# 12-tone Music and Contemporary Tonal Music



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Stravogin raised an interesting point in the "Why 12-tone music?" Thread. I could not find another thread that asked this question.

So I thought I would ask the question and start of with list from me.

*Even though I like 12-tone music I still enjoy listening to the following contemporary tonal composers *. (These are composers who have composed music since 2000)

John Corigliano (Some of his music can be atonal)
James MacMillan (Like Corigliano some of his music can be atonal)
David Maslanka
John Harbison
John Williams
Michael Daugherty
Frank Ticheli
Jack Stamp
Aulis Sallinen
Kalevi Aho
John Adams
Ned Rorum
Leonardo Balada
Joan Tower
Eric Whitacre
Richard Danielpour
Joseph Schwanter
Philip Sparke
James Barnes (I will be performing his _Second Symphony_ in an upcoming concert.)
Ellen Taaffe Zwllich
Christopher Rouse
Tobias Picker
Einojuhani Rautavaara

Some may consider a few atonal.

There are many more but the above is a start.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I'm sorry. What is the question? Are we to convey what contemporary composers we enjoy that lean toward common practice? Could be fun, but there's quite a few!

I would pretty much copy your list and add:

Michael Gandolfi

Arvo Pärt

Umm - Thomas Adès?

Esa-Pekka Salonen? (some as you say might consider him uncommon practice.)

Sofia Gubaidulina

Those are a few off the top of my head.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Rautavarra's 3rd symphony is a 12 tone piece that sounds like a contemporary tonal piece.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I have forsworn posting on this thread tonight. Oh...oops.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

^^^^
KenOC,

You don't like 12-tone music. That is abundantly clear in you 12-tone thread.

This thread is for members who like 12-tone music and also like contemporary tonal music.

Go back to your 12-tone thread.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Weston said:


> I'm sorry. What is the question? Are we to convey what contemporary composers we enjoy that lean toward common practice? Could be fun, but there's quite a few!


Correct. Sorry I did a poor job of expressing myself.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

arpeggio said:


> KenOC,
> 
> You don't like 12-tone music. That is abundantly clear in you 12-tone thread.
> 
> ...


You mean I'm not allowed to post here? Better have your people talk to my people.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

arpeggio said:


> Eric Whitacre


Do you really like Whitacre? That surprises me.


----------



## Guest (Dec 11, 2015)

Only if one has drawn some inaccurate conclusions about arpeggio could this be surprising.


----------



## Guest (Dec 11, 2015)

violadude said:


> Rautavarra's 3rd symphony is a 12 tone piece that sounds like a contemporary tonal piece.


Sorry to "pick" on this, but this perfectly exemplifies why I remain confused. What I would naively assume are distinct meanings of fundamental terms are not actually agreed on. So the more I read, the greater the confusion. Reading Wikipedia just leads me into a fog! People seem quite certain about the definitions of terms but there doesn't seem to be a consensus; suggesting ... I don't know what...

Tonal, atonal, 12-tone, common practice, serialism....AAAAAAAAGGGhhhhh!!!


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

dogen said:


> Sorry to "pick" on this, but this perfectly exemplifies why I remain confused. What I would naively assume are distinct meanings of fundamental terms are not actually agreed on. So the more I read, the greater the confusion. Reading Wikipedia just leads me into a fog! People seem quite certain about the definitions of terms but there doesn't seem to be a consensus; suggesting ... I don't know what...
> 
> Tonal, atonal, 12-tone, common practice, serialism....AAAAAAAAGGGhhhhh!!!


Aside from the small number of works whose use of atonality or 12-tonality or aleatorism or whatever is of what you might call historical significance, I find that I've never really cared about what methods the composer used. What's always been relevant to me is how it sounds. Tell me Rautavaara's 3rd sounds kinda reminiscent of Bruckner and I'll say _OK, I can hear that_; tell me it uses serial procedures but has tonal harmonies throughout and I'll just shrug.

I can't say in general terms whether I like or dislike "12-tone music" or "contemporary tonal music" - those categories are rather meaningless to me. I'm sure I could produce a list of all the music I like and dislike and someone more knowledgeable than me could diagnose it in musicological terms, but where would be the fun in that?


