Given my composer/work database (needed to keep my collection in some kind of order, and so I don't buy something I already have...), I was curious as to the dating of symphonies labeled in keys vs. those without, and the nature of the transition from primarily tonal works to primarily atonal works. Obviously a coarse approach, because key labels or absences don't necessarily reflect attitudes toward tonality. And there's infinite variation between completely tonal and completely atonal, as we all know. So, with those caveats aside:
With 614 composers and 3688 symphonies, I spent an hour or so totaling them up in 5 year intervals from composers born from 1700 to 1938.
seems like 4 main periods:
born between 1700-1854, 202 composers: were generally all tonal
born between 1855-1879, 156 composers: 80-97% tonal, 5-13% atonal, and 3-10% both
born between 1880-1889, 67 composers, 65% tonal, 20% atonal, 15% both
born between 1890-1914, 143 composers, 32% tonal, 43% atonal, 26% both
born between 1915-1934, 43 composers, 10% tonal, 60% atonal, 35% both
what struck me was:
-how many folks were writing symphonies emphasizing keys (tonality) into the later 20th century.
-The high number of tonal composers who later shifted (peer pressure, audience expectations?) to atonality (almost 20% from 1855-1934). These folks generally shifted in 1940s-1950s.
-many folks writing "atonal" symphonies actually had tonal first symphonies: Ives, Schreker, Stravinsky, Yamada, Gal, Nepomuk David, Holler, Bunin, Nasidze, etc.
-many (generally atonal) composers would write symphonies labeled in keys interspersed with their atonal works (neoclassical influences?)
-the latest purely tonal symphonists were typically soviets (the realist school forced by soviet thought, emphasizing lyricism and connection with the masses?): Kabalevsky, Popov, Shostakovich, Golubev, Khrennikov, Yurovsky, Svetlanov, Adriasov, etc.
-symphonies seem to have become less important in ouevres (totals decline every 5 years since 1950).
In terms of when the symphonies were first published/heard?:
1700-1889 (n=1845) - 100% tonal, 0% atonal
1889-1919 (n=424) - 97% tonal, 3% atonal (n=9 atonal symphonies)
1920-1949 (n=741) - 56-65% tonal, 44-35% atonal (n=294 atonal symphonies)
1950-1989 (n=642) - 29-42% tonal, 71-58% atonal (n=199 tonal symphonies)
1990-2009 (n=36) - 100% atonal
Anyway, food for thought.
What's the point of atonality anyway? I personally like to listen to something with good tunes in it. In fact, in my opinion, if I cannot hum, sing or whistle it, it isn't music. Maybe I'm too old fashioned for this forum. By the way, nothing I've written in the past 15 years is anything but tonal. There again I suppose you could say, since I'm only an amateur, my stuff doesn't count.
Balapoel: I see you have far fewer "can't tell"s in your collection than I have.
John H. White: I gave up on demanding a "good tune" in my music awhile ago, it made it easier to enjoy Renaissance and other pre-Baroque music, and a lot of Baroque music too. (Putting aside the fact that what tonality and tunes have to do with each other- Schoenberg's Serenade and Berg's violin concerto seem to have several good tunes in them but- what do I know - well, that's just it - what do I know... )
Maybe I should be more specific. What I'm talking about here is not whether tonal triads and cadences are found or not found, but rather looking at trends in composers' attitudes toward traditional tonality, working-through, sonata-form, development of ideas (whether organic, cyclical, etc.). One of the other commentators here put it in terms of a feeling of movement, that we're are achieving something (transformation, linkages between emotions, or whatever) as we listen to a piece, rather than much recent work without this structure, that tends to be listless, episodic (at best), or like a cheese grater to the ear (at worst), regardless of any tunes that may be popping out at any given time.
We all bring our suppositions to the table, I was merely trying to provide a schematic overview of one aspect of this transition from late romantic work, which I think most of us here enjoy, into the more acerbic, non-tonal work of the recent past (whether, serial or whatever).
Personally, I don't care in the least whether a work has a designated key or not. I listen to it as music, and if it satisfies me, excites me, amazes me, delights me, I like it. If it bores me, I don't like it. If it irritates me in the sense that it challenges me, and I feel it's an honest, competently (at the least) statement, then I respect it. If it irritates me in the sense that it's sloppily written, pretentious, or pointless, then I don't respect it, and probably don't like it either.
