What makes the differentiation between Atonality and Random Notes?

[invictious]

Just out of curiosity.
When does the line really cross over? When I play some atonal piece, like Schoenberg:

They go: what, don't bash random notes.

So that brings to my question...

[faulty_damper]

Random notes are considered "chance" music.  Atonal music is music composed with an actual tonal presence, even if it is unique unto the piece, though is masked by extreme use of what seems to be random notes.

Your question is actually very easy to answer if you were to follow chronologically the development of western music.  It seems inevitable.  But unfortunately, the gap from tonal to atonal seems like such a huge step because most of the works written are not performed or known, thus it seems like random notes.  And random notes is quite new, relatively speaking, and there hasn't been enough time to filter out the gold from the rocks - most music composed are crap, but with time the gems get filtered through.  But some crap still manages to be played.

[pies]

a

[invictious]

Yea, but still, I still have a bit of difficulty telling the difference between atonality and random notes from 2 recordings.

btw, 'chance music' = aleatoric music

[counterpoint]

There are no random notes in Schoenberg's music, but many in Rachmaninov's 

[thalbergmad]

Ask 15 men with sledge hammers to attack a piano and you have Finnissey.

Thal

[cmg]

Ask 15 men with sledge hammers to attack a piano and you have Finnissey.

Thal

Ask Finnissey to attack just one man with a sledge hammer and you have response to criticism!

[pies]

a

[cmg]

Ask a bunch of retards to comment on atonality and you get this thread.

The answer's been given many posts ago and the rest is just a little "coda."  Fun.  Ever hear of the word?

You know you really need to stop throwing words like "retard" around.  It just might get YOU banned.

[le_poete_mourant]

In my experience with contemporary music, particularly 21st century material, it seems to me that the difference between atonality and random notes is this:

Random notes are, logically, random.  I think one of the mistakes young composers make is that they try to add too much.  They think that if they add lots of extra notes, it will make the music seem better, without knowing they are completely unnecessary.  These may not be random notes, but they are certainly redundant.  It is like cake with too much frosting: the frosting is simply there to cover up the lack of good-tasting cake; whereas, a good chef knows that a delicious cake will speak for itself and not require that much frosting.  

Random notes are notes that do not fit in to the music by any stretch of the imagination.  They are unplanned and have not been given proper thought; often, they are an afterthought.  

Atonality, on the other hand, is an intentional effect.  Minor seconds, tritones, anything that naturally clashes, is somewhat atonal.  Yet the key to writing atonality well is to use it so that it does not seem unnatural.  It may seem harsh, but if considered, it is not illogical.  

Atonality provides an escape for many from cliche writing, musical ideas that have been used countless times before.  It also is a way to highlight areas of music that a composer thinks is very important by drawing attention to itself.  

To put it succinctly, the difference between atonality and random notes is the difference between a good composer and a bad one.  

[thalberg]

Anyway, back to the original question.  I wrote a 185 page paper on Berg's Opus 1, which is considered to be in the free atonal style.

Random notes are devoid of order or intelligibility.

Atonality, on the other hand, is highly ordered.  In Bergs' Opus 1, he structures his atonal passages on  two basic harmonies--the augmented triad with added 7ths and 9ths, and the Viennese trichord, which contains a P4, aug4, and a minor second, all of which are treated as dissonances in common practice music.  The augmented triad is tonally ambiguous because you cannot tell the inversion.

Berg re-orders these two basic harmonies throughout his atonal sections.  It's a procedure called developing variation. 

So... to answer your question, atonality is highly ordered, highly structured music.  It probably just sounds random to anyone who doesn't get  it.  Sort of like computer code looks like nonsense to those who don't speak the programming language.  Order is there, comprehension is not.

[invictious]

Now what, I will assume that the Finnisy Country Tunes are atonal? Not a recording of a place where 20 four-year old kids are bashing the piano? I don't think so.

[Etude]

Now what, I will assume that the Finnisy Country Tunes are atonal? Not a recording of a place where 20 four-year old kids are bashing the piano? I don't think so.

English Country Tunes  has some tonal-ish / modal sections, like the start of 'Midsummer Morn' or 'My Bonny Boy'.  Besides, tonality or atonality isn't black and white, it's like a spectrum.  Someone like Stockhausen would be very far down the atonal side, Sorabji might be somewhere in the middle.  The Schoenberg video is not even that atonal.  The second piece is basically G major with a few extra notes.

And dissonance and atonality are not synonymous at all.  Neither are serialism and atonality - the composer has way less control over the music with the former.  It should be possible, though not easy, to write a  piece using 12-tone technique which sounds tonal.

[le_poete_mourant]

Although a mathematician would argue that nothing is ever random.   

[ahinton]

Ask 15 men with sledge hammers to attack a piano and you have Finnissey.

Thal

Remove the penultimate "e" and you have an English pianist and composer (albeit presumably of part Irish origin).

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Anyway, back to the original question.  I wrote a 185 page paper on Berg's Opus 1, which is considered to be in the free atonal style.

Random notes are devoid of order or intelligibility.

Atonality, on the other hand, is highly ordered.  In Bergs' Opus 1, he structures his atonal passages on  two basic harmonies--the augmented triad with added 7ths and 9ths, and the Viennese trichord, which contains a P4, aug4, and a minor second, all of which are treated as dissonances in common practice music.  The augmented triad is tonally ambiguous because you cannot tell the inversion.