----------



## Guest (Dec 11, 2015)

Nereffid said:


> Aside from the small number of works whose use of atonality or 12-tonality or aleatorism or whatever is of what you might call historical significance, I find that I've never really cared about what methods the composer used. What's always been relevant to me is how it sounds. Tell me Rautavaara's 3rd sounds kinda reminiscent of Bruckner and I'll say _OK, I can hear that_; tell me it uses serial procedures but has tonal harmonies throughout and I'll just shrug.
> 
> I can't say in general terms whether I like or dislike "12-tone music" or "contemporary tonal music" - those categories are rather meaningless to me. I'm sure I could produce a list of all the music I like and dislike and someone more knowledgeable than me could diagnose it in musicological terms, but where would be the fun in that?


I'm 100% in agreement; as a listener I am only concerned with my enjoyment of what has been created, not the tools/techniques. But I still feel excluded (cue spontaneous cheering) from much conversation on this forum, due to the continuing mystery I have alluded to. Ah well...


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

some guy said:


> Only if one has drawn some inaccurate conclusions about arpeggio could this be surprising.


Thanks. This is a point I have been trying to make for years. Like there are people who follow classical music who like rap.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Please. I rarely start any threads. Even though I have been a member since October 2012, this is only the twelfth one I have started. Ten generated less that ten replies. And the most active one, "Leave of Absence", was shut down. 

I started this thread to give those members who like 12-tone music a platform to discuss contemporary tonal music they like. (Not what they think is great or as good as Bach.)

Not to discuss what 12-tone music is.

Not to discuss the pro and cons of 12-tone music.

Not to discuss why 12-tone music is not as popular as "Stars and Stripes Forever". (This might be a good one for "Stupid Thread Ideas". I should not have said this. Now someone will claim that this thread is a "stupid thread idea".) 

There are plenty of threads where one can carry on discussions like this. For example: http://www.talkclassical.com/41120-why-12-tone-music.html

I really hope that this thread is not hijacked by members who hate 12-tone music, generate a hostile debate and get the thread closed down.

Moderators, if it is possible I would appreciate any help here.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Nothing has even happened and you're already getting defensive....very awkward.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

DeepR said:


> Nothing has even happened and you're already getting defensive....very awkward.


Your statement is very unfair. If members feel that my concerns are inappropriate I will bow out of this discussions. Hopefully things will not get out of hand and this thread gets closed down.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

arpeggio said:


> Your statement is very unfair. If members feel that my concerns are inappropriate I will bow out of this discussions. Hopefully things will not get out of hand and this thread gets closed down.


Perhaps DeepR is confused as to why you're voicing concerns over this thread getting out of hand and being closed down (?) when not even a single post has been offensive, rude, or combative, which would lead one to be worried about the thread getting out of hand, or much less closed down. You called the moderators for help when nothing happened.

One more thought (suggestion), you told KenOC that this was a thread for people who like 12-tone and contemporary. I feel you should have said this in the OP, and especially in the title: "_In Praise_ of 12-tone and contemporary music"? Maybe the moderators can adjust the title, if that's something you'd like, because your point didn't get across that this was only for for those who enjoy 12-tone and contemporary music. I'd be a willing participant as I enjoy all of the big three of the Second Viennese School and count Webern and Schoenberg among my very favorite composers, I also enjoy quite a bit of contemporary music.

Best regards


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

I'd be surprised if many 12-tone music fans in 2015 reject contemporary tonal music. I think that attitude was more prevalent decades ago. I guess we'll see in this thread.

I like quite a few living composers of tonal music:

-Steve Reich
-Terry Riley
-John Adams (some)
-Philip Glass (early)
-John Luther Adams
-Einojuhani Rautavaara
-Krzysztof Penderecki (referring here to his neo-Romantic stuff)
-Arvo Pärt
-Somei Satoh
-Sofia Gubaidulina


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

I don't consider any of it really tonal, but I'll call it triadic. I like some things from the American Neoromantic composers:


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

My experience with 12-Tone/Serial and Contemporary compositions is very close to mmsbls' experience. I remember when I was newer to classical music, I followed Tom Service's 50 Great Symphonies guide on The Guardian. I remember being bewildered when I first listened to Oliver Knussen's third symphony; I didn't get it. Same goes for the first time I listened to Schoenberg's Pierrot Lunaire (I know it's not twelve-tone), it took me by complete surprise. Yet I wanted to stick with it, because I knew there was something incredibly substantial and worthwhile there, I realized it was through my own lack of listening experience that I found these works so difficult. I also realized I found Mahler incredibly difficult as well, so I figured that Schoenberg/Knussen/Webern/Berg/Bartok/etc. being "atonal"/twelve-tone/serial/lacking-a-tonal-center/chromatic/etc. had nothing to do with my difficulties, it was the music itself. What was it? Well, I still don't know to this day, because many of those composers have become some of my very favorites. To this day, I still can't hear what I initially heard that put me off. I'm physically incapable of recreating that initial experience.

Contemporary era music was my next hurdle, and after listening to Berio, Ligeti, and Nono, I can't imagine why anyone, in 2015, would think of Schoenberg as anything _other_ than a Modernist/Romantic/Late Romantic/Post Romantic/ hybrid. He clearly and indisputably belongs in the Brahms, Wagner tradition. I'm not saying Berio and Ligeti don't, but it's definitely more apparent in Schoenberg and Berg (and Webern to lesser extent). In other words, after listening to Berio and Nono; Schoenberg and Webern are a piece of cake.

My current experience with contemporary era music is still marked with a bit of difficulties. I greatly enjoy quite a bit of Berio, Ligeti, Nono, Boulez, some Messiaen, and others, but still encounter some difficulties with other contemporary compositions (G. F. Haas', for example). I'm often guilty of having certain expectations in mind, and that impedes my enjoyment and experience. I always remind myself that I have just as many difficulties with Baroque as I do with contemporary, so clearly it's just the music that I have difficulties with and not some ideology or because new music is "bizarre, ugly, or strange". It isn't. Music is music. You like some, others you don't.


----------



## rrudolph (Sep 15, 2011)

Why not both? I've always enjoyed the 12-tone tonality of George Perle. You can have your cake and eat it too!!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

rrudolph said:


> Why not both? I've always enjoyed the 12-tone tonality of George Perle. You can have your cake and eat it too!!


I enjoyed this inventive, energetic and sprightly piece, but wouldn't know from listening that it's 12-tone and don't hear it as tonal either, so I guess I have to eat this cake without knowing what's in the recipe. What are the indicators that it's either 12-tone or tonal?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I find it a bit surprising that anyone active here - not only "arpeggio" - likes Whitacre very much. We've enshrined 2364 works on the classical music project without getting to one by him, and none of his works appear on any of the TC top recommended lists. I don't recall ever seeing him on the current listening threads (edit: Google found some examples for me: Sid James, SimonNZ, cwarchc, and Oskaar among others have recorded listening to his music here, and SLGO alluded to it several times without apparent distaste - none of that in the 1379 pages of the currently active thread).

On the other hand, his thread on the composer guestbook sub-forum has long stood as my personal favorite example of what I hate about talkclassical and classical music fans in general. Mostly I love talkclassical, but you can see what I hate about it there. FWIW, "arpeggio" made some good comments there which I'd forgotten about. Re-reading it actually makes me sick to my stomach. In my dark moments I think it's actually fairly representative of classical music fans.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Myself, I can't call myself a fan of Whitacre either, but in terms of contemporary composers whose music I suspect possesses some sort of tonality (some are deceased, which I mention because the Good Lord Above knows someone amazing is going to chastise me for not being truly "contemporary")...

- Silvestrov
- Kilar 
- Henze
- Chin
- Ge
- John Adams (of course)
- Kancheli 
- Gubaidulina 
- Pärt
- Golijov 
- Martynov 
- Glass 
- Reich 
- Desyatnikov 
- Tan Dun 
- Sculthorpe 
- Salonen 
- Murai
- Grisey

I have a headache so I'm stopping now. But that's enough to establish some _bona fides_ I guess. The only name that most of us won't immediately recognize is Kilar, who is someone that if you like Penderecki you should check out, and perhaps Ge Gan-Ru, of whose works I've heard a few, three string quartets that sounded a bit like Crumb but he's there for the other work which sounded like Ravel. Desyatnikov I know from Kremer's recording, Martynov from the Kronos Quartet recording.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Thank you arpeggio, isorhythm, and science for listing the composers you enjoy. There were a few new names to me so I have more music to find and listen to.

