "atonal" is a word made up by a journalist who didn't like Schoenberg's music. Schoenberg's term was "pantonal."

Second, listen to the music. I mean really listen. Not with expectations (after this note should come _this_ note). Not with desires (I really wish this were more like what I already like). But listen to what's there. Let _it_ speak. You may still not like it, but that's a different story.

Getting it is something everyone in 2011 should be able easily to do. We have been badly served by our journalists and our teachers if we don't get it.

Third, listen to more things. Schoenberg only wrote a few pieces in pantonality. He found the unrestricted nature of it too, um, unrestricted. He needed a system, like tonality, whereby he could generate music that would, ironically enough, sound more familiar, like the musics of the past. That system was called dodecaphony and then, after being altered some, serialism. (Now all of it gets called "atonality" or "serialism" indiscriminately.

(And fourth, what have you been reading so far? "Atonality was devised merely for the sake of doing something different" sounds like you've been reading some very ill-educated listeners who've rejected Schoenberg's music without really listening to it. And who have opinions.)

But fifth, keep listening! I "discovered" twentieth century music in 1972. By 1982, I was listening to music written in 1982. Only ten years to get caught up. It's later than 1972, I understand. But if you've got at least ten years left, you can make a pretty decent start on getting caught up. And the rewards are tremendous. A lot of really fascinating music has been written in the past hundred years. Limitlessly rewarding. Happy listening!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

The development of atonality (or "pan-tonality" as Schoenberg liked to call it) came at a time when tonality was being pushed to it's limits. Just listen to things like Richard Strauss' _Thus Spake Zarathustra_, a highly chromatic piece. In this type of music, brilliant effects calculated to dazzle the listener took precedence over holistic thematic development. Tonality had been eroded and obviously this kind of approach could go no further. Then came composers like Ives, Scriabin and of course Schoenberg who were more interested in developing the themes themselves than just pushing tonality to it's limits. So any notion of a tonal centre was dispensed with, and the themes took centre stage. You can clearly hear this in pieces like Berg's _Wozzeck_ (which has leitmotifs just like a Wagner opera) & Carter's _String Quartet No. 1_ (a work from much later in 1951, but which was based on similar principles to those used by the Second Viennese School early on). I'd say listen to these works and then get back to Schoenberg, whose music can be even more complex. I never "got" Schoenberg until I went ahead and explored more atonal composers - not only his students Berg & Webern (Eisler was third one) - but also contemporaries like Reger and Zemlinsky (who taught him) and others like Stravinsky and Hindemith who played around with atonality by putting it into neo-classical contexts. Carter can be a great starter as well (especially that work above), as well as Ives and Scriabin, who I mentioned. I'd also add Dutilleux. Just avoid Sessions, who I think can be very dry at times.

Also, one has to distinguish between works that are freely atonal and serial. With serialism, Schoenberg felt that he had 'tamed the beast' of atonality, but all up not many composers embraced it. For example, Carter was never interested in it. Boulez, Stockhausen and some others flirted with it, but I think that now serialism has become more of a kind of a historical curiosity which ultimately lead to nothing. It is free atonality which continues to be more relevant today, imo.

BTW, Schoenberg considerd himself as continuing the great Austro-Germanic tradition of Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Brahms, etc. He said that he was a "conservative who was forced to become a radical." This is interesting considering how many people from then on considered him something like the bogeyman of classical music. This is an erroneous view of what he was trying to do...


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

*Let me see...*

Why you want to get it? Is that important for you? It is better if you leave the music get you! Start by something simple...Transfigurate night by Schönberg, put it at least 5 times. Increase th eopuses in Schönberg repertoire...Start now with Op.1 by Berg.










Berg:






Listen to it until you find it wonderful....A minimum of 10 times.

Go ahead, progress...follow other opus. BUY the CDs, you won't have choice but listen to them.

The music will catch you before you can catch the music.

A miracle.

Martin, 59 years.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

myaskovsky2002 said:


> Why you want to get it? Is that important for you?


better can know, think and arranged make would Well, order phrases I can sentences. had been understand - he have an if musical in I notes you the to it


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

*was is das?*

better can know, think and arranged make would Well, order phrases I can sentences. had been understand - he have an if musical in I notes you the to it

?????????????????????????????????????

a joke?

Martin


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Kopachris said:


> After listening to several of Schoenberg's Klavierstücke, I have decided that I just don't "get" atonal music. Perhaps someone would help enlighten me?
> 
> From what I've read so far, it seems to me that atonality was devised merely for the sake of doing something different. However, the tone of many of the articles I've found about atonality seem to suggest that its development should be viewed as the greatest achievement in music history, and (at the extreme end) that all good music should be atonal. I've read that the use of all twelve tones of the chromatic scale equally is supposed to add color to music, but I've found that to my naïve ears, Schoenberg's Klavierstücke are the musical analog to the vacuum of space or a cold Antarctic winter--dark, empty, cold, and lifeless. Perhaps I'm not listening "correctly."
> 
> I'm sorry, but I just don't get the point of it. Perhaps someone could explain.


Let's keep the analogy extremely simple. Atonal music (or pantonal, to be linguistically punctilious) is not the type of music you would normally put on when you invite your girlfriend/boyfriend over for the very first time to your home for an ideal romantic evening (assuming she/he is generally unaware of or is not an atonal music fan to begin with, but just the type of girl/boy you might like to introduce to your parents and grandparents). Nor is it the type of music that, almost by definiton, contain tunes that you might whistle or sing to when you are having a shower or feeling great about oneself.

Having said that, I would like to think I do "get" atonal music. I simply take it for what it is, not expecting its sound to arouse me to the level that tonal music might, although there are undoubtedly many listeners here who profess that atonal music arouse them at least as much as traditional classical music. A bird's song could indeed transmit like sweet sounds to many of our ears, but if atonal music does not, then you probably conclude that one's approach or expectation assumed for this music is not appropriate.

