# Do you appreciate and enjoy 12 tone music?



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

If so, did it take you a long time to arrive at that appreciation and enjoyment? I'm interested in those of you who had an immediate appreciation. When I first explored it, I thought it was pretty cool, then I heard comments like emporer's new clothes and stuff, and realized that it did all kind of sound the same to me, and I didn't "get it" but I found it "interesting." Well, I finally have been going back to try and actually "get it" going past that initial "interesting vibe" and the subsequent dismissal of that "vibe".

Basically, not enough confidence in my initial thoughts, and a sort of ashamed prejudice that took almost 2 years to crack.

I'm just starting to realize how cool Elliot Carter's 1st string quartet is, a piece that I believe to be 12 tone but supposedly it achieves that aim with a foundation of 'set theory', which I have yet to try to grasp the basic principles of. 

Webern is starting to be cool now that I understand all this 12 tone row business. Its perhaps, the only instance in the history of my listening career where grasping a theoretical principle has helped me to achieve a basic appreciation of a certain kind of music.

Are the later Bartok String Quartets 12 tone? They certainly sound atonal, and I've found them nearly as challenging as Eilliot Carter's 1st string quartet to get an intial grasp of.

I recall that back when I heard about Medtner's book against the 12 tone developments in modern music, and how he cited that an appreciation of 12 tone music was founded on "habit"(repeated listenings that decieve you into thinking its any good) and that there wasn't necessarily much intrinsic enjoyment to be had in it. Well, I guess I've developed the "habit." Still love Medtner and believe there is some truth to what he says, but I think much of it can be applied to complicated tonal music as well, like his own, ironically.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

The Bartok quartets are kind of atonal...some of them use principles of set theory, but they all have just enough gravitation toward one note to be considered "tonal."


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Almost all of Bartok's music sounds tonal to me, so for some reason I don't associate him with atonal, or 12-tone, serial or any of those titles. Of the composers I do associate with those titles, I enjoy many of the works of Webern, Gubaidulina, Berg, Ligeti, Lutoslawski and Penderecki etc. But if I listen to them for a long time I often feel like their musical styles are trapping them in one place too much. As I've said before a lot of my favorite composers seem to straddle what (seems to me) a nice line between sounding tonal, and at times going to those far out regions of atonality ie - Bartok, Ravel, and Debussy, I really love when composers can effectively do that. When composers reject any anchor of tonality in the work I find it generally harder to appreciate. There are many pieces of non-tonal sounding music I enjoy tremendously, but I would agree with the general idea that these musical styles don't seem to have as much versatility in the range of emotions they are able to express (to me).


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Twelve tone (and more generally atonal) music has been a mystery for several years now. It is a mystery on two levels: first, I have not been able to enjoy twelve tone works, and second, I have no idea what will help me learn to enjoy them.

When I first started listening to modern music, I found that most of it didn't appeal to me including Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Bartok, Stravinsky, and even much of Debussy. After listening for awhile, I now love works of all these composers. The same is just not true of twelve tone. As a specific example, I'll use Berg's Violin Concerto. I'm not sure that my initial reaction to his concerto was much different to initial reactions to works by Shostakovich or Bartok. But while I have gradually learned to really enjoy the latter composers, Berg's concerto remains elusive.

I have probably listened to as much modern music as pre-20th century music over the past year, and for probably three years now I have explored modern music at a significant level. Over the past year I have come back to the Berg Concerto 4 or 5 times each time with the confident view that I will enjoy it. I know many consider it the greatest violin concerto of the 20th century, and I love violin concertos. Many have suggested that liking atonal music requires the right attitude and/or repeated listening. I had made so much progress with other modern music that I was _sure_ I would like it each time. But it was not to be.

I know many people here have liked twelve tone (or atonal) music immediately. Others have worked hard and eventually enjoyed it after a long time. I don't understand what is missing for me, but I have become convinced that, for me, I will need to learn to listen in a distinctly different way to twelve tome music than I have to any other music in order to eventually enjoy it.


----------



## tgtr0660 (Jan 29, 2010)

Bartok is tonal enough for me to enjoy (and quite a lot). 12-tone music is difficult, I will not say I understand it fully yet but I'm heading there. There's some bizarre form of strange beauty hidden behind the apparent chaos which is really absolute order. I'm not an expert. I don't like it as much as more "conventional" music (not to distinguish tonal vs atonal because atonal =/= 12-tone anyway) but it incites me to think and explore... Right now more than music of enjoyment is an invitation to explore...


