# Appreciating Atonal and Serial Pieces



## Celloissimo (Mar 29, 2013)

This has always been something that's bugged me for quite some time. I've always learned to appreciate the theoretical underpinning of music and most certainly understand that the atonal music of Schonberg, Berg, Webern, etc. have more of an intellectual as opposed to an aesthetic appeal. But even having a basic understanding of 12-tone harmony and atonality, I find no satisfaction or stimulation listening to pieces of the kind, either emotional or intellectual. And this is coming from someone who finds things such as noise-music and field recordings musically appealing. I've always wanted to learn to appreciate these great artists, and any advice going my way would be really appreciated.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Celloissimo said:


> This has always been something that's bugged me for quite some time. I've always learned to appreciate the theoretical underpinning of music and most certainly understand that *the atonal music of Schonberg, Berg, Webern, etc. have more of an intellectual as opposed to an aesthetic appeal*. But even having a basic understanding of 12-tone harmony and atonality, I find no satisfaction or stimulation listening to pieces of the kind, either emotional or intellectual. And this is coming from someone who finds things such as noise-music and field recordings musically appealing. I've always wanted to learn to appreciate these great artists, and any advice going my way would be really appreciated.


No, you see, that's the problem. People believe this, but it's not true.

We love the music simply because of the way it sounds, not because of any intellectual reason. Just listen for the motifs, the harmony, the way the parts interact with each other, the flow of moods and emotions. You don't need to worry about how it was constructed with a 12-tone piece any more than with a non-12-tone piece.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Celloissimo said:


> This has always been something that's bugged me for quite some time. I've always learned to appreciate the theoretical underpinning of music *and most certainly understand that the atonal music of Schonberg, Berg, Webern, etc. have more of an intellectual as opposed to an aesthetic appeal.*


I think a lot of people would dispute this. But if you don't like it, you don't like it.

Edit: Mahlerian beat me to the punch.


----------



## Celloissimo (Mar 29, 2013)

Maybe you're right, Mahlerian, and that is the root of the problem. Yet the most I can enjoy it at the moment, aesthetically, is how the lack of a tonal center offers something different, even refreshing, to the aural palate. My ear simply can't detect motifs or any cohesive musical thought or idea going on in the music. Perhaps the issue is not only intellectualizing the music too much, but also approaching it with expectations that I have for tonal music, which obviously doesn't deliver.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Listening to Webern makes me feel happy and joyful. If people don't connect to it on the first try that's understandable. it took in 2-3 times to get into it.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

I remember the times when it all sounded random. I guess it did in part because of all those dissonant interval spans that are common in 12-tone but rare (and usually immediately 'resolved') in common practise, so in that perspective it was filled with distracting 'wrong notes' that impeded my acceptance/recognition of the melodies and motifs as such.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Is that for real, Albert7, or is that sarcasm?  I cannot say that Webern makes me jump for joy and want to dance a jig, but I get such a charge out of the compositions, the instrumental interactions, the musical development, etc., that I feel nearly delirious with pleasure. It must be that... how was it? "Teutonic heaviness" that acts like an aural euphoric. I can say that for Schoenberg and Berg, too.



Richannes Wrahms said:


> ...it was filled with distracting 'wrong notes' that impeded my acceptance/recognition of the melodies and motifs as such.


It's those "wrong notes" that send me into Nirvana  They are 'wrong' in exactly the right way. A 'right' note would simply be boring.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

I listen to Schoenberg the same way I listen to Dvorak: without thinking about it. The latter's music moves in familiar ways to places that - eventually - are satisfying. The former's music (the first few times I heard it) moved in unfamiliar ways - to places that I wasn't expecting, but were right when it got there.

I listened to the 3rd symphony by a Brit name of Prior a couple weeks ago. Post-Romantic maybe? Not enough movement.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

While I certainly don't grasp them all yet, I did start enjoying non-common practice works when I stopped trying. They just sneaked up on me when the time was right. However, they do have to be playing in order for this to happen.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

brotagonist said:


> Is that for real, Albert7, or is that sarcasm?  I cannot say that Webern makes me jump for joy and want to dance a jig, but I get such a charge out of the compositions, the instrumental interactions, the musical development, etc., that I feel nearly delirious with pleasure. It must be that... how was it? "Teutonic heaviness" that acts like an aural euphoric. I can say that for Schoenberg and Berg, too.
> 
> It's those "wrong notes" that send me into Nirvana  They are 'wrong' in exactly the right way. A 'right' note would simply be boring.


