@Paul McGraw said:
mh-7635,
Why not post under your real name? I believe using ones real name on the internet fosters a more congenial environment for all.
Who do I rate? By that I think you mean who do I admire and spend time listening to their music? The fields of choral music, especially religious choral music, and symphonic band music, have many composers of note. The way this usually works is I name a few, then the proponent of atonality trashes them, thinking they have thus won some kind of point. However, I will play along and we will see what happens.
Among choral composers Eric Whitacre has had enormous success. Among symphonic band composers Phillip Sparke is well worth a listen. Most of the best orchestral writers have gravitated towards film music. There are many of these in the past, Korngold, Herman and Miklos Rozsa immediately come to mind. Living today we have a clear connection with concert music in the Lord of the Rings Symphony by Howard Shore.
But no need to look further than right here at the VSL forum. Guy Bacos and William Kersten create marvelous, well crafted orchestral music.
My statement that atonality is old is not a misleading, false, or deceptive argument. It is simply a fact, and was stated as a fact backed up by factual evidence. Calling a fact an opinion, even calling it specious, does not advance the discussion. I do not have a time limit for aesthetic movements. What made you think that? Tonality dates back to the dawn of human history. The greek philosophers of antiquity wrote about the various modes.
What do I propose for young composers? I would tell them to write what is in their heart. I would tell them that if they want a large audience they need to utilize the tonal language of music. I would tell them not to worry about being "original" or "finding their own voice" or "speaking to our time." If they master their craft, then if they have something original to say it will come out of them naturally.
Yes, institutions have probably ruined many potentially fine composers. Thankfully that seems to be changing. I do not agree that anyone needs to "make themselves relevant." How do we judge what is or is not relevant to our current society? Isn't Eric Witacre relevant? If not, why not?
Well Paul to address your post in order - my signature tells everyone who I am but your continuing adjectives tend to rule out congeniality. BTW I suggest you do not click on my site as there are some pieces there that will not be to your taste, but you and everyone else are welcome to call me whatever you like, I only ask that you keep it civil if you want reasoned debate.
From what you write, I can't seem to escape the conclusion that you seem to think atonality and tonality do not mix whether it be musically or regarding someones creative preferences. I believe you are wrong on these points , firstly because I am not going to 'trash' your preferences and instead agree with you about the composers you have mentioned - although it is duly noted that the best you can come up with in a thread instigated by an appreciation of Salonen is Howard Shore who is of course a great film composer, but some here might consider his ouvre to be a little off-topic when considering the highest aspirational realms of our practice, if only because film scorings raison d'etre imposes a utility on self-expression, which is in the main absent in the concert world. (I do not want to digress too much here, but accept that there is a good argument against this that suggests that the desire for self expression in film scoring can be quenched in practice, but as this thread is not about film scoring I shall leave it there).
Secondly, your assumption that the 2 technical practices (tonal -atonal) are mutually exclusive is completely fallacious because one is surely an all-encompassing extension of the other and when used competently gives the composer a wide expressive arc - all that is needed are adventurous ears and a willingness to search.
Your assertion that atonality is old and therefore not a way forward is a subjective conclusion based on your antipathy and is not factual nor predicated on the reality of current practice. The fact is that atonality and tonality exist side by side in todays zeitgeist and can even be combined very successfully. You really are missing out on wonderful music Paul, music that has extended levels of functioning harmonic practice that is not proscriptive in a dodecaphonic sense. This makes me wonder if your definition of atonality is the same as mine and many of the great composers of shall we say the last 60 years, but if you haven't listened to any of their music, how are you to know and even insult their work convincingly.
For once I agree fully with the paragraph starting with your propositions for young composers. Some will venture into atonality and find a seductive world of possibilities.
Mike is correct. Many composers of our time have learned, and are learning, to integrate tonal and atonal techniques, using the chromatic scale but at the same time using harmonies that make sense to that composer.
Composers have been playing with "tonal gravity" (the tendency to hear a given tone as a point of resolution, of repose) for centuries before the codification of this tendency into set theory or a 12-tone matrix. Schoenberg's achievement was a logical extention of the intense chromaticism of the late 19th and early 20th century, and he overcame the chromatic scale's organization into 12 half-steps by creating the tone-row. The challenge is to create music with all 12 tones but do it with harmonies that are beautiful and meaningful. The line between tonality and atonality is a grey line, it's not black and white.
The San Francisco Conservatory of Music's electronic music class is coming to my studio this week for a field trip, so I have an opportunity to listen to and learn from what young composers are doing and thinking about.
I'll be taking a break from this forum for a while, must concentrate on composing, taking care of my family and teaching.
Jerry