I'm certainly not often a keen fan of atonal music. Many pieces are listenable one-off experiences and some pieces have been revisted by me several times. But I doubt there are any pieces that could be revisited as often as, say a Bach concerto, for me. (Think the innumerable times I have listened to his double violin concerto, and I still eagerly seek, perhaps in vain, to find an equivalent from the atonal violin concerto repertoire). I find atonal music fascinating to experience, but fascination is an experience that does not necessarily always imply emotional content, which is not to say that it is a necessary condition for great music. Different folks will get different buzz out of it.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I "discovered" twentieth century music in 1972. By 1982, I was listening to music written in 1982. Only ten years to get caught up. It's later than 1972, I understand. But if you've got at least ten years left, you can make a pretty decent start on getting caught up. And the rewards are tremendous. A lot of really fascinating music has been written in the past hundred years. Limitlessly rewarding.

Or you could spend those same ten years delving into the music of the past millennium... digging deeper into the Baroque, Romanticism, the Renaissance, and the middle-ages. It would seem that either path might prove equally rewarding... indeed, a great many might argue that there are far greater rewards to be found among the music over the last 1000 years than might be found in the music of the last 50. Ultimately you must decide what music seems most important to you and brings you the most pleasure... and you must decide what music is or is not worth the effort to develop a grasp and understanding. Some focus upon a narrow range (the Baroque or Romanticism) and dig deep into it. Others would not only find that too constrictive... but might even imagine that after a while the music of a single era all begins to sound the same. Others focus upon a given genre (opera or vocal music or chamber music or symphonic music) or music from a single musical tradition (Russian or French or Italian). No one can really master the whole of music so I wouldn't allow anyone shame me or make me feel guilty about not "getting" or not liking a given body of music. The truth is that a lot of people that "get it" still don't like atonalism... and the same is probably true of any musical language.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

myaskovsky2002 said:


> better can know, think and arranged make would Well, order phrases I can sentences. had been understand - he have an if musical in I notes you the to it
> 
> ?????????????????????????????????????
> 
> ...


A joke, yes. But that row of question marks is exactly how most people feel about 20th century music. All I said was:



Weston said:


> Well, I think it would have been better if he had arranged the notes in an order I can understand - you know, to make phrases and musical sentences.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

When Stockhausen totally serialised his music, he believed he was finding god in sound.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Kopachris said:


> After listening to several of Schoenberg's Klavierstücke, I have decided that I just don't "get" atonal music. Perhaps someone would help enlighten me?
> 
> From what I've read so far, it seems to me that atonality was devised merely for the sake of doing something different. However, the tone of many of the articles I've found about atonality seem to suggest that its development should be viewed as the greatest achievement in music history, and (at the extreme end) that all good music should be atonal. I've read that the use of all twelve tones of the chromatic scale equally is supposed to add color to music, but I've found that to my naïve ears, Schoenberg's Klavierstücke are the musical analog to the vacuum of space or a cold Antarctic winter--dark, empty, cold, and lifeless. Perhaps I'm not listening "correctly."
> 
> I'm sorry, but I just don't get the point of it. Perhaps someone could explain.


Which piece by Schoenberg were you actually listening to? The Klavierstücke Op. 11 (this)? Because that's atonal, not serial - there's an important difference.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Thank you for your replies, and I'll try your suggestions. I'll try to listen to it for what it is, rather than with expectations. I do like chromaticism, and even ambiguous tonality (Strauss's "Zarathustra" is one of my favorite works to listen to), but this is completely... foreign to me.



Webernite said:


> Which piece by Schoenberg were you actually listening to? The Klavierstücke Op. 11 (this)? Because that's atonal, not serial - there's an important difference.


All of Op. 11, Op. 19, Op. 23, and Op. 25.



Weston said:


> better can know, think and arranged make would Well, order phrases I can sentences. had been understand - he have an if musical in I notes you the to it


Yeah, that's exactly what it felt like. :lol:

So, I'll try to go find some Wagner, some more Schoenberg (hopefully something orchestral, but still pantonal), something serial by Stockhausen... I'll let you know how it goes!


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

A good place to start might be Berg's piano sonata. It's truly pivotal between tonality pushed to it's limits and the onset of atonal pieces.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Kopachris said:


> All of Op. 11, Op. 19, Op. 23, and Op. 25.


Well, just to be clear, out of those only the Op. 25 is completely serial (i.e. twelve-tone). The other three are primarily atonal.

Any way, the fact is that Schoenberg's piano works are not the most important part of his output. He often used the piano simply as an easy way of experimenting with new ideas. So, as much as I love Op. 11 No. 1, I suggest you try something like the Five Pieces for Orchestra Op. 16 (atonal) or the Violin Concerto Op. 36 (serial/twelve-tone).


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

I would also like to emphasize the importance in distinguishing between atonal and serial... Atonal music can be fascinating to hear and just as moving as any other music I know of, especially in the solo piano music of Aaron Copland and the orchestral works of Ives.

From what I've experienced of serialism (Schoenberg and Webern mostly), it seems like a failed experiment to me. I follow what people say... just listening and not letting your prior expectations get in the way... but try as I might to appreciate it, I just can't. It's like staring at a poop stain on my carpet for long periods of time and trying to convince myself that it's art. It doesn't work.


----------



## toucan (Sep 27, 2010)

Start with this fascinating skit. It's called _Webern in Mayberry_, and it features the 3rd one of Webern's *Six Pieces* op. 6:






What it does is it teaches us to _visualize_ atonal music. 
When we have not yet penetrated it, it represents nothing, it shows us nothing, it tells us nothing - in short, it seems abstract. But after you see this video, you are sensitized to the sense of dire expectation, the music tells you something, it has become meaningful - it is now longer abstract, indeed it is now as meaningful and expressive as anything you have heard by Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert et alii.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Then you are dismissing some of the most astounding compositions of the last century. I suggest you listen to Dallapiccola or Boulez's Le Marteau sans Maitre

http://www.musictheory21.com/documents/ahn_boulez-le-marteau.pdf

@Ravellian


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Thanks for this thread. Dodecophony/Atonality has been very interesting to me for a while, and I think I'm beginning to get it. Not the really thick stuff, but the stuff that borderlines with tonality, I'm beginning to get that.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

toucan said:


> Start with this fascinating skit. It's called _Webern in Mayberry_, and it features the 3rd one of Webern's *Six Pieces* op. 6:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thats Brilliant Toucan, are there any more?


