Hi Anand,

There is nothing wrong with your thread. (Ok I do neither belong to any side of People who "prefer"  any music I just like it in the certain way it is. But I am sure this is only my personal attitude and other might and will have different views)

Neither you nor you thread is in any way responsible for the way other react on it. I like the fact, that this comunity discusses more than just which sample is positioned to much in the center , background, foreground, chosen to soft, to accented or what ever. Technical details can be great to talk about, but music is more and the vvivid response your thread received is just the proof that is obviously true for all who discussed here so intensivly.

I personally prefer discussions with honest dispute over those with more or less meaningless consens and flatterey. A good friend is the one who is able to criticise and give you a different view not the one who do not dare to do so.  In this respect the participants of this thread seem to be very verys good friends... arent they ? 😃

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.

Hi Anand,

There is no reason for you to feel sad. As far as I am concerned, you have simply started a discussion. I do not agree that all music is of equal value and that it is all just a matter of personal prefernce, like vanilla ice cream or chocolate ice cream. I believe the comparison is more like, eat a healthy meal or eat a box of arsenic. One supports a healthy life, one brings death.

The problem with "modern music" is the complete abandonment of the language of music that was slowly and carefully built up by western civilization over a period of a thousand years. That is a lot to throw away just for novelty. This stems IMHO from a perverse fetish for "breaking new ground" and believing that the bizarre equates with value. 

Schoenberg was among the first and most agressive proponents of atonality. He wrote a few highly chromatic works such as Transfigured Night (1899) that maintined a tenuous grip on tonality and which were fairly well received. But he quickly veered more and more away from the established system of tonality, finally establishing serialism in the 1920's. From the very beginning audiences rejected this complete break with musical language. Thus he and his group began the process of alienating audiences that has led to the current situation. The clash between Stravinsky and Schoenberg is well documented and extremely interesting to study. Basically nothing has changed in the 100 years since. All the arguments are the same now as they were then. People were passionate about the history of music then perhaps far more than now. I firmly side with Stravinsky, despite the fact that in his later years he also experimented with serialism. I can not fault him, since I also, many years ago,  have written in the atonal and serial manner.

Schoenberg despised Stravinsky, Ravel and all of the succesful composers who were continuing to write tonal music. Academics gradually accepted Schoenberg's views. After all, it was now possible for a PHD in composition to write music almost everyone hated and still claim everyone else was simply incapable of appreciating their music. Talent, hard work, and quality craftsmanship were no longer required in order to claim to be a composer. I am ashamed to say that it was primarily American universities most guilty of this corruption.

So if we pick say, 1921 as the beginning of complete atonality, it has now been around for 96 years. That is a long time in the history of music. For comparison Beethoven wrote his revolutionary Eroica in 1805 and Dvorak wrote his 9th Symphony in 1893, which is a span of 88 years. Atonality is no longer "new" or the way forward for young composers. Any composer writing atonal music has as much claim on "modernism" as a composer in 1900 writing in the style of Beethoven. Atonality is old.

Paul,

So who do you rate out of todays' concert composers? bearing in mind that  music today does not have to be atonal. Who moves you in the correct way? 

Your point about atonality being old is specious because you are comparing differing paradigms - why can't a young composer write atonally as a way forward exactly? and hasn't tonality been around since well before Beethoven, thus defying the McGraw durational limit for aesthetic movements? If atonality is indeed "old" what do you propose for our said young composer as a way forward? How does a young composer find a voice perhaps even a distinctive one, that speaks to our time, tonally or not? (atonal writing does not necessarily have to exclude tonal principles).

 I agree that institutions are responsible for forcing young composers into potential cul de sacs so far as their creativity goes and some are doubtless guilty of eschewing the basics for the sake of novelty. But it is equally important that young composers try to make themselves relevant and like it or not, 12 tone equivalence is still being used because it has a great expressive potential that can embrace tonality too.

