Ever read Thomas Mann's "Dr Faustus"? Schoenberg was not amused! Thank you, Nathan. Excellent explanation, with essential historical background provided.
There are still several things that confuse me about 12 tone. While I get how you derive the row, how do composers decide what to make the polyphony or "accompaniment," if that word makes sense in this context? Do they just use one of the inversions or retrograde thingies? Different tempos / rhythms of the original row? Where do rests come into play? Does it matter?
MrBeethovenfan yup, the “accompaniment” is also derived from the row. A simple example would be arranging part of your row vertically into a chord, so let’s say one part of my row is C G G#, I could write a chord from the bottom up as C G G#. Regarding time and rhythm , it’s decided by the Composer. However, some considerations: if you are looking to have “all tones equal”, then you must watch out for the highest and lowest notes. So there is a practice where you have the extreme notes have shorter time values to deemphasise them. There’s also another extreme for of serial music, where you create not only a tone row but also a row that controls rhythm.
The irony of Nazi Germany using the first viennese school to dismiss Schoenberg as a Jew just for the US to use the second viennese school to dismiss Joplin and Jazz as black music.
Yeah it gets weirder when you start looking at Adorno who studied with Berg and was a founder of Critical Theory, and sociology, and antiracist research, but also 'hated' 'Jazz'.
02:48 - This is where all music instruction falls apart for me, the basis of these systems presume that "we" feel this way. That the varying degrees of consonance and dissonance somehow automatically yield expectations that we then devise a vernacular for playing with. I would love to learn more about serialism as a serious introduction to music theory, but apart from some decent 5-10 minute introductions on CZcams, all of the textbooks I know of approach serialism from the POV that the reader is coming from a tonal music background. It is really frustrating, and makes it hard to get started.
All music you're not used to sound wacky. Patterns emerge when you get enough exposure time, and for different types of music this time may be really long, so be patient and listen to more music outside of your comfort zone.
@@yunoewig3095 That's also possible. Enjoyment is subjective. I'm not a huge fan of it either as a whole, but some bigger scale works like Berg's operas are quite enjoyable to me.
@@karlpoppins Yeah I really enjoy some of Berg’s operas and also some Schoenberg’s works such as Pierrot Lunaire. But I feel that the reason I enjoy them has nothing to do with (a)tonality. Rather, there is some other element present that makes it more interesting, such as the interplay of different timbres. In fact, whenever the human voice is present, it’s much easier to make a piece interesting because of the sheer richness and variety of timbres it can produce. For the same reason, I find Schoenberg works for piano or violin quartet hard to enjoy, because there is not much to hang on to, and whatever is happening there melodically/harmonically is impossible for my ears to grasp.
@@yunoewig3095 Well I actually really enjoy free atonality which isn't associated with the Second Viennese School - the harmonies can be quite intriguing. I think what makes 12-tone in particular more inaccessible than other atonal music is that the pitch content is hard to differentiate exactly because you're forced to use all 12 tones in a short span of time, which is why the more advanced techniques that the serialists came up with later somewhat make up for the lack of flexibility of the basic 12-tone techniques. Berg's style is particularly accessible because it maintains a lot of the late Romantic sensibility that Schoenberg and especially Webern moved away from.
Certainly modality has been around that long (if not much much longer). However the idea of pitch hierarchy that is found in tonality shows up in the 1600's. Since major and minor scales used commonly today are apart of the modal system it would seem there is overlap. The differences is in the function assigned to those pitches and harmonies tonic, dominant subdominat etc. An ionian scale does have the same pitch center as a major scale, it's just how the structure of the scale is viewed.
Here Nathan Nokes is referring to what's now known as the common practice era, stretching from around Monteverdi's time to the last years of the 19th century when Debussy started to dissolve Wagnerian chromatic tonality with the whole tone scale. During those 300 years the common practice was to use the major/minor tonal system. Composing in the medieval and renaissance modes was considered backward and reactionary (with a few exceptions), not unlike what 20th century modernists thought of Rachmaninov, Puccini et al - those who stuck to what was considered outmoded (I wonder where that word comes from?!...) common practice tonality.