Tonality vs. atonality is also not as cut-and-dried as the presence of a designated key signature. Tonal centers may be fleeting, but if there's a sense of direction in the music, a sense of purposeful movement from one area (however brief) of tonality to another, it can still be satisfying and meaningful. Pure atonality, where there is a never-ending sense of being adrift with no anchor, no landmarks, no repose, can be irritating (in the worst sense) and mind-numbing. But sometimes it helps to look at the big picture, and find out if there's a larger purpose, so that you don't miss the forest by concentrating on the trees. The forest as a whole can be quite amazing at times!
I'm just concerned about characterizing it as strictly key vs. non-key, as positive vs. negative. I don't think that's what you were doing, Balapoel, but I'm sure some on this forum do view it that way, and I get a bit distressed at the negativity sometimes.
I respect that for many listeners atonality (or their perception of it) is so off-putting as to negate any satisfaction from the listening experience. And I know it's not even a question of musical training or openmindedness. I knew a former concertmaster of a major symphony orchestra who was conservatory-trained and immensely experienced, yet who despised most anything written after 1910. On the other hand, I know people who have never had formal musical training and yet they love Stockhausen but hate Beethoven. We're all wired differently.
Anyway, whether it's "Symphony No. 5 in C major" or "Symphony No. 5" makes no difference to me, as long as I like the result.
Thanks for the post Latvian, I agree with you - particularly with the mathematical treatment that some composers felt necessary to impose on listeners... ugh! One of my favorite chamber composers was Ravel, who did amazing things with novel harmonic and thematic treatment outside the traditional tonal approach, in a very different vein than the later romantics (whom I also appreciate).
Just for others, so there is no confusion, I reiterate:
Quote from: Balapoel on Thursday 09 February 2012, 17:19
I was curious [about] ... the nature of the transition from primarily tonal works to primarily atonal works. Obviously a coarse approach, because key labels or absences don't necessarily reflect attitudes toward tonality. And there's infinite variation between completely tonal and completely atonal, as we all know. So, with those caveats aside:
I also listen to the music regardless of the designated key (or not). I agree there was not a 'cut and dried' issue of tonality vs. atonality; and I specifically suggested the contrary. Most of us can hear differences (in terms of large-scale structure) between a symphony by Brahms (or Herzogenberg, or Raff, or Rufinatscha) and one by Schreker, Rochberg, or Goehr (in general). Each composer brings their own sensitivity to the mix. But by the time composers are are actively refusing to consider tonality in the sense that classical and romantic composer were using it, they seem to be creating (from my perspective) something different (not necessarily better or worse, but different). I wanted to trace these differences as reflected by a relatively simple measure. I also removed a phrase that might be misconstrued.
In any event, I'm definitely not promoting or downplaying any form or variety of music with this post, merely providing a relatively comprehensive dataset, with some interesting patterns to think about. Hope this is provides more clarity.
Would it be relevant to bring in mention of tones? Charles Wood composed a mass in the Phrygian mode, which my choir called "Wood in the fridge"
I don't see why not, especially as Webern, Wellesz and Krenek among others were fascinated with various aspects - and composers - of medieval and Renaissance counterpoint etc. ...
(not to mention more recently the number of composers from before Stravinsky through Maxwell Davies who've seen in Gesualdo an inspiration I think..., but now that's a different subject... - or is it? )
I suppose I ought to apologize for my "grumpy old man" outburst. I'm sure there must be the odd tune lurking somewhere in various pieces of atonal music, even it isn't clothed in the conventional major and minor triads. In the past, I have made efforts to try to come to terms with "modern music", especially during Lent, when I used to play through my LP collection of Bartok quartets. I think I can see why the younger generation tend to go for pop, rather than wade their way through modern "classical" music.
No need to apologise John and no obligation either, I have realised over the years, to like/enjoy/appreciate/understand any music other than what we choose to. That doesn't stop me testing my boundaries from time to time but I no longer feel guilty about returning to what I know and love having tried and failed to expand my horizons in a particular direction.