Hi Paul,

I think I can imagine what you think is in music "healthy". And yes I personally always found Bach extremly healthy if not of vital necessity for keep once musical reason clean. And the serene modest musical passion and clear architecture of great classical composers are for me always like coming home in the fielld of pure musical nature.

But.... I do absolutly not feel the same with music from composers of the 20th and 21th century who are simply imitate that certain language of one or another earlier musical epoque (like barowue or classical). I always felt there was kind of untruthfulness, as far they just imitate one single step in musical history and avoid to develop their own kind of musical expression out of their own (musical) reality.

Thanks god we have no more Pricipalities of Bach or Mozarts time where the question if music have a chance depends on the question how musical sensible one single sovereign is. And yes not everything which iis part of our musical reality must necessarily be part of what we ourselve do really want to express.

I understand and accept, that that the sens of overthrow you feel in for instance the music of Schoenberg and his pupils is not what you feel any necessity for in your musical intentions. And yes it is absolutly wrong to make Schoenbergs composition concepts to kind of an academic standard of how 20th century music has to be written.

But on the other side their ntention was imho just part of the 20th century as a whole: keeping the musical thinking on an equal intellectual abstract level which made by far the most innovations in science and technology of the 20th century possible. It is a thinking which has to be ready to build up completly new concepts, which does not fearfully stick on a few familiar conventions, but is ready to try everything based on completly new assumptions, Exploring the realm of what hitherto has always been the "dark side" since that is the area, where new light might allow new discoveries.

If music is a language, than the language does "not only" rely on unchangable physical laws, but also on the Ideas which want to be communicated in that language. Given that no one can pretend to know any absolute truth or "better" Truth, than others we must admit, that even musical experiments and explorations for instance of the early 20 th century do have their own truth to tell. Which is as you underlined rightly today nothing else than one step in the ongoing path of our musical history. With not more but also not less impotants as Bach and Beethoven may have had for Wagner, Schumann fo Alban Berg or Liszt for Debussy and Debussy for Cage or Ligeti.

If music is a language to exprress what human minds and human creativity is able to, it is imho very "healthy" to listen to and try to undestand, what others have already told in their own time with their own means. If you just deny to understand what has happend in music the last 150 years I fear you might end up like an musical Kaspar Hauser.

And guess what It was exactly Schoenberg and his Pupils which took that commitment to understand und study the musical tradition as deep and severe as possible (Just take a look on the incredible amount of most ambitous conventional compositions and Counterpoint-Studies of the young Alan Berg - of which I have recorded many for the very first time) for instance and you will see, that their main Intention was definitly not to destroy any tradition, but moreover to carry it on to build up upon it. You can also see this aspect in the strong commitment of most early dodecaphonic compositions of the 2. Viennese School to classical form-Concepts like Suite, Sonata, Variation etc. (Which I admit makes it still very attractive for scholars and academics to analyse and teach)

But: To know and understand what our musical tradition is does not answer at all the question, what our answer might be.

And here it depends on our decision what we would like to realise, what we are fascinatedd from, what we feel the need to express. A reasonable composer today would not feel compelled to write music in dodekaphonic style, because any of his academic teachers told him this makes the top of his curriculum.

He would just listen to what ever meaningful music he can find and would sooner or later feel exactly what he wants to answer. And it is my humble opinion, that the more he is able to understand what the great musicians of the last centuries have done, the deeper his answer might be. That is whay I would be very careful to exclude half of our musical history even if this as you rightly pointed out is all already not more and not less than our musical history which when you understand it well may at least lay the foundations for what we can do in the presence we are living in.

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? 

Hi fahl5,

I'm sorry that I do not know your real name so I cannot address you by name. 

Tradition is not at the core of my thinking in this matter, although traditions are generally important. I think that much of modern art and music (and even politics) in the 20th century was all about rebelling against the accumulated wisdom of humanity to that point. I do not think of traditions as necessarily wise, so tradition to me is not an issue in this case.