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

If this Webern in Mayberry thing truely captures essence of his music then I don't even want to bother with getting it anymore because it would be like struggling to understand extremely complicated symbolist/surrealistic play just to discover unrewarding and uninteresting meaning behind it.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

del, doubled post


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Aramis said:


> If this Webern in Mayberry thing truely captures essence of his music then I don't even want to bother with getting it anymore because it would be like struggling to understand extremely complicated symbolist/surrealistic play just to discover unrewarding and uninteresting meaning behind it.


Its just an aid to help you appreciate the music. I dont thing the images are actually relevant in terms of content.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

The Mayberry video is effective, but it also demonstrates another problem with non-common practice composition for me. We Americans at least have been conditioned by TV shows and movies to expect these compositions to be incidental wallpaper soundtracks to everything from sitcoms to film noir. So often when I hear these works I want to get up and turn the TV off so I can listen to music. It's an unfortunate mental association and no fault of the composer.

I am finding memorization to be more effective for me. This worked decades ago with some of Ligeti's works, and has very nearly worked with Varese's _Arcana_. I realize neither of these have much in common with the Berg's (Alban and Schoen).


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

That Mayberry video was helpful, thank you. I think I'm starting to understand atonality somewhat. Tonality imposes structure on music to provide context, allowing music to need no program to be understood as music. With atonality, on the other hand, all context is dependent on the composer, and therefore some program must accompany the music, at least in the mind of the listener, or else the music seems like noise. Therefore, a listener must be able to image some sort of program in order for the music to make any sense. Freed from the structure imparted by tonality, a composer is able to go from idea to idea without tonality implying anything to the listener that the composer doesn't want. Right?

Take, for example, the attached file. Without knowing even its title to imply some sort of program, the listener is forced to use his imagination. If he can't image some sort of program, the listener is inclined to disregard it as being just noise.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I don't agree. I think that atonality actually allows for as much thematic development as more tonal music. Please read my earlier post for clarification. A piece like Carter's 1st string quartet for example has more holistic and unified thematic development than say R. Strauss' _Thus Spake Zarathustra_ or Tchaikovsky's 1st piano concerto. Carter doesn't 'shoot his load' with a big theme at the beginning which he never returns to, all of the themes in that string quartet are based upon what happens in the first few minutes...


----------



## Ernie (Jun 6, 2010)

Kopachris said:


> That Mayberry video was helpful, thank you. I think I'm starting to understand atonality somewhat. Tonality imposes structure on music to provide context, allowing music to need no program to be understood as music. With atonality, on the other hand, all context is dependent on the composer, and therefore some program must accompany the music, at least in the mind of the listener, or else the music seems like noise. Therefore, a listener must be able to image some sort of program in order for the music to make any sense. Freed from the structure imparted by tonality, a composer is able to go from idea to idea without tonality implying anything to the listener that the composer doesn't want. Right?
> 
> Take, for example, the attached file. Without knowing even its title to imply some sort of program, the listener is forced to use his imagination. If he can't image some sort of program, the listener is inclined to disregard it as being just noise.


Oh Pleeeeeeze - gimme a break!


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Kopachris said:


> Take, for example, the attached file. Without knowing even its title to imply some sort of program, the listener is forced to use his imagination. If he can't image some sort of program, the listener is inclined to disregard it as being just noise.


Lol! Even when you know the title there isn't a whole lot of implied program is there? But this is sort of tonal and certainly more rhythmic than much 20th century classical music. Still, even though I always liked this piece, I wouldn't say I listen to it as much as more conventional works. It's one of those things that you look back on and say, "yes, it was cool that it was done." Not unlike John Cage's 4:33.


----------



## Agatha (Nov 3, 2009)

Weston said:


> better can know, think and arranged make would Well, order phrases I can sentences. had been understand - he have an if musical in I notes you the to it


this is exactly how I feel listening to atonal music!
I am trying to understand-feel it too, so I will stick around to read more of your thoughts.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Andre said:


> I don't agree. I think that atonality actually allows for as much thematic development as more tonal music. Please read my earlier post for clarification. A piece like Carter's 1st string quartet for example has more holistic and unified thematic development than say R. Strauss' _Thus Spake Zarathustra_ or Tchaikovsky's 1st piano concerto. Carter doesn't 'shoot his load' with a big theme at the beginning which he never returns to, all of the themes in that string quartet are based upon what happens in the first few minutes...


I didn't preclude thematic development when I mentioned that composers were freer to move directly from theme to theme--in fact, juxtaposition like that is part of thematic development (context, ya know?). True, the "nature" motif from _Zarathustra_ never recurs exactly as it was presented in the beginning, but you can hardly say that Strauss never returns to the theme. Take, for one example, the first bars of "Von der Wissenschaft": the C-G-C motif in the cello and contrabass, then it's repeated slightly altered (B-F#-D, instead of C-G-C). The rest of the movement is then based almost entirely around the development of that theme.

I can't say anything about Tchaikovsky's piano concerto, though, as I've never listened to it. I have, however, listened to "Zarathustra" enough times to practically hum the whole thing from memory. But yes, I agree that atonality allows for much freer thematic and motivic development--that was the main point of my other post.



Ernie said:


> Oh Pleeeeeeze - gimme a break!


Okay... care to develop that thought any? I _am_ trying to _learn_, after all.


----------



## Ernie (Jun 6, 2010)

Kopachris said:


> Okay... care to develop that thought any? I _am_ trying to _learn_, after all.





> Perhaps I'm not listening "correctly.


What is it you're trying learn? No one can teach you how to listen correctly - there is no such thing. You're hearing what you're hearing. Either you like it or you don't. If you don't, listening to it 10 times or 1000 times will probably not change your opinion. Maybe in a few years you'll feel differently - maybe not. Listening to or reading some intellectual analysis will do nothing but convince you that your "dislike" for this music is somehow a lack of sophistication on your part. A short-coming - a shallowness - a deficiency. For me, a lack of tonality strains my understanding of what music is. You need to come to grips with your own understanding and not rely on others to do it for you. There is no shortage of contradictory opinions on this forum, as the thread "Mozart, God or Garbage" will attest to. No amount of analysis or persuasion will change someone's opinion one way or the other, or make them react to the music in a different manner. My comment "gimme a break" was not aimed toward the writings of any individual but to the "musical" examples offered. If you find this "music" appealing, more power to you. If you, like me, find it worthless, that's okay too. That's why they make cars in different colors.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> No amount of analysis or persuasion will change someone's opinion one way or the other, or make them react to the music in a different manner


That's simply untrue.


