Who Killed Classical Music?

[MrGongGong]

Steady on, or I might have to start charging a license fee.

I think you mean a licence ?

(off to Pedants corner then )

[Serial_Apologist]

I think you mean a licence ?

(off to Pedants corner then )

I understand either will do.

You're also permitted to create melodies when using tone rows.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diYObAZqXiE

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Steady on, or I might have to start charging a license fee.

[teamsaint]

I understand either will do.

You're also permitted to create melodies when using tone rows.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diYObAZqXiE

that was the bit that stumped me.
Q.When is a melody not a melody?
A :When it doesn't suit somebody's agenda, or career path............

[Sydney Grew]

. . . the music "progressed" until the audience consisted of few more than the composers and a few academics and performers.

Verily this shows why tonality is both inescapable and indispensible: it is the only large-scale structural principle we have. Dodecaphonism affords no equivalent. The idea of "emancipating dissonance" is as illogical and impossible as squaring the circle. Even the common people sense this, and instinctively cry out upon those interminable passacaglias. We see the proof do we not in the fact that when used as accompaniment to short cinematographical scenes - especially scenes of crime, horror and perversion - twelve-note serialism does not of itself offend; indeed it is considered appropriate. But in the case of a serious symphony the listener needs to be given a sense of direction. The key question whenever we listen to music is "Whither is the mind of the composer leading us?" It is an inescapable fact that fine literature must consist of words arranged on a page in accordance with natural grammar. And it is an equally inescapable fact that fine music must consist of pitched sounds arranged in accordance with the sphere of natural tonal grammar. Art depends upon Nature to that extent.

It is true that Brahms produced a passacaglia. But consider: a) it is a tonal passacaglia (which really makes all the difference), and b) he produced only one (as far as I am aware).

[ahinton]

Verily this shows why tonality is both inescapable and indispensible

How does it do this, "verily" or otherwise"?

it is the only large-scale structural principle we have.[

What do you mean by that and how do you arrive at such a conclusion?

Dodecaphonism affords no equivalent.

The two are not of themselves necessarily incompatible; you can have loittle or no tonal reference without having recourse to serial methodology just as you can write serial music that has tonal references; I would have thought that this is well known. Serialism is, in any case, merely a means to an end, as Richard Barrett has rightly pointed out over and over again and, in most cases, most pairs of ears would be unable to tell whether or not a piece with few if any direct tonal references was composed using serial principles.

The idea of "emancipating dissonance" is as illogical and impossible as squaring the circle

It's just an inadequate way of expressing a development in musical language; dissonance is, in any case, in the ear of the beholder up to a point and it does not require "emancipating" from anything.

Even the common people sense this

I won't dignify that with a response.

and instinctively cry out upon those interminable passacaglias

Sorry - what's this got to do with anything, let alone the subject under discussion here?

We see the proof do we not in the fact that when used as accompaniment to short cinematographical scenes - especially scenes of crime, horror and perversion - twelve-note serialism does not of itself offend; indeed it is considered appropriate.

"We" see nothing of the kind. Name me a film director that could tell whether this or that passage in the composer's movie score was written using 12 note serial principles!

But in the case of a serious symphony the listener needs to be given a sense of direction.

But we're not just taking symphonies here, serious or otherwise - and to the extent that we are, there's no shortage of serious ones within which their composers have had recourse to 12 note serial methods without in any way interfering with the music's sense of direction. A composer can in any case write music with little or no sense of direction whether or not what he/she writes is tonal or not, or serial or not.

The key question whenever we listen to music is "Whither is the mind of the composer leading us?"

Surely a subconscious question at best when concentrating on listening to a work that engages the attention of the listener sufficiently. Music can tell the listener about where it's going whatever its language if it so chooses.

It is an inescapable fact that fine literature must consist of words arranged on a page in accordance with natural grammar. And it is an equally inescapable fact that fine music must consist of pitched sounds arranged in accordance with the sphere of natural tonal grammar. Art depends upon Nature to that extent.

Once again, I have no idea wha you mean here.

It is true that Brahms produced a passacaglia. But consider: a) it is a tonal passacaglia (which really makes all the difference), and b) he produced only one (as far as I am aware).

Once again, what have passacaglias to do with this, be they by Bach, Godowsky, Reger, Sorabji, Stevenson, yours tgruly or that German composer whose name you have a strange habit of drawing into all manner of discussions?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

["emancipation of the dissonance" is] just an inadequate way of expressing a development in musical language; dissonance is, in any case, in the ear of the beholder up to a point and it does not require "emancipating" from anything.

But doesn't the fact that the second half of your statement here is taken practically for granted nowadays (whereas until at least the middle of the Century "dissonance" was regarded as something that needed resolving - something lacking in itself) suggest that "emancipation" was exactly what was achieved by the composers of Schönberg's generation?

[Richard Barrett]

Verily this shows why tonality is both inescapable and indispensible: it is the only large-scale structural principle we have. Dodecaphonism affords no equivalent. The idea of "emancipating dissonance" is as illogical and impossible as squaring the circle. Even the common people sense this, and instinctively cry out upon those interminable passacaglias. We see the proof do we not in the fact that when used as accompaniment to short cinematographical scenes - especially scenes of crime, horror and perversion - twelve-note serialism does not of itself offend; indeed it is considered appropriate. But in the case of a serious symphony the listener needs to be given a sense of direction. The key question whenever we listen to music is "Whither is the mind of the composer leading us?" It is an inescapable fact that fine literature must consist of words arranged on a page in accordance with natural grammar. And it is an equally inescapable fact that fine music must consist of pitched sounds arranged in accordance with the sphere of natural tonal grammar. Art depends upon Nature to that extent.