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Later Bartok String Quartets probably only sound more difficult to me, due to the timbres of the strings, and also I think that they are much more difficult than Bartok's orchestral music, somehow.


----------



## tgtr0660 (Jan 29, 2010)

^I find string quartets more difficult than orchestral works in any composer.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

I find twelve tone music to be quite boring on the whole.

I can't think of a single dodecaphonic piece that I really enjoy listening to. That may be more down to the nature of the composers who used the technique than the system itself, but it also might not.

I like the Bartok quartets, but they shouldn't be mentioned in this thread.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

tgtr0660 said:


> ^I find string quartets more difficult than orchestral works in any composer.


Somehow for me, Bartok's are unusually so. I haven't totally connected the styles yet in my mind, there are certain things that are similar, but overall the 4th string quartet almost seems like he's pulling a Stravinsky and experimenting through a different style. Maybe he's just such a fantastic orchestrator, that it assists in transforming very similar tonal structures that much?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> Later Bartok String Quartets probably only sound more difficult to me, due to the timbres of the strings, and also I think that they are much more difficult than Bartok's orchestral music, somehow.


I think so too. The string quartets are where is most radical experiments are.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Argus said:


> I find twelve tone music to be quite boring on the whole.
> 
> I can't think of a single dodecaphonic piece that I really enjoy listening to. That may be more down to the nature of the composers who used the technique than the system itself, but it also might not.
> 
> I like the Bartok quartets, but they shouldn't be mentioned in this thread.


I'm surprised to hear you say so. Do you consider much Berg dodecaphonic? Because he really breaks the rules a lot, to the point where you wonder if that was even half of his basis. Perhaps you find him boring for a different reason. I remember a long time ago that you told me about Roger Sessions, he's mostly serial isn't he, post '60s?

Perhaps from your angle, the Bartok quartets are in a different category, but to my way of thinking at the moment, since I'm absorbing them at the same time and with a similar feel to my listening, I put them here, maybe in the future I'll see how different they are.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

clavichorder said:


> Later Bartok String Quartets probably only sound more difficult to me, due to the timbres of the strings, and also I think that they are much more difficult than Bartok's orchestral music, somehow.


Bartók's orchestral music tends to be multi-layered, and in that respect has subtleties expressed by means that the string quartets' limited forces don't permit. For me that means that he composed pseudo-conventional orchestral works, with 'worm-holes' giving access to deeper layers of strangeness that work in deeper layers of the brain.

I insist on pointing out that 'twelve tone' by itself signifies the chromatic scale, not serialism, not 'atonal'.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Bartók's orchestral music tends to be multi-layered, and in that respect has subtleties expressed by means that the string quartets' limited forces don't permit. For me that means that he composed pseudo-conventional orchestral works, with 'worm-holes' giving access to deeper layers of strangeness that work in deeper layers of the brain.
> 
> I insist on pointing out that 'twelve tone' by itself signifies the chromatic scale, not serialism, not 'atonal'.


Good distinction. I meant atonal in that case.

Yeah, its like Bartok pretends to be something like Shostakovich or Prokofiev on the surface, but I always sensed there was something really weird about his music lurking underneath.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

clavichorder said:


> I'm surprised to hear you say so. Do you consider much Berg dodecaphonic? Because he really breaks the rules a lot, to the point where you wonder if that was even half of his basis. Perhaps you find him boring for a different reason. I remember a long time ago that you told me about Roger Sessions, he's mostly serial isn't he, post '60s?


Most of the music I've heard and enjoyed from 2nd Viennese School composers was before the 12-tone transition.

12 tone music has a very different sound than just any non-tonal music. Because all 12 notes must be used in the tone rows it gives the impression of similar recurring harmonies and because most of the old melodic ways are avoided at all costs you get a lot of tritones and minor seconds, plus obviously chromatic movement.

Also, I've mentioned before that the 12 TET developed to capacitate diatonic music. Taking that temperament and abandoning the tonal centre doesn't make sense to me. Why just use 12 tones to the octave? Why not 5, or 24, or 53? Changing that would at least give pieces in those different tunings a varied flavour rather than the vanilla of 12 tone.


----------



## Guest (Mar 9, 2012)

I don't remember ever paying much attention to such categories.

I just listened to what was interesting to me. I went from Bartok to Stravinsky to Carter to electroacoustic musics of various kinds to experimental to fluxus to noise to eai. In that order.

When I started following online classical music threads, I realized I had not listened to much Schoenberg, so I got a bunch to listen to. Very pretty. Romantic, fin de siecle kind of stuff. I didn't like Berg much, at first, but I've always thought Webern was really cool.

