What do you like about atonal arhythmic music?

But I'm not sure it was arhythmic. Also, he then conducted Stravinski's Rites of Spring which blew his own stuff away.

But I think the question has become more complex. Are you asking what we like about music without *structure*? I mean why do Webern and Boulez come into this list, when they're clearly producing music according to structured rules (eg. 12 tone for Webern, and some kind of total serialism for Boulez.)

So surely, if you can *like* a melody or a rhythm, why can't you like any other structural component of a piece of music, like the series it's based on?

You might be asking why people can like *unstructured* music like free improv. But then, maybe the argument is that that has a structure based on the expressionistic urges of the musicians and you like those?

What is it your really asking about the lack of?

Phil: Do you hear the series when you listen to 12-tone/serial music? Because I'm pretty sure I don't. I don't know that I do hear underlying structural elements in, say, a given movement of a Boulez piano sonata.

So I think that you ought to try to figure out if the "weird" music that you love has anything in common with the "normal" music you love. I think that that is the case for most folks.

Then again, what makes an "ordinary" melody good. We all know that musical theory says what notes can form a legitimate melody ... but it dosn't explain why one is gut-wrenchingly beautiful and another infuriating, and another banal.

when sibelius flirts with it in the 4th symphony, it is made all the more moving because of the surrounding tonal material. similarly, schoenberg's 2nd string quartet begins with extreme post-Wagnerian chromaticism only to break completely in the third movement--this is, of course, the most obvious example, but it is entirely successful in its aims. or take schnittke's own 2nd quartet, where the work's occasional slips into seemingly random atonality and extremely dissonant harmonies underline the comprehensibly "tragic" structure and serve the emotional goal completely.

so what about purely atonal music where there is no familiar point of reference? this is infinitely more difficult to pull off, and much of the music in this vein seems to me an irritatingly academic exercise (cue in the usual suspects, e.g. boulez, ferneyhough). it is difficult to be both expressive and intellectual while composing atonal music that is entirely *justified*--that is, it is difficult to make use of atonality for an actual purpose and not simply because you've run out of tonal ideas. i think elliott carter pulls this off magnificently. yes, his music is often very dense, but it is always so for a reason. same with wolfgang rihm, though he himself will insert fake (or not?) german romanticism in order to achieve polar contrasts.

so if the rhythmic interplay is sufficiently interesting; if the continuous juxtaposition of specific harmonies *requires* atonality in order to express something new, then atonality is - to me, at least - just as beautiful as a finely strung melody with an even more perfectly wrought counterpoint.

all things considered, atonality is still a fairly new thing--in the bigger scheme of things. as soon as more composers manage to *think* atonally in their methods of writing (something which webern seems to have pioneered), they will arrive at music which may just be accepted by a more general public, eventually. not that it will break the mainstream; but it would certainly gain more exposure than it has now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3aSzFEoMMc

thanking u

!

tristano namedrop, nice!

lolllllllllllll

What movie does that come from?

OK, it's Jailhouse Rock according to this: http://www.jazz.com/jazz-blog/2008/5/26/elvis-and-jazz-a-cautionary-tale

We probably like atonal music that discovers new tones, in the same way we like 'just colours' abstract paintings that discover new forms, shapes, etc

Like there'll be a sequence of notes out there that is just as good at doing what it does, as the Dorian scale is at sounding sad, we just didn't know about it yet

I'm new to atonal music but I think what I get out of it is entirely down to what the composer or improviser does with themselves and how it makes the sound unique. Unlike other styles of structured playing, atonal and improv music can't be looked at in the same terms. Therefore every performance has its own unique selling point.

In fact, does someone with more knowledge of musical theory than me know if scales are objective or just arbitrary? Like, do the set of scales in western classical music actually correspond to all possible emotional states or is it like you can always discover new ones?

@ Sund4r, re your original question, I've always considered Boulez to be very close to the rigid Classicism of Mozart. Very difficult to assess on terms of "good" or "bad" because they're dealing with the predictability of mathematical schemes. I think I'd have to talk about it in person some day, I'm on the verge of a k-hole of typing

@ cardamon, I don't know how to distinguish between an objective and an arbitrary scale, what do you mean?

Ohhhh, wait, I'm sorry I get it.