I do not want to repeat what I wrote recently in the thread about Bruno Walter about the recent fairly vicious attack I was subjected to on another forum and the accusation that I was some kind of 'mastermind' behind a concerted attempt to demonise atonality and the avant-garde in music ;D
By and large I prefer tonality to atonality but that is such a broad generalisation as to be virtually useless as a statement. I think that I know what I like but I am always willing to give music which is new to me a try. Amongst other reasons that is why I am such an enthusiastic member of this site. But I also know, from past experience, that I tend to prefer the music written in the first half of the 20th century to music written in the second half of the 19th whilst, simultaneously and, perhaps, paradoxically believing that the music written by the great composers of the 19th century(Brahms, Bruckner, Wagner, Tchaikovsky etc) represent pinnacles of musical achievement to which I will ultimately return.
I equally know that, by and large, I prefer tonal music which is tougher, more acerbic, darker-the orchestral music written in Britain by composers like Robert Simpson or Benjamin Frankel or Daniel Jones or Peter Racine Fricker or Alun Hoddinott, or by Scandinavians like Rosenberg or Americans like William Schuman. Often that type of music stretches the boundaries of tonality or, sometimes, may use serial techniques whilst still retaining a tonal centre.
It is where conventional musical structures are abandoned and when there are no familiar guide-posts by which to steer one's way through the music that I feel lost and confused. If there is no beauty(other, presumably, than the 'beauty' of mathematical/intellectual musical construction-which, as a non-musician, I cannot comprehend) and no grand, sonorous edifice to admire and to be in awe of then, with respect and some (slight) regret, I pass.... and return to the familiar.
QuoteI also listen to the music regardless of the designated key (or not). I agree there was not a 'cut and dried' issue of tonality vs. atonality; and I specifically suggested the contrary. Most of us can hear differences (in terms of large-scale structure) between a symphony by Brahms (or Herzogenberg, or Raff, or Rufinatscha) and one by Schreker, Rochberg, or Goehr (in general). Each composer brings their own sensitivity to the mix. But by the time composers are are actively refusing to consider tonality in the sense that classical and romantic composer were using it, they seem to be creating (from my perspective) something different (not necessarily better or worse, but different). I wanted to trace these differences as reflected by a relatively simple measure.
Thanks for the clarification, Balapoel. I didn't recall having read too many of your posts, so I wasn't really sure what you were up to, and had to toss in my two cents' worth! :)
QuoteBy and large I prefer tonality to atonality but that is such a broad generalisation as to be virtually useless as a statement. I think that I know what I like but I am always willing to give music which is new to me a try. Amongst other reasons that is why I am such an enthusiastic member of this site. But I also know, from past experience, that I tend to prefer the music written in the first half of the 20th century to music written in the second half of the 19th whilst, simultaneously and, perhaps, paradoxically believing that the music written by the great composers of the 19th century(Brahms, Bruckner, Wagner, Tchaikovsky etc) represent pinnacles of musical achievement to which I will ultimately return.
I equally know that, by and large, I prefer tonal music which is tougher, more acerbic, darker-the orchestral music written in Britain by composers like Robert Simpson or Benjamin Frankel or Daniel Jones or Peter Racine Fricker or Alun Hoddinott, or by Scandinavians like Rosenberg or Americans like William Schuman. Often that type of music stretches the boundaries of tonality or, sometimes, may use serial techniques whilst still retaining a tonal centre.
Thanks to you also, Colin. I've certainly gathered you had an affinity for many moderns from your earlier posts.
You also reminded me of something when you mentioned composers who use serial techniques while retaining a tonal center. Did you know that Janis Ivanovs did this with his 10th, 11th, and 12th Symphonies, and a few other works from the period? The works are actually designated as being in specific keys, yet they were composed serially, at least in part.
Quote from: Dundonnell on Friday 10 February 2012, 12:32
If there is no beauty(other, presumably, than the 'beauty' of mathematical/intellectual musical construction-which, as a non-musician, I cannot comprehend) and no grand, sonorous edifice to admire and to be in awe of then, with respect and some (slight) regret, I pass.... and return to the familiar.
I agree. As a musician and composer, though, and with much experience with many symphonies such as you describe, I do not see nor hear nor appreciate the 'beauty' of notes that are defined vertically and horizontally solely on mathematical principles. I have yet to see a sufficient description by those who do. I'm afraid Boulez, Stockhausen, and company will remain beyond me. A kind of 'democracy of notes' where all are treated equally doesn't jive with our understanding of sound, harmony, etc.
To paraphrase Roger Sessions and others, if your organizing principles can't be heard (as with, in my opinion, Ligeti and his pieces supposedly organized around graduate-level mathematics ideas- and I say this as someone who's taken graduate-level mathematics courses) then we're talking something but not music...