Why do you feel a young composer should write in the atonal style of 100 years ago, but not in the classical style of 225 years ago? Why is one acceptable to you and not the other?

Peteris Vasks, Sergei Lyapunov, Nikolai Kapustin, Takashi Yoshimatsu and a few more. Or should I also mention Messiaen, Glass, Gorecki? They mastered the material and formed their ideas into really beatiful music, maybe with the exception of Glass - not my favorite.
Leopold advised his son, Wolfgang, not to forget the audience and he assured his father that he always kept that in mind. All that so called modern music, maybe with 31-tones scales (Christian Huygens - 1629-1695), all the programmed chaos, it is not my cup of tea. Acceptable to me is music, that caresses my ears and uplift my soul and doesn't spoil my appetite.

Raymond

Sergei Lyapunov

Sergei Lyapuno

Peteris Vasks, Sergei Lyapunov, Nikolai Kapustin, Takashi Yoshimatsu and a few more. Or should I also mention Messiaen, Glass, Gorecki? They mastered the material and formed their ideas into really beatiful music, maybe with the exception of Glass - not my favorite.
Leopold advised his son, Wolfgang, not to forget the audience and he assured his father that he always kept that in mind. All that so called modern music, maybe with 31-tones scales (Christian Huygens - 1629-1695), all the programmed chaos, it is not my cup of tea. Acceptable to me is music, that caresses my ears and uplift my soul and doesn't spoil my appetite.

Raymond

Oh it is not that easy with tradition and rebellion,

You know that the extremly ingenious pronounced unconventional Styl the sons of J.S.Bach composed was very obviously kind of a harsh rebellion against the very ambitious counterpointal styl of their Father.

It was exactly that rebellic modernism of C.P.E.Bach and his Brothers Wilhelm Friedemann and Johann Christian that influenced Mozart to become the most influencal composer for the musical language we nowaday think is "tonal" "healthy" and so on. You do not know Beethoven if you do not know that already his personality was kind of a constant revolt against so much was seem up to him unbudgeable law of "accumulated wisdom" in music.

To be honset the "accmulated wisdom" 'of our musical tradition would scarcly have accumulated anything if it would not includ all innovative "rebellions" of the last 1000 Years history of written music. Now it is up to our wisdome to decide what exactly are for us the healthy, productive inspiring aspects of this wisdome history.

And you did not understood me: I do not feel at all a young composer should or even could seriously compose in any historic Sty.le ( he may and should study all historic styles which might have inspiring interesing aspects for him to develop his own musical language.) But a composer is the one who decides himself what he wants to compose his own works in his own personal musical language.

It seems as if you reduce the whole and rich music-history to kind of the decision between Tonal or atonal. I fear in that kind of simplyfication one nearly is in danger to loose every musical wisdome that might be accumulated in our musical history and tradition.

The truth is imho the oppisite. There never has been that simple alternative to decide. In all historic Styles all composers have had the chance to chose more or less difficult to understand harmonic situations. And already Mozart for instance belong often enough to the most rebellish composers when it comes to dissonant harmonic situations. But of cousxe he was not at all the first.

Already 1555 Nicola Vicentino has gone with his Archicembalo (which has had 36 Keys per Octave) far beyond the tonal freedome the just temperated 12 tone music provides not to mention the highly chromatic and in respect to the tonal order most rebellish composers like Gesualdo da Venosa and many others of his period.

Actually for composers who really "accumulated" the "wisdom" of our musical tradition Tonality has never been a "yes or no" question, but more kind of a large range of different harmonic complexion completly available for the composer with the necessary knowledge to handle it.

And if you ever was perseverant enough to seriously work through Schönbergs Harmonielehre , you will know, that Schönberg definitly controls absolutly every aspect and nuance of this range.