I, too, enjoy Kilar and have found a number of works that I'd like to get. One question. Is spectral music tonal? I'm thinking of Grisey. I would have thought no. Of course perhaps he wrote some tonal music as well.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> Thank you arpeggio, isorhythm, and science for listing the composers you enjoy. There were a few new names to me so I have more music to find and listen to.
> 
> I, too, enjoy Kilar and have found a number of works that I'd like to get. One question. Is spectral music tonal? I'm thinking of Grisey. I would have thought no. Of course perhaps he wrote some tonal music as well.


The fact that people feel the need to ask these questions shows that tonality/atonality is _at the very least_ not a very clear distinction.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> The fact that people feel the need to ask these questions shows that tonality/atonality is _at the very least_ not a very clear distinction.


I'd say it's more likely that most of us haven't studied it enough to identify it by ear. I can't tell a [edit: mmsbls gave a better example], but I wouldn't dare say there's not a clear distinction.

Which is one reason I find it unlikely that discussion _whether_ a particular work should be classified one way or another is going to change many people's mind about whether they enjoy the work!


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> The fact that people feel the need to ask these questions shows that tonality/atonality is _at the very least_ not a very clear distinction.


Honestly, the fact that I ask questions such as this doesn't mean very much. Many people don't know the difference between velocity and speed, but there's a very well defined difference.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

science said:


> I'd say it's more likely that most of us haven't studied it enough to identify it by ear. I can't tell a Poincaré group from other Lorentz groups either, but I wouldn't dare say there's not a clear distinction!


The *Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians* ends its entry on Atonality by telling us that it's a very poorly defined category that may not be very useful.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> The *Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians* ends its entry on Atonality by telling us that it's a very poorly defined category that may not be very useful.


Assuredly they knew more about it than I do!

I think we'd better not stray too much more from "arpeggio"'s hopes for the thread.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

It should be obvious that Spectralism is concerned more with timbre than with pitch. Tonality is a matter of degree, but it is a harmonic experience, so I'm sure that there are certain instances in Grisey where an event might sound "tonal" in some way, but I thinks this amounts to it being a distraction, or simply a "cosmetic" phenomenon. When I listen to Spectralism, I expect to hear chords with strange overtones, as a harmonic, sensual experience which I associate with the French,Debussy, Boulez, IRCAM, and computer sound...but my past experience is getting in the way of my ears.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

science said:


> I find it a bit surprising that anyone active here - not only "arpeggio" - likes Whitacre very much. We've enshrined 2364 works on the classical music project without getting to one by him, and none of his works appear on any of the TC top recommended lists. I don't recall ever seeing him on the current listening threads (edit: Google found some examples for me: Sid James, SimonNZ, cwarchc, and Oskaar among others have recorded listening to his music here, and SLGO alluded to it several times without apparent distaste - none of that in the 1379 pages of the currently active thread).
> .


I don´t really like that sort of choral music and maybe it is the same with others. I can say that I would probably not have heard about him if it wasn´t for this forum.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

science said:


> Assuredly they knew more about it than I do!
> 
> I think we'd better not stray too much more from "arpeggio"'s hopes for the thread.


But I don't even understand why 12-tone music and tonality, in the broad sense that many seem to use the term, are set up as antitheses in the first place. There is no contradiction between them.

That's been my point the whole time. As the Grove Dictionary says in its entry on Atonality (written by Paul Lansky and the aforementioned George Perle):

"Atonality thus roughly delimits a wide range of compositional practices whose only features are the absence of the normative and interrelated procedures of tonality [by which is meant functional, common practice tonality] and the basic concept of serialism. It remains to be seen to what extent atonality is a useful or relevant musical category....The individuality of the contributions of Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Bartok, Webern, Berg, and others ultimately transcends and trivalizes such attempts [at strict categorization], if it does not contradict them."


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> But I don't even understand why 12-tone music and tonality, in the broad sense that many seem to use the term, are set up as antitheses in the first place. *There is no contradiction between them.
> *
> That's been my point the whole time. As the Grove Dictionary says in its entry on Atonality (written by Paul Lansky and the aforementioned George Perle):
> 
> "Atonality thus roughly delimits a wide range of compositional practices *whose only features are the absence of the normative and interrelated procedures of tonality [by which is meant functional, common practice tonality]* and the basic concept of serialism. It remains to be seen to what extent atonality is a useful or relevant musical category....The individuality of the contributions of Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Bartok, Webern, Berg, and others ultimately transcends and trivalizes such attempts [at *strict categorization*], if it does not contradict them."