The only thing that Schoenberg had succeeded is to teach humanity that atonal music sucks. Oh, and to make composers that came after him work twice as hard without earning anything because no one wanted to play new music and the scars of this and the Implications of it are trembling all over so composers all over our planet are unsuspected and consider as the last thing to take into account or importance,. Like this guy's music which and suffers from Schoenberg's "Lets destroy composers" method. czcams.com/video/ljL1iRewzsU/video.html
"If the whole world seems to be running on new rules, why should music stay the same?" 1. Art is communication 2. Communication involves transmission of meaning. 3. In order for meaning to be transmitted, it must be expressed in a language that is comprehensible not only to the transmitter, but also to the receiver. Tonality is an example of such a language. Your statement is, of course, wrong. The "whole world" was not running on new rules in 1921, because the languages people used to communicate, e.g. English, remained constant. Discarding tonality because it had "run its course" is exactly as valid as discarding English for a similar reason. Just because some folks, e.g. Schoenberg, couldn't think of how to write good tonal music doesn't mean no one else could, then or now. I am not suggesting that tonal music is the only valuable music, but rather that the only music of value is that which successfully transmits meaning to a listener, thus one that utilizes a language that is aurally comprehensible to that listener.
jaspernatchez I think it is aurally comprehensible, because of the recurring intervallic qualities. I don’t think it’s fair to say that Schoenberg “couldn’t think of how to write good tonal music”. For over a decade, he wrote music in a late Romantic style, like Brahms or Wagner.
This certainly applies to folk music, which is a utility, but it does not apply to 'art' music, which is a novelty. As 'art' music is not _functional_ a composer is not required to convey a message that can be easily understood, simply because the choice of musical language is part of the artistic process and conveys a message as such. Moreover, the invention of new languages explores musical statements and resulting acoustic feelings which are simply not possible with tonal music, due to its extreme consonance. Just as it is hard to express overwhelming happiness with atonality, it is hard to express engulfing terror with tonality. I suggest that you thoroughly, and with an open mind, listen to George Crumb's masterpiece, "Black Angels". No tonal music could ever convey the feelings that Crumb's language in this piece does, and if you spend enough time with this sort of music you'll see what I mean. Once you grasp this work, it can hit you so hard you'll be depressed. P.S.: I'm not against tonality. Nonetheless, I personally find most tonal new works boring, because they either borrow too much from pop culture, resemble older music, or because they are way too consonant and... lame. Not lame _because_ they are tonal - Beethoven is consonant but not lame.
Funny that you mention the Crumb. For some reason a few days ago I decided to try it. Although I was somewhat intrigued by Crumb in my early twenties, today it's not my thing - just gimmicks and sound effects, although Death and the Maiden cannot be ruined. Not what I listen to music for today, and not what I listened to music for when I was 3.
We get it, modern intellectual music is not your type. I still don't see why it isn't of "value". "Value" is subjective, and that is why I might want to spend $100 on a very intricate dinner and you might think that's a waste; it's also why I might want to spend 2 hours of my day listening to Xenakis and you might think, again, that you'd rather be doing something else. We don't all spend our money the same way, we don't all spend our time listening to the same music. What's the big deal?
"modern intellectual music is not your type" I see nothing intellectual about most modern music. " "Value" is subjective" I suppose that's probably true, but "meaning" isn't. As I've tried to illustrate with the example of the cadence, there is meaningful information, aurally perceptible in the way pitches relate to each other in good music, regardless of the ability of someone to perceive it. Shakespeare has meaning regardless of whether someone speaks English. "What's the big deal?" The big deal is that music has taken a terrible turn, and that turn has resulted in an unhealthily large percentage of art music fans having no interest in new music. That situation has never existed before, to my knowledge. I know so many professional performers, some near the top of their field, and none has any interest in most new music. I fight that prejudice literally every day. I'm not going to waste your time or mine trying to make you see that the aurally perceptible, intelligible information in a typical piece of Xenakis is microscopic compared with a typical tonal piece. Listeners have every right to demand that level of information from a new piece of music. Do I really need to remind you of the size of Xenakis's audience? There's a reason, and it's not that most people into music aren't bright or musical enough to perceive whatever it is Xenakis has to offer. It's that what it has to offer is so minuscule next to a good piece of tonal music. Just think about all of the different sorts of information, transmitted mainly but not exclusively by pitch relationships, that are aurally available to a listener, corresponding to different time frames, in a good piece of tonal music. There is nothing remotely similar in most new music.