So if you want to accumulate wisdome how to musical reasonable treat harmony, study and apply Schönbergs Harmonielehre (which is in effect completly "tonal" since it was written long before the invention of the dodekaphonic technic.).

I am more on the side of fahl and mh on these arguments.

Paul, firstly I fully respect your opinion. But I have a question. Suppose all composers in the 16th century thought that traditional music of that time was good enough since it sounds 'good' and attracts an audience, do you think there would have been Bach who adopted the tempered scale and wrote the well tempered clavier? Same with the 17th century, if everyone thought Bach was the ultimate fo all music, would there have been Haydn and mozart? And suppose at the end of the 18th everyone thought Mozart is the ultimate, would there have been Beethoven with his Eroica or Grosse Fugue?

And in the mid 19th century no one could get out of Beethovens influence, even Wagner who was so obsessed with B that his first symphony sounds like it was written by Beethoven, but yet Wagner broke tradition by writing music for drama and paved the way for modern film music. And by late 19th Mahler and Strauss were already coming dangerously close breaking the tradition again.

To somoone living before Bachs era, I believe even the music of Brahms would have sounded cacophonic, let alone Mahler or Strauss.

I guess your argument would be that there is a sharp break after Schoenberg due to atonality. However I would imagine that the change from church modes and diatonic scales (pre 15th century) to chromatic scales (16th?) to the tempered scale (17th) were all probably equally ear shattering for those times.

Perhaps atonality is a larger leap and it will take time, maybe another 100 years before it is commonplace in concerts.

But I would imagine that thousand ears from now, if humans manage survive, someone will be listening to Salonene or Ives on their headphones while journeying from Mars to Jupiter on a weekend trip to home. The soundscape so perfectly fits the stars and heavens I think if we were in the same room listening to this music  you would agree about the orchestration. Besides the quesiton of tonality, the orchestral colors created by some modern composers are simply outstanding. Isnt that fascinating? 

I am not at all saying everyone today should write like that. We have Mr Peppercorn in these forums who is perectly happy writing great compositions in the viennese classical style. I am myself a tonal composer (yes I need to show my work here unlike msot of you!), but I do not feel that atonal composers are a sham or con artists. Many of them are highly talented and are exploring new directions. I respect their efforts in the same way as I respect your music.

Anand

btw fahl brought up 'harmonielehre' by Schoenberg.

This is my most favorite book on tonal harmony. He explains not just what, but also why. Very scientific approach ..

fahl5,

Perhaps we are experiencing a language barrier. I have no complaint against changes in style of music. I can enjoy Copland's work in his Americana period almost as much as Rachmaninof. I enjoy both Wagner and Brahms, although they hated each other. In fact, it is only atonality that is offensive. Even minimalism, mindless though it may be, is not actually offensive.

You seem to be equating the complete abandonment of tonal musical language with a style change. I do not. Atonality is a complete break with the very foundations of western music. And please, I have read over and over in the literature and in forums the argument that the late romantic masters had carried music forward as far as possible, and Schoenber and his minions were merely continuing that natural progression of chromaticism to reach atonality. I once accepted such specious arguments, but do so no longer. The two, tonality and atonality  cannot coexist. Audiences, for the most part, understand this and reject atonality.

And, I see nothing at all wrong with a composer writing in the style of Bach or Mozart or any other style they like. Perhaps in this sense I am far more liberal, progressive and forward thinking than others who would close off those avenues to composers. Your post makes it seem that you would also close off atonality to composers. I find that diffiuclt to understand. But if you eliminate tonality and atonality, I suppose you propose no new music should be written at all?

Anand,

You are correct that I see atonality as more than just a style change. So your first three paragraphs do not really apply to me. They would apply to someone who sees atonality as merely a change in style. Of the previous musical epochs, I suppose the greatest change was from the polyphonic Baroque to the homophonic Classical era. In comparison to atonality, a very negligible change.