It's possible to compose tonal music using the 12-tone method, but what's the point? The method was invented to provide a substitute for tonal harmony's capacity to articulate musical form - and so, although 12-tone music and tonal music may theoretically overlap, there's good reason why they rarely do and can thus be spoken of as opposed without too much inaccuracy.

Lansky and Mahlerian are both missing the point. "Atonality" is not a description of "compositional practices." It describes the fact, and the perception, that harmony is not organized around a tonal center - a compositional choice which may permit, but does not require, any number of compositional styles and techniques. Nor does the tonal organization in question have to be common practice: music based on modes other than our major and minor is not atonal. Atonality implies no attempt at "strict categorization"; it is not a compositional category, but a principle of composition, just as tonality is a principle of composition, and it is not an attempt to obscure the differences between the compositional approaches of Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Bartok, or anyone else.

The argument is made that the term "atonality" is useless in understanding any music because it is only a negation. But negation - the choice not to do or use something - is an artistic choice which has consequences. We can pretend that those consequences don't exist or don't matter, or we can identify them. The choice to compose music in which tonal organization is attenuated or absent has audible consequences. Some think that "atonality" is a proper name for these. Those who disagree are free to come up with their own name - or none at all.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Woodduck said:


> Lansky and Mahlerian are both missing the point. "Atonality" is not a description of "compositional practices." It describes the fact, and the perception, that harmony is not organized around a tonal center - a compositional choice which may permit, but does not require, any number of compositional styles and techniques.


I don't think that is the way the term is actually used in practice. Pieces that have consonant harmonies, diatonic/pentatonic melodies, relatively simple rhythm etc. would very unlikely to be classified as "atonal" even if no single tone is obviously emphasized over another. On the other hand a piece that heavily emphasizes a single tone but would be very chromatic, dissonant, contrapuntally complex and that would have lots of large leaps in its melodies would much more likely to be called "atonal".


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Woodduck said:


> It's possible to compose tonal music using the 12-tone method, but what's the point?


Brilton Spabbitt (the composer/songwriter/singer/performer/notorious-essayist in my avatar) has made a career out of this.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Dim7 said:


> I don't think that is the way the term is actually is used in practice. Pieces that have consonant harmonies, diatonic/pentatonic melodies, relatively simple rhythm etc. would very unlikely to be classified as "atonal" even if no single tone is obviously emphasized over another. On the other hand a piece that heavily emphasizes a single tone but would be very chromatic, dissonant, contrapuntally complex and that would have lots of large leaps in its melodies would much more likely to be called "atonal".


It's a misconception of tonality to think that's it means merely emphasizing one tone over another. Tonality refers to the way in which tones in a scale relate to one another - a system of interrelationshps, ultimately related to a tonic - not to numerical predominance. The notes of a scale can relate in a variety of ways, and so there can be a variety of tonal systems. Emphasis on a note is not enough to make it a tonic or to establish a tonality, and by the same token need have no decisive effect on the tonal orientation of a work in which it occurs.

I would agree that "pieces that have consonant harmonies" and "diatonic/pentatonic melodies" would in most cases not be perceived as atonal, simply because their harmonic content would be that of obviously tonal systems based on the standard modes or the pentatonic scale.

The word "atonal" is used in a variety of ways, as Mahlerian incessantly points out in order to demonstrate its uselessness. I don't think that fact justifies his conclusion. Some music - a vast amount of 20th-century music - is quite simply atonal, which means that it consists of tones which are ordered without reference to a scale hierarchically conceived around a central tone. There's also plenty of tonal music which is tonal only in a very loose sense, which is why I (and millionrainbows) say that tonality is relative and a matter of perception: it is partly a matter of perception to say that at a certain point of tonal ambiguity the music can be called atonal. But the absence of a sharp boundary doesn't negate the existence of the thing being bounded. How much yellow must we add before red becomes orange? Who cares? In the final analysis we can see that orange exists and is not red.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Dim7 said:


> Brilton Spabbitt (the composer/songwriter/singer/performer/notorious-essayist in my avatar) has made a career out of this.


