Classical Music Forum banner

The Chamber Music Journal view on 'atonal music'

8K views 167 replies 26 participants last post by  JAS 
#1 ·
First of all, I have to say (as I've said) that atonal music, that is music with an absence of key, need not be unbeautiful even conventionally so. The music I've dared to write would hardly be said to be conventionally tonal, and is liberal with dissonance, but still I aimed (when writing or attempting to write) at beauty. Bartok can be both harshly dissonant yet beautiful, ditto even Prokofiev and Schnittke. Some of this opinion may seem amateurish and I don't wish to provoke for the sake of provoking but there is some truth in this opinion in that the general view of experimental music seems pretty rock solid. Any responses?

As with my other guides, this Guide will not deal with atonal and
experimental music. The listening public has now been exposed
to it for more than a century and for those who wish to know the
truth, the verdict is in. Despite many fervent supporters and committed
performances by professional groups, the music of these
composers, great as it may be on paper to a musicologist or the
student of music theory, are not an experience the average listener
generally wishes to repeat. Experimental music, as it has come
to be regarded, may be an extraordinary experience both visually
and aurally, but ultimately it is not music which someone turns
on a radio to hear. It is not my purpose to pass judgment on or
write a polemic against atonal or experimental music, some of
which is extraordinarily interesting. Nor do I wish to attack composers
who write for the violin as if it were a kind of percussion
instrument. I put forward these thoughts to explain why the reader
will not find detailed analysis of atonal or experimental music
which does not seem to recognize that violins, violas and cellos
are stringed instruments.
 
#2 ·
most of the atonal music is neither beautiful nor memorable, nor is it able to convey much emotions or narrative. Look at Bulldog's game for music from the 1950's. Almost all the selections are tonal memorable music, and Boulez and the likes will fade into obscurity. What sheer arrogance on the part of Boulez to deride the music of Shostakovich. Shostakovich's music will live centuries from now and he will be remembered as the 20th century greatest composers, and no one will remember any Boulez or Carter and the likes
 
#3 ·
I know what you mean. I find Boulez more interesting than Carter. Boulez does have an ear for interesting sonorities. Boulez's arrogance reflects the mood of his time, in which serialism was triumphant (at least in academe) and neo-romantic composers were virtual outcasts from performing schedules etc. Expect some blowback from fans of modern music of the 'barbed wire school'. Atonal music is not one entity, it is a multifarious thing. But I won't give a lot of time to sounds which seem to be an assault on ears (and sometimes even, eyes)
 
#5 ·
and I agree with you, that the most interesting music combines tonal and atonal, beautiful with ugly etc to create tension. That is why I like most the music from the breaking of the epochs (romantic/modern), because the compositions of this time still have the beauty of the romantic melodies, but have also elements of atonality/chaos to make it interesting - examples are Prokofiev, Bartok, Shotakovich etc. Pure romantic music can be a little bland, and pure atonal music as well. The most interesting is the combination of the two.
 
#7 · (Edited)
This observation immediately reminded me of the ecological concept of the ecotone, the rich meeting ground between two ecological environments. Humans have an interest in ecotones, due to the biological diversity found there. Here is Wikipedia:

"An ecotone is a transition area between two biomes. It is where two communities meet and integrate. It may be narrow or wide, and it may be local (the zone between a field and forest) or regional (the transition between forest and grassland ecosystems). An ecotone may appear on the ground as a gradual blending of the two communities across a broad area, or it may manifest itself as a sharp boundary line.

The word ecotone was coined from a combination of eco(logy) plus -tone, from the Greek tonos or tension - in other words, a place where ecologies are in tension."
 
#8 ·
The quote in the OP just makes me want to avoid the guide that is being introduced! It is OK to say "I won't cover that because I don't know/like it". But I personally find the attempt to justify the position with dodgy and superficial argument suggests that the guide in question will suffer from having too many poorly thought through assertions. I suppose you expect personal opinions in a critical guide but you also expect some rigour, a sense that the writer knows enough to recognise the import of what he (I am sure it is a man somehow) is saying and a sense that the opinions are more than mere prejudice.
 
#65 ·
The above nails it for me. The guy should have just said "I'm not going to cover atonal/experimental music because it's outside my areas of expertise and interest." I'm sure his readership would have been fine with that - and trying to cover ones shortcomings by abuse and bullying just makes one look weak and narrow-minded.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eugeneonagain
G
#10 · (Edited)
To me, this excerpt reads like a response to a group of readers who are interested in 'atonal' and 'experimental' music by addressing that it is not the focus of the journal. Whilst acknowledging the strong history of professional performance and history of the audience that is interested in this music, this journal strongly implies that they are not interested in the audience rather than the music itself. From my experience, I cannot ever make claims on behalf of an audience like this journal does. I'd rather celebrate the collective knowledge and diverse interests of the wider audience rather than focus on splitting them into groups based on whether they like certain things or not (based on their own views on what music is worthy of discussion).