I was very puzzled by Carter, at first, but came to enjoy his stuff very much. Never liked Boulez much, which also puzzled me. Why did I like Carter but not Boulez? Dunno. I like Boulez now, OK, but it's not as attractive to me as some other stuff.

I do not, nor have I ever had, a very sophisticated technical knowledge of how either serialism or tonality works. I've studied music enough to know that both systems are incredibly complex, that no one follows any of "the rules" slavishly, including Schoenberg himself, and that both systems produce very similar sounding results, more similar to each other than they are to other ways of making music (experimental, minimal, fluxus, electroacoustic, eai, and so forth).

I guess if I notice any divisions between things that I listen to, the most prominent one is between musics that rely heavily on tones, musics that rely heavily on noise, and music that doesn't rely on either. For me that is prominent, anyway. I like quite a lot of music in all three of those broad categories.

I've never quite understood the fascination with whether or not something can be called "atonal" or not. I've certainly never noticed any diminuition of variety or in range of expression in musics that people have referred to as "atonal." (This is often very difficult to determine, however. Most people who use "atonal" use it as an umbrella term, not identifying particular pieces. When they do, the particular pieces mentioned don't seem any less various or expressive than any other pieces, though.)


----------



## FrankieP (Aug 24, 2011)

mmsbls said:


> As a specific example, I'll use Berg's Violin Concerto. I'm not sure that my initial reaction to his concerto was much different to initial reactions to works by Shostakovich or Bartok. But while I have gradually learned to really enjoy the latter composers, Berg's concerto remains elusive.
> 
> I have probably listened to as much modern music as pre-20th century music over the past year, and for probably three years now I have explored modern music at a significant level. Over the past year I have come back to the Berg Concerto 4 or 5 times each time with the confident view that I will enjoy it. I know many consider it the greatest violin concerto of the 20th century, and I love violin concertos. Many have suggested that liking atonal music requires the right attitude and/or repeated listening. I had made so much progress with other modern music that I was _sure_ I would like it each time. But it was not to be.
> 
> I know many people here have liked twelve tone (or atonal) music immediately. Others have worked hard and eventually enjoyed it after a long time. I don't understand what is missing for me, but I have become convinced that, for me, I will need to learn to listen in a distinctly different way to twelve tome music than I have to any other music in order to eventually enjoy it.


Berg-wise, have you tried deconstructing it with a score? I find that helps in appreciation. For example (apologies if you've already done this):
- look at the tone-row and how it's constructed (alternative minor/major triads ending with whole tone fragment).. G, B-flat, D, F-sharp, A, C, E, G-sharp, B, C-sharp, E-flat, F.. 
- follow it and see how it's permutated throughout - eg the beginning with the open strings - G D A E - so 1,3,5,7 in the sequence, the next phrase is B-flat, F-sharp, C, G-sharp so 2,4,6,8 in the sequence, etc etc.
- look out for the Landler-style Corinthian folk tune used
- look out for the Bach chorale tune (Es ist genug), whose first four notes are distinctively whole-tone. 
- break down the structure - find the two distinct sections within both the movements, listen to how the climaxes are reached (the 'high points' of the Allegro and Adagio sections respectively).

etc etc.

That's how I try to get into stuff if I can't just through listening


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

some guy said:


> I guess if I notice any divisions between things that I listen to, the most prominent one is between musics that rely heavily on tones, musics that rely heavily on noise, and music that doesn't rely on either.


I read the Wikipedia page on noise music, and I'm still unclear what it means. That definition clearly included music that can use only tones. It may be not so well defined, and perhaps it's more that people "know it when they hear it". Is there a somewhat simple definition? Also what is music that does not rely on either tones or noise?

In the Wikipedia article Cage was quoted as saying, "I believe that the use of noise to make music will continue and increase until we reach a music produced through the aid of electrical instruments which will make available for musical purposes any and all sounds that can be heard." I do not understand his use of "noise" here, but that's probably because I have a technical scientific definition of noise in mind. I absolutely agree that in the future "electrical instruments ... will make available for musical purposes any and all sounds that can be heard."

Sorry, this is somewhat off topic.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Historically I see it as more of a _necessary_ development than a great or "important" one, but like anything I can separate the art from the politics and enjoy it simply in terms of how I process what I hear (without knowing everything about music theory, to boot!).