Ummm... no sarcasm!

Webern is rather uplifting to me. He harkens back to the fundamentals of Western music.

And he does his own thing but respects the history...


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

I think there is something really moving about this piece. The way I can breathe with the opening....it sort of inspires my imagination much more than music of the century before. Earlier music just seems to speak for itself; in some ways it feels rather detached from me as an audience. It's like seeing a great Renaissance painting where all the brush strokes are hardly visible but the image is incredibly clear and doesn't take much thought to know what it's a picture of, whereas more abstract art (like Monet or Pollock) is less clear, it requires me to use my imagination, to really see what the artist was doing (visible brush strokes, action painting etc) and to make up my own mind about what I find truly special about the work. I feel that this wave of modernity in art is a parallel for _me_ with music. It's like I'm there with Webern composing the piece as I listen to it. The creativity of the composer just seems to speak to me so much more.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

A relevant thread.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Atonal music is not for many listeners but it is a recognized and important development, a natural development as a consequence of late Romanticism post Wagner.


----------



## Guest (May 15, 2015)

Celloissimo said:


> This has always been something that's bugged me for quite some time. I've always learned to appreciate the theoretical underpinning of music and most certainly understand that the atonal music of Schonberg, Berg, Webern, etc. have more of an intellectual as opposed to an aesthetic appeal. But even having a basic understanding of 12-tone harmony and atonality, I find no satisfaction or stimulation listening to pieces of the kind, either emotional or intellectual. And this is coming from someone who finds things such as noise-music and field recordings musically appealing. I've always wanted to learn to appreciate these great artists, and any advice going my way would be really appreciated.


Unlike you, I've not learned to appreciate the theoretical underpinning of music in the way that you seem to have (i.e. in respect of a tonal/atonal dichotomy). It does not interest me _per se_. I am only concerned with the extent to which I find a particular piece of music interesting (however it may have been constructed). I do not accept or believe as being true that "atonal" music has a more of an intellectual as opposed to an aesthetic appeal.

I listen to music. It's that simple. (I am not "intellectualising").

My satisfaction (or not) does not, and could not, have come from any level of understanding of "12-tone harmony" or whatever, since I have none. My advice would be if you have found no interest or pleasure in a particular composer or style (perhaps after some persistence) then file it under "Don't really like" and spend your listening time more profitably with other musics. _*That is no value judgment upon either the listener, the composer or the method of composition.*_

Approaching any music with certain expectations will naturally have an impact upon our evaluation of it as a perceptual experience, I'm sure we all do that (in different ways). To reiterate your own point, if you approach Music Type X with expectations of Music Type Not-X you are likely to come away with a somewhat negative evaluation since you have set yourself up to hear music that "doesn't deliver." Some people seem to think that if music is not constructed in a set-in-stone way then it cannot be "good" or "great" music. That attitude is anathema to _me_. It is a requirement or expectation that would lead, in the longterm, to creative atrophy I believe. To stay alive, music (like all art) must always be changing. 12-tone was just one more step along that path.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Celloissimo said:


> I've always wanted to learn to appreciate these great artists, and any advice going my way would be really appreciated.


I know where you're coming from. Not all serial pieces speak to me. Schoenberg's Suite, Opus 29, makes me mad; it's too much thrown out at the same time. But I did find pieces that made sense to me, and that opened the rest of their works up.

I actually connected with Anton Webern's music after I got into Renaissance polyphony. Listening to all those independent voices interacting with canons of various sorts got me used to linear listening, and then Webern made sense. However, I'm still not much of a fan of his early vocal works, because they're too busy.

I didn't like Schoenberg until I heard Farben from the Five Orchestral Pieces, which is nothing but color. If you like noise-music, this might click with you.

