post retracted with apologies to all.

Hi Jerry,

@jsg said:

The line between tonality and atonality is a grey line, it's not black and white. 

Yes! This is exactly my opinion.

There are enough younger past dodekaphonic concepts of tonality, which are inspired by Ideas of conciousnesly defining the material used in a certain passage independent from traditional concepts of functional harmony, if you think on different concepts of defining new Scales and Modes of those scales which can in the same time include in the sequence of applied scales Ideas of equal distribution of tonal material which stood behind the concept of dodekaphonic technics.

In short the dodekaphonic concept was only a very first step, which was followed by so much more newer courageous ideas and experiments to create new tonal relations and differences, that the simple opposition of tonal and atonal do not cover at all what is already in use since decades by advanced composers.

How ever when it comes to the point where we are today, I believe that more than ever and more than any concept, convention or ideology it just counts to what the ear finally hears It is good if the listener feels invited to follow the path the music choses.

Again for me I do not rule out any path categoricly. And if someone choses to 100 % imitate historic conventions of what ever epoque. It still can be good if it is well done not more and not less than any other approach a composer choses. However concept or approach it might be, it simply should convince me just with what I can hear.

Why do I think this might be Ok not only for me but perhaps OK for our situation in music history: Simply because we have learned, that there is very muchgreat music  crreated in tha last 4-500 years. None of it is inevitably better or inferior only because it is written earlier or later. Imho the Idea of (music) historical progress which accumlates and also finally ends up in 20th century does not dominate any more.

What is left is imho just the question is it good? and therefor we do have in musical history more than ever the best benchmarks of course including all revolutions that ever took place until now. 

@Acclarion said:

To be serious: Is there any greater example of a snarky, self-agrandising, socially inept, prudish, humourless jerk out there?

I absolutely can guarantee that you have no friends in the real world. Trust me...this I know unequivocally. 😊. I also know you won't be able to resist getting the last word in, so have at it, Mr. Fahl. If the sum of all your witty retorts could be distilled in liquid form, we'd need an eye dropper to dispense it. 😴

Cheers,

The Maestro ✌

Should that be a "Joke" ??????

.....and not simply an abusive direct and personal attack against another member here?

Is this what you think is the respectful and friendly kind of "humor" which makles it a pleasure to read this forum?  OMG.

(reported!)

@mh-7635 said:

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.

Hi Mike,

I'm sorry that I did not see your name on your posts. No insult was intended, and if I made a mistake with pronouns, I appologize for that as well. Of course I do not appologize for my opinions and conclusions regarding music. I am passionate about the subject. 

I'm not sure if you wanted any sort of reply, I want you to know that I read your entire post very carefully.If there is something you want to debate or discuss, I am willing to do so. I am not going to change my conclusions about tonality and atonality, and I sense that you also are firm in your point of view. So that topic is probably a waste of time. But I am open to a discussion of any other musical topic. Regarding Howard Shore, he many not be innovative, but he is certainly a master of his craft. However, as I anticipated in my email, I expected you simply were asking me "who I rate" so that you could then trash them. That is OK, totally to be expected.

I'm glad we can agree about advice to young composers. It is in that vein that I was describing the fact that atonality is old. Many young composers idiolize the gound breaking inovator. I know I did. Many younng composers want to be relevant and current. I know I did. But writing atonal music is not going to make a composer today an inovator or relevant. Why not? Because atonality is old. It is no more of an innovation to write atonal music than to write Baroque or Romantic music. If the young composer wants to write atonal music because that is what they personally like to hear and they want to be a perfector, like Mozart, then great. They could have a solid future. University composition teachers are retiring and dieing off every day leaving room for new atonal composers. So I think composers should forget about being an innovator (unless they truly can come up with something totally original) and focus on perfecting their craft, writing the kind of music that they personally enjoy. 

