Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner How many people genuinely like atonality\no sense of key?

I'm just curious about this. I spoke with a professor who is thoroughly versed in music theory and I asked him if he liked atonality (he had mentioned it several times in class), and the answer was quite a staunch no.

I believe the first encounter I ever had with music that had no sense of key was when I heard Ligeti's etudes. I remember thinking when I heard the first etude "this sounds like nothing". However, the more I listened to it, the more it began to fit together. Now, I thoroughly enjoy this music.

Not to say that dissonance is particularly pleasing in any classical sense, but I suppose I don't really consider this music "classical" anymore.

Also, I think a piece which is largely lacking a tonal center yet provides glimpses of certain tonalities is quite interesting. I once had the idea (no doubt it has been thought of before) of writing a piece using 3 or 5 movements, with the middle movement being largely without a key, but with the outer movements restoring a sense of peace with a gently emerging tonality. I thought it would be quite an interesting way to build tension, like a plot curve.

In any case, I'm curious what anyone might think about how many people genuinely enjoy this music.

-Colin

I dislike it but find it interesting. It's all opinion though, I mean I love some art but hate others. I love the art of classic masters such as Da Vinci, but dislike most "modern" art therefore I HATED the tate modern museum in London (school trip) I felt almost as if i'd been ripped.... and it was free. When you see a canvas painted grey with the title "grey" I feel discraced that it could even be classified as art. I'd imagine Da Vinci turning in his grave. To pull any meaning from such works of "art" you would have to be dillusional in my opinion. (Thats an extreme case of course!) Much of the art was simply just not my cup of tea hence:

back to the musical side:

I don't think I can get much meaning from atonal music, it sounds random to my ears and I just can't recall ever liking it. That doesn't mean there is no meaning however, it just means I (myself) can't pick any out. If you like atonal music then thats great, we all have musical tastes

Haha

As far as randomness is concerned, Sorabji wouldn't be considered strictly atonal but there certainly is no sense of key. Aside from his fantasias and toccatas, his music is usually constantly revolving around a certain melody, hence his fugues and other baroque-inspired forms. The melodic subjects themselves have proven to be quite memorable to my ears.

It's interesting to note that, and interestingly enough that is why I connect with it so easily. It conveys by its very nature a sense of confusion, abstraction, alienation, and dread, thus reflecting the 20th century and my emotional state extremely well.

It is also, apparently, the only kind of music that makes full use of our equal-tempered system as the 12 equally-tempered tones are a requirement for it to function.

I'd like to draw a line between "atonality", which is rather limited as a term. Very limited actually, and the much more general contemporary concert hall music (even if for piano only).

I enjoy very very much contemporary stuff, which are away from tonality. I am rather tired of the tradditinal (classical) tonality. I do love also the extended use of tonality, as used by Stravinsky or Prokofiev, or Bartok, etc. But I also like very much other types of harmony (quartal, non repeated, etc).

I don't particularly enjoy 12 tone, or serial works, but it's an aesthtic issue more than anything else.

I value dissonances as much as consonanses!

(for a "perfect" example of what I mean, if you wouldn't mind listening to this: http://www.nikolas-sideris.com/stuff/intmusic.mp3 It's a string quartet, which sounds very lyrical (and haunted at the same time) to me, and certainly not bad.

I suppose it is a bit unfair to group atonality with modern concert music simply because they largely don't appeal to the standard audience.

The music at that link is quite gorgeous, thank you for that. I believe I know what you mean, as well, with modern concert music - I suppose you like the Bartok quartets?

Thanks (will reply to your PM as well )

Thing is that "atonality", academically and by definition is extremely limited. I mean you can't put, even by mistake a triad, or a tritone solved, cause then it's not atonal anymore. Anything else is much more to my liking (genouinly! )

I always claim that audience (listeners) can also be "trained", as well as the composers. A person whose never heard anything contemporary, or atonal, or anything, would be doomed most likely to listen a bit of... Ligeti. But someone who has been listening to various stuff is more likely to enjoy the newer stuff.

I like some of it, and don't like some it.

I can't say it's "interesting", because I have absolutely no idea theoretically how it works. But to my ear, some of it just sounds aesthetically really good.

I definitely agree with that. But I don't like the label "atonal". And I don't understand why atonal music, which is trying to break the "rules" (whatever those could possibly be in the first place), sometimes involves strict, often ridiculous and limiting rules like 12-tone system. That is where the Romantic period of portraying honest emotion falls apart.