Well, more power to him/her. :tiphat:


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

dogen said:


> Sorry to "pick" on this, but this perfectly exemplifies why I remain confused. What I would naively assume are distinct meanings of fundamental terms are not actually agreed on. So the more I read, the greater the confusion. Reading Wikipedia just leads me into a fog! People seem quite certain about the definitions of terms but there doesn't seem to be a consensus; suggesting ... I don't know what...
> 
> Tonal, atonal, 12-tone, common practice, serialism....AAAAAAAAGGGhhhhh!!!


Allow me to alleviate your confusion, or attempt to anyway.

Schoenberg has particular a sound, Webern has particular a sound, Berg has a particular sound, Babbit has a particular sound, Boulez has a particular sound.

But 12 tone does not have a particular sound or style any more than d minor has a particular sound or style. Unless you have perfect pitch or very good relative pitch detection, the fact that a piece is 12 tone or not isn't, and was never meant to be, a primary audible factor when listening to a piece of music. It's simply a method of composition that can yield to variety of different results.

Therefore, what I meant to say about the Rautavaara piece is that it's a piece that was constructed using the 12 tone method, but has a sound usually associated with contemporary neo-romantic composers.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Woodduck said:


> It's a misconception of tonality to think that's it means merely emphasizing one tone over another. Tonality refers to the way in which tones in a scale relate to one another - a system of interrelationshps, ultimately related to a tonic - not to numerical predominance. The notes of a scale can relate in a variety of ways, and so there can be a variety of tonal systems. Emphasis on a note is not enough to make it a tonic or to establish a tonality, and by the same token need have no decisive effect on the tonal orientation of a work in which it occurs.


Well in atonal music there's no relationships between notes then? What does that even mean?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Dim7 said:


> Well in atonal music there's no relationships between notes then? What does that even mean?


Why "no relationships"? I was talking about tonal relationships, which are specific relationships between a tonic and other notes in a scale. Music which doesn't use tonal relationships has to find other ways of setting up relationships between its components, doesn't it?


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Here's more examples of contemporary composers I enjoy who sometimes use major or minor triads and the kind of voice leading and reliance on the circle of fifths Elgar might have condoned, or at least sound that way (which is one heck of a lot more cumbersome to say than "tonal" and all of you know perfectly well what kind of music I am referring to for pity's sake  ) -- this time with links:

Lowell Liebermann - Concerto for Flute and Orchestra

Eric Ewazen - Concerto for Marimba and Orchestra

Michael Gandolfi - Ascending Light, for organ and orchestra

Wojciech Kilar - Exodus

Granted many of these may be "guilty pleasures" but I don't know why they should be. If I enjoy them that is all that matters.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Weston said:


> Here's more examples of contemporary composers I enjoy who sometimes use major or minor triads and the kind of voice leading and reliance on the circle of fifths Elgar might have condoned, or at least sound that way (which is one heck of a lot more cumbersome to say than "tonal" and all of you know perfectly well what kind of music I am referring to for pity's sake  ) -- this time with links:
> 
> Lowell Liebermann - Concerto for Flute and Orchestra
> 
> ...


Eric Ewazin.

We just played one of his band works with the National Concert Band of America.

His _Concerto for Tenor Saxophone_ is awesome.

Gandolfi and Kilar are new composers for me.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Kilar might be better known to the world at large for the film score to Francis Ford Coppola's 1992 Draciula, but I don't think he was strictly or even primarily of the film world.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

I missed this thread when it was started, but was directed to it by the OP. Lots of potential in this thread for some exploration of living composers that could be of interest to others. I am not a fan of 12 Tone Music, but I appreciate the mention of some living composers that I do like.

I will commend the OP for mentioning Philip Sparke. He is so wildly successful that even my endorsement couldn't hurt him. He primarily writes for band, both concert and brass, and has many, many published works, CDs, and so forth. He is a master technician and brilliant orchestrator (hmmm, I don't know if there is an equivalent word for using the colors of the concert band or brass band). Here is a particular favorite of mine.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Thank you arpeggio for mentioning Eric Whitacre. He is a real phenomena and I am not quite sure what to make of him. I really like some of his pieces, or perhaps I should say some parts of his pieces. I am not sure what to make of him. He is sort of a post minimalist, neo-romantic, plus something else that I can't nail down. Anyway, he is interesting. He is even more successful than Philip Sparke and is getting rich without any university gig, government grant, composer in residence, or movie deals. Here is a piece that represents for me all that I like and dislike about him at the same time.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

The shallow distinction between 12-tone and more modern 'tonal' music is divisive by nature. My aim has always been to get people to see the commonalities in 'modern' thinking and purely 12-tone music, because they are cut from the same cloth.