Berg has been a problem for me. There's so much hidden there, like secret ciphers, that it frustrates me. But after several years, I finally warmed up to his violin concerto.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

dogen said:


> To stay alive, music (like all art) must always be changing. 12-tone was just one more step along that path.


When people talk about "progress" being a historical necessity or something along those lines I find it terribly off-putting. Makes me just feel more reactionary and conservative.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I'm an instinctive listener with little formal training.

Nobody can tell me that the beginning of the Schoenberg Piano Concerto is not hauntingly beautiful.

*Forget the stereotypes. LISTEN!!!!*


----------



## TwoPhotons (Feb 13, 2015)

My first introduction to serial music was at high school when our class listened to Schoenberg's Peripetie (GCSE Music). I loved it, and I distinctly remember how it seemed that everyone else, including the teacher, had an attitude a bit like 'this music sounds disgusting and I would never listen to it at home but it is important to learn about Schoenberg and his 12-tone system'. I was confused because I genuinely quite enjoyed the music. Probably the reason is because I've found that I love the exploration of timbre, texture and unusual sounds in music. I just find this 'exploration' aspect attractive. So when I listened to the Peripetie for the first time I loved Schoenberg's use of sound and apparent freedom with the orchestra. And for that reason I can sit down and listen to his pieces and enjoy it at home if I wish.

As for the 12-tone system, I am not especially interested in that aspect I'm afraid, but I still see it as a (perhaps _the_) valuable tool in writing atonal music, which is much more difficult than I think a lot of the public make it out to be.

It's all up to tastes really. Personally, I don't think anybody should push oneself to like a certain work or composer, they should just let it come naturally to them. I learnt a long time ago that Brahms, despite his apparent legendary status, bores me to death, and I don't worry about that. Maybe one day his music will speak to me. But for now I know that the classical music landscape is so vast and full of treasures for everyone's tastes, and there is too much music out there to discover to worry about not appreciating some composer's work(s). If you don't like it, don't worry. I think if you appreciate the 12-tone method and how Schoenberg devised that system, that's the best you can do. 

I should disclaim however that I don't tend to listen to atonal music in my spare time...simply because I'm a romantic nut. I also listen to some Brahms once in a long while, just out of curiosity to see how I react, but I'm afraid for now........


----------



## Guest (May 15, 2015)

Dim7 said:


> When people talk about "progress" being a historical necessity or something along those lines I find it terribly off-putting. Makes me just feel more reactionary and conservative.


Sorry! 
I do think the fact that music is where it is today and not clacking two woolly mammoth jaw bones together is because evolution over time is bound to happen (human curiosity?). Creativity cannot be "frozen" at any point, surely?


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Global warming and a lack of mammoths confirmed as the direct cause of atonal music. If there isn't worldwide agreement and action on climate change soon, tonality will be extinct by 2050.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Originally Posted by *Dim7* "When people talk about "progress" being a historical necessity or something along those lines I find it terribly off-putting. Makes me just feel more reactionary and conservative."



dogen said:


> Sorry!
> I do think the fact that music is where it is today and not clacking two woolly mammoth jaw bones together is because evolution over time is bound to happen (human curiosity?). Creativity cannot be "frozen" at any point, surely?


The statement _Dim7_ quotes causes a subsurface snarl in me too, probably because that thar "progress" is often the cover word for, um, compository ineptitude. Some words, in some contexts...


----------



## Guest (May 15, 2015)

quack said:


> a lack of mammoths


They still exist, but these days are quite small and very, very shy.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

quack said:


> Global warming and a lack of mammoths confirmed as the direct cause of atonal music. If there isn't worldwide agreement and action on climate change soon, tonality will be extinct by 2050.


Only in low elevations near the coasts.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

dogen said:


> Sorry!
> I do think the fact that music is where it is today and not clacking two woolly mammoth jaw bones together is because evolution over time is bound to happen (human curiosity?). Creativity cannot be "frozen" at any point, surely?