EDIT: also, I think there's considerable interest in more experimental music if we take YouTube views on stuff like Xenakis's Metastasis as an example, or even (for a non-classical example) Merzbow.
 
#11 · (Edited)
The Chamber Music Journal is actually trying to make money, and will presumably cater to whatever audience is sufficient to provide subscribers. It seems to me that the author of the paragraph quoted in the first post is being very polite in saying that there isn't enough audience for such music, and they don't want to alienate their current audience by straying too far afield.

And no, in general YouTube views are not a useful measure of interest.
 
#13 ·
A piece of music either "works" or it doesn't -- regardless of what means was used to compose it --and most often the best way to find out is to hear it performed live, where you are not distracted by the dog, the dishwasher, making (and eating) lunch, or just having the option of stopping listening. Everything deserves a chance, and if, afterwards, you've determined something wasn't worth it, that's fine. 95% of all music isn't "for the ages," after all. But prejudging based on something arbitrary isn't the way to do it. (Unless it's something like "Jingle Bells" performed by barking dogs. :))
 
#14 · (Edited)
A piece of music either "works" or it doesn't -- regardless of what means was used to compose it --and most often the best way to find out is to hear it performed live, where you are not distracted by the dog, the dishwasher, making (and eating) lunch, or just having the option of stopping listening. Everything deserves a chance, and if, afterwards, you've determined something wasn't worth it, that's fine. 95% of all music isn't "for the ages," after all. But prejudging based on something arbitrary isn't the way to do it. (Unless it's something like "Jingle Bells" performed by barking dogs. :))
Well, now you made me want to listen to some music again. Almost anything that is not like that example :).
 
#20 ·
I presume that you were planning to provide some semblance of explanation for this statement, and got distracted by other threads or things outside of TC. It is by no means obvious to me that the person writing that paragraph is not qualified to be writing about any kind of music. It is probably best if I don't fill in the absence of what you did not say with my own imagination.
 
#25 · (Edited)
Here is another paragraph from the same author:

It is unfortunate that today's concert-goer is presented with the
same works over and over again. As far as chamber music concerts
go, most of them are by string quartets or piano trios and
only very occasionally is a piano quartet or quintet presented.
One can go to a piano trio concert in Vienna, Amsterdam, London,
Tokyo or Chicago and often find the same works on the
program. Nowadays, Piano Quartets are almost never given an
airing. And when one is presented, it is invariably a piano quartet
by either Mozart, Schumann or Brahms. The argument in support
of this is that, given the fact that piano quartets are almost never
performed in concert, you might as well program the most famous.
Still, it is a shame that most chamber music lovers will
never hear a piano quartet performed live that is not by either
Schumann, Brahms of Mozart. Until recently, their only recourse
has been to obtain recordings.


Perhaps you will find less to disagree with in that assessment. (I have certainly read basically the same view repeated at TC many times, and by various posters.) I see that these guides are all "published" by someone named Raymond Silvertrust, who appears to be a lawyer in Illinois. The brief background on the website where these guides may be downloaded for free does not mention formal musical training. That is not necessarily disqualifying in my opinion, and I would have to judge by reading some of the actual recommendations and trying them against my own experiences.
 
#30 ·
The tonal/atonal debate is old hat. This author agrees, and gives overviews of all sorts of new ways.



Let's get a larger, less dichotomous perspective. Atonal and pure serialism will probably occupy a niche, but that's not because it's inherently bad. It was just too rigorous in its methods, and unconcerned with entertaining. But it was a valuable experimental period, which paved the way for much to come, and it's certainly not "museum" or historical music.

Serial thought represents a small segment of the "new thinking" about music. I think what happened, is that serialism was a temporary symptom of growing-pains in musical thought, in order to escape from diatonicism, which was entrenched in academia. It was only temporary, and now, going into the 21st century, there are new ways of thinking about & creating music, such as neo-Rienmann theory, geometrics, and lots of possibilities. These are ways that deal with the entire chromatic, not just diatonicism.

I think the problem with serialism was "harmony," or the lack of it. These new ways include harmony and chords. Messiaen thought like this, and his music doesn't present as big an obstacle to most listeners. There are bits of it in Stravinsky, and in the freedom of Debussy.