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

FrankieP said:


> Berg-wise, have you tried deconstructing it with a score? I find that helps in appreciation. For example (apologies if you've already done this):


That technique has been suggested to me, and in fact, some people believe that many people can _only_ come to like certain music through some king of analysis such as what you suggest. I do read music, but it is not easy for me so any analysis takes considerable time. Of course, that is fine in general, but it's a very hard way to like a significant amount of music.

I have tried that on a couple of works and found the exercise interesting but not successful yet (i.e. not really changing my enjoyment). I was aware of the Berg tone row construction, but have never followed it through very far. With his work it may very well be worth the study since I would really like to appreciate it. Thanks.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

mmsbls said:


> I read the Wikipedia page on noise music, and I'm still unclear what it means. That definition clearly included music that can use only tones. It may be not so well defined, and perhaps it's more that people "know it when they hear it". Is there a somewhat simple definition? Also what is music that does not rely on either tones or noise?
> 
> In the Wikipedia article Cage was quoted as saying, "I believe that the use of noise to make music will continue and increase until we reach a music produced through the aid of electrical instruments which will make available for musical purposes any and all sounds that can be heard." I do not understand his use of "noise" here, but that's probably because I have a technical scientific definition of noise in mind. I absolutely agree that in the future "electrical instruments ... will make available for musical purposes any and all sounds that can be heard."
> 
> Sorry, this is somewhat off topic.


Noise is sound of indefinite pitch.

Noise music uses these sounds.











That doesn't exclude noise musicians from using tones as well. Noise rock and industrial music often use both.






I guess even something like this is technically noise:


----------



## Guest (Mar 9, 2012)

[Edit: Argus posted his comment before I'd finished this. His "indefinite pitch" is my "asynchronous pitch." Good examples, too, though I wouldn't call Cut Hands noise music. That would mean that any percussion piece could be called "noise music." I don't care, personally, you understand. I just don't think it's ever been done like that. Percussion music can be made up entirely of asynchronous pitches, of course.]

Tonal music and twelve-tone music both rely on tones (synchronous pitch). The logic of those systems is equally tone-centric.

Other musics, not so much. My division into three categories was not intended to be any more than my sense for myself of three broad categories that define how I understand music. And I wouldn't go to the mat for them. That is, "other musics" might be the only other necessary category for me to account for how I perceive what I'm listening to.

"Noise" is probably not a very useful term to rely on. What I meant was asynchronous pitch. What we metaphorically refer to as "high" and "low" still apply, but not the synchronous pitches that make up scales. What Cage meant was similar, sounds without a tuned or tunable pitch.

Music that relies on (not just "uses" but "relies on") neither is my way of describing various musics that do not start from sounds, that do not manipulate sounds, but that set up situations in which sounds may or may not occur, sounds that are not controlled or manipulated but simply accepted.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

clavichorder said:


> If so, did it take you a long time to arrive at that appreciation and enjoyment? I'm interested in those of you who had an immediate appreciation. When I first explored it, I thought it was pretty cool, then I heard comments like emporer's new clothes and stuff, and realized that it did all kind of sound the same to me, and I didn't "get it" but I found it "interesting." Well, I finally have been going back to try and actually "get it" going past that initial "interesting vibe" and the subsequent dismissal of that "vibe".
> 
> Basically, not enough confidence in my initial thoughts, and a sort of ashamed prejudice that took almost 2 years to crack.
> 
> ...


I started when I was 12. I started again my piano lessons (the first time I was 4 1/2) and this time my teacher was in his twenties. Very dynamic, he initiated me to dodecaphonic music. I bought Lulu when I was 14 or 15 and Wozzeck two months later...Moises und Aaron followed...and then my destiny was there...I've never stopped loving dodecaphonic music...But nowadays I enjoy also Mozart and Monteverdi very much. I heven't found many XXIst century composers I really like, just a few.
Berg remains one of my favourites.
When I was 17 I started flirting with Russian music and my trip to Russia made of this a decisive moment. I've never found Russian dodecaphonics very good...I love pre-dodecaphonics very deeply: Schreker and Zemlinsky are among my favourites....Kurt Weil not so much. But I prefer operas...I love operas...They have a story, people moving and singing...I don't like ballet though.

Martin


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

Argus said:


> Noise is sound of indefinite pitch.
> 
> Noise music uses these sounds.
> 
> ...


Cut hands is not *THAT bad*, others are awful.