Quote from: Dundonnell on Friday 10 February 2012, 12:32. . . By and large I prefer tonality to atonality . . .
You would then probably not agree with Joseph Hauer, one of the pioneers of twelve-tonery, who wrote in 1937:
"Twelve-tone music is the highest art - the essence of music.
Twelve-tone music is the highest science - the essence of mathematics.
Twelve-tone music is the holiest, most spiritual, and most valuable entity in the world.
Twelve-tone music is the revelation of world-order, religion in the truest sense, the only one there is and can be.
Twelve-tone music permits the most profound insight into the history of the world.
Twelve-tone music can never dissemble or lie.
Twelve-tone music is the unalterable holy record, the eternal language of the universe.
Twelve-tone music is spiritual reality.
Twelve-tone music is the starting-point of twelve-tone culture, which will extend over the whole earth and control all the necessities of human life." !!
So, fairly equivocal then. What an extraordinary set of statements!
Thanks to all of you for letting me sit in on this interesting conversation. I had never really thought to actually assess the transition from tonality to atonality as Balapoel did in his original post.
I've been frustrated more than a few times in conversations on other forums on this topic. There is a common tendency to equate atonality with dissonance and to view all modern music with skepticism as a result. As an amateur with no formal training in music, it took me quite awhile to appreciate that distinction, to better understand the palates used by modern composers, and to figure out what I can enjoy in late- or post-romantic music.
I still struggle with strident, abrasive dissonance, especially inflicted by loud brass or screeching sopranos, and especially when heavily percussive. I still find a lot of serialism and amorphous drifting quite uninteresting. But late- and post-romantic music has become so infused with atonal elements that I think it has become less an issue for people. So long as you don't say the word "atonal".
Quote from: Sydney Grew on Saturday 11 February 2012, 09:24
Quote from: Dundonnell on Friday 10 February 2012, 12:32. . . By and large I prefer tonality to atonality . . .
You would then probably not agree with Joseph Hauer, one of the pioneers of twelve-tonery, who wrote in 1937:
"Twelve-tone music is the highest art - the essence of music.
Twelve-tone music is the highest science - the essence of mathematics.
Twelve-tone music is the holiest, most spiritual, and most valuable entity in the world.
Twelve-tone music is the revelation of world-order, religion in the truest sense, the only one there is and can be.
Twelve-tone music permits the most profound insight into the history of the world.
Twelve-tone music can never dissemble or lie.
Twelve-tone music is the unalterable holy record, the eternal language of the universe.
Twelve-tone music is spiritual reality.
Twelve-tone music is the starting-point of twelve-tone culture, which will extend over the whole earth and control all the necessities of human life." !!
Oh yeah! Joseph Hauer! Didn't he say something else, which totally escapes me at the moment? ;)
Quote from: JimL on Saturday 11 February 2012, 20:57
Oh yeah! Joseph Hauer! Didn't he say something else, which totally escapes me at the moment? ;)
And wrote quite a lot of music that escapes me as well. ::)
Quote from: Amphissa on Saturday 11 February 2012, 21:27
Quote from: JimL on Saturday 11 February 2012, 20:57
Oh yeah! Joseph Hauer! Didn't he say something else, which totally escapes me at the moment? ;)
And wrote quite a lot of music that escapes me as well. ::)
We are both lowly privates in that army!
Quote from: John H White on Thursday 09 February 2012, 21:44What's the point of atonality anyway?
What's the "point"? Even if there is a meaningful answer to such a meaningless question, the answer to it is inevitably going to vary from one composer to another, don't you think? Schönberg provided an explanation for the use of the twelve-tone system in his work in his book "Style and Idea".
Quote from: John H White on Thursday 09 February 2012, 21:44I personally like to listen to something with good tunes in it.
Good for you. What does that have to do with the alleged "pointlessness" of atonality?
Quote from: John H White on Thursday 09 February 2012, 21:44In fact, in my opinion, if I cannot hum, sing or whistle it, it isn't music.
So instrumental fugues are not music?
There seems to be an assumption that "tonal"=tuneful and "atonal"=tuneless. There are plenty of melodies in atonal music, as there is plenty of near-enough tuneless (or at least dreary) tonal music (Stainer's 'Crucifixion' might be a case in point). I do think that melody is a vital element of music, but there is plenty of good atonal music out there, even if it is not everyone's cup of tea.
