NationStates Jolt Archive

I know I'm dumb to post this thread up on an NS general forum, but I'm interested what people think of the atonality in classical music that sprung up at the beginning of the 20th century and reached it's peak around the mid-to late 20th century. Personally, I hate (listening to) the way those composers used mathematics and quite unmusical systems to compose, creating - ugh - "music" that was "new" and "fresh". But when those composers incorporated musicality and normal musical patterns into their pieces (e.g. Shostakovich), it's quite a lot better. Any opinions on this sort of thing?

First Rule of NS General Posting-

There are no stupid posts, just stupid posters.

Ok. I'm stupid then. Is that what you're saying?

No, no. You misunderstand.

You see, every post has a meaning. Every single one.

It is how the poster makes his point, that determines a good post.

If one makes good points, or encourages lively debate, or is just funny, he has made his point, and is a good poster.

A bad poster expresses his points in unnecessarily vulgar or moronic terms.

You have made good points, therefore, you are, for now, a good poster.

I'm not a fan of Schoenberg and his successors, but I'm fine with the nonserial atonalists: from Bartok and Prokofiev, through Messiaen and Stravinsky, to Rochberg and Penderecki. (I mean his later stuff, not the early electronic music—that's far too disconcerting.) What's kind of sad is that I'm probably going to be the #1 authority on this forum about 20th century classical music. I have to introduce more people to this stuff.... :(

I think some of it is very nice. The passion of the composers under Soviet artistic oppression is something to behold. It's a world of music that has only recently begun opening up to us thanks to the fall of the Soviet Union.

The 20th century also brought about Western exposure to Eastern music styles. I could not imagine going through life now having never heard Punjabi music.

Obviously it had its downside, but every music era has. Remember: Mozart was not the pop star of his day. You should hear some of the crap the common man was listening to in his day. Makes Korn sound like Beethoven by comparison.

I'm not a fan of Schoenberg and his successors, but I'm fine with the nonserial atonalists: from Bartok and Prokofiev, through Messiaen and Stravinsky, to Rochberg and Penderecki. (I mean his later stuff, not the early electronic music—that's far too disconcerting.) What's kind of sad is that I'm probably going to be the #1 authority on this forum about 20th century classical music. I have to introduce more people to this stuff.... :(

I agree with you completely.

What's kind of sad is that I'm probably going to be the #1 authority on this forum about 20th century classical music.

I'll be willing to take that bet.

I agree with you completely.
I know, all I get is blank stares whenever I mention the Songs of the Nativity as my favorite contemporary vocal work... unlike the "singles" and "albums" of all these pop stars who I frankly know nothing about... :( *goes back to staring at record collection*

I haven't actually heard any atonal compositions, but they don't sound like they would be that enjoyable from the descriptions I've seen of them.

I haven't actually heard any atonal compositions, but they don't sound like they would be that enjoyable from the descriptions I've seen of them.
Listen to some. Go to your local record store and look for Stravinsky's "The Rite of Spring" or the opera "Wozzeck" by Berg. Then listen to Messiaen's "Quartet for the End of Time", Bartok's Piano Concerto #3, and to be fair Penderecki's Threnody. Then you'll have a pretty good sampling of atonal music. Then, tell us what you think.

I like a fair bit of it.

I'm not a fan of Schoenberg and his successors, but I'm fine with the nonserial atonalists: from Bartok and Prokofiev, through Messiaen and Stravinsky, to Rochberg and Penderecki. (I mean his later stuff, not the early electronic music—that's far too disconcerting.) What's kind of sad is that I'm probably going to be the #1 authority on this forum about 20th century classical music. I have to introduce more people to this stuff.... :(

I know a bit, mostly through my little bro the music comp and theory prof. I keep trying to get him to play here. But for now can you settle for this: http://www.scene4.com/html/thomasoct05.html

I know I'm dumb to post this thread up on an NS general forum, but I'm interested what people think of the atonality in classical music that sprung up at the beginning of the 20th century and reached it's peak around the mid-to late 20th century. Personally, I hate (listening to) the way those composers used mathematics and quite unmusical systems to compose, creating - ugh - "music" that was "new" and "fresh". But when those composers incorporated musicality and normal musical patterns into their pieces (e.g. Shostakovich), it's quite a lot better. Any opinions on this sort of thing?