There is absolutely a sense of Audible musical cohesion. I think this might be a a lack of familiarity. Repeated exposer to music of that style makes it much easier to hear the structural relationships of the tone rows. A easy example of this is Berg's Violin Concerto which uses a JS Bach quotation in the tone row. (Edit: spelling)
"There is absolutely a since of Audible musical cohesion." Do you mean "sense"? Musical cohesion can only be conveyed by patterns, mainly harmonic. 12 tone music as a rule does not exhibit audible harmonic patterns. "I think this might be a a lack of familiarity." On the contrary, those who think they hear harmonic patterns in 12 tone garbage are only having expectations fulfilled due to repeated listening. "A easy example of this is Berg's Violin Concerto which uses a JS Bach quotation in the tone row." There is no Bach quotation in the row. The triads in the row imply B-A-C-H (Bb, A C, B). There is a whole tone scale that is LATER related to a Bach chorale. Re audible cohesion, there may be a bit in the Berg, but it is vastly overshadowed by the majority of the music that has none.
Thank you for your time. Now it's totally okay to not like 12 tone. But, saying it has no audible music patterns is a bit far fetched. I think it's also unwise to claim that other people people can't actually hear harmonic patterns in 12-tone music that chooses to use it. Some people can. Just like some people can instantly recognize the sound of a sharp-11th chord. But really If we consider some of the main elements of music such as Melody, Harmony, Form, Timbre, Dynamics, Texture and Rhythm, there are completely recognizable in 12 tone. 12 tone does not have to have audible harmonic patterns, but it is by no means a rule. Just like modal music does not require harmonic patterns. Also what about monophonic textures? We we wouldn't say plainchant is without cohesion. 12 tone is now a musical a tool that can be used or not used. Some composers have used it and tried to create tonal harmonies, (Copland), Some composers have used it to create contrast to tonal sections (Corigliano), some composers have obsessed with the harmonic relationships in the pitch rows in order to create coherent harmonic patterns and relationships (late Schoenberg).
"But, saying it has no audible music patterns is a bit far fetched. " Let's test. Pick a 12 tone piece of Schoenberg and show me, with time stamps, where the audible pitch patterns are. "I think it's also unwise to claim that other people people can't actually hear harmonic patterns in 12-tone music that chooses to use it. " Um, chooses to use WHAT? "Some people can." Some people can WHAT? "Just like some people can instantly recognize the sound of a sharp-11th chord." THAT is a uniquely absurd statement. The root is apparent to the listener in any triad-based chord containing a perfect fifth. Anyone with an ear can hear such a chord. What, you think a chord with a sharp 11th degree is ultimately weird or something?? It's just a semitone below the fifth - big deal "But really If we consider some of the main elements of music such as Melody, Harmony, Form, Timbre, Dynamics, Texture and Rhythm, there are completely recognizable in 12 tone." There are completely recognizable WHAT in 12 tone?? I must ask you to speak in complete, coherent sentences, please. You forgot meter, but who cares? Since 12 tone claims to organize PITCHES, non-pitch-related elements of music are obviously IRRELEVANT to this discussion. If you're trying to say that 12 tone abandons audible pitch relationships in favor of those other elements, you might have a valid point. "Some composers have used it and tried to create tonal harmonies, (Copland)," That statement makes no sense, since obviously Copland used tonal harmony just fine without 12 tone. Why would he or anyone else take as circuitous a route back to the very thing they were supposedly trying to avoid?