I am very glad that you do not condemn composers like Wayne Peppercorn. I'm glad you mentioned his name. He is another exemplary member of the VSL community and I enjoy listening to his music. I am afraid that fahl5 is not as liberal in his acceptance of composers that do not fit into his desired mold.

I did not state that all composers who have written atonal music are con artists or shams. That particular distinction is reserved for John Cage. Are some atonalists just being lazy and wanting the title of composer without doing the actual work? Of course. And university faculty members typically make $150,000 per year (starting salary) plus benefits that no one working a non-government job could even dream of receiving. I'm certain many composers have been tempted by those university checks to churn out the atonal mess and will go to their graves defending it. But most atonalists were and are just people like anyone else, trying to do something good. Of course, good intentions do not forgive ugliness, but they are not con artists like Cage.

@Paul McGraw said:

 Atonality is a complete break with the very foundations of western music. 

Paul

I respectfully disagree to this.

Without a foundation in tonal harmony, voice leading and counterpoint no one can become a genuine atonal composer. So it is not a complete break but rather heavily rests on tradition. What more could be evidence other than the fact that Schonberg, the father of atonality, writing one of the greatest books on tonal harmony!

I am assuming of course that we are not talking about con artists, whereever they are (I consider them a waste of time) but considering only the best composers of avant garde music today...those who are both firmly based on tradition and also are performed by orchestras. Thats why I like Salonen as an example. You should hear his conducting Mahler or Beethoven...some of the best recordings Ive heard. It is with this background that he writes his own music.

And I hear in thse composers a lot of the foundation very rigidly followed, You can hear voice leading and sophisticated counterpoint in Corgliano, even some beautiful romantic passages. Have you heard John Williams' concert pieces btw? They border on atonality, and this is from someone who gave us some of the greatest tunes of our time!

To give an analogy, in physics there were Newtons Laws until about 1905, and Einstein's relativity and quantum mechanics competely broke away from the old laws. They could not have done this without Newtons laws, but the new laws are completely different although built on the old laws. In fact Einstein himself could never get to accept quantum mechanics although he was one of the founders! it was too radical for him and he didnt believe nature cannot be deterministic. But quantum mechanics is the most successfully verified theory of the microscopic world, so sadly even Einstein was driven by his personal feelings and not reality.

The only differrence is, in music there are no laws, but just rules. These rules can be broken to make even broader rules. This is all to create larger and larger possibilities withing the infinite landscape of music.

This is the way I see western music.

Perhaps my situation is unique from others here. I was not brought up in the western classical tradition as a child, and I literally progressed from Bach to the present time over the last 25 years, entirely on my own will and desire (i.e., my parents never pushed me on to this;)). At each stage, I thought the music that came after that was pointless. I can vividly recall hearing Brahms Symphony no 1 about 15 years ago, and being totally befuddled, even annoyed. To that point I had only heard Beethoven and earlier. Only leater I realized how beautiful it was, and how the themes was woven with absolute mastery. I felt the same way when first hearing Stravinsky. It took me some time to appreciate the innovations they were doing at each stage and each one was a learning experience. I feel that I am again at a cross roads, with the music of today. 

Best

Anand

OK I try to make my point very sshort:

No music "should" be written. Musc "want" to be written.

Music is written beause a composer want it to be written. No concept, no ideology no convention or allmighty Law does the Job to intend music and to invent/ create music.

I do not close any way to compose at all. Yes personally I tend to feel uncomfortable if I do have the impression, someone avoids to develop his own musical language, and just imitates the habits of others. But for me the time of conflicting ideologies have been past away that was the problem of the 20th century.

OK, I have composed very few things, but when I used harmonic means of tonality and atonality when ever I feel the certain piece and what I intended to do would make profit from but I confess I do believe there is finally no decision that could be made wether a music is tonal or atonal.What you hear is what counts.