Martin


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

some guy said:


> [Edit: Argus posted his comment before I'd finished this. His "indeterminate pitch" is my "asynchronous pitch." Good examples, too, though I wouldn't call Cut Hands noise music. That would mean that any percussion piece could be called "noise music." I don't care, personally, you understand. I just don't think it's ever been done like that. Percussion music can be made up entirely of asynchronous pitches, of course.]
> 
> Tonal music and twelve-tone music both rely on tones (synchronous pitch). The logic of those systems is equally tone-centric.
> 
> ...


Yeah, that Cut Hands isn't noise music in the normal sense of the term, but I think percussion music that doesn't use pitched instruments, be it acoustic or electronic, is technically noise.



myaskovsky2002 said:


> Cut hands is not *THAT bad*, others are awful.
> 
> Martin


I tried to pick examples that were definitely noise and not just drone/experimental with bits of noise. For example, there are other Kevin Drumm tracks that are much more ambient in nature but less definitive of noise music.

I tend to prefer music that features noise but still has some tonal element:






As opposed to archetypal noise:






Now that is quite a difficult listen.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Bartok and Carter aren't twelve-tone...


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Speaking strictly of 12-tone serialism, I find it conceptually intriguing, but the actual music lacking in interest.

It isn't representative of the whole genre, of course, but I saw Uchida play Schoenberg's Piano Concerto in London last week. As is my usual reaction to such music, I found certain moments very compelling, but it was difficult to sustain interest and understanding throughout the work.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Polednice said:


> I saw Uchida play Schoenberg's Piano Concerto in London last week


!!

Lucky. What else did she play?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Webernite said:


> !!
> 
> Lucky. What else did she play?


That was her only piece - a solo work sandwiched by orchestral pieces. She did play a short encore - I didn't know what it was, but it was very cute piece that may have been early Schoenberg and was actually quite enjoyable.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> I read the Wikipedia page on noise music, and I'm still unclear what it means. That definition clearly included music that can use only tones. It may be not so well defined, and perhaps it's more that people "know it when they hear it". Is there a somewhat simple definition? Also what is music that does not rely on either tones or noise?
> 
> In the Wikipedia article Cage was quoted as saying, "I believe that the use of noise to make music will continue and increase until we reach a music produced through the aid of electrical instruments which will make available for musical purposes any and all sounds that can be heard." I do not understand his use of "noise" here, but that's probably because I have a technical scientific definition of noise in mind. I absolutely agree that in the future "electrical instruments ... will make available for musical purposes any and all sounds that can be heard."
> 
> Sorry, this is somewhat off topic.


You can use the technical definition to define these as music. But really, what use is that at the end of the day for you as a listener subjected to pieces like these?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

clavichorder said:


> If so, did it take you a long time to arrive at that appreciation and enjoyment? I'm interested in those of you who had an immediate appreciation. When I first explored it, I thought it was pretty cool, then I heard comments like emporer's new clothes and stuff, and realized that it did all kind of sound the same to me, and I didn't "get it" but I found it "interesting." Well, I finally have been going back to try and actually "get it" going past that initial "interesting vibe" and the subsequent dismissal of that "vibe".


Broadly speaking, my appreciation of 12 tone is comparable with tonal classical music in that there are pieces from 12 tone that I can enjoy and do not enjoy, although I do not listen to it as much. For me, it seems that 12 tone works very well with opera. It can capture the dramatic impact of certain moods and plots at the right moment under the hands of top masters, such as Berg, Britten and Richard Strauss. (An interesting observation is that opera aficionados can appreciate, like me, both tonal and 12 tone operas, whereas there appears to be a large divide when it comes to instrumental music). That said, I don't often find the _level_ of engagement as a whole to be as engaing as tonal even though I enjoy both. My top dozen or so favourite operas are nearly all tonal works.


----------



## Guest (Mar 9, 2012)

"Subjected," eh?

Who's subjecting you to it? Did someone force you to listen to Keith Rowe clips on youtube? Did they insist (with some sort of weapon) that you post those clips?

Keith Rowe (and Prurient for that matter--thanks Argus) makes some very good music. I've enjoyed his music for many years. Long may he continue making it.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

@Argus, some guy: Thanks. I looked up indefinite pitch and understand now. The examples were useful as well. To scientists noise has a specific technical meaning with negative connotations and refers to the part of the signal that you explicitly _want to suppress_. It's funny to think of it as the focus of the "signal" you _want to enhance_, but obviously musical noise is different from noise in an electronic signal carrying music (although admittedly they could, in some cases, be physically identical).


