a

[pies]

a

[counterpoint]

It sounds like someone who doesn't understand anything of music just hits random single notes and chords 

[Etude]

It takes more musical knowledge and ability to create good music that does not rely on conventional tonality.

[desordre]

 Dear Counterpoint:

It sounds like someone who doesn't understand anything of music just hits random single notes and chords

Oh, no...do you want to start another round? 
 Best!

[desordre]

 Dear Pies:
 There is only one way to describe or explain music: listening to it. If you have to introduce someone to non-tonal music, and this person is acquainted with tonal one, show examples of both tonal and non-tonal works and compare the various parameters: sound, harmony, melody, phrases. Perhaps the most important characteristics of atonal music are easy to recognize, however a deep exploration and comprehension demands a lot of study and knowledge, and - paramount - a very well developed ear.
 By the way, the musical capacities of the listener are important always, and just through them someone is able to understand and appreciate music in its complete scope.
 Best wishes!
 

[mattgreenecomposer]

It takes more musical knowledge and ability to create good music that does not rely on conventional tonality.

Ha HA! ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ....ha ohhh ha ha ha !!lol!!!!! ha ha ha ha !!

[lazlo]

I second the laughing... seriously, that's such a pretentious thing to say. It X's out almost everyone who composed before like, 1900. And please define "conventional" tonality. I think that atonal stuff is pretty "conventional" in most music institutions, and expected. Let's not rate how good a composer is based on style, but SKILL.

[rach n bach]

It sounds like someone who doesn't understand anything of music just hits random single notes and chords 

Could this be because it IS? 

[counterpoint]

Dear Counterpoint: Oh, no...do you want to start another round? 
 Best!

 

Btw. I like that piece, but I don't think, that Gould's interpretation is understandable 

[tullfan]

Getting back to the original question, rather than sidetracking onto a debate about the plusses and minuses of atonal music, I would explain how atonal music came to be. This should avoid the narrow-minded approach and over-simplification demonstrated by some of the other contributors to this post. It takes a while, but I usually explain the evolution of tonality (in as brief and simple terms as possible), starting with Bach, then Mozart/Haydn, Beethoven/Schubert, Chopin, WAGNER/LISZT (I feel that these two, particularly Wagner, are crucial to understanding how chromatic music was taken to a new level). Then start on Debussey, Scriabin, Bartok, Prokofiev and end with the 2nd Viennese school (Schoenberg, Berg etc.). All the way through explain how the approach to melody and harmony changed. These composers are just suggestions of course and you may choose to start earlier or end later and use different composers to demonstrate your point.
If you just throw some crazy atonal music at them they won't understand what they're hearing and they will think:

It sounds like someone who doesn't understand anything of music just hits random single notes and chords

They may still think that it SOUNDS like somebody is doing that after you've explained it, but that doesn't matter as long as they realise that that isn't what is actually happening and understand that it has very important place in the evolution of music.

[counterpoint]

They may still think that it SOUNDS like somebody is doing that after you've explained it, but that doesn't matter as long as they realise that that isn't what is actually happening and understand that it has very important place in the evolution of music.

If a composer of "atonal" music, for example Xenakis, says himself, that he uses stochastic methods of creating pitches and rhythm - stochastic means random - you can't blame people to hear random notes 

[Etude]

I second the laughing... seriously, that's such a pretentious thing to say. It X's out almost everyone who composed before like, 1900. And please define "conventional" tonality. I think that atonal stuff is pretty "conventional" in most music institutions, and expected. Let's not rate how good a composer is based on style, but SKILL.

I wasn't trying to say that atonal composers are better than earlier tonal ones.  To be honest I worded that pretty badly.  What I was trying to say, was that people who create meaningful music that isn't tonal put a lot of thought into their work, in comparison with someone who jots a few random notes down on some paper and calls it 'atonal', but doesn't actually have a clue what they're doing. 

If you take away the constraints of strict tonality,  there is much less restriction on what the composer can write.  For example, when writing a chord progression in a tonal piece, the next chord might be obvious, or there might be a few options, but in an atonal one their could be many different ways to continue.  So I wasn't saying one style is better than the other, I was saying one is probably harder to "genuinely" make than the other.

[tullfan]

If a composer of "atonal" music, for example Xenakis, says himself, that he uses stochastic methods of creating pitches and rhythm - stochastic means random - you can't blame people to hear random notes

If you were referring to one composer, or a select few, then you should have said so, rather than implying that all atonal composers have no musical understanding and just compose by choosing random sequences of notes and chords.

[dnephi]

How about this?

Musical aesthetic changed.  The Romantic period had exceeded its bounds and become too self-indulgent.  Other directions had to be followed.  A shark must move to keep itself alive.  Many others followed.  One important movement was the 2nd Viennese school, related to late Beethoven.  Another was the impressionists, related to late Liszt.  Also were the expressionists, related to Reger, Strauss, and other Ultraromantics. 

Point out that Chromaticism was pushed in the Romantic period.  Point out that a lot of "heart on sleeve" or exaggerative music was written.   Point out the use of dissonance for color only.  Point out Liszt's use of leading-tones resulting in dissonance.  (see, for example, the "stravinsky-esque" harmony near the end of the Mazeppa.)

Dan