Discordant music

[Murmel]

Originally Posted by John Strieder

I love to play atonal and dissonant - simply cause I love how it sounds Why should I play (or hear) music I don't like?

But I don't see the point in mentioning in this Thread, that people do things without "comprehension of what they're doing". Cause those are everywhere, regardless of the musical approach

When you say "purely for its own sake", what would be the opposite/better in your opinion?

I actually also enjoy how it sounds. I don't nearly enjoy listening to it as much as I enjoy playing it though Same thing with ambient music, I effing love playing it, I can sit for hours just playing random minimalistic shit. But I get bored easily while listening to it.

[John Strieder]

eat this

[Mordacain]

Personally my favorite music has a nice balance and will very likely have some supremely melodic elements while being counterbalanced with atonal or discordant elements.

Listening to music too far in either direction tends to get me irritated myself.

I agree with MoM as well, most people are not musicians and just like something pleasant to listen to.

[John Strieder]

Originally Posted by Mordacain

Personally my favorite music has a nice balance and will very likely have some supremely melodic elements while being counterbalanced with atonal or discordant elements. Listening to music too far in either direction tends to get me irritated myself.

As I personally don't like "melodic elements", exploring new bands is often really really frustrating to me. Often a Song starts great (to me), and then some "melodic element", sounding like the Sc*rpions or whatever occurs. That's kind of irritating to me! I think I need to open a Thread to collect suggestions about bands without such Elements :\

[carcass]

there was a post of Elliott Carter´s song Shard performed on 8-string electric guitar earlier in this thread .. the same guitarist probably on the same session performed this following piece and I love it:



recently I really dig in such music /,,/

[John Strieder]

[Remission]

Excellent thread. Though the first thing that came to mind was King Crimson.

[UltimateDooM]

New recording of Elliott Carter's Shard by Daniel Lippel. It is better than the old one.

[guitareben]

People have differing opinions on stuff Some people like stuff, others don't...

Though i wish people wouldn't use ones opinion on something as a reason to hate/abuse or whatever ^^

And i wish people would open their mind and ears a bit too

[petereanima]

[New Age Moron]

Madness.

[John Strieder]

[carcass]

another great composer is Brian Ferneyhough, here are some examples:

[Floppystrings]

If you hate people for real...

Then making the unpleasant music you like becomes easier.

How do you accomplish this? Well...go shopping at Wal-mart and watch the news a lot. lol

[failshredder]

Okay, guys.

There is a huge difference between "dissonant" and "atonal." Let me see if I can explain it quickly and easily.

"Dissonant" refers to a certain class of interval -- namely, the second (major or minor), diminished fifth, major, minor, and diminished seventh, etc. Even smooth jazz uses dissonance -- an A9 chord (A, C#, E, G, B) contains dissonances, an augmented sixth chord (jazz guys would think of it as something like F7 in the key of Em, I think) sounds really weird to untrained ears. But dissonance is part of tonal, "evil radio easy-listening" music too. It's absolutely necessary along with consonance to the "push and pull" of tonal music, and that includes Decrepit Birth and Necrophagist (although one might argue that they're more modal, since they don't seem to use anything that feels like a V chord to me). (For further reading: Consonance and dissonance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )

"Atonal" refers to a compositional attitude(EDIT: probably not correct. "approach" would be a better word), and is to be contrasted with "tonal" music -- see Schoenberg vs. Mozart, early Prokofiev vs. Beethoven (<3 Soviet-era modernist composers, by the way). Atonal music tends to be either "cell-based" or "serial" -- the former sounds awesome, the latter sounds like utter shit to my ears; but it's still atonal and dissonant, just boring.

Tonal music has specific patterns of consonance and dissonance that create a specific feel, and set up expectations -- the cool part about this is that when expectations are already formed, it's easy to break them. Note that this is not the same as modal music: Tonal music is only major or minor, at least in the Western tradition I (more or less) have an education in. If you were to use, say, Dorian mode in a tonal piece with tonal chords (that is to say, chords that follow the specific patterns of tension and resolution associated with Western common-practice-period music, or pop music, or jazz -- they're fairly similar), it would still be tonal, and it would still be in a minor key.

Now someone come correct me on everything I got wrong.

EDIT 2: To make you all feel like shit, I'm going to post this:

[John Strieder]

Originally Posted by failshredder

Now someone come correct me on everything I got wrong.

I'll start with the part in your post which was very wrong: the part about atonal and serial music.


"Tonal" means basically that there's a dominating fundamental note.
"Atonal" means, that no note or not only one note is dominating the others.

I like to add, that "Atonal" is a word created just by press and not by composers or music scientists. Although it's widely accepted, it's not a correct musical term.

Correct terms would be: "polytonal" and "pantonal".
"poly" is greek for "many"or "much".
"pan" is greek for "all", "the whole" etc.

"Dodecaphony" or "Twelve-Note Technique" is not a style and doesn't necessary have to be "Atonal" music. "Serial" stands basically for a motiv organistation form, which helps to create coherence through every part of music is based on a specific interval configuration (of 12 notes). It's a very open system and was developed by many different composers to many different directions.

"Serial" means, that not only a interval configuration (not necessary 12 notes) is used, but also - for example - a configuration of durations.




Three random examples for serial music:

[failshredder]

Originally Posted by John Strieder

I'll start with the part in your post which was very wrong: the part about atonal and serial music.

