"What are today’s composers to do with tonality?" asks Gramophone

[Guest]

Here's the link: http://www.gramophone.co.uk/features...a-new-tonality

As someone disheartened by contemporary music, I'll be interested in following this.

To my noviceate ears, there seems to be an evolutionary line of music between the greats: Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Mahler. On the sidelines, others tweaked the formula - Schubert, Vivaldi, but the greats remain great for a reason (stop me if I'm being too profound!)

What I mean is, serialism seems inevitable from the chromaticism of Bach to the atonality of Mahler 10*, but since then, what has music evolved to? Where does it have left to go? Minimalism, when done well, is impressive (Pärt) but can seem formulaic (Glass). Serialism, however, feels like a dead end. Is it that our ears can't adjust to it or simply haven't had time to adjust to it? (I know I don't speak for all, but surely it's a minority who can appreciate it.)

I can't believe music has said all it has to say in the 'classical' form. But I wonder where the 'genius' of a Bach, Mozart, Beethoven or Mahler is to spring from? Someone who can plug us into the sublime, give us the mysterium tremendens, etc.

*I may have used these terms incorrectly. I'm not a musicologist. Happy to be corrected by more knowledgeable bods.

[Serial_Apologist]

Here's the link: http://www.gramophone.co.uk/features...a-new-tonality

As someone disheartened by contemporary music, I'll be interested in following this.

To my noviceate ears, there seems to be an evolutionary line of music between the greats: Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Mahler. On the sidelines, others tweaked the formula - Schubert, Vivaldi, but the greats remain great for a reason (stop me if I'm being too profound!)

What I mean is, serialism seems inevitable from the chromaticism of Bach to the atonality of Mahler 10*, but since then, what has music evolved to? Where does it have left to go?

They probably asked this in Mozart's time.

Varese said, "Contrary to what most people think, the artist is not ahead of his time; most people are far behind their's". Maybe he turned out to be wrong. For the first time I am aware of in musical history, mainstream classical music has gone back to earlier stages without taking cogniseance of what has been added to it, by eg serialism, electronics and improvisation.

Minimalism, when done well, is impressive (Pärt) but can seem formulaic (Glass).

Serialism, however, feels like a dead end. Is it that our ears can't adjust to it or simply haven't had time to adjust to it? (I know I don't speak for all, but surely it's a minority who can appreciate it.)

Why say that? Serialism, from its 12-tone row-based start to variously expanded forms, has given rise to some of the greatest variety in music of all time. Compare that with much so-called contemporary music of today, which rests snugly in the octatonic scale.

Serialism isn't the only way in which music has gone beyond the modes by the way - viz Xenakis, Cage, Spectralism, microtones, discussion of which permeate this forum.

I can't believe music has said all it has to say in the 'classical' form. But I wonder where the 'genius' of a Bach, Mozart, Beethoven or Mahler is to spring from? Someone who can plug us into the sublime, give us the mysterium tremendens, etc.

*I may have used these terms incorrectly. I'm not a musicologist. Happy to be corrected by more knowledgeable bods.

My theory is that until civilisation is unstuck from its current rut of about the last 35 years, we won't know the answer to that one. Maybe I'm just in a grumpy mood temporarily.

[Serial_Apologist]

That article linked by Thropplenoggin is very good and thought-provoking - not that I agree with all of it.

Thanks, Thropplenoggin!

[Simon]

They probably asked this in Mozart's time.

I doubt it! Not in the way we do, that's for sure. Some may have wondered about developments to come, of course.

[Boilk]

What I mean is, serialism seems inevitable from the chromaticism of Bach to the atonality of Mahler 10*, but since then, what has music evolved to?

Why "inevitable"? If the Second Viennese School hadn't adopted it, and Schoenberg hadn't propogated it in his sphere of academia across the Pond, how many post-War American composers (for example) would have jumped on the 12-note bandwagon?

Where does it have left to go? Minimalism, when done well, is impressive (Pärt) but can seem formulaic (Glass).

I can assure you, there is plenty of formulaic activity in monsigneur Pärt's music.

Serialism, however, feels like a dead end. Is it that our ears can't adjust to it or simply haven't had time to adjust to it? (I know I don't speak for all, but surely it's a minority who can appreciate it.)

I think you're confusing serialiism with atonality - it's the latter that the majority may have a problem with. Some of Berg's serial music (for example) I'm sure "our ears" can get along with, because it's post-Romantic and neo-tonal. Whereas some non-serial but atonal stuff "our ears" would detest.

Serial composition is broadly a technique for determining note (and thereby harmonic) generation (rather like fugue, ground bass, etc. set rules for progress) ... it does not necessarily dictate any specific musical style.

[amateur51]

I doubt it! Not in the way we do, that's for sure. Some may have wondered about developments to come, of course.

Of course

[MrGongGong]

I find the idea that there is somehow a great rift between "tonality" and "atonality" somewhat puzzling because it's not what my ears tell me.
The oft repeated idea that serialism was a "dead end" is also one of the popular myths in music history as I would find it hard to think of any music in the Western Art tradition that has not been directly influenced by the ideas and processes of Serial Composition even if it might seem that the music is is a rejection of them.

But my main "objection" (if I were to be strong about it ?) is to the idea that somehow there is a "mainstream" of so called "Classical Music" that stretches from the "greats" to the present day. A quick look at google earth will teach you that there are many ways that a river can run it's course, the Amazon compared to the Nene ? if I were to go on a canoe expedition I know which one I would choose

Music history (again ?) is NOT a process of "improvement" or even always one of "development" more an ebb and flow of complexities and frames of reference.