It must be seen that 12-tone gradually morphed into what it is via tonality, meaning increased chromaticism and new ways of handling the octave divisions.

Conversely, it must also be seen how this same metamorphosis has created the various degrees of tonality we now enjoy.

Both systems are informed by the same sort of thinking; geometric and mathematical ideas of symmetry, as opposed to purely harmonically-derived ideas. Neither is perfect, and neither is 'more valid' than the other.

In the end, we have ear/brain. It depends on what you insist is the right way for you, the ear or the brain, or whatever blend you enjoy. Myself, I am an omnivore. That's not to say I have less discretion than a specialist, but God, they sound impressive when they are raving about some obscure aspect of pre-Baroque vocal music or opera!

Still, I see that there is a distinction between what I call 'harmonically organized' music and music which is organized along other principles. Sometimes this is more audible (as in Schoenberg's String Trio) and sometimes less (as in George Perle).

"Atonal" is not supposed to be a concise descriptive term; it is general and exclusionary, not descriptive. As Wooduck pointed out, what one term could describe the hundreds of varying degrees between shades of orange, and who would want to? "Atonal" simply means what it is not: not tonal.

What is 'tonal?' This is a broad area, but it is inclusive. It means 'music organized with tonal centers as a main element of its construction,' so this varies greatly, from localized tone cells to overall tonal centers. Basically, this is accomplished through harmonic means, such as inherently "tonal" or harmonic devices, like scales and octave divisions which suggest harmonic features.

Tone rows are not harmonic devices; they are linear and melodic.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Truckload said:


> Thank you arpeggio for mentioning Eric Whitacre. He is a real phenomena and I am not quite sure what to make of him. I really like some of his pieces, or perhaps I should say some parts of his pieces. I am not sure what to make of him. He is sort of a post minimalist, neo-romantic, plus something else that I can't nail down. Anyway, he is interesting. He is even more successful than Philip Sparke and is getting rich without any university gig, government grant, composer in residence, or movie deals. Here is a piece that represents for me all that I like and dislike about him at the same time.


I had never heard of either this composer nor his music. I listened to it and it was rather good fun. He sounds like a conglomerate of Reich, Glass, Orff and John Williams in full Star Wars mode. Somehow it seems to me to be a triumph of style over substance that works brilliantly in the concert hall but I suspect would not stand up to the scrutiny of repeated listening in the home.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Barbebleu said:


> I had never heard of either this composer nor his music. I listened to it and it was rather good fun. He sounds like a conglomerate of Reich, Glass, Orff and John Williams in full Star Wars mode. Somehow it seems to me to be a triumph of style over substance that works brilliantly in the concert hall but I suspect would not stand up to the scrutiny of repeated listening in the home.


I can't disagree with your summary. I have listened to a number of his pieces. He writes for concert band, and I have listened to all of those, and some I have really enjoyed without reservation. He is most famous for his vocal music, and he has these virtual worldwide sing-along things that people seem to just love.

He has literally millions of fans. One good thing is that he is putting audience in seats for orchestras, putting paychecks in the hands of orchestral musicians. Here is a link to his website.

http://ericwhitacre.com/


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Truckload said:


> I can't disagree with your summary. I have listened to a number of his pieces. He writes for concert band, and I have listened to all of those, and some I have really enjoyed without reservation. He is most famous for his vocal music, and he has these virtual worldwide sing-along things that people seem to just love.
> 
> He has literally millions of fans. One good thing is that he is putting audience in seats for orchestras, putting paychecks in the hands of orchestral musicians. Here is a link to his website.
> 
> http://ericwhitacre.com/


More power to him if he gets backsides on seats in the concert hall. Not so easy in these days of fiscal austerity and cultural apathy by both government and the public at large.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

Nobody writes 12 tone music any more, so shouldn't this just be called: 12-tone music and contemporary music?

