I agree with some of what Paul says - such as Schoenberg wanted to actually break with tonality which is exactly what serialsim was created to do - but certainly don't think atonality is "evil." I love a lot of atonal works because they create a new world of sound. Besides - what is the most atonal sound of all? The beautiful sound of ocean surf which is almost all white noise. As far as I'm concerned music can be any sound from a single sine wave to white noise.
btw - I have to respond to this CRAP:
"That's all you do William, is "mouth-off", exactly like you said. You write in such incredible generalities and make such sweeping assumptions ("Music is now in a state of fragmentation") that I have to laugh at your posturing. More's the pity.
William writes " In the past there was always a singular great movement..."
Of course this is wrong, as there have been aesthetic clashes and debates going back to the 14th century with Ars Nova. The critics were pounding composers in the 19th century as romanticism and modernism clashed, and today, as always, the best composers write music that is authentic to the culture and reflective of the many traditions we've inherited from our ancestors. Even in the 16th century, there were different approaches and styles all throughout Europe. There never has been a "singular great movement", you're sentimentalizing the past, which is what people tend to do when they cannot cope with the challenges, complexities, diversity, influences and dynamism of the 21st century." - jsg
This is a perfect example of what this obnoxious guy always does - he distorts what someone says and then trashes the distortion. (The main approach to propaganda by the way.) I never said there was ONLY ONE MOVEMENT but there was always a singular great movement in the past. Classicism is a perfect example that was prominent and approved of by the mainstream of music critics and orchestra directors, not to mention audiences. The clashes OF COURSE were there - including the huge clash between the more classically oriented late Romantics like BRahms and Schumann on the one hand and Wagner and his followeres on the other. There were many different individual composers who clashed - that is so patently obvious I didn't think it was necessary - except for somebody like Gerber apparently - to spell that out. But there WERE huge singular movements that were accepted as mainstream in general by the critics, historians and public alike. Nowadays THERE IS NO MAINSTREAM - everything from Rap to Granular Synthesis to massed metronomes beating on a stage is given as music, and the music DOES EXIST IN A STATE OF TOTAL FRAGMENTATION LIKE ALL MODERN ART. No one with the slightest knowledge of aesthetics, culture in general, trends in painting, sculpture, theater, literature, cinema and music today would dispute that - not for an instant. And yet Gerber thinks it is ridiculous. His arrogantly stated, obnoxiously worded contradiction is what is really ridiculous.
Also I don't "sentimentalize" the past - that is absurd to me. I shudder to think of the reigning bigotry of various sorts that almost any past society accepted wholeheartedly, with offical state sanction, including artistic ones. So if somebody is trying to put me in the camp of anti-Modernists beloved of past eras he has the wrong person.
Lastly - this bit: I am doing "...what people tend to do when they cannot cope with the challenges, complexities, diversity, influences and dynamism of the 21st century." - jsg
Yes, jsg himself can deal with all this complexity today but I can't. Oh no! The complexity, the challenges ! Here they come! I can't deal with it! I'll have to retreat into my sentimental vision of the wonderful glorious past...
For your information jsg I find most inspiring music is modern, so your lame little attempt at trashing me is curiously misplaced. In other words - you don't know what you're talking about when you attempt to judge or assess me. Trust me, you are not even remotely up to the task.