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

I concur with aramis. Analysis can show you hidden beauty.


----------



## Ernie (Jun 6, 2010)

We're splitting hairs here. The OP was wondering if he was listening "correctly". While much can be learned and appreciated by analysis, the "hidden beauty", to a person just listening, remains hidden. If you feel that music requires analysis, by all means analyze it. I personally have gained much from this type of analysis. However, the gains manifest themselves in my greater appreciation for the genius of the composer, not in persuading me to like a piece that I instinctively disliked.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Ernie said:


> We're splitting hairs here. The OP was wondering if he was listening "correctly". While much can be learned and appreciated by analysis, the "hidden beauty", to a person just listening, remains hidden. If you feel that music requires analysis, by all means analyze it. I personally have gained much from this type of analysis. However, the gains manifest themselves in my greater appreciation for the genius of the composer, not in persuading me to like a piece that I instinctively disliked.


But surely analysis can also help you notice things? I mean, if I had never been told what a "canon" was, I don't think I would have enjoyed the canons in the _Goldberg Variations_ so much. Knowing what they were directly affected how I listened to them...


----------



## Ernie (Jun 6, 2010)

Webernite said:


> But surely analysis can also help you notice things? I mean, if I had never been told what a "canon" was, I don't think I would have enjoyed the canons in the _Goldberg Variations_ so much. Knowing what they were directly affected how I listened to them...


That's exactly my point. Knowing what a canon is and analyzing its use makes you appreciate the genius of the composer all the more. I doubt that you hated the Goldberg Variations until you found out about canons and then changed your opinion. Is it not possible to have a piece with the most intricately conceived canon still turn you off musically? Will analyzing the piece and discovering this beautifully crafted canon make you like a previously disliked piece? Is it not possible that we sometimes must make a distinction between a nicely crafted piece and an enjoyable one? Or must we rely on analysis to determine whether or not a piece appeals to us?


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Rasa said:


> I concur with aramis. Analysis can show you hidden beauty.


Analyse this!






Also, *Ernie* is right.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Ernie said:


> That's exactly my point. Knowing what a canon is and analyzing its use makes you appreciate the genius of the composer all the more. I doubt that you hated the Goldberg Variations until you found out about canons and then changed your opinion. Is it not possible to have a piece with the most intricately conceived canon still turn you off musically? Will analyzing the piece and discovering this beautifully crafted canon make you like a previously disliked piece? Is it not possible that we sometimes must make a distinction between a nicely crafted piece and an enjoyable one? Or must we rely on analysis to determine whether or not a piece appeals to us?


Well, yes, of course there's a difference between music I respect and music I enjoy. But analysis can affect both my degree of enjoyment _and_ my degree of respect.

All really good music is helped by a bit of "active" listening. The most basic part of this is to listen without distractions. But in addition to that, hearing is something that can be controlled. In Brahms, I might pay some attention to the secondary voices, because he often uses them to subliminally repeat and transform the opening theme. Listening to a Mozart sonata, I won't do that - because focusing on an Alberti bass is likely to make the music less enjoyable instead of more. Analysis helps me to work out _how_ to listen in each case, and listening in one way or another can certainly affect my degree of enjoyment.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

I don't mean to say that if someone dislikes Webern, it's just because they're "listening wrong." But at the same time, it's not silly for them to ask, "What should I be listening out for?"


----------



## Ernie (Jun 6, 2010)

Webernite said:


> I don't mean to say that if someone dislikes Webern, it's just because they're "listening wrong." But at the same time, it's not silly for them to ask, "What should I be listening out for?"


I agree - that's a perfectly good question. However, I think the point is still being missed. We all listen to pieces in different ways. Being an old tenor, I tend to listen to the tenor part, especially in music like Brahms. The gorgeous Db to Gb in "Dwelling Place" (Brahms Reguiem) sent chills down my spine when I first sang it at the age of sixteen - it still does. But the question of what to listen for is mute if you are so turned off by the music that you don't want to listen to it at all. To paraphrase myself from another post "life is short - don't waste it!" There are certain things we have to do in this life - listening to music that is generically distasteful is not one of them.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Ernie said:


> I agree - that's a perfectly good question. However, I think the point is still being missed. We all listen to pieces in different ways. Being an old tenor, I tend to listen to the tenor part, especially in music like Brahms. The gorgeous Db to Gb in "Dwelling Place" (Brahms Reguiem) sent chills down my spine when I first sang it at the age of sixteen - it still does. But the question of what to listen for is mute if you are so turned off by the music that you don't want to listen to it at all. To paraphrase myself from another post "life is short - don't waste it!" There are certain things we have to do in this life - listening to music that is generically distasteful is not one of them.


I agree, but I think there's a difference between "not getting" something and being _repulsed_ by it. I can empathize with people who feel that life is too short to try music by which they're repulsed. But people who refuse to try any music that they don't already "get" are not only small-minded, but actually self-harming.

The person who created this thread obviously doesn't "get" atonality, but he's not totally repulsed by it, otherwise he wouldn't have created the thread. I don't see why you should be quite so against his efforts to understand, if that's what he wants to do. If he'd created a thread about trying to like the _Art of Fugue_, or the harpsichord, presumably you'd be supportive, so why be dismissive of this?


----------



## Ernie (Jun 6, 2010)

Webernite said:


> I agree, but I think there's a difference between "not getting" something and being _repulsed_ by it. I can empathize with people who feel that life is too short to try music by which they're repulsed. But people who refuse to try any music that they don't already "get" are not only small-minded, but actually self-harming.
> 
> The person who created this thread obviously doesn't "get" atonality, but he's not totally repulsed by it, otherwise he wouldn't have created the thread. I don't see why you should be quite so against his efforts to understand, if that's what he wants to do. If he'd created a thread about trying to like the _Art of Fugue_, or the harpsichord, presumably you'd be supportive, so why be dismissive of this?