----------



## Guest (Mar 10, 2012)

I think for many people the word "noise" has negative connotations. For twentieth century composers, however, the unwelcome sounds became increasingly welcome, starting with Ives probably. (I recall hearing that Debussy had said that all sounds could be used in a piece of music, but I haven't been able to find that. Varese certainly said so. And Cage certainly thought that all sounds were good, saying that when you didn't want to hear something, you called it noise, but if you attended to it, you might come to find it enjoyable.)


----------



## Meaghan (Jul 31, 2010)

some guy said:


> I think for many people the word "noise" has negative connotations. For twentieth century composers, however, the unwelcome sounds became increasingly welcome, starting with Ives probably. (I recall hearing that Debussy had said that all sounds could be used in a piece of music, but I haven't been able to find that. Varese certainly said so. And Cage certainly thought that all sounds were good, saying that when you didn't want to hear something, you called it noise, but if you attended to it, you might come to find it enjoyable.)


"Wherever we are, what we hear is mostly noise. When we ignore it, it disturbs us. When we listen to it, we find it fascinating." I latched onto this quote in the spring of my freshman year of college, which was when I started standing in the halls of the music building listening to all the people practicing at once, instead of trying to listen to one and tune out the others. I felt like Ives in the cradle. Heady days.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Webernite is correct, neither Bartok nor Carter are 12-tone.

Bartok went for other solutions to the impasse of breakdown of tonality after 1900. I think he was closer to "free atonality" than 12-tone. But he did apply the serial technique in a tonal way. He told this to Yehudi Menuhin, it's in his biography. The middle theme & variations movement of _Violin Concerto #2_ employed serialism in this still tonal way.

Of course, Schoenberg and the others did similar things to this, eg. they where often not by the book (Berg didn't seem to take any rules seriously at all, Schoenberg more in the middle, and Webern more stricter is how I understand it). Schoenberg didn't approach the 12-note system as rigid unchangeable rules, they were more like guidelines.

So, by the time Carter came to the fore after 1945, 12-tone had been around for about 20 years. His first more experimental works, coming from late 1940's onwards - eg. _Piano Sonata, Cello Sonata _& abovementioned_ String Quartet #1_ (a big fav of mine), they do employ tone-rows but do not adhere to 12-tone theory or rules as much as say Webern did before.

I don't remember composers such as Lutoslawski or Ligeti being referred to as serial or 12-tone. Same with guys like Xenakis or Penderecki. Messiaen only composed one 12-tone piece as a demonstration piece for his students. Varese and Harry Partch had no time at all for 12-tone, they thought it to be basically yet another straightjacket, musically speaking. John Cage, I'd guess, is in the same boat, even though he studied with Schoenberg.

Some composers I've read of being serialists, staying with it after 1945, seem to be more a matter of history than importance for listeners today, eg. Humphrey Searle, Rene Leibowitz, Theodore Adorno.

Similarly, Roger Sessions and Milton Babbitt are considered fine composers, but their music has not penetrated much outside the USA.

Anyway, the composers I like who use 12-tone are ones who are flexible, sometimes using it in tonal way, similar to Bartok. & keep in mind, these guys didn't necessarily use the conventional 12 notes/tones, they sometimes used more or less notes in their "row," in his_ String Quartet #15_, Shostakovich used 8 notes, in one of his symphonies (I think the 4th), Carlos Chavez used well over 12, but I don't remember exactly how many).

Anyway, some of these more flexiblly/partially "serial" or "row based" composers where, with some works I like -

*Frank Martin *- _Petite Symphonie Concertante_
*William Walton *-_ String Quartet in A minor, Cello Concerto_
*Stravinsky* - _Septet, Double Canon - Roaul Dufy in Memoriam _(& to a degree, his_ Symphony in Three Movements_, also incorporates rows, but not as rigorously works in next decade, 1950's)
*Boulez* -_ Piano Sonatas 1 & 2_ (the 3rd sonata separate, more based on controlled chance)
*Dutilleux* - _Cello Concerto_
*Josef Tal *-_ Symphonies_
*Bernstein -* did some of this, eg. the 12-note_ Cool Fugue _in _West Side Story_
*Arvo Part *- _Collage over B-A-C-H, for strings, oboe, harpsichord, and piano_
*Stockhausen *-_ Klavierstucke _piano pieces
*Morton Feldman *- _String Quartet #1_
*Sessions -* _Piano Sonata #2_

& of course, I have liked what I've heard by the "big three" -* Schoenberg, Berg, Webern*. Also,* Elliott Carter *is one of my favourite mid to late 20th century composers.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Meaghan said:


> "Wherever we are, what we hear is mostly noise. When we ignore it, it disturbs us. When we listen to it, we find it fascinating."


