From: mccomt@aix.rpi.edu (Todd Michel McComb)
Subject: tonality and modern music
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 19:08:23 GMT

From time to time in this group, one sees requests for help in approaching
modern music -- nontonal music in particular -- and more often, complaints
about the way that composers have abandoned listeners.  It seems that many
classical music listeners *are* interested in modern music, even if this is
expressed simply as a refutation of its relevance.  It is unfortunate that
so many people take every opportunity to bash the new styles as meaningless
noise, but it is also fortunate that almost every week on this group someone
is discovering this music for themselves.

It seems odd that so many people are willing to define what music should be
in terms of reference to tonality and repetition.  Apparently many listeners
are quite taken with the lush Romantic idiom; as has been mentioned, earlier
music sounded quite different: neither Machault, Josquin, Palestrina or Bach
sound much like Beethoven or Tchaikovsky to me.  In fact, to someone who is
accustomed to the Romantic tonality, Ockeghem and Josquin would seem to be
at least as difficult to approach as Schoenberg or Carter.  Yet the technical
and sonic developments made by these composers is certainly felt in the
music of the 19th century -- not in the personal expression, but in the
materials themselves.  So, we have a situation in which musical styles and
frames of reference have changed steadily over six hundred years.  And the
composers of the 20th century do not want to write in the style of the 19th
any more than composers of the 17th century wanted to write in the style of
the 16th.  That is to say that there *is* influence and inspiration, but
there is also a desire to say new things that reflect the personal thoughts
of today's composers.

We are very lucky to be living today -- in a time when the music of all
periods is performed, and usually performed well.  There is an extreme
interest in history which extends far beyond the bounds of the scholarly
world.  One can listen to Haydn in a variety of performance styles; one
can listen to Bach's Art of Fugue on a variety of instruments; one can listen
to Perotin or even Scelsi, Sorabji & Xenakis and not even have to leave
home.  There is also an explosion of musical experiences available from
all over the world: from India, Indonesia, China and the Middle East.  These
powerful and varied traditions are to me the most damaging evidence against
assigning any priority to the "traditional" tonal idiom.  Clearly, these
cultures have produced and are producing direct and powerful music in an
"atonal" idiom.  Finally, there is the huge explosion of popular music.
One can hardly go anywhere without hearing music.

Of course, none of this makes it any easier for listeners who have been
fed a steady diet of Romantic music and classical music performed in the
Romantic style to identify with any of the modern music -- that is unless
they simply identify with it on their own.  That the modern composers are
writing music different from what has gone before is a basic necessity of
personal expression, and we are again fortunate to have the opportunity to
hear some of the most varied styles in our history emanating from our own
time.  This is really the glory of our era: that listeners of radically
different tastes can find music they like.  I like modern music, and even
atonal music, fundamentally because I identify with what is being expressed
and because I like a challenge.  I will certainly make an effort to
relisten to something I found incomprehensible the first time, whereas
something which is very familiar will hardly be noticed.  That is really
a difference in personality -- and it is this sort of *personal* expression
which makes its way into the music written today.  How could it be any
other way?

Regarding dodecaphony, it is important to hear Schoenberg's music as an
attempt at neo-classicism.  One only need listen to the first and fourth
string quartets in succession to hear a huge difference.  The first is an
arduous *tonal* work based in the late quartets of Beethoven, and making
much use of modulations and chromaticism.  The fourth is a dodecaphonic work
full of classical balance -- and reflecting an admiration of Mozart.  The
style he developed allowed Schoenberg to express *his* ideas in a more
straightforward manner.  As for listening to this music, and understanding
it, I do not think that written material will really help.  One must simply
listen to lots of music; listen to what has gone before and what came after,
and allow your expectations to be suspended in the interest of identifying
with the artist.  In Berg one finds neo-baroque elements, and Webern was
to derive inspiration from the early Renaissance.  So, again one finds in
modern music not so much an abandonment of tradition, but a re-examination
of tradition placed at the service of personal expression.

There is also the much reported animosity of composers directed at listeners.
I do not think this really exists.  But people become frustrated, and hurt.
If an artist pours out his soul, only to be met with hostile reactions from
an audience who (perhaps justifiably) has difficulty relating to what is
being expressed, he will be hurt.  This can easily manifest itself in all
sorts of invective -- particularly if the composer believes that the audience
is criticizing without basis.  Composers also say strange things which can
alienate listeners; I know I do it often.  Babbitt's essay "The composer as
specialist" is often brought up in these sorts of discussions, and there is
a point to be made: composers are writing music that they themselves can
enjoy, and it is hardly out of the question that there are works which might
demand years of full-time music study in order to absorb.  But I think it
is also quite possible to enjoy the music without such pre-occupations.
For example, Babbitt's Piano Concerto is a dazzling kaleidoscopic display;
I am particularly impressed by the way the virtuoso drive of the piano opens
up regions of color in the orchestra only to close them again and move on.
On reading Boulez, in his book "on Music Today," talk in great lengths about
how a composer can go about avoiding producing any tonal association for the
listener, one can only be perplexed by the counter-intuitive motivation
behind it.  Yet, this sort of discussion seems far removed from Boulez'
sensuous music -- like Le Visage Nuptial.  There is a tremendous variety of
music available for the open-minded listener who is willing to expend some
effort, and to forgive composers some of their verbal transgressions.

And of course there is still tonal music being written, along with so much
other exciting and new material.  For me, the greatest thrill is music which
brings so many of these elements together: tonality, renaissance polyphony,
other ideas on pitch ordering, and the music of other cultures.  We have
composers reproducing their ideas and emotions for us -- and though we can
hardly expect to be in complete sympathy with everyone, I am sure that there
are modern and atonal works which would appeal to virtually everyone reading
this if they were to happen upon them.

Happy listening,
T. M. McComb

Newsgroups: rec.music.classical