Nowhere did I suggest being dismissive nor am I against anyone's effort to better understand anything. If the OP had made his thread about the Art of Fugue, or harpsichord music, my reaction would have been exactly the same. Is it necessary for everyone to "like" everything? I detest spinach. Must I spend the rest of my life "trying to like it"? Does this make me a "small-minded" person out to harm myself? Last time I checked, we are all free to like or dislike anything we please. If you like atonal music that's fine - I won't call you an elitist, a musical intellectual, or a high-brow snob. At the same time, you shouldn't be calling me small-minded and self-harming for choosing to spend my time in areas more satisfying to me. If the original poster doesn't "get" atonal music and wants to learn more about it, that's terrific. If, on the other hand, he wants to learn more because he has been led to believe that his "not getting it" is due to some deficiency in his character, taste, intelligence, or education, that is a shame.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

You may believe that youre current method of purely listening is allowing you to reap enjoyment at maximum efficiency. Perhaps try some analysis, perhaps the rewards will be much greater than you think.

Comparisons between food and music dont make sense to me.

Still, I like chocolate. After I read a scientific journal explaining the chemistry and psychology of chocolate consumption, I decided to really think about the feelings chocolate invokes in me. My appreciation for chocolate thus increased.

Call me an elitist, but perhaps analysis is just a way to pay 'more attention' to music. You may not realise it but just listening may not be enough. The same as how simply eating chocolate does not compare to properly experiencing chocolate.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Ernie said:


> Nowhere did I suggest being dismissive nor am I against anyone's effort to better understand anything. If the OP had made his thread about the Art of Fugue, or harpsichord music, my reaction would have been exactly the same. Is it necessary for everyone to "like" everything? I detest spinach. Must I spend the rest of my life "trying to like it"? Does this make me a "small-minded" person out to harm myself? Last time I checked, we are all free to like or dislike anything we please. If you like atonal music that's fine - I won't call you an elitist, a musical intellectual, or a high-brow snob. At the same time, you shouldn't be calling me small-minded and self-harming for choosing to spend my time in areas more satisfying to me. If the original poster doesn't "get" atonal music and wants to learn more about it, that's terrific. If, on the other hand, he wants to learn more because he has been led to believe that his "not getting it" is due to some deficiency in his character, taste, intelligence, or education, that is a shame.


Sorry, I wasn't trying to say that you are small-minded, but I can see now how my post could give that impression.

People who make no effort whatsoever to explore composers who don't immediately move them - it was these (hypothetical) people I was referring to as small-minded and self-harming. I have no reason to assume that you personally are in that category. Even if Webern is one composer you've decided not to explore, I have no doubt that you've explored others who you felt were more likely to grow on you.

:tiphat:


----------



## Ernie (Jun 6, 2010)

emiellucifuge said:


> You may believe that youre current method of purely listening is allowing you to reap enjoyment at maximum efficiency. Perhaps try some analysis, perhaps the rewards will be much greater than you think.
> 
> Comparisons between food and music dont make sense to me.
> 
> ...


You assume that my method of listening is devoid of analysis. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's not my method of listening that is in question here - it's the method of the original poster. You say that comparisons between food and music don't make sense to you - why not? Both are consumed and either liked or disliked.

For some reason, it's not enough to experience and enjoy something. We have to "properly" experience it. If we don't experience it "properly" we're not enjoying it at "maximum efficiency." You have, therefore, decided what the "proper" way of listening is for me, the original poster, and everyone else. If we don't listen "properly" we are somehow deficient and our experiences somehow lacking. Now that is elitist.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

If the original poster doesn't "get" atonal music and wants to learn more about it, that's terrific. If, on the other hand, he wants to learn more because he has been led to believe that his "not getting it" is due to some deficiency in his character, taste, intelligence, or education, that is a shame.

*EXACTLY!!!!*

Not that any one here would make such suggestions.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

emiellucifuge said:


> Call me an elitist,





Ernie said:


> Now that is elitist.


Okay, allow me to distance myself from that post slightly, it came across as more 'arrogant' and 'elitist' than I intended.



> You assume that my method of listening is devoid of analysis. Nothing could be further from the truth.


Then I have one question - why do you analyse when you listen?


----------



## Comus (Sep 20, 2010)

As a big fan of Schoenberg et al. I agree with Ernie that analysis is unnecessary to enjoy a piece of music. You should be listening to all of the voices in any piece, be it concerto or symphony. The composer knew what he was doing. Given a decent interpretation his ideas will be presented clearly for anyone to hear without a score. This doesn't necessarily mean you need to recognize the retrograde inversion of the prime series, but your ears will gather the impression if you are prepared to listen. Music is sound. Just listen to everything and you won't miss anything.


----------



## Ernie (Jun 6, 2010)

emiellucifuge said:


> Then I have one question - why do you analyse when you listen?


I don't analyze while I listen - at least not consciously. If, while listening, I hear something that peaks my interest, I'll get the score and study it. Then I would listen again with the score. Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of time to devote to listening or analysis which is, perhaps, the reason for not wanting to waste time. Considering my time restraints, it works for me. Methods of listening are quite individualistic. Some people feel the need to know and understand everything that is going on in a piece. Others, like myself, are content with basking in the glory of the sound. I feel you are listening correctly if you're getting what you want/need out of the experience.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Comus - I suppose my message which ive failed to make clear is: just as you say, a good interpretation. How do you know the interpretation is good? you have to look at the score.


----------



## Comus (Sep 20, 2010)

^^^
There is a degree of faith in the "professionals" performing the work, for one. It's quite easy to tell if an interpretation is good because you like it. It's a wee bit harder to tell if it's bad, that is unless you like the piece (i.e. you've heard it before), but not the present interpretation. My idea of a good interpretation is that I can hear everything and I like what I'm hearing. For instance, I love Scriabin's Prometheus conducted by Mutti. I don't care for Ashkenazy's. I've never read the score. Besides, if it followed the composers intentions exactly, it would no longer be an interpretation. Forte might be a tad louder for one gentleman then the next.