Shostakovitch was the man. I love his music.

When I think of 20th-century composers whose work stands the best chance of standing the test of time, I think of:

1) Shostakovich's two War Symphonies (7th and 8th), the 10th Symphony, and Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk

2) Piazzolla's Tango Operita Maria de Buenos Aires

3) Stravinsky's the Rite of Spring

Others may disagree, but that's my list - fully realising that we're too close to the 20th century to really judge what will in fact last.

Conspicuously absent from my list is anything 12 tone or atonal. I think in future years musicologists will look back, scratch their heads, and wonder what on earth Schoenberg, Weber, and Berg were smoking. 12 tone and atonality are to my mind essentially artificial intellectual movements that mark a musical dead end (and that's from someone who has Messiaen's quartet for the end of time on CD).

On the other hand, history may well prove me spectacularly wrong, since many people might have once argued that Bach was an essentially artificial intellectual dead end development of baroque.

I'm not a fan of Schoenberg and his successors, but I'm fine with the nonserial atonalists: from Bartok and Prokofiev, through Messiaen and Stravinsky, to Rochberg and Penderecki. (I mean his later stuff, not the early electronic music—that's far too disconcerting.) What's kind of sad is that I'm probably going to be the #1 authority on this forum about 20th century classical music. I have to introduce more people to this stuff.... :(
I personally enjoy Schoenberg...can't really say why. I remember a teacher saying "if you really want to piss your parents off, play this. Its aweful"

She was shocked when I said I really enjoyed it.

But anyway, I wouldn't say you are the #1 authority...there seem to be several people here, myself included, who are interested in classical

When I think of 20th-century composers whose work stands the best chance of standing the test of time, I think of:

1) Shostakovich's two War Symphonies (7th and 8th), the 10th Symphony, and Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk

2) Piazzolla's Tango Operita Maria de Buenos Aires

3) Stravinsky's the Rite of Spring

Others may disagree, but that's my list - fully realising that we're too close to the 20th century to really judge what will in fact last.

Conspicuously absent from my list is anything 12 tone or atonal. I think in future years musicologists will look back, scratch their heads, and wonder what on earth Schoenberg, Weber, and Berg were smoking. 12 tone and atonality are to my mind essentially artificial intellectual movements that mark a musical dead end (and that's from someone who has Messiaen's quartet for the end of time on CD).

On the other hand, history may well prove me spectacularly wrong, since many people might have once argued that Bach was an essentially artificial intellectual dead end development of baroque.


nice choices. Personally, I am much more fond of Stravinsky's The Firebird. Don't get me wrong, Rite Of Spring is very good. I just personally love the trumpet (I'm a trumpet player) lines in Firebird. Also, the piece shows much more range and diversity, going from brazen, brash sections to flowing melodies.

I think it is odd that people using math today in music are looked at so oddly (I will admit that they use it in very odd ways). Ask almost any math-oriented person who their favorite composer is, and almost without fail, it is Bach. He used huge amounts of math in his (Tocatta and Fugue anyone?)

But anyway...These artists are looked at with disregard because their music isn't fitting the rules. Beethoven was looked at the same way, and he ushered in the Romantic era.

For anyone interested in tonal 20th cen. stuff, look to Gorecki (not well known, but damn worth a listen), Ives, Copland, etc.

And now, oddly enough, off to go listen to some of these people in my music appc. class.

I find something oddly comforting in the lack of chaos and emotive timing of the 20th century composers and the baroque composers. I suppose it is closely related to what is going on in my life. The more chaos or politics (i.e. emotionally draining stuff) going on at work, the less I want it in my free or relaxation time or entertainment. It is at those times that I want to play the certain, measured, rhythmic, steady works.

When everything is clicking along well at work, I am up for passion and expression.