That quote sounds rather like a forerunner of mindfulness meditation. It's a Westernised take on Buddhist meditation that seeks to place people 'in the moment' rather than dwelling on future conversations and worries, or past interactions, even if they're good thoughts and memories. There are many things you can do, but the most common are paying close attention to the physical sensations of your body, the taste of food you usually don't notice, or the ordinary sounds that are around you. Even if the sounds do not become "interesting" in a traditionally "musical" sense, they are interesting in the sense that you root yourself more firmly in your life as it happens, rather than forming a narrative once it's already happened.

I often find that the moments I most want to treasure are exciting special occasions that are over before I can thoughtfully enjoy them, and the moments that I actually treasure are the seemingly mundane ones that I make a thoughtful effort to enjoy.

[This is, however, a lesson best learned outside the concert hall.  ]


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Sid James said:


> *Stravinsky* - _Septet, Double Canon - Roaul Dufy in Memoriam _(& to a degree, his_ Symphony in Three Movements_, also incorporates rows, but not as rigorously works in next decade, 1950's)


My favorite twelve tone piece by Stravinsky is his serial ballet, Agon.


----------



## wiganwarrior (Jan 6, 2012)

*Try Bach*



mmsbls said:


> Twelve tone (and more generally atonal) music has been a mystery for several years now. It is a mystery on two levels: first, I have not been able to enjoy twelve tone works, and second, I have no idea what will help me learn to enjoy them.
> 
> When I first started listening to modern music, I found that most of it didn't appeal to me including Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Bartok, Stravinsky, and even much of Debussy. After listening for awhile, I now love works of all these composers. The same is just not true of twelve tone. As a specific example, I'll use Berg's Violin Concerto. I'm not sure that my initial reaction to his concerto was much different to initial reactions to works by Shostakovich or Bartok. But while I have gradually learned to really enjoy the latter composers, Berg's concerto remains elusive.
> 
> ...


I don't know how to download stuff from You Tube (hopefully someone will enlighten me) but check out Rosalyn Turek on Bach's B minor fugue from the Well Tempered Clavier. Apparently, Schoenberg cited Bach (directly to her) as the first 12 tone composer and the B minor fugue from the Well Tempered Clavier as the first 12 tone composition. Interesting stuff - maybe this is your gateway.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

clavichorder said:


> ....did it take you a long time to arrive at that appreciation and enjoyment? ....interested in those of you who had an immediate appreciation.
> 
> Elliot Carter's 1st string quartet .... I believe 12 tone... achieves that aim with 'set theory', which I have yet to try to grasp the basic principles of.
> 
> ...


I right away liked the first-school serial music of Webern and Berg (oddly, not Schoenberg.) There is a critical precedent involved though: I had been listening to Prokofiev, Stravinsky, Milhaud, and other moderns in my late grammar school years ( I was the only one in my family to listen to or 'do' classical music; there is no attributable outside influence there.) I got around to Messiaen in my early teens - Ergo - when I did get to"the sound" of the first Viennese school in my later teens it was no great jump outside my listening Habits. AND HABITS THOSE ARE, AND THAT IS ALL THEY ARE... HABIT.

When any piece is 'new' to you, it is always a matter of repeated listening and listening habits. The power of influence the context of an individual's listening habit has on how they hear anything cannot be underestimated: there are a set of expectations they bring along when listening to any music not within that context. In so doing, it is like there is a ghost in the room, or as so colloquially phrased, 'that elephant in the corner of the room.'

I still listen to that now almost antique music as well as repertoire later composed which uses the same means or some adaption of it. (Polytonal and atonal works, Ives' Unanswered Question, Schonberg's Pierrot Lunaire: these are both 100 years old or more -- and are literally -- Antique.)

What if you had first only heard classical music of your own century and time? Takemitsu's "Green" and then Wagner's "Siegfried Idyll?" Or first heard the Bartok string quartets and then the Beethoven quartets after which the Bartok were so clearly modeled? If you listened to only pop music through the late 1950's, much current pop music from various genres would sound 'atonal' shapeless, horribly dissonant. Everything is relative to the listening habit of the person who is listening.

Remember too, in your own time or nearer to it, you are on your own in sorting out the worthwhile from all the rest of what is in circulation. In the 1950's there was a literal fashion craze where just about every career composer at least tried their hand at serialism, and -- no surprise -- there were a few from the time who were fine composers who composed good serial music and hosts of works by lesser composers who wrote - lesser quality serial music.