Sure, you can look at the score while you listen, but not everyone can fill in the blanks (say you can't hear the clarinets) mentally, in real time, in competition with the with the tangible mechanical waves in the air.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

The composer has written in the score with certain sounds in mind. Many composers try to be as specific as possible but there are always things left open. A performer can fill in these open ended things, interpreting them in his own way as long as it is consistent with the rest of the piece. His interpretations have to be based on a certain degree of evidence or rational deduction of the composers intentions as displayed in the score. In the end the score is the holy document and not the recording.


----------



## Niebolaz (Jul 9, 2009)

I think analysis can indeed make a difference on an aesthetic level, though this is unfortunately just a speculation since I have no knowledge of the music theory.. Anyway, the way I see it, aesthetic enjoyment is a kind of resonating to music, kind of attunement that skips the reflective level. However, if you analyze a piece of music (which happens on reflective level) you may well change the way it will present itself to you the next time you listen to it i.e. it will offer itself already analyzed. Now, since you will hear it in a new way you may "attune" to it differently, though not necessarily in an "improved" way.


----------



## Jacob Singer (Jan 7, 2011)

emiellucifuge said:


> After I read a scientific journal explaining the chemistry and psychology of chocolate consumption, I decided to really think about the feelings chocolate invokes in me. My appreciation for chocolate thus increased.


But that doesn't make the chocolate taste any better. It still tastes exactly the same.



emiellucifuge said:


> Call me an elitist, but perhaps analysis is just a way to pay 'more attention' to music. You may not realise it but just listening may not be enough. The same as how simply eating chocolate does not compare to properly experiencing chocolate.


I find this to be a very dubious statement. It doesn't matter what is written in the score if it doesn't translate to an interesting _auditory_ experience, because then it is merely a superfluous intellectual exercise and a waste of my time.



Ernie said:


> I don't analyze while I listen - at least not consciously. If, while listening, I hear something that peaks my interest, I'll get the score and study it.


Exactly. Those of us who operate by ear don't need to study the score to know if something we hear piques our interest. The only time I personally study a score is when the music is doing something very interesting that is too complicated to sort out by ear. And that's rare, by the way.


----------



## Ernie (Jun 6, 2010)

Jacob Singer said:


> Exactly. Those of us who operate by ear don't need to study the score to know if something we hear piques our interest. The only time I personally study a score is when the music is doing something very interesting that is too complicated to sort out by ear. And that's rare, by the way.


Bingo! Everyone on this forum loves music. Why? What brought you to music in the first place? - at whatever age that happened. I'll bet it wasn't studying a score. It was the sound and the special way that the sound was interpreted by your brain. It was an unexplainable reaction to a particular auditory stimulus. Analysis explains how the piece was put together but not how you react to it. Understanding the craft, while useful in many ways, will not alter how we react to the sound. If you like something, you like it. If not, you don't. I could analyze atonal music from now 'tll the cows come home and it won't change the way I react to the music. I may appreciate the craftsmanship more, but my physiological reaction to it, that reaction that I have no control over, will remain unaltered. The passing of time and experience may change the reaction to a particular piece, but I doubt that analysis alone will.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Jacob Singer said:


> But that doesn't make the chocolate taste any better. It still tastes exactly the same.
> 
> I find this to be a very dubious statement. It doesn't matter what is written in the score if it doesn't translate to an interesting _auditory_ experience, because then it is merely a superfluous intellectual exercise and a waste of my time.
> 
> Exactly. Those of us who operate by ear don't need to study the score to know if something we hear piques our interest. The only time I personally study a score is when the music is doing something very interesting that is too complicated to sort out by ear. And that's rare, by the way.


Well you must be a genius to have all the tricks of the great masters figured out upon hearing them.

Sometimes something written in the score does not translate to an interesting auditory experience because the translator did a bad job.

No, an analysis will not change your physiological reaction to sounds, but it may help you listen out for the right sounds or perhaps notice sounds you didnt notice before. Thus providing you with many more 'auditory stimuli'.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Ernie said:


> I don't analyze while I listen - at least not consciously. If, while listening, I hear something that peaks my interest, I'll get the score and study it. Then I would listen again with the score.


Yes - but WHY would you do that if the very act is so pointless as you make it out to be? 'A waste of time'.


----------



## Ernie (Jun 6, 2010)

emiellucifuge said:


> No, an analysis will not change your physiological reaction to sounds, but it may help you listen out for the right sounds or perhaps notice sounds you didnt notice before. Thus providing you with many more 'auditory stimuli'.


Again, we're making judgment calls as to what are the "right" and "wrong" sounds to listen to. We hear what we hear. If we miss something, due to a bad performance, poor stereo reproduction, or any other reason, it's unlikely to alter our opinion in any meaningful way. If presented with more auditory stimuli than we originally heard, it more than likely will serve to strengthen our original reaction to the piece, not alter it.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Well I dont think were at a disagreement here. I believe analysis can help you enjoy music more, I dont recall saying it will change your opinion of a piece drastically.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

I don't agree with some of what's been said and implied here over the last page or so. The auditory experience _can_ be altered consciously. Analysing, reading about, and listening repeatedly to a piece of music - even reading the biography of the composer or the musician - _does_ affect the auditory experience. The auditory experience is _not_ the same thing as the sounds which come out of the speakers. _It is affected by the listener._

And yes, it _is_ possible to develop a taste for chocolate.


----------



## Ernie (Jun 6, 2010)

emiellucifuge said:


> Well I dont think were at a disagreement here. I believe analysis can help you enjoy music more, I dont recall saying it will change your opinion of a piece drastically.


Well then, we are in agreement. However, our agreement does little to help the original poster of this thread. He stated he didn't "get" atonal music. In response, he was treated to a list of things he was doing wrong or had done to him. For example:



> Listen to it until you find it wonderful....A minimum of 10 times.





> You may believe that youre current method of purely listening is allowing you to reap enjoyment at maximum efficiency. Perhaps try some analysis, perhaps the rewards will be much greater than you think.





> Getting it is something everyone in 2011 should be able easily to do. We have been badly served by our journalists and our teachers if we don't get it.


The general gist of this is to blame some extra-musical happenings for the reason he doesn't "get it". He didn't listen the required 10 times - he wasn't listening with maximum efficiency - it's his teacher's fault - it's the journalist's fault - it's 2011, how can you not "get it"?