[ahinton]

I find the idea that there is somehow a great rift between "tonality" and "atonality" somewhat puzzling because it's not what my ears tell me.
The oft repeated idea that serialism was a "dead end" is also one of the popular myths in music history as I would find it hard to think of any music in the Western Art tradition that has not been directly influenced by the ideas and processes of Serial Composition even if it might seem that the music is is a rejection of them.

But my main "objection" (if I were to be strong about it ?) is to the idea that somehow there is a "mainstream" of so called "Classical Music" that stretches from the "greats" to the present day. A quick look at google earth will teach you that there are many ways that a river can run it's course, the Amazon compared to the Nene ? if I were to go on a canoe expedition I know which one I would choose

Music history (again ?) is NOT a process of "improvement" or even always one of "development" more an ebb and flow of complexities and frames of reference.

Indeed (and your implicit reference to "riverrun" has not gone unnoticed!). To begin with, what constitutes "tonality" and what identifies "atonality" is, in many cases, far from the clear-cut black-and-white phenomenon that some seem determined to make it out to be; furthermore, some of what might strike on listener as "atonal" might seem nevertheless to embrace some tonal references in the ears of another in accordance with the nature and extent of listening experience.

Dogmatic stances about serialism, tonality/atonality and the rest are almost always misleading and unhelpful and, whilst I do take some issue with just one of your points, namely that you "find it hard to think of any music in the Western Art tradition [presumably following the dawn of serialism!] that has not been directly influenced by the ideas and processes of Serial Composition", I'm not convinced that it matters greatly one way or the other in any case because, as you rightly observe, "there are many ways that a river can run its course" and indeed there have not only been many in musical history but that, especially in the past century or so, an ever-increasing number of tributaries have formed and run concurrently.

What's more important for each composer than arbitrarily deciding which way to go and what might be thought of as "going with the flow" at any given time is to find his/her way and to work with and within it; notwithstanding the rather obvious fact that this is a good deal easier said than done, individuality is a more worthy goal than slavish following or indeed originality for its own sake. What has sadly befallen music from time to time is the emergence of fads and fashions and what is perhaps more interesting that the kinds of dogma that you mention is that some composers have nevertheless shown themselves to be rather more fad-and-fashion resistant than others.

Finally, I have to admit to being well less than impressed with much of Mr Clark's article, which seems for the most part to be rather more concerned with the making of his own attention-seeking noises (tonal or otherwise!) and the trading of cliché and catchy soundbites than with a serious attempt at addressing the issue in a meaningful, observant and enlightening manner which I am sure, despite the sheer size of the subject, would have been possible in other hands even within the limited space permitted by a Gramphone article...

[Thropplenoggin]

Some excellent posts thus far - thanks for your contributions. And yes, Boilk, I did have the two terms muddled up.

[Serial_Apologist]

Richard Barrett raises the "thorny" subject of the existence or otherwise of A Canon of classics or figureheads considered to exemplify or be representative of trends in western concert music. After doing an "advanced search" this thread is the closest I could find to a forum discussion on the subject. As can be seen, it didn't go very far, but I was thinking this might be a good time and place for resuscitating it, rather than on the masterpieces and lesser masterpieces thread. Might public acquiescence when it comes to the dumbing down and general dilution of standards in Radio 3 be in some way symptomatic of decline as the metaphorical river of change reaches its delta and the energy that once drove its evolution dissipates through a multiplicity of stagnating pools and slow moving rivulets?

[Richard Barrett]

I seem to have missed this thread completely on its original appearance, maybe I was on sabbatical at the time! Plenty to get one's teeth into though. However, I now have an appointment to have the unsightly mop on my head removed before its weight causes me to be unable to stand straight.

[french frank]

I read this article some years ago and have miraculously managed to find it again (Googling canon -Pachelbel!!!). It's based on the guitar repertoire but has some very general ideas as to where the idea of a 'canon' or 'standard repertoire' came from.

https://steve-paperclip.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/documents/uploadedfiles/000/000/288/original/The_Guitar_and_the_Musical_Canon.pdf

[Serial_Apologist]

I read this article some years ago and have miraculously managed to find it again (Googling canon -Pachelbel!!!). It's based on the guitar repertoire but has some very general ideas as to where the idea of a 'canon' or 'standard repertoire' came from.

https://steve-paperclip.s3-eu-west-1...ical_Canon.pdf

Thanks for the link, ff - possibly a good re-launch for a discussion on the topic, once I've read it!

[Ein Heldenleben]

The guitar is an interesting instrument to think of in canonical terms. I would regard Jimmy Page , Django Reinhardt , Jimi Hendrix, Paco de Lucia as just as “canonical “ as the few classical guitar composers listed but much as I love them I can’t put Charlie Parker and Louis Armstrong in the same sphere as Beethoven, Bach , Mozart and Wagner. They are just not in the same league. I guess ultimately they are all miniaturists.
PS I don’t think there is a classical music canon really. It helps the academics fill up papers and pull in research grants while the musicians and audiences just get on with it.You’ve only got to look at this forum to see how diverse tastes are...

[Joseph K]

The guitar is an interesting instrument to think of in canonical terms. I would regard Jimmy Page , Django Reinhardt , Jimi Hendrix, Paco de Lucia as just as “canonical “ as the few classical guitar composers listed

You seem to be stretching the definition of 'canonical' beyond any kind of usefulness - considering these guitarists play in a totally different, largely improvisational idiom, compared with classical guitar composers! (Also, I'd say Jimmy Page is really quite overrated...)

but much as I love them I can’t put Charlie Parker and Louis Armstrong in the same sphere as Beethoven, Bach , Mozart and Wagner. They are just not in the same league. I guess ultimately they are all miniaturists.

No, they're not in the same league - they're in another one which is neither better or worse than that occupied by Bach, Beethoven etc. It's absurd and counterproductive trying to make value judgements through these kinds of comparisons.