Paul T. McGraw

This was a reply to your fixation with rolling your eyes, referring to me as Maestro, so as to continually imply that I think of myself in some lofty, self important way, and then to continue condescendingly rolling your eyes further after my explanation to you. I am done discussing anything with you. Report away. I respect so many great musicians on this forum. What I can't stand, is to see these incredibly intelligent, gifted individuals constantly try to bring down others. My initial "humour" post may not have been received in the spirit for which it was intended, and for that I apologize. But your subsequent responses indicate to me that you enjoy stoking the fire, and then crying out when the flames get too hot for you to handle. I shall leave you alone...do the same for me.

@Acclarion said:

This was a reply to your fixation with rolling your eyes, referring to me as Maestro, so as to continually imply that I think of myself in some lofty, self important way, and then to continue condescendingly rolling your eyes further after my explanation to you. I am done discussing anything with you. Report away.

I respect so many great musicians on this forum. What I can't stand, is to see these incredibly intelligent, gifted individuals constantly try to bring down others. My initial "humour" post may not have been received in the spirit for which it was intended, and for that I apologize. But your subsequent responses indicate to me that you enjoy stoking the fire, and then crying out when the flames get too hot for you to handle.

I shall leave you alone...do the same for me.

There is a decisive diference: I did not post a single word which was simply abusive attacking you as person here in any way.

Did you seriously justify your personal attacks against my person with your certain sens of "humor"while you are not ready to tolerate even a single emoticon ??????

So dont take your own Interpretations of an emoticon as pretext to break existing rules of well behavior in this forum.

Someone who explicitly talks about his own works "I am quite pleased with the quality of my work" should be a bit more careful attacking others with words like "self-agrandising" etc. I personally did no parallel insult against you at all and will not do so in future. 

But it must be stated, that what you are doing is far beyond what is acceptable behavior covered by any rule of any public comunication platform.

And to be clear I do not bring any one "down" nor did I ever intended or tried to do so. Be ready to accept other opinions this is obviously the only problem you might have with what I post here.

And be sure your "flames" are not at all "hot" in any possible sens of this word. They simply disturb profoundly the serious and open discussion and that is what makes them not tolerable at all.

@Acclarion said:

This was a reply to your fixation with rolling your eyes, referring to me as Maestro, so as to continually imply that I think of myself in some lofty, self important way, and then to continue condescendingly rolling your eyes further after my explanation to you. I am done discussing anything with you. Report away.

I respect so many great musicians on this forum. What I can't stand, is to see these incredibly intelligent, gifted individuals constantly try to bring down others. My initial "humour" post may not have been received in the spirit for which it was intended, and for that I apologize. But your subsequent responses indicate to me that you enjoy stoking the fire, and then crying out when the flames get too hot for you to handle.

I shall leave you alone...do the same for me.

There is a decisive diference: I did not post a single word which was simply abusive attacking you as person here in any way. So dont take your own Interpretations of an emoticon as pretext to break existing rules of well behavior in this forum.

Someone who explicitly talks about his own works "I am quite pleased with the quality of my work" should be a bit more careful attacking others with words like "self-agrandising" etc. I personally did no parallel insult against you at all and will not do so in future. 

But it must be stated, that what you are doing is far beyond what is acceptable behavior covered by any rule of any public comunication platform.

My final response below:

Your repititious use of such an emoticon, even after an honest/sincere explanation as the reason behind my site's name, was explicitly being used to be condescending and antagonistic.  My "overt" insult is no more or less hurtful than your "implied" insult.  It doesn't take a scholar to infer the meaning behind your repeated emoticons and use of the term Maestro.  

You're also making leaps with regard to an individual RESPONDING in defense of their work with a simple comment of "I am quite pleased with the quality of my work", to now suggesting that in doing so, I shouldn't ever suggest another individual is self-agrandising.  Well, if I wrote, "to be serious, is there any greater example of music by a living composer?" I could completely agree with your point...but you will not find my regular postings on this forum to indicate a heightened sense of self-importance.  Indeed, I am humbled by the talent of others on this forum and strive to earn the same level of respect I have for them.