My point is that making statements like "Art MUST progress or else it's dead!" makes the "progress" sound like an awful duty that "must be done" whether it is fun or not. Not to say that is necessarily the intention, but that's the "vibe" I get from it (and in case of someone like Boulez claiming only their view what constitutes 'progress' is right).

As long as new works of art are done, some kind of change is happening. Who is to decide what constitutes real or substantial "progress"?


----------



## Guest (May 15, 2015)

Ukko said:


> Originally Posted by *Dim7* "When people talk about "progress" being a historical necessity or something along those lines I find it terribly off-putting. Makes me just feel more reactionary and conservative."
> 
> The statement _Dim7_ quotes causes a subsurface snarl in me too, probably because that thar "progress" is often the cover word for, um, compository ineptitude. Some words, in some contexts...


Fair enough, but it wasn't _intended_ as a cover word.


----------



## Guest (May 15, 2015)

Dim7 said:


> My point is that making statements like "Art MUST progress or else it's dead!" makes the "progress" sound like an awful duty that "must be done" whether it is fun or not. Not to say that is necessarily the intention, but that's the "vibe" I get from it


Not a duty, but what naturally happens, _overall, over time._

That's not to say working with what is already in existence is not legitimate. I've spent many a happy hour with my head in speaker bins at Motorhead gigs.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Celloissimo said:


> I've always wanted to learn to appreciate these great artists, and any advice going my way would be really appreciated.


There's no substitute for concentrated listening. How else to enjoy any music but to simply listen? Don't waste time fretting over all of the baggage that has been attached to so called atonal music. Get hold of some good pieces such as Hilary Hahn's recording of Schoenberg's violin concerto, or Berg's Three Orchestral Pieces, and listen to them several times. Your brain will take care of the rest if you give it and the music half a chance.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

I think the thing that people just don't get about 12 note music is that it uses techniques of developing motifs that go back centuries. There's no new technique apart from substituting a 'motif' for 'all 12 notes of the chromatic scale.' Perhaps one reason why some people are put off by 12 note music is that they don't know that Schoenberg's most complex scores _are just as complex as a Bach 2 part invention._


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

TwoPhotons said:


> My first introduction to serial music was at high school when our class listened to Schoenberg's Peripetie (GCSE Music). I loved it, and I distinctly remember how it seemed that everyone else, including the teacher, had an attitude a bit like 'this music sounds disgusting and I would never listen to it at home but it is important to learn about Schoenberg and his 12-tone system'. I was confused because I genuinely quite enjoyed the music. Probably the reason is because I've found that I love the exploration of timbre, texture and unusual sounds in music. I just find this 'exploration' aspect attractive. So when I listened to the Peripetie for the first time I loved Schoenberg's use of sound and apparent freedom with the orchestra. And for that reason I can sit down and listen to his pieces and enjoy it at home if I wish.


If you had a teacher who connected Schoenberg's Five Orchestral Pieces with the 12-tone method, that teacher should be fired, because the work predates that method by over a decade. It's not a serial piece in any sense.


----------



## TwoPhotons (Feb 13, 2015)

My bad, I was wrong to label it as serial music. We certainly discussed the 12-tone method which I guess came from studying Schoenberg himself and not necessarily the Peripetie alone, but I was never really clear about that. Schoenberg was perceived as the 'black hole' of the course which everybody tried to stay away from as far as possible and we sort of skipped over it. So as you can tell I'm a complete novice when it comes to the Second Viennese School (although I don't mind listening to it!).


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

TwoPhotons said:


> My bad, I was wrong to label it as serial music. We certainly discussed the 12-tone method which I guess came from studying Schoenberg himself and not necessarily the Peripetie alone, but I was never really clear about that. Schoenberg was perceived as the 'black hole' of the course which everybody tried to stay away from as far as possible and we sort of skipped over it. So as you can tell I'm a complete novice when it comes to the Second Viennese School (although I don't mind listening to it!).


No criticism of you intended. It's a common mistake, because it's not easy to hear something and say "this is serial," because the workings of serial processes tend to be hidden from the listener's ear (intentionally), so people just say "this is serial" because it reminds them of some other things which they have heard called serial (which may or may not actually be serial).