"Tonal" means basically that there's a dominating fundamental note.
"Atonal" means, that no note or not only one note is dominating the others.

I'm not exactly sure how what you're saying here is incompatible with what I said. My post was not aimed at you or anyone else who knows what s/he's talking about, but at the myriad posts that basically consisted of "yeah man all that stuff on the radio suxxxxxx and discordant music is just way more gooder why they gotta hate."

I like to add, that "Atonal" is a word created just by press and not by composers or music scientists. Although it's widely accepted, it's not a correct musical term.

I took quite a lot of music theory in college. The word "atonal" as used quite frequently by the professors there, with the caveat that some people prefer different terms. Also, I'd like to point out that while what music scientists think certainly has weight, what composers think almost never does - theory arises to describe what they're doing, not the other way around.

"Serial" is not a style and doesn't necessary have to be "Atonal" music. "Serial" stands basically for a motiv organistation form, which helps to create coherence through every part of music is based on a specific interval configuration. It's a very open system and was developed by many different composers to many different directions.

This one's a pretty fair objection. I should have said "12-tone technique" a la later Schoenberg or, uhh, was it Berg? -- I was only on my first cup of coffee, sue me.

"Serial" means, that not only a interval configuration (not necessary 12 notes) is used, but also - for example - a configuration of durations.

I respectfully disagree. "Serial" refers to serialization of any musical element, not necessarily all, most or even more than one of them -- thus why I was wrong to refer so broadly to 12-tone technique as serialism.

[Konfyouzd]

Modern music that is of a style that is not ordinary, i.e. it is not in any particular key, follows a pattern that is not necessarily conventional, or even has an 'abrasive' timbre is, for the most part, completely blocked out and is responded to in a very rude way

Have you ever tried speaking to someone in an unconventional manner or with a harsh or abrasive tone? Was their reaction to this any different?

And perhaps the reason ppl don't like this kind of music is because ppl get all uber-nerd-elitist when talking about it...

It's intimidating to even approach for some ppl I'm sure.

And what the hell is a music scientist? Is it that serious?

[John Strieder]

Originally Posted by failshredder

The word "atonal" as used quite frequently by the professors there, with the caveat that some people prefer different terms. Also, I'd like to point out that while what music scientists think certainly has weight, what composers think almost never does - theory arises to describe what they're doing, not the other way around.

I don't understand your point. But I guess your words are based on romantic ideas of composers who receive their music through the holy spirit without knowing what they do.

This one's a pretty fair objection. I should have said "12-tone technique" a la later Schoenberg or, uhh, was it Berg?

Schoenberg of Course ....

I respectfully disagree. "Serial" refers to serialization of any musical element, not necessarily all or most of them [...]

Why do you say you disagree and then repeat the content of my sentence? Maybe there's a bit misunderstanding going on, on both sides

[John Strieder]

Originally Posted by Konfyouzd

Have you ever tried speaking to someone in an unconventional manner or with a harsh or abrasive tone? Was their reaction to this any different?

What's your reaction when listening to Metal?

It's intimidating to even approach for some ppl I'm sure.

My point usually is: Just listen and enjoy.

And what the hell is a music scientist? Is it that serious?

Music scientists are people making professional statements like "sounds like utter shit".

[failshredder]

First off: I have a sneaking suspicion that we are talking at cross purposes here: the only actual argument I see is over terms, not actual musical concepts.

Originally Posted by John Strieder

I don't understand your point. But I guess your words are based on romantic ideas of composers who receive their music through the holy spirit without knowing what they do.

Nope, I'm agnostic-leaning-towards-atheist. But Schoenberg's early "atonal" (or "pantonal," if you prefer) music certainly follows specific rules that, if I remember right, were only actually codified much later by a music theorist. Given the way the human brain works, many people at many times create brilliant things without realizing what they're doing; that is, the musical machinery of the brain is largely semi-conscious at best. But back on topic: "Atonal" is no longer a pejorative term. It's a good way to contrast music that's not all about I-V-I with the music that is (i.e., tonal music).

Why do you say you disagree and then repeat the content of my sentence? Maybe there's a bit misunderstanding going on, on both sides

I think so.

And what the hell is a music scientist? Is it that serious?

Yeah, it's someone who studies the structure of music. Most famous composers aren't completely (partially, maybe, but not completely) aware of anything really innovative that they do, so the people that actually codify and write down the "rules" of music are the ones who are studying what's already there. Music theory as a science (as opposed to music theory classes in college) is descriptive, not prescriptive, much like linguistics as a science vs. native-language classes in middle school.

[Konfyouzd]

My musical tastes are quite broad, sir. But you can't expect everyone to be this way. "You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have...?"

[Konfyouzd]

Originally Posted by failshredder

Nope, I'm agnostic-leaning-towards-atheist.

[failshredder]

Originally Posted by Konfyouzd

UMAD BRO

I grew up around a lot of people who actually believed that, say, Mozart (whom they considered the high point of music ever written and ever to be written) received his music directly from God. Thus I tend to overclarify some things.

Music scientists are people making professional statements like "sounds like utter shit".

If they're on the internet, they just might, especially if they finish that sentence with "...to my ears," like I did. I wasn't attacking your art or art you enjoy, however serial it may be. I just don't find 12-tone technique and total serialism aesthetically appealing, for the most part. Ligeti certainly has some cool stuff.

[Konfyouzd]

Good for you...?