Jasper, I have a lot of deadlines, and very little spare time. I don't proof informal messages such as the one you are reading right now. If you wish to actually discuss this topic, I would gladly help out. I even have some reading suggestions. However, I suspect that no mater what I write you would attempt to discredit it in some way. ie implying meter isn't covered under rhythm. Like I said before you can dislike 12-tone, that doesn't mean other people can't enjoy it, or at least appreciate it as part of the history of western art music. My guess is your are under a lot of stress and I'm not sure if you are enrolled in an academic institution, most schools have access to counseling facilities, that can be very useful. I have see too many musicians and friends burn out, when it could have been avoided. I wish you the best, Nathan
Buddy - I gave up on your talk after the 4 second mark when you had some lousy piece of amateurish tonal music on the soundtrack. You might have used a clip from Arnold Schoenberg - the subject of your talk? FAIL
These frankly absolutely ridiculous and stupid non-discussions about 12 tone composition will never end. If you don't like it, go listen to Abba or to 'melody' and 'harmony' that you can understand, but spare us your uninformed rantings. Schoenberg didn't try to kill your family, so why would you even care?
Ever read Thomas Mann's "Dr Faustus"? Schoenberg was not amused! Thank you, Nathan. Excellent explanation, with essential historical background provided.
What a great explanation! Thank you so much!!!!
Excellent presentation, thank you !
Thanks for the video, Nathan! Nice meeting you at UT :)
Thanks James it was good to meet you too. Good luck with school... hopefully we hear back from places soon.
Thanks for sharing! Best regards.
Great vid but I get so fired up reading some of these horrendous comments from 4+ years ago. Wish I could’ve had your back haha 😂
love his music!!
There are still several things that confuse me about 12 tone. While I get how you derive the row, how do composers decide what to make the polyphony or "accompaniment," if that word makes sense in this context? Do they just use one of the inversions or retrograde thingies? Different tempos / rhythms of the original row? Where do rests come into play? Does it matter?
MrBeethovenfan yup, the “accompaniment” is also derived from the row. A simple example would be arranging part of your row vertically into a chord, so let’s say one part of my row is C G G#, I could write a chord from the bottom up as C G G#.
Regarding time and rhythm , it’s decided by the Composer. However, some considerations: if you are looking to have “all tones equal”, then you must watch out for the highest and lowest notes. So there is a practice where you have the extreme notes have shorter time values to deemphasise them. There’s also another extreme for of serial music, where you create not only a tone row but also a row that controls rhythm.
thank you very much.
3:25 So can another composer have another way to sequence the notes and create a new matrix?
The twelve notes can be in any order, so there are 479,001,600 possible tone rows.
Excelent ...
Hey, Nathan. I got a question or two. Can I message you?
Sure.
The irony of Nazi Germany using the first viennese school to dismiss Schoenberg as a Jew just for the US to use the second viennese school to dismiss Joplin and Jazz as black music.
Yeah it gets weirder when you start looking at Adorno who studied with Berg and was a founder of Critical Theory, and sociology, and antiracist research, but also 'hated' 'Jazz'.
02:48 - This is where all music instruction falls apart for me, the basis of these systems presume that "we" feel this way. That the varying degrees of consonance and dissonance somehow automatically yield expectations that we then devise a vernacular for playing with. I would love to learn more about serialism as a serious introduction to music theory, but apart from some decent 5-10 minute introductions on CZcams, all of the textbooks I know of approach serialism from the POV that the reader is coming from a tonal music background.
It is really frustrating, and makes it hard to get started.
CDEFGBA lol @2:25
Where´s the joke?
yeah what's the matter ?
It should be A B at the end, if that's what he is referring to
Fuck I didn´t saw it xD
It's supposed to be CDEFG"A"B
Also tonal twelve-tone music.
Holy cow, lotsa nitpicking here. Good clip regardless!
Tmw Emphetamines become more dominant than Psychs
From what I've heard of 12 tone music, I'd say it sounds pretty whacky. I haven't heard much though.
All music you're not used to sound wacky. Patterns emerge when you get enough exposure time, and for different types of music this time may be really long, so be patient and listen to more music outside of your comfort zone.
@@karlpoppins I feel that no amount of exposure to 12-tone music will make it more enjoyable.