Anything from Chopin to Scriabin is probably more honest than anything following the "rules". For me at least, the music I like really corresponds to my feelings at the moment--sometimes Chopin's mazurkas are enjoyable, and sometimes Scriabin's later works are perfect for the situation.

I get plenty of meaning from atonal and non-tonal music (I dislike the categorizing) and I would guess that those who differ lack something in their lives that would invoke the meaning. Of course I can't support this, though.

As someone who still doesn't listen to much if any atonal music, can I ask you guys for your favorite works in this genre?

Bassio, keep in mind that "atonal music" isn't a genre any more than all of "tonal music" is a single genre.

That said, you *must* listen to this piece by Rzewski:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDNy4YuCxdk

It's so unlike anything you've ever heard before. It doesn't even sound like a lot of the atonal music, although it's certainly not very tonal, at least not in the traditional sense.

edit: some parts in the middle seem a bit tonal, but certainly not the rest of it.

I couldn't come to like Schoenberg's 'Pierot lunaire', although I listened so much to it that I knew all 21 songs by heart (in German ). I became more interested in the poems set to music that I got the whole original set of 50 poems in French (of which Schoenberg set the German translation of 21 to music). And translated them all.

Serial and twelve-tone are a bridge too far for me.

I am a big Bartók fan. Bartók said he never wrote atonal music and not even polytonal music, as there is always some tonal center dominant in his music.

I now tremendously enjoy studying his Sonata (slightly above my level ) Which is definitely not in a traditional harmonic structure, despite Bartók's claim it is in E major.

Put me in as one who sincerely likes it

I even read somewhere Robert that Bartok composed a certain piece in order to prove to Schoenberg and his followers that he can write a completely atonal piece without even approaching the twelve-tone system and will even make more sense than their music

or something like that .. but as usual, my AlZheimer-like symptoms are constantly popping up .. keep your two grains of salt with you

We almost forgot you Echange.

Throw us your most accessible ones please

Not me. I find it intellectual as opposed to musically enjoyable. I do enjoy intellectuality but i find myself analyzing and thinking with the left logical side rather than the right musical/emotional/intuitive side. Some of it can be interesting and expressive--like modern day traffic/life/stress/noise/overstimulation/alienation/etc. But, let's face it, coming up with a great melody is NOT EASY!!! The one thing difficult to get with atonality is what we subjectively have come to perceive as beautiful. You can make beautiful sounds--like the many Violin Concertos in the first half of 20th Century. But it evokes different emotions. But then again, all my friends know that I refuse to watch a movie unless it is at least 25 years old. So look who's talking . . .

I do not mind periods of atonality in a piece, because it can convey a certain affect. But if an entire piece is written in that, or an entire output of a composer, then I think of it as somewhat limited to those affects such as confusion, anger, insanity, etc. Therefor there is little beauty, IMO. I can somewhat tolerate it in the operas of Berg (like Wozzack), but even then, the subject matter is limited to probably parts of the human psyche that while interesting as a novelty, can wear after a time.

I think perhaps that these affects come from the fact that the tonal system is based on the harmonic series and so we all can feel the pull of the leading tone to tonic and subdominant to mediant, the two half steps found in the major scale.

I think Secondo also hits on something there. Most people will remember a good melody. It will stick in their head. But many atonal melodies do not stick (if they even exist), expect to one who has studied the music. For those who hear it once, it may be gone the next second, becuase there is no tonal context around it to make it stick.

Hmm,

It's a tricky subject because, like PianoJerome said, atonality is not something you can pin down. By atonal music, do you mean strict serialism, or music that lacks a harmonic base or tonal center?

In the case of strict serialism, I think I am an outcast among both traditionalists and serialists. I adopted a new system of listening for serialistic music when I explored it. A 'system' unlike the one I use for traditional and most contemporary music. People who dislike or don't understand it listen to it with confusion or alienation, and, generally, people who understand it, like it, or use it think of it in technical terms. In other words, they admire the internal structure of the building more than they actually like to sit back and look at the building. I, unlike most people, sit back and enjoy the building. Unless I am studying a piece of serialism, I completely disregard all of the devices and formulas used. To me, this is the best way to listen to music. Listening to Boulez's second sonata (without thinking about his means of composing it, how different it is from other works, what he intended compositionally and philosophically etc) is an amazing experience. His works, at best, are raw emotion. From furiousity to deep loneliness and alienation. The slow movement in the second sonata truly is a beautiful thing, like a frozen river or a dark forest, when listened to correctly.