Enough.  I am truly done responding.  I apologize for my emotional outbursts directed at you Mr. Fahl. You hit a nerve with your initial and follow up responses.  And it is clear to me that you will not be satisfied unless I prostrate myself before you.  Consider it done.

@Acclarion said:

Well, if I wrote, "to be serious, is there any greater example of music by a living composer?" I could completely agree with your point...but you will not find my regular postings on this forum to indicate a heightened sense of self-importance. 

Of course because everybody knows so many great composers that it would really quite courageous to put your self on their level with such a sentence.

But this is obviously absoutly not the case with the bottomline you seem to criticise so emotional.

You seriously think the question in my bottom line if there is any comparable collecion of samplebased recordings of classical music would be in any way "self-agrandism"?

So the easiest way to verify if there is any real occasion for your constant insults in this point would be just to answer this question first.

And guess what: Just tell me where there is any comparable collection of more than 2000 sample based recodings of classical music (etc.). And my question would be answered and I'd be happy.

Thats all with my bottomline.

So just to ask something is for you pretext enough to constantly insult others for any alledged "self-agrandism" ?

I have already indicated that is simply a question and I am still very curious to know if there are others out there who work like I do.. So please do me a favour and give me a concrete answer on that question first.

But just because you are obviously not able to answer this question to hijack this Thread for constant personal attacks against my person is far from justifyable in any way.

@mh-7635 said:

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.

Hi Mike,

I'm sorry that I did not see your name on your posts. No insult was intended, and if I made a mistake with pronouns, I appologize for that as well. Of course I do not appologize for my opinions and conclusions regarding music. I am passionate about the subject. 

I'm not sure if you wanted any sort of reply, I want you to know that I read your entire post very carefully.If there is something you want to debate or discuss, I am willing to do so. I am not going to change my conclusions about tonality and atonality, and I sense that you also are firm in your point of view. So that topic is probably a waste of time. But I am open to a discussion of any other musical topic. Regarding Howard Shore, he many not be innovative, but he is certainly a master of his craft. However, as I anticipated in my email, I expected you simply were asking me "who I rate" so that you could then trash them. That is OK, totally to be expected.

I'm glad we can agree about advice to young composers. It is in that vein that I was describing the fact that atonality is old. Many young composers idiolize the gound breaking inovator. I know I did. Many younng composers want to be relevant and current. I know I did. But writing atonal music is not going to make a composer today an inovator or relevant. Why not? Because atonality is old. It is no more of an innovation to write atonal music than to write Baroque or Romantic music. If the young composer wants to write atonal music because that is what they personally like to hear and they want to be a perfector, like Mozart, then great. They could have a solid future. University composition teachers are retiring and dieing off every day leaving room for new atonal composers. So I think composers should forget about being an innovator (unless they truly can come up with something totally original) and focus on perfecting their craft, writing the kind of music that they personally enjoy. 

Paul T. McGraw

 

Paul,

I have no truck with your opinion whatsoever, merely the seeming vitriol your adjectives convey because they appear brutally contentious and insensitive, but I respect your passion as I know it too. No problem about missing my signature and your apology is happily accepted - now if only I could get you to listen to some good representative music from more recent decades...😉

Joking aside, you may have missed the point that atonality is just one facet of compositional technique employed today and used as a resource it is as powerful as it was 100 or so years ago. I agree that composers' should not worry about innovation as that quality is only gifted to a few each century, but they should explore every development in music to date in order to be well informed when making a decision as to where their artistry lies.  I also agree that composers should perfect their craft as much as possible and especially in the familiar gravitational confines of tonality.  Now here is an irony of sorts, I believe that a composer who feels the pull (or lack thereof !) of atonality should, at the very least, be extremely well versed in the common practice. This a personal belief/conviction and based on my own experience. When one learns the great tradition, one is also training oneself in best practice and this gives a solid foundation with which to submit oneself to the inner fantasy that can be had whilst composing -  a flight of fancy that is sure in the knowledge that technical prowess and procedure will guide it subliminally to make an idea presentable and musical whilst allowing freedom of expression.....or in other words a reasonble way of hoping to achieve an art work. A somewhat strained metaphor might be the Renaissance painters who in their formative years had to paint in minimal or no colour in order to master value or chiaroscuro so that their glazing would literally have a solid foundation. OK....calm down, I'm not saying tonality is pale in comparison to atonality, but I hope you get my point.