@@yunoewig3095 That's also possible. Enjoyment is subjective. I'm not a huge fan of it either as a whole, but some bigger scale works like Berg's operas are quite enjoyable to me.
@@karlpoppins Yeah I really enjoy some of Berg’s operas and also some Schoenberg’s works such as Pierrot Lunaire. But I feel that the reason I enjoy them has nothing to do with (a)tonality. Rather, there is some other element present that makes it more interesting, such as the interplay of different timbres. In fact, whenever the human voice is present, it’s much easier to make a piece interesting because of the sheer richness and variety of timbres it can produce. For the same reason, I find Schoenberg works for piano or violin quartet hard to enjoy, because there is not much to hang on to, and whatever is happening there melodically/harmonically is impossible for my ears to grasp.
@@yunoewig3095 Well I actually really enjoy free atonality which isn't associated with the Second Viennese School - the harmonies can be quite intriguing. I think what makes 12-tone in particular more inaccessible than other atonal music is that the pitch content is hard to differentiate exactly because you're forced to use all 12 tones in a short span of time, which is why the more advanced techniques that the serialists came up with later somewhat make up for the lack of flexibility of the basic 12-tone techniques. Berg's style is particularly accessible because it maintains a lot of the late Romantic sensibility that Schoenberg and especially Webern moved away from.
I cant hear shit so it all sounds the same to me.....
you are also handsome
i see something on your boookkkssheellff
So are you paranoid enough, nathan??
What's on my bookshelf? I'm guessing books and scores!
IJ!
Haha yes, the Wallace
Almost 300 years? You mean the tradition of tonality? It has been around for at least 3,800 years.
Certainly modality has been around that long (if not much much longer). However the idea of pitch hierarchy that is found in tonality shows up in the 1600's. Since major and minor scales used commonly today are apart of the modal system it would seem there is overlap. The differences is in the function assigned to those pitches and harmonies tonic, dominant subdominat etc.
An ionian scale does have the same pitch center as a major scale, it's just how the structure of the scale is viewed.
Here Nathan Nokes is referring to what's now known as the common practice era, stretching from around Monteverdi's time to the last years of the 19th century when Debussy started to dissolve Wagnerian chromatic tonality with the whole tone scale. During those 300 years the common practice was to use the major/minor tonal system. Composing in the medieval and renaissance modes was considered backward and reactionary (with a few exceptions), not unlike what 20th century modernists thought of Rachmaninov, Puccini et al - those who stuck to what was considered outmoded (I wonder where that word comes from?!...) common practice tonality.
JUMP CUT. JUMP CUT. JUMP CUT.
+Stofnun Other than that... This video is amazing.
+Stofnun Well, it is youtube after all.
12 tone might be interesting to music theory nerds but it does sound like shit.
The only thing that Schoenberg had succeeded is to teach humanity that atonal music sucks. Oh, and to make composers that came after him work twice as hard without earning anything because no one wanted to play new music and the scars of this and the Implications of it are trembling all over so composers all over our planet are unsuspected and consider as the last thing to take into account or importance,. Like this guy's music which and suffers from Schoenberg's "Lets destroy composers" method.
czcams.com/video/ljL1iRewzsU/video.html
"If the whole world seems to be running on new rules, why should music stay the same?" 1. Art is communication 2. Communication involves transmission of meaning. 3. In order for meaning to be transmitted, it must be expressed in a language that is comprehensible not only to the transmitter, but also to the receiver. Tonality is an example of such a language.
Your statement is, of course, wrong. The "whole world" was not running on new rules in 1921, because the languages people used to communicate, e.g. English, remained constant. Discarding tonality because it had "run its course" is exactly as valid as discarding English for a similar reason. Just because some folks, e.g. Schoenberg, couldn't think of how to write good tonal music doesn't mean no one else could, then or now. I am not suggesting that tonal music is the only valuable music, but rather that the only music of value is that which successfully transmits meaning to a listener, thus one that utilizes a language that is aurally comprehensible to that listener.
jaspernatchez I think it is aurally comprehensible, because of the recurring intervallic qualities. I don’t think it’s fair to say that Schoenberg “couldn’t think of how to write good tonal music”. For over a decade, he wrote music in a late Romantic style, like Brahms or Wagner.