I recommend the slow movement of Boulez's Second Sonata if you truly want to understand what I mean. Put on that movement, turn off all the lights, and before long you will find yourself far from home.

Boulez's First sonata is my favorite work of his. It represents, to me, the finest of boulez's work while still living in the Messiaen world, if you will.

His second sonata and ...explosante-fixe... are amazing works as well.

Webern's piano variations are great

Schoenberg's Piano Concerto

None of those are really accessible


Ligeti is one of my favorite composers.

He always said that his music is neither tonal nor atonal. His music is so organic that, once so far into a piece, you adopt a sort of subconscious tonal center.

His second and fifth etudes of book one lack clear tonality and are very accessible, imo... very beautiful works.

Xenakis always blows my mind, but as for accessibility, he comes last

Try Evryali for piano or La Legende d'Eer for 7-channel tape (my favorite work of his) if you are curious.

If you truly want to understand serialism, learn how it is made, learn its conventions, and learn how to make it. Then forget all that, and then listen to it in the same way you look
at the stars.

This may contradict the composers intentions and even the general musician's opinion, but for me, serialistic techniques are only of importance to the ones who decide to employ them in composition. Imo, to truly listen to serialistic music you must forget everything you know and let the sound world in front of you be the only thing that is real... beyond words, beyond rows, beyond ideas.

As a lover of much atonal music, I have a great many things to say about this thread. For now though, I'll list some beautiful, very moving atonal pieces which are also wonderful starting points for those with open ears:

Schoenberg:
Piano Piece Op. 11 #2
A Survivor from Warsaw
Moses and Aron: Golden Calf scene from Act II (all the way until the re-entry of Moses) -- very exciting
Dreimal Tausend Jahre -- meltingly beautiful
Accompaniment to a Film-Scene (Begleitungsmusik zu einer Lichtspielszene)

Berg:
Wozzeck: whole opera if possible, Interlude and final scene if you want to "dip in"
Violin Concerto
Lyric Suite for String Quartet -- whole thing if possible, first movement if you want to sample

Ligeti:
Lux Aeterna
Piano etudes: especially Cordes a' vide, Fanfares, Fe'm, Der Zauberlehrling, L'escalier du diable

Tippett:
String Quartet no. 4
Symphony no. 4
Piano sonata no. 2
Piano sonata no. 3: last movement

Lutoslawski:
Piano Concerto (highly recommended! get the recording with Zimerman and the composer conducting, other recordings are very inferior)

Ginastera:
Piano Concerto no. 1: last movement

Rautavaara:
Symphony No. 7, third movement (particularly recommended for those who think that 12-tone music can't be beautiful)
Piano Concerto no. 2

Copland:
Piano Variations

Sessions:
Piano Sonata no. 2

Corigliano:
Symphony No. 1 (once wildly popular)

Leonard Bernstein:
Symphony no. 3 "Kaddish" -- a nice mix of tonal and atonal elements

Penderecki:
Polish Requiem

Schnittke:
Viola Concerto

You're probably right. If that "emtiness" in my life suddenly gets filled and I start loving atonal music because of it, I will make a scincere apology to atonal music lovers.

The thing about most people who are familiar with the standard repertoire who are newly introduced to atonal music is that they can't get over the initial shock -- just because it sounds so obviously different from the standard repertoire they think they somehow have to listen to it on a different way and on a different level. But really it isn't the case. Listen to atonal music long enough and one's ears become familiar with the harmonies, the gestures, etc. Sooner or later, one finds out that listening to atonal music is not too far removed from listening to tonal music -- and one even picks out melodies, motives, developments and restatements, climaxes, and -- shudder -- very powerful emotions! All one needs is persistence, and understanding will come soon enough.
And really, you don't need to take classes or get a degree to comprehend and love atonal music -- the same way one doesn't need theory classes to love tonal music. I listened to a fair amount of atonal music and didn't like it, but kept at it because it fascinated me. Then one night I encountered Moses and Aron, and it moved me to no small degree. And to think that at the time I didn't know anything about the theoretical workings behind any music, whether it be tonal or atonal!
Yes, it is shocking and it does take a bit of getting used to. But there is as much aesthetic worth to be found in atonal music as there is in tonal music. One just has to weed out the bad pieces (which is also true of tonal pieces, but time and the standard repertoire makes it easy in that case).
For those who are curious, please read "Arnold Schoenberg's Journey" by Allen Shawn, a very moving portrait of a still-infamous artist:

http://www.amazon.com/Arnold-Schoen...mp;s=books&qid=1196199737&sr=1-1