Or I guess 12 tone music per se isn't really the point, so: #musicthatscaresoldpeople and contemporary music?

But I guess John Adams scares old people too, so: #musicthatscaresoldpeople and #musicthatscaresoldpeoplebutistonal?

n e way, I like John _Luther_ Adams, I guess.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Another successful living composer writing tonal music is Johan de Meij of the Netherlands, born 1953. He has a long list of compositions on his website. I like his T-bone Concerto. Here is the 3rd movement.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Speaking of the Trombone, another living (born 1930) composer of tonal music is Gordon Langford, who wrote a wonderful trombone feature for brass band called "Rhapsody".


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> Nobody writes 12 tone music any more, so shouldn't this just be called: 12-tone music and contemporary music?
> 
> Or I guess 12 tone music per se isn't really the point, so: #musicthatscaresoldpeople and contemporary music?
> 
> ...


Since you are new here I will try to clarify the point I was trying to make in the OP. My initial OP was a poorly written statement.

Most of us here like all sorts of music classical and non-classical, atonal and tonal. Even those of us who follow contemporary still spend most of our times listening to the great masters of the 18th and 19th century. Yet there is a perception by some members (and I want to emphasize some members) that those of us who follow contemporary music only listen to Schoenberg or Carter or whatever. I mentioned in another thread that only about 7% of the works in my music library is atonal/serial/avant-garde/whatever music. I wanted this thread to be used by people like myself to discuss contemporary tonal music we enjoy.

Sadly I took some heat from some members early on. I was concerned that the thread would be hijacked by the great tonal/atonal debate, things would get out of hand and it would get closed down. It happens all of the time. A great thread concerning modernism was closed down in spite of the overwhelming support of most of the members.

I am really not interested on whether or not atonal music is 12-tone or a 14-tone abomination. If a person want to discuss the pros and cons of 12-tone music they could take their concerns to other threads like: http://www.talkclassical.com/41120-why-12-tone-music.html

One of the few that has not been closed down, yet.

I am trying to avoid being drawn into such discussions here because I do not want to say something that would lead to the threads demise or me getting banned.

If a person still has problems with what I have just said I did the best I could do. Just please try to avoid saying anything that would get the thread closed down.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

arpeggio said:


> Most of us here like all sorts of music classical and non-classical, atonal and tonal. Even those of us who follow contemporary still spend most of our times listening to the great masters of the 18th and 19th century. Yet there is a perception by some members (and I want to emphasize some members) that those of us who follow contemporary music only listen to Schoenberg or Carter or whatever.


Okay I get that. But those people don't like contemporary tonal music either, right? I know there ARE people who like John Adams and don't like Schoenberg or Carter, but I don't see anybody like that posting here. Maybe I just read the wrong threads? So for the people who don't like EITHER, wouldn't it make more sense to tell them about the old composers you listen to that they DO like?

I'm really glad you made this thread though! I loved reading it!


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> Okay I get that. But those people don't like contemporary tonal music either, right? I know there ARE people who like John Adams and don't like Schoenberg or Carter, but I don't see anybody like that posting here. Maybe I just read the wrong threads? So for the people who don't like EITHER, wouldn't it make more sense to tell them about the old composers you listen to that they DO like?
> 
> I'm really glad you made this thread though! I loved reading it!


If no one has said so previously, welcome to Talk Classical.

You will find that there are as many opinions on Talk Classical (TC) as there are in the "real" world. The world of "pop" classical, represented by people like Andre Rieu and the Movie Composers is perhaps under represented in proportion to how many of those exist in the real world. The world of atonal and avant-garde music, as represented by Schoenberg and Boulez is perhaps a bit over represented on TC compared to the world of classical music lovers. But all are here. People who are devoted to the classical era, people who are really into the renaissance, opera lovers, chamber music fans, all things piano, and every other interest you can imagine.

If there is not a thread covering something you are interest in, just start one. Sadly, the search engine is a bit clumsy, so it is not always easy to see if there is a previous thread that covers something of interest to you. But usually there are helpful people like arpeggio who can try to point you in the right direction for a thread of interest.

The site is huge and the number of posts is staggering, so it is easy to miss something that you might really be interested in. Don't know how to solve that.


----------