This certainly applies to folk music, which is a utility, but it does not apply to 'art' music, which is a novelty. As 'art' music is not _functional_ a composer is not required to convey a message that can be easily understood, simply because the choice of musical language is part of the artistic process and conveys a message as such. Moreover, the invention of new languages explores musical statements and resulting acoustic feelings which are simply not possible with tonal music, due to its extreme consonance. Just as it is hard to express overwhelming happiness with atonality, it is hard to express engulfing terror with tonality.
I suggest that you thoroughly, and with an open mind, listen to George Crumb's masterpiece, "Black Angels". No tonal music could ever convey the feelings that Crumb's language in this piece does, and if you spend enough time with this sort of music you'll see what I mean. Once you grasp this work, it can hit you so hard you'll be depressed.
P.S.: I'm not against tonality. Nonetheless, I personally find most tonal new works boring, because they either borrow too much from pop culture, resemble older music, or because they are way too consonant and... lame. Not lame _because_ they are tonal - Beethoven is consonant but not lame.
Funny that you mention the Crumb. For some reason a few days ago I decided to try it. Although I was somewhat intrigued by Crumb in my early twenties, today it's not my thing - just gimmicks and sound effects, although Death and the Maiden cannot be ruined. Not what I listen to music for today, and not what I listened to music for when I was 3.
We get it, modern intellectual music is not your type. I still don't see why it isn't of "value". "Value" is subjective, and that is why I might want to spend $100 on a very intricate dinner and you might think that's a waste; it's also why I might want to spend 2 hours of my day listening to Xenakis and you might think, again, that you'd rather be doing something else. We don't all spend our money the same way, we don't all spend our time listening to the same music. What's the big deal?
"modern intellectual music is not your type" I see nothing intellectual about most modern music. " "Value" is subjective" I suppose that's probably true, but "meaning" isn't. As I've tried to illustrate with the example of the cadence, there is meaningful information, aurally perceptible in the way pitches relate to each other in good music, regardless of the ability of someone to perceive it. Shakespeare has meaning regardless of whether someone speaks English. "What's the big deal?" The big deal is that music has taken a terrible turn, and that turn has resulted in an unhealthily large percentage of art music fans having no interest in new music. That situation has never existed before, to my knowledge. I know so many professional performers, some near the top of their field, and none has any interest in most new music. I fight that prejudice literally every day. I'm not going to waste your time or mine trying to make you see that the aurally perceptible, intelligible information in a typical piece of Xenakis is microscopic compared with a typical tonal piece. Listeners have every right to demand that level of information from a new piece of music. Do I really need to remind you of the size of Xenakis's audience? There's a reason, and it's not that most people into music aren't bright or musical enough to perceive whatever it is Xenakis has to offer. It's that what it has to offer is so minuscule next to a good piece of tonal music. Just think about all of the different sorts of information, transmitted mainly but not exclusively by pitch relationships, that are aurally available to a listener, corresponding to different time frames, in a good piece of tonal music. There is nothing remotely similar in most new music.
There is no AUDIBLE musical cohesion to most 12 tone music. The cohesion you refer to exists only on paper.
There is absolutely a sense of Audible musical cohesion. I think this might be a a lack of familiarity. Repeated exposer to music of that style makes it much easier to hear the structural relationships of the tone rows. A easy example of this is Berg's Violin Concerto which uses a JS Bach quotation in the tone row. (Edit: spelling)
"There is absolutely a since of Audible musical cohesion." Do you mean "sense"? Musical cohesion can only be conveyed by patterns, mainly harmonic. 12 tone music as a rule does not exhibit audible harmonic patterns. "I think this might be a a lack of familiarity." On the contrary, those who think they hear harmonic patterns in 12 tone garbage are only having expectations fulfilled due to repeated listening. "A easy example of this is Berg's Violin Concerto which uses a JS Bach quotation in the tone row." There is no Bach quotation in the row. The triads in the row imply B-A-C-H (Bb, A C, B). There is a whole tone scale that is LATER related to a Bach chorale. Re audible cohesion, there may be a bit in the Berg, but it is vastly overshadowed by the majority of the music that has none.