The new music of the 21st century will be harmonic, or not; it will be "ear" music, and it will also explore new ways of creating harmony which is more chromatic than diatonic. I'm not worried at all about the future of music.

We already have some "greats" who lay completely outside the bounds of traditional harmony, and even pitch, such as Varese. I've heard Vinko Globokar, and his percussion music is wonderful. Electronic music is still going strong. The guys who are using "noise" of violins, like Rihm and Fenessy, are doing experimental work at the front, so let's give them a break. That music is there for whomever wants it, and it is needed.

 
#31 · (Edited)
Reasons why I find the quote in the OP credible, contrary to the criticism of it by a few:

"The listening public has now been exposed
to it for more than a century and for those who wish to know the
truth, the verdict is in. Despite many fervent supporters and committed
performances by professional groups, the music of these
composers, great as it may be on paper to a musicologist or the
student of music theory, are not an experience the average listener
generally wishes to repeat"


This is a true statement. Let those who rail against it prove otherwise. The niches that have developed in classical music remain niches because they don't resonate with the mainstream. The advocates of these niches are passionate and motivated, but remain a part of relatively small groups.

"Experimental music, as it has come
to be regarded, may be an extraordinary experience both visually
and aurally, but ultimately it is not music which someone turns
on a radio to hear."


There is a reason this music isn't heard on the radio; a significant number of people will turn it off, something not commensurate with the survival of a classical music radio station.

"It is not my purpose to pass judgment on or
write a polemic against atonal or experimental music, some of
which is extraordinarily interesting. Nor do I wish to attack composers
who write for the violin as if it were a kind of percussion
instrument. I put forward these thoughts to explain why the reader
will not find detailed analysis of atonal or experimental music
which does not seem to recognize that violins, violas and cellos
are stringed instruments."


The author, on the one hand, does not want to disparage the music in question, but, on the other hand, is simply pointing out that music that uses violins as percussion instruments is not, I assume, of interest to the demographic of the guide's readership. We have heard the use of stringed instruments in this manner in recent threads on this forum: screeching violins, random percussive sounds.

Classical music instruments have been perfected over centuries. This is particularly true of the violin where the attempt has been to provide the sweetest, deepest tone possible. It's hard to understand the value of the use of the violin to produce sounds for which it was never intended. IMO, this is true of other instruments: plucked piano strings and the like.
 
#32 ·
...The niches that have developed in classical music remain niches because they don't resonate with the mainstream. The advocates of these niches are passionate and motivated, but remain a part of relatively small groups....There is a reason this music isn't heard on the radio; a significant number of people will turn it off, something not commensurate with the survival of a classical music radio station...The author, on the one hand, does not want to disparage the music in question, but, on the other hand, is simply pointing out that music that uses violins as percussion instruments is not, I assume, of interest to the demographic of the guide's readership.
Okay, it's niche music. What's wrong with that? I'm glad it exists, but I see no need to rail against it. As far as radio...the only radio I listen to is a classical station (which plays more adventurous stuff late at night), NPR, and non-profit KOOP, and the KUT college station, where young inexperienced DJs play whatever they want. What ruined radio was when Reagan de-regulated the FCC, and conglomerates bought all the stations. It became "marketing" after that.

We have heard the use of stringed instruments in this manner in recent threads on this forum: screeching violins, random percussive sounds...Classical music instruments have been perfected over centuries. This is particularly true of the violin where the attempt has been to provide the sweetest tone possible. It's hard to understand the value of the use of the violin to produce sounds for which it was never intended. IMO, this is true of other instruments: plucked piano strings and the like.
Oh, don't get so offended. They're not out to destroy Classical music. Be tolerant, and less defensive. Listen to what you want to, and let others do the same.
 
#34 ·
What about "The Journal for the Subversion of Classical Music"?
 
#36 · (Edited)
I don't think anybody is "railing" against new music, old music, or whatever, except perhaps the perceived misuse of strings. In the New Stasis, every musical thirst is quenched, every hunger satiated. There is music for all, every kind you can think of and so many more that you can't think of. All niches are filled. The fate of music is as secure as the fate of our modern technological culture (though I keep my didgeridoo in tip-top shape).
 