Western classical scales have always been changing, apparently there are lots of very interesting books about it? (I was recommended one by a friend a few years ago and he was really into it but I can't recall the title, will ask him tomorrow). Even now in Western classical performance tho pitch is flexible, dependent on context. Thirds of major chords are regularly tuned sharp by singers and string players. Raised-7ths are tuned sharp. Bass instruments play sharp or flat to create different effects. Et cetera.

surprised that so many are going with newness/novelty as an explanation. i like sounds. there are terrible sounds out there, of course, but the "sense" or experience of sound is greatly dependent on context, both sonic and otherwise. even the most awful noise can induce pleasure if it occurs in the right way at the right moment. whether or not they seem musical, sounds induce emotions, bring up associations and memories, interact in various ways with the body and brain. in sequence, they tell "stories" of a non-narrative sort, pushing us this way and that as time passes. maybe an amusement park ride is a better metaphorical equivalent.

atonal and arrhythmic music can tell a story or take us on a journey just as well as any other sort. all it misses are certain familiar tools and landmarks. the simple pleasure of hearing a noise in time, a noise and then another noise, those are still available.

I didn't even reread my OP. I have an easier time explaining this than I did 11 years ago tbh.

Thirds of major chords are regularly tuned sharp by singers and string players. Raised-7ths are tuned sharp.

I am curious about this. So major thirds are played closer to a Pythagorean major third (~408 cents) than a 5-limit major third (~386 cents) and major 7ths are played closer to a Pythagorean major seventh (~1110 cents) than a 5-limit major seventh (~1088 cents)? That seems counterintuitive to me, because I am a big fan of consonant restful thirds, but I guess it makes the thirds sound brighter and more active?

It's the ancient question of mean vs equal tuning, right?

I thought he meant "tuned sharp" as in sharper than equal tuning.

There was a little discussion about that youtube link way back when over here: ILM TRIVIA CHALLENGE

My attempt to answer this question: http://heystacks.tumblr.com/post/57020547421/derek-bailey-three-05-solo-guitar-volume-2-1992

I am curious about this. So major thirds are played closer to a Pythagorean major third (~408 cents) than a 5-limit major third (~386 cents) and major 7ths are played closer to a Pythagorean major seventh (~1110 cents) than a 5-limit major seventh (~1088 cents)? That seems counterintuitive to me, because I am a big fan of consonant restful thirds, but I guess it makes the thirds sound brighter and more active?

Ha ha! I don't know? But yeah, with string quartets, string orchestras, etc., the violin is tuned "mean" to 440. Fifths are tuned by ear-- turn the pegs till there are no harmonic beats. This creates perfect, open fifths and makes your G- or C-string slightly flat. Mean tuning. You would never notice, it's a pretty subtle thing. Tuning chords in diatonic music, however, major chords in particular just sound great with the third of the chord played a little sharp, classical musicians and singers learn to do it intuitively. I am certain there is theory and history behind when and why to tune your chords in different ways but in my experience it's just taught to be intuitive? idk.

DL please please please watch Fred Frith "Step Across The Border".

Okay!

you can probably tell from my post that i'm totally new to improvisational stuff, but it's my take on it as a dilettante.

i need to watch these docs that Chewshabadoo recommended as well: http://ubu.com/film/bailey.html

I'm particularly intrigued by the problem of tuning in polyphonic choral music where theoretically you can do whatever the fuck you want with no limitations imposed by a built instrument. Like how do choirs approach medieval masses and motets differently than Bach?

I watched (nearly all) of that film fgti - enjoyed it very much. Sadly haven't made it all the way to the end as it got too late but I will.

I am certain there is theory and history behind when and why to tune your chords in different ways but in my experience it's just taught to be intuitive? idk.

afaik there was a conscious effort in pre-15th century choirs to sing Pythagorean thirds rather than the more intuitive 5-limit thirds. this was when thirds were considered dissonances that needed to resolve to a consonant fourth or fifth.

I'm particularly intrigued by the problem of tuning in polyphonic choral music where theoretically you can do whatever the fuck you want with no limitations imposed by a built instrument. Like how do choirs approach medieval masses and motets differently than Bach?

early choral music is all in unison, and stayed largely modal as it introduced additional lines. there's not too much modulation from key to key so it's easy to find your intervals.

it is absolutely true that choral music was getting increasingly strange in the centuries leading up to bach; the harmonies were incredibly rich, and even if they often kept to the same key, the melodies had incredible shapes & contours (I like Machaut). Or they went for scale (40 individual parts), or, towards the end, they bordered on outright dissonance (the harmonies in gesualdo sound more like the 20th century than anything in the 17th, 18th, or 19th)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=B6iaghGYSjc&t=2357

^^ Herzog's documentary on Gesualdo, cued up to the section where the singers demonstrate each of their harmonies individually, each one apparently in a different key, and then they take them all together at once. definitely belongs in this thread.