It is true that Brahms produced a passacaglia. But consider: a) it is a tonal passacaglia (which really makes all the difference), and b) he produced only one (as far as I am aware).

We citizens of the twenty-first century extend warm greetings to you, intrepid time-traveller from the depths of the past. We feel sure you will be moved to modify your quaint views once you have familiarised yourself with the music of the past 100 years!

[Sydney Grew]

"those interminable passacaglias" - sorry - what's this got to do with anything, let alone the subject under discussion here?

The member appears not to realize that the "serial method" is simply another name for a passacaglia. A piece written in that style starts off, somehow or other manages to repeat all twelve notes of the well-tempered chromatic scale - both those that fit and those that do not fit, and then . . . perhaps five seconds later . . . repeats them all again . . .. and then . . . round and round and round . . . again and again and again. This goes on for perhaps twenty minutes and then as we await the umpteenth repetition everything stops. What is that but a passacaglia, and indeed a silly and irrational one, since we are not told a) why the number of notes has to be twelve, and b) why things that don't fit musically are thrown in regardless.

All we see in that is a) a great deal of superstition, and b) eighty years more or less of follow-the-leader group-think, in respect to what was a deeply flawed idea in the first place.

"The key question whenever we listen to music is 'Whither is the mind of the composer leading us?' " - surely a subconscious question at best when concentrating on listening to a work that engages the attention of the listener sufficiently. Music can tell the listener about where it's going whatever its language if it so chooses.

No again the member has misunderstood. When we listen to a piece of music that engages our attention, the only thing that occupies our mind is surely "where is the music going? . . . whither are we being taken and why?" Of course I don't mean that question in so many words. All I mean is that as we follow the music our mind is occupied by what is going on in the music. Our attention is wholly engaged and there is nothing subconscious about that process!

[MrGongGong]

No again the member has misunderstood. When we listen to a piece of music that engages our attention, the only thing that occupies our mind is surely "where is the music going? . . . whither are we being taken and why?" Of course I don't mean that question in so many words. All I mean is that as we follow the music our mind is occupied by what is going on in the music. Our attention is wholly engaged and there is nothing subconscious about that process!

Not all music GOES places
nor should it

[Richard Barrett]

the "serial method" is simply another name for a passacaglia

Oh dear. I think you might have to do a bit of reading to catch up on the actual techniques of serial music, as well as a great deal of listening. Good luck!

PS George Perle's 1962 book Serial Composition and Atonality: An Introduction to the Music of Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern might be a good place to start.

[jean]

...not to mention another bit of reading to catch up on what a passacaglia is?

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

http://www.dissonanti.com/

many thanks, never have found these artists without this fascinating thread

[ahinton]

But doesn't the fact that the second half of your statement here is taken practically for granted nowadays (whereas until at least the middle of the Century "dissonance" was regarded as something that needed resolving - something lacking in itself) suggest that "emancipation" was exactly what was achieved by the composers of Schönberg's generation?

Maybe - but any such "emancipation", if indeed this is what could reasonably be said to have occurred - is suely a far more gradual and long term process than something that could merely be ascribed to certain composers of Schönberg's generation? The weakening of the perceived need for "resolution" is well evident in such works as Tristan und Isolde and even before that there are plentiful examples of gradual loosening of the tonal bonds that are usually thought of when "resolution" of "dissonance" is being considered; what some composers of quite a few generations also did as a part consequence of this was to bring about a kind of ongoing redefinition of what might be deemed to constitute "dissonance" in the first place.

[ahinton]

The member appears not to realize that the "serial method" is simply another name for a passacaglia.

You are correct in that; the member realises nothing of the kind, despite having incorporated two passacaglias, each on 12 note themes (albeit not treated serially) in two of his piano works, so his ignorance of such things must be even greater than might at first have been thought.

A piece written in that style

Er - read Richard Barrett on this; he has felt it necessary to remind some people that 12 note serial procedures are not a "style" but a mere means of working.

All we see in that is a) a great deal of superstition, and b) eighty years more or less of follow-the-leader group-think, in respect to what was a deeply flawed idea in the first place.

"We" might see either or both of these things; the rest of us either do not have the same eyes or perhaps should've gone to Specsavers (not)...

No again the member has misunderstood. When we listen to a piece of music that engages our attention, the only thing that occupies our mind is surely "where is the music going? . . . whither are we being taken and why?" Of course I don't mean that question in so many words. All I mean is that as we follow the music our mind is occupied by what is going on in the music. Our attention is wholly engaged and there is nothing subconscious about that process!

You argue with yourself here more effectively than I could! You first write of the need or presumption of being mentally occupied by "where the music is going" and then you write of being mentally occupied by "what is going on" in it; that's not to suggest that the two are necessarily incompatible, but a piece of music doesn't always have to be "going" somewhere in order for its engaged listeners to occupy their mental faculties with what might happen to be going on in it at any given moment.