My belief here feels appropriate to modern musical language and yet it dismays me that Academia tends to think otherwise - more agreement - at this rate we'll soon be best buddies.

No, Mr. Fahl.  There is no greater collection of sample based recordings of classical music anywhere in the world.  Now you have your answer, and you can change your tag line to a declamatory statement rather than a question.  Are you happy now?  Please, for the love of God...leave me alone with this back and forth bickering!  I've already expressed my apologies, removed posts, and have asked for this to stop.

This was the first day I've been able to visit the forum in a long while and I regret even trying to have a sense of humour with my initial post.  It would have been worth it if even one other person found humour in it, but clearly, you jumped in, got offended, and turned it in to a one on one battle with me.  I'm done with this conversation.  

You win. You are Infallible Fahl.  I am Medicore Maestro.  Let's move on.

@Acclarion said:

No, Mr. Fahl.  There is no greater collection of sample based recordings of classical music anywhere in the world. 

Oh that is really a pitty. You do also not no any, But guess what I am very optimistic. I still keep my hope that one day  I would find someone working like me, and until that moment I'll better keep my question open.

Perhaps one day soneone reads it who knows more than I and you actually know to answer that question.

So stay positive Maestro 😃 ( I hope I am allowed to call you so if you are yourself doing that - no insult intended 😉)

@Jos Wylin said:

My second point was, that this section of our forum has been hijacked for a long topic that actually doesn't belong here, however interesting. Maybe for that purpose a new section should be opened like "Personal views on the direction of future music". This sections should deal with Composition - Orchestration - Instruments. One could of course argument that the direction of composition fits in here, but that's more a cultural or historical consideration with aesthetic aspects (and taste).

Jos

Jos

My hope in starting this topic was to get insights, or technical opinions of others regarding Salonen's and other contemprary composer's orchestration techniques. Take this passage for example

. Isnt that beautiful how the bassess and bass clarinets (I think..I dont have the score) come in suddenly non vibrato followed by flutes and other wood winds fluttering on the top end? I do not believe that anyone here would deny the beauty if they heard it live or in a good sound system. Its just pure textural sophistication  done with incredible control and mastery which I for one do not have and would like to learn in my lifetime. Thats all I care about, technique, not philosophy.  

Afterall we are all using orchestral samples, so the more sophisticated our knowledge, the more efficient and sophisticated our use of these samples and the more scope for this technology to expand and grow into the future right? Thats one justification I can provide for why this thread fits in this forum category.

But sadly the personal chocies of musicians is so deeply entrenched and I didnt expect to start personal wars. I still do not see anything bad, just muscians being crazy about what they love to do. Its natural we all take our music and ourselves seriously. We are not doing music because of a boring desk job but because we love it.   

Nevertheless there have been some very interesting discussions in this thread that will take me time to digest, partly because I dont do music full time.

Best

Anand

 

@Acclarion said:

No, Mr. Fahl.  There is no greater collection of sample based recordings of classical music anywhere in the world. 

Oh that is really a pitty. You do also not no any, But guess what I am very optimistic. I still keep my hope that one day  I would find someone working like me, and until that moment I'll better keep my question open.

Perhaps one day soneone reads it who knows more than I and you actually know to answer that question.