The original poster reacted to something he doesn't care for and assumed it must be his fault because so many knowledgeable people seem to "get it". I say he "gets it" - he just doesn't like it. What's wrong with that?


----------



## Ernie (Jun 6, 2010)

Webernite said:


> And yes, it _is_ possible to develop a taste for chocolate.


Yes, but not necessary.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Ernie said:


> Yes, but not necessary.


Of course...


----------



## SuperTonic (Jun 3, 2010)

Ernie said:


> Well then, we are in agreement. However, our agreement does little to help the original poster of this thread. He stated he didn't "get" atonal music. In response, he was treated to a list of things he was doing wrong or had done to him. For example:
> 
> The general gist of this is to blame some extra-musical happenings for the reason he doesn't "get it". He didn't listen the required 10 times - he wasn't listening with maximum efficiency - it's his teacher's fault - it's the journalist's fault - it's 2011, how can you not "get it"?
> 
> The original poster reacted to something he doesn't care for and assumed it must be his fault because so many knowledgeable people seem to "get it". I say he "gets it" - he just doesn't like it. What's wrong with that?


That's a pretty twisted way of looking at the comments made in this thread. The OP came here clearly looking for help in understanding something new. He never said he didn't care for atonal music, he just said he didn't get it. The people you criticize were just trying to help him. I would also point out that the OP came back later in the thread and not only thanked them for their input, but also indicated that their comments had helped him make progress toward his original goal in creating the thread.

So what exactly is your complaint? Are you just upset that someone is trying to expand their horizons and try something new? I don't get why you have had such a negative reaction to something that didn't even involve you until you got yourself invovled in it.


----------



## Ernie (Jun 6, 2010)

SuperTonic said:


> That's a pretty twisted way of looking at the comments made in this thread. The OP came here clearly looking for help in understanding something new. He never said he didn't care for atonal music, he just said he didn't get it. The people you criticize were just trying to help him. I would also point out that the OP came back later in the thread and not only thanked them for their input, but also indicated that their comments had helped him make progress toward his original goal in creating the thread.
> 
> So what exactly is your complaint? Are you just upset that someone is trying to expand their horizons and try something new? I don't get why you have had such a negative reaction to something that didn't even involve you until you got yourself invovled in it.


There's nothing at all twisted about my way of looking at these comments. I think they were well-intentioned but not particularly helpful. The original poster said:


> but I've found that to my naïve ears, Schoenberg's Klavierstücke are the musical analog to the vacuum of space or a cold Antarctic winter--dark, empty, cold, and lifeless. Perhaps I'm not listening "correctly."
> 
> I'm sorry, but I just don't get the point of it. Perhaps someone could explain.


He assumes that because he finds the music pointless (not an unreasonable assumption) that he is not listening "correctly". Where did he get that assumption from?

I don't believe I've criticized anyone and if I did, it certainly wasn't my intention. I merely wanted to say that it's okay to feel the way he feels about atonality without feeling that he is somehow lacking in sophistication, musicality etc. Telling him that it's impossible to understand how, in the 21st century, he feels the way he does is not, in my opinion, helpful.

As an aside, you said:


> I don't get why you have had such a negative reaction to something that didn't even involve you until you got yourself invovled in it.


It didn't involve you either until you got yourself involved in it. That's what forums are all about. Otherwise, we could spend our time talking into a mirror.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Ernie said:


> I merely wanted to say that *it's okay to feel the way he feels about atonality without feeling that he is somehow lacking in sophistication, musicality etc*. Telling him that it's impossible to understand how, in the 21st century, he feels the way he does is not, in my opinion, helpful.


I'm with member Ernie here.

Member Ernie has one of the coolest avatars in this forum. He is an artist and builder of modern copies of period harpsichords.


----------



## SuperTonic (Jun 3, 2010)

Ernie said:


> I merely wanted to say that it's okay to feel the way he feels about atonality without feeling that he is somehow lacking in sophistication, musicality etc.


You're right, it is okay for him to feel that way. It is also okay for him to realize that some people DO get enjoyment from atonal music, and wonder if he might be missing out on something, and to ask for advice on how to go about exploring it. I speak from experience because I went through the same thing.


----------



## Ernie (Jun 6, 2010)

SuperTonic said:


> You're right, it is okay for him to feel that way. It is also okay for him to realize that some people DO get enjoyment from atonal music, and wonder if he might be missing out on something, and to ask for advice on how to go about exploring it. I speak from experience because I went through the same thing.


Fair enough. I feel you're not totally understanding my position and I'm sure I'm not totally understanding yours. In the meantime, I fear we are starting to beat this topic to an unrecognizable pulp. I hope the OP will write back in a year or so and let us know how this all worked out.

It was nice arguing with you.:tiphat:

Ernie


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Well, that was fun to read! 

As I stated before, the Mayberry video helped me to realize that atonal music must be programmatic, at least in the subconscious mind of the listener, because it lacks the structure and context that tonality provides. Whether that realization is correct or not, it did help me to understand and appreciate atonality better. And yes, it helped me to like it a little better.

Throughout most of this thread, I've felt more on Webernite and SuperTonic's side than Ernie's, though Ernie had some valid points as well. True, there's no real "correct" way to listen to music. I already knew that. _That's why I put the word "correctly" in irony quotes._ Also true, no amount of analyzing can really make you like anything--that wasn't even in question. I merely wanted to know why atonality was developed and if there was anything I should know that would help me appreciate it better. Toucan, thank God, came to my aid with a useful nugget of information just before the argument started, though, as I said, it _was_ fun to read. Some of my favorite moments include:



Aramis said:


> That's simply untrue.


Aramis's reply to:


> No amount of analysis or persuasion will change someone's opinion one way or the other, or make them react to the music in a different manner


Though analysis can't make someone like a piece, it can help someone appreciate a piece better, and that can at least help them like it better.



Webernite said:


> All really good music is helped by a bit of "active" listening.


And his followup:


Webernite said:


> I don't mean to say that if someone dislikes Webern, it's just because they're "listening wrong." But at the same time, it's not silly for them to ask, "What should I be listening out for?"


