Thread: ...How to Listen To and Understand Atonal Music?

One book you should also read if you are interested in either analyzing or composing atonal music is The Structure of Atonal Music by Allen Forte. It explains the basic concepts, vocabulary, and language that analysts and composers of atonal music use. Pitch class sets, interval vectors, relations and set complexes. As an atonal composer, pitch class set theory has been extremely helpful in composition. The interval vectors not only show you what intervals occur in the pitch class set, but also the ones that do not occur and are not available. That helps you in designing the specific sound and character you want to achieve.

Lastly, I recommend the book Serial Composition by Reginald Smith Brindle. There are two chapters that may interest you. One chapter is about writing counterpoint (there are several chapters about counterpoint) but this one in particular is about two-part counterpoint and, while in a 12-tone context, discusses the importance of intervals and expression and how to write with a specific expressive goal in mind, even within the confines of a 12-tone row. Another chapter deals with how to write free atonality and analyzes two atonal pieces in great depth. It goes through a step by step thought process of how they were composed.

Originally Posted by Torkelburger

Copland explains how each of these forms (except the modern forms I mentioned) presents an idea as a unique musical argument in a way the listener can comprehend. Now, as a composer, certain ideas will be better suited for a certain form over others and the composer must find the right one for this particular idea. For example, the rhythms in atonal music are often asymmetrical, with odd groupings, ties over the downbeat, complex rhythms, changing meters, and odd meters. An idea with those characteristics would probably not be well suited for a passacaglia and the composer would have to choose something else. You couldn’t relegate consonant intervals to weak beats as in your question, as the weak beats would always be changing and there may not even be an identifiable pulse to the music.

Hmm, there is often identifiable pulse in Schoenberg, which Boulez famously attacked him for. (Or was it the fact that he abided to old forms?) But Schoenberg always denied that he (unlike Strauss in his mind) was revolutionary and emphasized his closeness to tonal contemporaries such as Max Reger.

Originally Posted by Gargamel

Hmm, there is often identifiable pulse in Schoenberg, which Boulez famously attacked him for. (Or was it the fact that he abided to old forms?) But Schoenberg always denied that he (unlike Strauss in his mind) was revolutionary and emphasized his closeness to tonal contemporaries such as Max Reger.

Yes, you're right. And I've always liked that about Schoenberg. I love both approaches, actually. But yes, I was referring to the style developed by his followers much later when atonality became popular and mainstream among composers around the late 40's through early 70's. Literally hundreds of composers could be named, but to my mind come: Luciano Berio, Mario Davidovsky, Luigi Dallapiccola*, Luigi Nono, Leon Kirchner, Elliott Carter...

*(Actually, Dallapiccola had occasionally written some canonic material in extremely complex rhythm and mixed meters. Nothing like fugues or passacaglias that I remember, but some nice canons).

tl;dr - for me how to listen depends on aesthetics and not tonality

Because "atonal" is a fairly sweeping category, I personally would think it would depend more on the aesthetic of the music how I'd recommend listening to it rather than the tonality or lack thereof. As a fair few people on here have stated, a lot of Second Viennese music is actually pretty similar to classical and romantic-era music in many ways. You still have your melodies and chordal movements even if they sound a bit different from that of C.P.E. music. Check the opening of this Schoenberg concerto out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEY9lmCZbIc
To me it honestly sounds pretty melodic in a lot of areas, and some of the harmonies kind of sound almost jazzy to me. So I personally don't have to listen to it any differently than I'd listen to the more harmonically adventurous late romantics like Scriabin.

But there's also "atonal" music that is aesthetically super different to this here. Like if you consider spectralist stuff like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6WXzOIsBuQ) atonal, speaking only for myself I think it requires a different kind of listening out of me. It's less about hearing lines and counterpoint and rhythm, and more about placing yourself in an environment of sounds that you can experience, kind of like ambient music. (I really like ambient music and that's how I got into composers like Scelsi and Ligeti and the spectralists.)

Again, I can speak only for myself here.

I'd second the Jack Boss book. He was actually my teacher for a post-tonal theory class I took and that guy knows his stuff when it comes to Second Viennese School music in particular (also a very nice and humorous bloke).

If Schoenberg's violin concerto was tonal, this is what it might sound:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9yhTN0tlxw&t=460s

(Or that one Zemlinsky piece, I can't remember which one it was.)

Originally Posted by Phil loves classical

^ To me sounds similar to saying "If Obama was white, he would be like this...", but I can see where your coming from. His idiom is still post-Romantic.

It's got almost the same melody as Schoenberg's violin concerto, duh.

Originally Posted by Phil loves classical

^ To me sounds similar to saying "If Obama was white, he would be like this...", but I can see where your coming from. His idiom is still post-Romantic.

I've read some of John Rahn's Basic Atonal Theory. In the intro he made a good point that from infancy we developed a set of "tonal filters". He also boldly stated "not all atonal music is good music. In fact, most contemporary music is not very good.". That was back in 1980 when the book was published. I wonder how much he actually analysed the music to say it. How do you say Babbitt is good, but xyz composer's atonal music sucks (assuming it's still by trained composers)?

How can you say that X/Y/Z is good, but M/N/R's composer tonal music sucks (assuming it's still by trained composers)?

I think the driving relationship is Space . Rhythmic intervals are ideally indeterminate .
The performer must actually be one artist making this fundamental choice . Playing in
a consort gets very psychic with a multi-dimensional sensibility .