Set theory determines groups of intervals, or sets of them (individual or chord) to categorize pitch groupings, just another way to help organize a highly chromatic language. NEITHER serial music or set theory music NECESSARILY USE ALL TWELVE PITCHES , Ergo '12-tone' does not always apply!!!

Since neither manner can be relied upon to always use all 12, I recommend dropping '12-tone' from the vocabulary altogether - "Serial music" or "Set theory" are enough to indicate 'what is going on / being used.'

Additional quandary: Neither manner automatically classes the music as atonal -- both 'systems' can and have been used to construct tonal music.

Bartok, as far as I know, never wrote an atonal piece in his entire life - at least not by textbook definition, unless you want to add to the definition, say, the first movement of his Music for Stringed Instruments, Percussion and Celesta, the fugue - or 'fugal' scheme there going from I to the augmented fourth (Tritone) and back to I as its tonal scheme... but the other three movements… 

The irony (unwitting and seemingly blinded to music history) of Medtner's saying 'Habit' was part of what (mislead?) listeners into thinking serial music is interesting: 
All music composed is based on an accumulated set of habits insofar as what we both understand and expect. This is inevitably part of 'where' the newest and most radical approach of any avant-garde composer 'comes from.' So much is incited by reacting to or direct 'undoing' of what came before: if there was no 'before,' it could be argued those composers would not come up with what they do. Both Serialsm and Atonality are direct linear descendants of Wagner and later highly chromatic late romantic writing.

The most 'advanced' and forward-looking musician with years of training, experience, and ten thousands of hours of listening, still has listening habits (much more so than the casual listener.) I suppose the more educated and experienced one is the more likely it shatters one's self-conceit -- because it shows even the most open minded can be a bit slavish to a habit, but there 'tis.

Just listen to a less than good tonal composition - that is no argument against the tonal system, just a great argument against bad writing.

I do advocate repeated listening, especially if it is music with a vocabular much less familiar to you. I also advocate, for the presently theory saturated and preoccupied (students, mainly) that you forget all concerns about theory or 'method' at least one time when listening to the atonal and serial repertoire, and 'just listen.' It is, after all, 'just music.' See what you think of it as music without all the intellectual questions of procedure, and let it speak. It will, or won't. But do try this 'just listen' several times, maybe three, and over a period of time. Then you might be able to clearly and fairly say why it does or does not mean much to you.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Argus said:


> Noise is sound of indefinite pitch.


Terrible slam of two words in that definition, Noise & Pitch. - does this come from pop music? I could go on a rant of what 'pop theory' does in the way of misconstruing or dumbing down all classical theory and prinicples, but won't.

Noise is usually something undesirable to begin with.

How about 'INDEFINITE PITCH' - everyone alright with that one?

Right - here's a gorgeous piece which uses definite and indefinite pitch, and some instruments of the composer's own design and making.

Lucia Dlugoszewski ~ Fire Fragile Flight





And really, the listener need not know any 'theory' to enjoy it. The more canny will recognize it is quite beautifully and strongly structured, but again, most people do not listen that way.

Besides, 'Noise' is not organized - Music is organized sound (Pitched or Otherwise!) over time, so the appellation of 'Noise Music" hints to me of layman pop musicians having thunk that one up with the equipment they had at hand and in their heads - a lot of which aint' the normal parlance of music as a discipline.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

I like the scene; the music sucks.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

some guy said:


> ...Cage certainly thought that all sounds were good, saying that when you didn't want to hear something, you called it noise, but if you attended to it, you might come to find it enjoyable.)


Abnormal. Very abnormal.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Abnormal. Very abnormal.


Yes, it is most peculiar a musician would find sound interesting and attractive.

Ha ha ha ha h a aaaa.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

mmsbls said:


> @Argus, some guy: Thanks. I looked up indefinite pitch and understand now. The examples were useful as well. To scientists noise has a specific technical meaning with negative connotations and refers to the part of the signal that you explicitly _want to suppress_. It's funny to think of it as the focus of the "signal" you _want to enhance_, but obviously musical noise is different from noise in an electronic signal carrying music (although admittedly they could, in some cases, be physically identical).


I think something like this is the perfect example of noise enhancing the music without totally dominating it. I'd be interested if anyone knows the pieces sampled in this as well.






This is all off-topic though.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

I love The Caretaker but never equated any of his music with noise. I guess I don't consciously determine that it is noise being used in parts of pieces like this.


----------