So stay positive Maestro 😃 ( I hope I am allowed to call you so if you are yourself doing that - no insult intended 😉)

 

Keeping this quote up, as it sheds light much more effectively on our recent exchange than anything I could say to defend myself.  To the rest of you, I sincerely apologize for hijacking this thread; back to the discussion!

Again Anand

There is nothing wrong with the question of this thread. It is interesting and we have had of course interesting participations in this thread. As far some controverses are well founded in the very subject of the thread (and not becomes personal and offtopic in any way) we must not be afraid of dissens and controverse discussion.

The opposite is true. If we might overcome theoretical oppositions a bit by realising that the real musical situations include always aspects of both only seemingly opposite conceptions and understandings, than it would be in my eyes worth to have discussed this subject intensively.

Only while we discuss we still keep the chance for understanding each others. how difficult ever this might be for the different participants. 😉

Ok the aggressive hijackers are gone,

Now we can discuss the subject in peace and constructive 😃

fahl, 

I meant that I was the hijacker :)

Anyways welcome to keep the discussion going. Maybe Sibelius will calm everyone down...surely is helping me work better!

Best

Anand

@agitato said:

fahl, 

I meant that I was the hijacker 😊

Anyways welcome to keep the discussion going. Maybe Sibelius will calm everyone down...surely is helping me work better!

Best

Anand

Of course not!

You started the thread , and set his very interesting theme. And in this long discussion there have been many interesting dialogs just about the subject you started. (No just go back 4 Posts above and you find an answer who himself admitted for instance to be one who "hijacked" this thread with completly off topic "conversations".)

No you know I am not the only who estimated the subject you choose and large interesting parts of the discussion it raises.

@mh-7635 said:

 

My intention was to understand how others here felt about high quality and genuine 20th century music. I felt that such a discussion is important besides making music, since it provides us a larger perspective.

It is a worthy discussion Anand, especially amongst those of us who actually know about it, practise it, or at the very least like music in our time - music written by great, discerning composers, often with a compelling voice that has complete mastery of the language and technique of music allied to invention, imagination and expressive power all of which is equal to any period in music. Art for our time.

I agree with Fahl - no need to be sad whatsoever and keep your erudite observations coming.

Forum threads have way of taking their own directions, but if we focus on your intent of the thread, since you started it, here are the following 20th-21st century pieces I highly recommend and value, in no particular order:

1.  String Quartet in F Major by Maurice Ravel

2.  Samuel Barber Piano Concerto

3.  Prokofieff's 5th symphony

4.  Shostokovich's 10th symphony

5.  Any symphony by Mahler (especially 6-8)

6.  Copland's 3rd symphony

7.  Symphonies #4 & 5 by Carl Nielsen

8. Stravinsky's ballets

9.  Octet by Igor Stravinsky

10. Vaughn Williams Symphony #5

11. Steve Reich, Octet  (living)

12.  Lera Auerbach (living)

Just chiming in (and right out)...

Again having scanned fast what's been said, I'd just like to say that Williams has in fact composed a symphony, and, well, it is not that great... I don't know why he hasn't tried his hand at it again - maybe he is not that interested / not getting commissioned for one, he has a big catalogue of concerti, people must have concluded that his strength is concertante music.

However the real reason for my posting, is that I see here parroted what we repeatedly were spoon-fed at university (at gunpoint), namely regarding the so-called "bravery" and "courage" of the avant-gardists against "ignorance" and "opposition" (actually they were happily disregarded). Don't make me laugh and cry:

Off hand I cannot think of one avant-gardist who "bravely" abandoned a highly profitable and musical career (ex. the Berlin Phil. and Furtwangler begging for their work, audiences wailing outside their front door for more works, etc.), in order to investigate and penetrate those misty, higher planes of atonality/microtonality/concretality/what have you.