Yes, I agree entirely. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to actively listen to atonal music in the same way that I actively listen to tonal music, hence the posting of this thread.

Oh, yes, and the chocolate metaphor:


emiellucifuge said:


> Comparisons between food and music dont make sense to me.
> 
> Still, I like chocolate. After I read a scientific journal explaining the chemistry and psychology of chocolate consumption, I decided to really think about the feelings chocolate invokes in me. My appreciation for chocolate thus increased.
> 
> Call me an elitist, but perhaps analysis is just a way to pay 'more attention' to music. You may not realise it but just listening may not be enough. The same as how simply eating chocolate does not compare to properly experiencing chocolate.


I find comparisons between food and music entertaining and useful. :lol:


Webernite said:


> I don't agree with some of what's been said and implied here over the last page or so. The auditory experience _can_ be altered consciously. Analysing, reading about, and listening repeatedly to a piece of music - even reading the biography of the composer or the musician - _does_ affect the auditory experience. The auditory experience is _not_ the same thing as the sounds which come out of the speakers. _It is affected by the listener._
> 
> *And yes, it is possible to develop a taste for chocolate.*


[Emphasis added.] And Ernie's good reply: "But it's not necessary."  So true, so true...

And a very true and very witty statement by Ernie about getting involved in stuff, which could be used to both start and end many arguments:


Ernie said:


> It didn't involve you either until you got yourself involved in it. That's what forums are all about. Otherwise, we could spend our time talking into a mirror.


Thank you all, and especially Ernie, Aramis, Emiellucifuge, Webernite, SuperTonic, and Toucan. :tiphat:


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

*????????????????*

A joke, yes. But that row of question marks is exactly how most people feel about 20th century music. All I said was:

For me replace that by !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL

I love atonal music...It makes me a Champagne effect!

Martin

:tiphat:


----------



## mueske (Jan 14, 2009)

Ernie said:


> Well then, we are in agreement. However, our agreement does little to help the original poster of this thread. He stated he didn't "get" atonal music. In response, he was treated to a list of things he was doing wrong or had done to him. For example:
> 
> The general gist of this is to blame some extra-musical happenings for the reason he doesn't "get it". He didn't listen the required 10 times - he wasn't listening with maximum efficiency - it's his teacher's fault - it's the journalist's fault - it's 2011, how can you not "get it"?
> 
> The original poster reacted to something he doesn't care for and assumed it must be his fault because so many knowledgeable people seem to "get it". I say he "gets it" - he just doesn't like it. What's wrong with that?


I never liked Chopin. His melodies seemed boring and very sugar coated. The music sounded empty to me. Then one day, I put on a recording of his third piano sonata, and I was drawn in instantly by that strong opening motive, and before I knew it, I was crying at the largo movement.

Since that day, I never say stuff like I don't like X. I'll say I don't like X _yet_.

edit: seems like I quoted an older post, I'm sorry.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I never say stuff like I don't like X. I'll say I don't like X yet.

And yet certain stuff you may never like. And certain stuff really is bad. But I agree with the notion of not dismissing an entire genre or era out of hand without having put forth the effort needed to appreciate it. By this I don't mean that you should keep plugging away at atonal music or Indian ragas or Byzantine chants if they do nothing for you, but rather that you don't make claims as to how atonal music, or Indian ragas, or Byzantine chants suck when you aren't qualified to make that statement. To declare "I don't get atonal music" or "I don't like atonal music" is a far cry from stating "Atonal music sucks".


----------



## mueske (Jan 14, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I never say stuff like I don't like X. I'll say I don't like X yet.
> 
> And yet certain stuff you may never like. And certain stuff really is bad. But I agree with the notion of not dismissing an entire genre or era out of hand without having put forth the effort needed to appreciate it. By this I don't mean that you should keep plugging away at atonal music or Indian ragas or Byzantine chants if they do nothing for you, but rather that you don't make claims as to how atonal music, or Indian ragas, or Byzantine chants suck when you aren't qualified to make that statement. To declare "I don't get atonal music" or "I don't like atonal music" is a far cry from stating "Atonal music sucks".


I don't know. I can't possibly think of something I wouldn't like, given I give it some time to get used to. I also had problems with atonality, and music the music of Schoenberg and everything to come forth from that, but I gave it time, and now I can appreciate it.

Every composer had or has something to say, otherwise he/she wouldn't have composed it, and I will keep listening until I find that message.


----------



## Ernie (Jun 6, 2010)

mueske said:


> I don't know. I can't possibly think of something I wouldn't like, given I give it some time to get used to. I also had problems with atonality, and music the music of Schoenberg and everything to come forth from that, but I gave it time, and now I can appreciate it.
> 
> Every composer had or has something to say, otherwise he/she wouldn't have composed it, and I will keep listening until I find that message.


More power to you! It must be wonderful to be able to like everything - a skill I'm afraid I will never possess. Appreciate - maybe. Like - doubtful.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I don't know. I can't possibly think of something I wouldn't like, given I give it some time to get used to. 








I also had problems with atonality, and music the music of Schoenberg and everything to come forth from that, but I gave it time, and now I can appreciate it.

I can appreciate it. I believe that it offers certain expressive possibilities... and challenged later composers to think of the possibilities of a musical pan-tonality... but I don't think it was an end in itself nor the greatest thing since instant coffee.

Every composer had or has something to say, otherwise he/she wouldn't have composed it, and I will keep listening until I find that message.

But you mistake what the composer has to say with how he or she says it... and it is in the "how" that the ART lies.


----------



## mueske (Jan 14, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


>


Damned, you got me! 



StlukesguildOhio said:


> I can appreciate it. I believe that it offers certain expressive possibilities... and challenged later composers to think of the possibilities of a musical pan-tonality... but I don't think it was an end in itself nor the greatest thing since instant coffee.


I don't really make assumptions. I don't think it's better, nor worse than romanticism (or instant coffee for that matter...). And end in itself? For some composers it might have been, I don't see how I should judge how they wanted to express themselves.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> But you mistake what the composer has to say with how he or she says it... and it is in the "how" that the ART lies.


What is just as important to me as how. I'd even say the "what" is more important to me.


----------