It sounds like an unfortunate way to be introduced to the music, though; I would hope that we could find more people willing to share their love of one of the key figures in 20th century music, whose influence reached far beyond those who took up his technique.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Dim7 said:


> When people talk about "progress" being a historical necessity or something along those lines I find it terribly off-putting. Makes me just feel more reactionary and conservative.


I find it off-putting because it's often stated, assumed, or implied that the specific ways in which music developed are the ways in which it had "inevitably" to develop. That composers would experiment with harmony defying common practice tonal expectations, or expanding and redefining those expectations, was certainly predictable. They were actually doing it all along. But the particular styles of music which developed - the specific ways music sounded - depended as much on individual composers and the cultural milieu in which they wrote as on any inherent properties of music itself. The culture might have been different, different people might have composed music, and we might well never have had _Tristan und Isolde, L'Apres-midi d'un faune, Le Sacre du printemps,_ or _Pierrot Lunaire,_ much less a "12-tone system."

To note that what happened did in fact happen, and to identify the forces and influences that contributed to it's happening, is not to deny that something else might have happened instead. Of course if you're a total determinist who believes that all human thought and behavior is predetermined, you'll adhere to the "historically inevitable evolution" theory of musical change.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

I have not read every thread but I am a member of the if you like it listen to it, if you dislike it don't worry about it school.

If a person does not get it no amount of rhetoric from me or anybody else is going to change anyone's mind.

Like I stated before I did not get Schoenberg until I was in my fifties. I do not know why.


----------



## TradeMark (Mar 12, 2015)

I remember when I was first getting into classical music, I tried getting into the music of Mozart, but I couldn't. His music didn't have the bombast and dynamics of Beethoven, nor did it have the neat and orderly structures of Bach. Everyone talked about how mozart was a great melodist, so I tried listening for just the melodies, but I found that I didn't really like the melodies. They started and stopped at weird places, and a lot of them actually sounded dissonant to my ears. One day I decided to just listen to Mozart with no expectations. I just listened to how the music sounded, and then it finally made sense to me. I was able to hear all of the little details, how different parts of the music interacted with each other, how the varying rhythms made the music sound spontaneous, how the music progressed from one emotion to another with ease. I missed all of these things because I was looking for something in his music, instead of just listening.

I believe this same idea applies to Schoenberg. I don't think you should think about the method too much and you should instead listen to how the music sounds.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

TradeMark said:


> I believe this same idea applies to Schoenberg. I don't think you should think about the method too much and you should instead listen to how the music sounds.


I believe this is ultimately the best advice for people struggling with music that's new to them. Unfortunately, there's no way to tell someone how long they must listen until the music opens up. I've always felt that it would be helpful to add to the suggestion of further listening something about what to listen for (i.e. that's different from the music they know). That "something extra to listen for" depends on the particular work or composer so it's hard to give general responses to those who struggle with new music.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

TradeMark said:


> ....
> 
> I believe this same idea applies to Schoenberg. I don't think you should think about the method too much and you should instead listen to how the music sounds.


That's the most sensible advice for atonal music or in fact any classical music of the past. The greatest piece will engage you regardless.


----------



## Lucifer Saudade (May 19, 2015)

I'm starting to warm up to it recently. I'd recommend listening to Schoenberg/ Webern on a day where you feel detached from any Romantic/ Baroque music - perhaps when you're feeling bored. Do NOT expect instantaneous pleasure or try to understand what's going on (analyse) the way you do with say Romantic music. For now, just relax and listen to it minutes at the time, taking the music in, with NO expectations. Do not even *try* to enjoy it actively. Just let it sink in.

If you're anticipating different musical qualities, your brain will always feel cheated of it's reward and listening will become frustrating. Much like the eastern philosophers would say, just let go. 

Another important point: forget about Schoenberg being too "intellectual". Most of what he did was break clean from Romantic tonality, otherwise he's still making "music", in the old-school sense of the word. I sincerely believe at least where the Second Viennese School is concerned, it is meant to be enjoyed musically, rather then mere intellectual stimulation. 

Then again, I'm new to this as well, so take my opinions with a grain of salt


----------