Rather the contrary! When atonalists finally conquered academia (and therefore controlled higher music education) in the late 40s early 50s, they became totalitarian and for decades "nobody" could get a degree composing even chromatically. If they did, they were derided, and forced into propriety (modernism). It was actually courageous and brave to rebel against such blinkered, dead-ended boundaries, at a time when Sibelius, Strauss, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Britten, Copland, and even Stravinsky (before 1951), were considered irrelevant and/or passé! Whereas Messiaen (barely), Varèse, Boulez, Stockausen, and Nono were the torch-bearers of musical composition... Yeah, right... Experimentation, "breaking the barriers", whatever you wish to call it, is brave only when you have abandoned actual gains from the alternative. Schoenberg was a bottom-third / fourth rate tonal composer for example, and he knew it! His enormous ego propelled him psychologically to heights unattainable to him in the traditional way, and I believe that all-powerful need for acknowledgment and compositional status was at least part of what led him to originality and dodecaphony. Yes, the same for his students; great musicians, not as great composers (not compared to Strauss, Mahler, Sibelius, Rachmaninov, Prokofiev, etc.)

I also disagree that atonality was the natural extension/evolution of tonality even though Schoenberg tried to pass it off as such. I am in the minority on this one too, as composition faculties around the globe will tell you otherwise. To me, there is a great difference between bending something (no matter how stretched or distorted) and breaking it - or in this case breaking away from it. I might discuss the ridiculousness of dodecaphony as equality (Schoenberg, etc.), or bolshevistic equality (Adorno, etc.) amongst music pitches another time.

Suffice to say that Schoenberg will in the near future be proven correct (if egomaniacally so, but justifiably), that his compositional method would have ensured German musical dominance for 100 years. He didn't foresee the globalizing influence of his style (or didn't say if he did).

Are there interesting, compelling atonalists? Yes (for me Ligeti, Xenakis, Crumb, among others). Are there wrist-slashingly tedious hacks in tonal music? Oh baby! 

But that's in the past. Crumb is alive but he's past. For me music is going nowhere and fast in the 21st century, and it is not an argument against this that people today can compose any damn way they please... That doesn't mean that music is going anywhere. The difference, in my view, of today to the past (say 1970s and before), is that the "leading" names in 'serious' composition (not soundtracks), are minor figures, without the personality to generate titanic stylistic currents, or any landmark works (to my knowledge). And I'm referring to the last 30 years+ so enough time has elapsed for any such work to have shone.

In one of my radio productions in 2014, as part of the station's WWI referential broadcasts, I enumerated some of the musical works that were composed during that World War decade: Petrouchka, Rite of Spring, Jeux, Daphnis and Chloe, The Planets, Prometheus, Symphony no.5 (Sibelius), An Alpine Symphony, The Three-Cornered Hat, Piano Concerto no.2 and Violin Concerto n.1 (Prokofiev), The Wooden Prince, etc., and these are just examples of some of the orchestral music during that decade! Should I move to chamber and solo works? (Pierrot Lunaire, L'Histoire du Soldat, String Quartet no. 2 - Bartok, Debussy's sonatas and preludes, etc.), or opera? And then compare all that to this decade we are proudly (and relatively peacefully - should I say numbly?) traversing?..

Yeah, that's what I thought...

Errikos

Thanks for a wonderful post with so much historical info. It Will take me time to decipher all your points. I see where you are coming from, this is sort of what Paul was also mentioning...the influence of academicians who pushed atonal music against anything else, to the point that it became a fad.

But I was confused by one of your remarks. Schoenberg as a fourth rate tonal composer? hmm not sure if I read that right.

I dont know how anyone who wrote a piece like this: 

 could be called a fourth rate tonal composer.

This beautiful piece seems to foreshadow Prokofiev and Bartok by several decades. So I am not sure if his atonal expeditions were merely driven by his ego and need for recognition because he wasnt a good tonal composer. (at least thats the way I read your post)

Reading his Harmonielehre (my favorite book on tonal harmony) I only see him as a driven by pure curiosity and thoroughness in everything he did. 

Best

Anand