#37 ·
I don't think anybody is "railing" against new music, old music, or whatever, except perhaps the perceived misuse of strings.
I don't mind the misuse of strings (musique concrète instrumentale) and find some of the compositions that Shirime presented here quite enjoyable (Lachenmann, Liza Lim - How forests think etc), certainly more palatable than the music from the 1950's. It is a niche music.
The only problem that I perceive is when a musical subgenre such as this one starts to dominate academia to the point that all other approaches are considered inferior, omitted from textbooks etc. But something similar happens in other disciplines too. For example, string theory has dominated physics for several decades now. Most of research money, grants has been allocated there and other approaches neglected etc. I think that diversity is important and one approach should not be allowed to dominate all others. How many composers were negleted because their music was deemed insufficiently modern? Hovhaness, Respighi, Braga Santos etc etc
 
#40 ·
Well, I'm not them.
 
#41 · (Edited)
The one composer he mentions by name is Schoenberg -- he's the example of the person who writes chamber music which average people don't like because there aren't melodies -- I think this is what he says, correct me if I'm wrong.

But this is rubbish, and it makes me think he's probably lying when he says he doesn't like it, or maybe he's deaf or stupid or has never listened to the music. Just to take one example, Schoenberg's 4th quartet is jam packed of melodies.

Years ago I used to work with someone who used to often say that he didn't like C20 music much, but somehow he found himself at one of Solti's performances of Strauss's Frau Ohne Schatten at Covent Garden. When he came back I asked him what he thought and basically he said he hated it because there weren't any tunes.

But it's chock-a-block with tunes from the start to finish -- he just couldn't hear them, or pretended that he couldn't hear them.

Anyway at least he wan't strutting about making himself out to be an authority of any kind.
 
#46 · (Edited)
The one composer he mentions by name is Schoenberg -- he's the example of the person who writes chamber music which average people don't like because there aren't melodies -- I think this is what he says, correct me if I'm wrong.

But this is rubbish, and it makes me think he's probably lying when he says he doesn't like it, or maybe he's deaf or stupid or has never listened to the music. Just to take one example, Schoenberg's 4th quartet is jam packed of melodies.

Years ago I used to work with someone who used to often say that he didn't like C20 music much, but somehow he found himself at one of Solti's performances of Strauss's Frau Ohne Schatten at Covent Garden. When he came back I asked him what he thought and basically he said he hated it because there weren't any tunes.

But it's chock-a-block with tunes from the start to finish -- he just couldn't hear them, or pretended that he couldn't hear them.

Anyway at least he wan't strutting about making himself out to be an authority of any kind.
Wow, that's a lot of accusations. It's not a stretch to say that Schoenberg was not known for his melodies during his atonal period, although it's interesting that you picked out one of his more accessible works, particularly the Largo, to use as an example. An exception that proves the rule?

As for the 'strutting about' comment, the author of the quote in question is apparently in a position to decide what is published in a Chamber Music Journal. Maybe he is an authority. Do you know any different?
 
#59 · (Edited)
Why not quote the larger context:

"In 1997, K. Robert Schwarz equated serialism with the "advanced" music Babbitt described in his article, and added, "By the 1960s, the Serialists commanded intellectual prestige and held influential academic posts. All they lacked was a public. In fact, mainstream audiences disliked their work, preferring the music of traditionalists who retained links with tonality: Copland, Barber, Prokofiev, Shostakovich and Britten. In academic circles, those composers were sneered at, viewed as expendable fossils from a bygone age" (Schwarz 1997). Nine years later, Walter Simmons echoed Schwarz's belief, and named in addition to Barber, Nicolas Flagello, Ernest Bloch, Howard Hanson, Paul Creston, and Vittorio Giannini as victims of "a de facto blacklisting of composers who failed to conform to the approved [i.e., pro-modernist] version of music history", and cites Babbit's article as epitomizing "the contemptuous attitude of Modernist composers" (Simmons 2006, 5-6). In a review of Simmons's book, however, David Nicholls disagreed, referring to Simmons's contention as a "conspiracy theory" and attributing the disregard of the composers he cites to their "artistic limitations" (Nicholls 2007, 704 and 706). Another interpretation was proposed by Joseph N. Straus (1999). Straus conducted a research study that considered six questions about American compositional activity from the 1950s and 1960s: (1) who controlled the academy? (2) whose music got published? (3) whose music got performed? (4) whose music got recorded? (5) who got the prizes, awards, and fellowships? (6) whose music got reviewed? From this evidence the author concluded, "As the period drew to a close, the American academy was dominated, as it had been throughout the 1950s and 1960s, by tonally oriented composers" (Straus 1999, 307)."

Otherwise, it suggests that Straus was stating an unchallenged truth, when it just seems to be his interpretation. I would be interested in seeing the details that back up the claim. And, of course, tonality itself is not the entirety of the issue. (Also, why limit the "study" to an American context, as if the US role in any form of classical music has ever been all that substantial?)
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top