This whole discussion reminds me of friends, who over the years say "Well, I just don't understand classical music". My response usually is What's to understand -you either find what you hear pleasant and enjoyable or you don't. You don't have to be a music major to "understand" concert music.
I suppose the same is true of atonal music. I think I've tried hard for over 50 years to listen to, and like, atonal music. I've asked those who think it's great, how to listen and enjoy. But of course, the answer is the same as above, isn't it? The only emotion it elicits in me is irritation and a desire to turn it off as quickly as possible. Perhaps I'm truly missing something, but at 76 I doubt if it's gonna come to me.
But to you who enjoy it, more power to you. You've found yet another life-enriching experience in our world of music.
Jerry
Quote from: John H White on Thursday 09 February 2012, 21:44
What's the point of atonality anyway? I personally like to listen to something with good tunes in it. In fact, in my opinion, if I cannot hum, sing or whistle it, it isn't music. Maybe I'm too old fashioned for this forum. By the way, nothing I've written in the past 15 years is anything but tonal. There again I suppose you could say, since I'm only an amateur, my stuff doesn't count.
Only just seen this.
My, what a lot of things to question and challenge within so few words!
Q. What IS atonality anyway?
A. A lot of different things to different people and, in most contexts, more of a comparative than a specific term in any case.
How can one meaningfully determine the "point" of just one single aspect of a musical language in isolation? (even if it were more clearly definable and identifiable than the above Q.&A. implies).
How would you distinguish something that is a tune from something that isn't, in a way that will be readily recognisable and acceptable to the majority of listeneres irrespective of the nature and scope of their respective listening experiences?
Even having accomplished the above conjuring trick, by what specific criteria might you define and identify any particular "tune" as good, again in a way that will be readily recognisable and acceptable to the majority of listeneres irrespective of the nature and scope of their respective listening experiences?
When you write "In fact, in my opinion", which of the two do you mean?
When you write that "if (you) cannot hum, sing or whistle it, it isn't music", do you not mean that it isn't music TO YOU? - I would certainly hope so, because plenty of people will be less able and plenty more able than you to hum, sing or whistle anything capable of being hummed, sung or whistled; perhaps you should consult Stephen Sondheim about this, being as he is the composer of the song
Anyone can Whistle...
Why should anything necessarily be hummable, singable or whistlable (I nearly typed Whitstable there, but the only connection between its and music that I could think of was Cole Porter's song
The Tale of the Oyster*) in order to qualify as "music"?
The question as to whether or not you are, or may consider yourself to be, "too old fashioned for this forum" is a matter of opinion but, as this group is dedicated to the works of composers which are for the most part "unsung" (or, perhaps by association, "unhummed" and "unwhistled" also), I would have thought that fashionability is hardly a priority here.
You inform us that "nothing (you)'ve written in the past 15 years is anything but tonal". That is your prerogative. Very little that
I've written in the past (far more than) 15 years is anything but tonal either - that is
my prerogative - but whether and to what extent you might consider it to be so in your own terms may be quite another matter; in any case, why is the degree of tonality or atonality of a piece of music or any particular parts thereof such an issue?
You end by supposing that some members here "could say, since (you're) only an amateur, (your) stuff doesn't count". I know none of your music and I have no idea if or to what extent anyone else here does, but it's certainly no one's business to say whether or not or to what extent anyone else's music "counts" (as and/or for what, in any case?) if they have not heard it or know anything about it and, for that matter, why should music "not count" just because it happens to have been written by a composer who is not a professional one? To what extent, for example, might one claim that Ives or van Dieren was a "professional composer" or that other musicians far better known for their conducting, performing or other professional musical activities were "professional composers"?
Mon Dieu! - so many worms here that the can's not big enough to accommodate them, it might seem(!)...
There is a lot of "atonality" (in the sense of uncertain or drifting key) in music from Mahler to Rautavaara, Myaskovsky to RVW, that is beautiful or passionately engaging for me.
There is also a lot of atonality that emphasizes dissonance and abrasiveness in modern music that I find unpalatable.
But then, there is a lot of "tonal" music that I find turgid or trite, and so equally uninteresting.
To me, the whole issue of tonality is of minor importance. Duke Ellington said it most succinctly. "If it sounds good, it is good." And what sounds good to one person can be quite different from what sounds good to another.
À chacun son goût