Thank you for your time. Now it's totally okay to not like 12 tone. But, saying it has no audible music patterns is a bit far fetched. I think it's also unwise to claim that other people people can't actually hear harmonic patterns in 12-tone music that chooses to use it. Some people can. Just like some people can instantly recognize the sound of a sharp-11th chord.
But really If we consider some of the main elements of music such as Melody, Harmony, Form, Timbre, Dynamics, Texture and Rhythm, there are completely recognizable in 12 tone. 12 tone does not have to have audible harmonic patterns, but it is by no means a rule. Just like modal music does not require harmonic patterns. Also what about monophonic textures? We we wouldn't say plainchant is without cohesion.
12 tone is now a musical a tool that can be used or not used. Some composers have used it and tried to create tonal harmonies, (Copland), Some composers have used it to create contrast to tonal sections (Corigliano), some composers have obsessed with the harmonic relationships in the pitch rows in order to create coherent harmonic patterns and relationships (late Schoenberg).
"But, saying it has no audible music patterns is a bit far fetched. " Let's test. Pick a 12 tone piece of Schoenberg and show me, with time stamps, where the audible pitch patterns are.
"I think it's also unwise to claim that other people people can't actually hear harmonic patterns in 12-tone music that chooses to use it. " Um, chooses to use WHAT? "Some people can." Some people can WHAT?
"Just like some people can instantly recognize the sound of a sharp-11th chord." THAT is a uniquely absurd statement. The root is apparent to the listener in any triad-based chord containing a perfect fifth. Anyone with an ear can hear such a chord. What, you think a chord with a sharp 11th degree is ultimately weird or something?? It's just a semitone below the fifth - big deal
"But really If we consider some of the main elements of music such as Melody, Harmony, Form, Timbre, Dynamics, Texture and Rhythm, there are completely recognizable in 12 tone." There are completely recognizable WHAT in 12 tone?? I must ask you to speak in complete, coherent sentences, please. You forgot meter, but who cares? Since 12 tone claims to organize PITCHES, non-pitch-related elements of music are obviously IRRELEVANT to this discussion. If you're trying to say that 12 tone abandons audible pitch relationships in favor of those other elements, you might have a valid point.
"Some composers have used it and tried to create tonal harmonies, (Copland)," That statement makes no sense, since obviously Copland used tonal harmony just fine without 12 tone. Why would he or anyone else take as circuitous a route back to the very thing they were supposedly trying to avoid?
Jasper,
I have a lot of deadlines, and very little spare time. I don't proof informal messages such as the one you are reading right now. If you wish to actually discuss this topic, I would gladly help out. I even have some reading suggestions. However, I suspect that no mater what I write you would attempt to discredit it in some way. ie implying meter isn't covered under rhythm.
Like I said before you can dislike 12-tone, that doesn't mean other people can't enjoy it, or at least appreciate it as part of the history of western art music.
My guess is your are under a lot of stress and I'm not sure if you are enrolled in an academic institution, most schools have access to counseling facilities, that can be very useful. I have see too many musicians and friends burn out, when it could have been avoided.
I wish you the best,
Nathan
Buddy - I gave up on your talk after the 4 second mark when you had some lousy piece of amateurish tonal music on the soundtrack. You might have used a clip from Arnold Schoenberg - the subject of your talk? FAIL
Seeing as all of Shoenberg's music is still subject to copyright laws, no he couldn't have.
@@rainastoutenburg8360 Doesn't seem to be in Australia.
These frankly absolutely ridiculous and stupid non-discussions about 12 tone composition will never end. If you don't like it, go listen to Abba or to 'melody' and 'harmony' that you can understand, but spare us your uninformed rantings. Schoenberg didn't try to kill your family, so why would you even care?
What a silly thing to get mad over lmao