Atonal compositions could not evade the simple factt that every ear judges harmonic relations based on the more or less simple mathemetic relations of different tones. Atonal pieces therefore not so seldom charm with harmonic situations that even remind similar situations in Tonal compositions, as tonal compositions become interesting when the hamonic situation becomes more or less ambiguous. To make it a "yes or no question" is for me is if you try to paint the incredible variety of Colors of a sunrise with black and white. Both allone neither "Yes" nor "no" neither Black nor white neiter tonal not atonal gives you the truth of acoustic understanding of tones and harmony.

In my eyes you overrate the concept of 12-tone music aswell in his importants for the composers and compositions of the 20th and 21th century as in it's musical reception by the listener.  He always will hear tones and their relations however easy or complex their relation will be. And they can be and are both esay and complex in each musical language. It is the composer who decides that for every single note he composes and it is the listener who decides it for every single tone he listens.

@Paul McGraw said:

I did not state that all composers who have written atonal music are con artists or shams. That particular distinction is reserved for John Cage. Are some atonalists just being lazy and wanting the title of composer without doing the actual work? Of course. And university faculty members typically make $150,000 per year (starting salary) plus benefits that no one working a non-government job could even dream of receiving. I'm certain many composers have been tempted by those university checks to churn out the atonal mess and will go to their graves defending it. But most atonalists were and are just people like anyone else, trying to do something good. Of course, good intentions do not forgive ugliness, but they are not con artists like Cage.

This is a very different perspective which I dont know much about since I wasnt formally educated in music like you. I would even agree with you here that Universities become the haven for mediocrity posing as avant garde.

The litmus test for me is, can they compose a symphony or sonata or any other tonal peice in a competent fashion? I think this has to be the basic requirement. (Thts why I was quipping that Wayne is way more qualified to appreciate modern music, if he wishes to)

From what you tell me Cage couldnt probably have done it, but I dont know. 

I am 100% sure Corigliano or Williams or Salonen or Boulez can churn out tonal symphonies if they wanted to.

Best

Anand

fahl5,

Thank you for trying to communicate in English. I know it must be difficult. I took German classes in univeristy in the early 1970's, but I can remember nothing after all these years. I admire your ability with English.

While I understnad your points, it was not Paul McGraw that placed such importance on Schoenberg and serialism. Modern music histories and musicologists have clearly done that. Check Groves, or even Wikipaedia.

I believe you are correct that the human mind is always looking for relationships and patterns. That has been well established by research. That is why it is particularly difficult for audiences to grasp any meaning in atonality. Could there be people who can follow, appreciate and enjoy atonality? I think so. Many people report that they very much enjoy atonal sounds. Modern jazz often uses chord constructs including the 11th or 13th which sounds to many atonal. Yet there are poeple who really like this type of jazz. However, jazz was previously THE primary popular music in America. Classical music was once almost as popular, being depicted frequently in movies. In my home town when I was young we had 3 classical stations. Today there is only 1 and it is part time. Take a look at this article about music preferences.

Click here for article

So what do both jazz and classical have in common that has alienated audiences?

Please do not feel that you missed out on much by not going to University. Knowledge is available to all who are willing to read and study. No one needs a university to gain knowledge. It might help in some areas, but it is just as likely to simply be an indoctrination.

Anand,

I agree that Williams does like tone clusters and bi-tonality, but he does not verge into atonality as far as I am aware. Williams is a chameleon (and I mean that as a complement) who is so good that he can write whatever he thinks will work for his audience. I can't think of anyone in music history who has been more widely heard and admired than Williams. And I really am not sure what Williams would write just for himself. He writes for his audience. 

I also agree that Williams could easily write a wonderful symphony.

Why don't we end with these points of agreement. I have some errands to run and it is getting late in the afternnon.

Paul

@Paul McGraw said:

why don't we end with these points of agreement. I have some errands to run and it is getting late in the afternnon.

Paul

Hahaha sounds good. Life is more important to attend to.

Best

Anand