Berg re-orders these two basic harmonies throughout his atonal sections.  It's a procedure called developing variation.

Since I adore that sonata, I'd be fascinated to read your treatise on it, yet I am already puzzled by your use of the term "atonal" for this work which begins and ends in B minor and which has in between almost no music that eschews some kind of tonal reference or other, to my ears, at least.

So... to answer your question, atonality is highly ordered, highly structured music.  It probably just sounds random to anyone who doesn't get  it.  Sort of like computer code looks like nonsense to those who don't speak the programming language.  Order is there, comprehension is not.

"Atonality" in and of itself does not presume highly ordered or highly disordered music, any more than "tonalisty" does; surely only the music itself can reveal a sense of order or lack thereof.

Best,

Alistair

[viking]

Ask a bunch of retards to comment on atonality and you get this thread.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Quite true.

[soliloquy]

Define "random notes".  Atonal music is that which does not follow an aurally perceivable tone structure.  The key here is "aurally perceivable", meaning that Schoenberg and early Boulez are atonal.  Don't get "dissonant" and "atonal" confused though.  For instance, just to cite something most people have heard, Ginastera's Piano Sonata No. 1 is not atonal but it is dissonant.  John Cage's music is not atonal; it is aleatoric, if that is what you mean by "random notes" IE chance operations.  When you get into stochastic music it's more difficult to try to define it as one or the other.  It depends on a piece by piece basis.  Alghorithmic music is rarely atonal.  New Complexity also varies from composer to composer and piece to piece.


What piece are you wondering if it is just "random notes"?  Finnissy is (usually) not, Ferneyhough (usually) is.  Really the only way to know is to study their compositional style, and check into each piece seperately.

[counterpoint]

The underlying claim of the question "What makes the differentiation between Atonality and Random Notes?" is:  it is very difficult to compose tonal music and it is very easy to compose atonal music. But that's not the case.

It is as easy to compose a bad tonal piece as to compose a bad atonal piece.

And it is as challenging to compose a good tonal piece as to compose a good atonal piece.

[mattgreenecomposer]

There are no random notes in Schoenberg's music, but many in Rachmaninov's 

That was such an unintelligent statement I feel sorry for you...

[counterpoint]

That was such an unintelligent statement I feel sorry for you...

If it helps you to feel better, then that's okay 

[lostinidlewonder]

Nothing is random unless the composition asks for you to hit random notes. If you listen to a piece enough times you begin to find its form and shape. Atonal stuff sounds random the first few times you listen to it, if you are bothered to listen to it again and again you will start to see the pattern in it and learn to anticipate particular sounds. Atonal stuff more for the musician not really many other people are interested in it which is a sad fact. Atonal stuff, it can't be enjoyed by the majority, so it is substandard music imo even though I thoroughly enjoy it.

[counterpoint]

My definition of randomness is, that there is no inner logic, which connects the notes. Random notes just sound "good" in a sense, as glitter looks good when you sprinkle it over a birthday present.

[soliloquy]

My definition of randomness is, that there is no inner logic, which connects the notes. Random notes just sound "good" in a sense, as glitter looks good when you sprinkle it over a birthday present.

Who the hell sprinkles glitter on a birthday present?  superbanned.

[counterpoint]

Who the hell sprinkles glitter on a birthday present? 

 

I thought, Americans do that 

[mephisto]

John Cage's music is not atonal; it is aleatoric, if that is what you mean by "random notes" IE chance operations. 

Can aleatoric music not be atonal?

[nolan]

I think it comes down to how much a person can perceive. If you can recognize that something is inverted or retrograde, etc. then I would think the music is much more enjoyable. If however you can't perceive those transformations, a lot of atonal music can sound like a bunch of random notes. (But most of the time they aren't...it's just what they sound like).

Expecting an audience of non-musicians to appreciate atonal, modern music is asking a lot. I don't think you can just sit down and start playing and hope that the audience says "oh, that was nice" but in the back of their minds they are thinking "what was he banging all of those notes for?" The beauty of modern music isn't always apparent on the first listen. I think the pianist should either explain before playing or write in program notes that give listeners something to hold on to while listening.

[soliloquy]

Can aleatoric music not be atonal?

No, technically aleatoric music is not atonal, because for a piece to be definitively "atonal", it must have a tone structure of some sort, but one that is not readily aurally perceivable.  Aleatoric/Chance music has no tone structure at all.

[counterpoint]

I think, aleatoric means the freedom of choice, that the composer gives to the musician.
While "random" or "stochastic" procedures are made by the composer and then they are fixed in the written music.

Aleatoric music can be tonal or atonal.

[soliloquy]

I think, aleatoric means the freedom of choice, that the composer gives to the musician.
While "random" or "stochastic" procedures are made by the composer and then they are fixed in the written music.

Aleatoric music can be tonal or atonal.

Definition of Aleatoric Music:

Music composed by the random selection of pitches and rhythms.

[counterpoint]

More Infos about aleatoric music:

https://web.mala.bc.ca/guppy/crew410/aleatoric_music.htm

[soliloquy]

More Infos about aleatoric music:

https://web.mala.bc.ca/guppy/crew410/aleatoric_music.htm

Wow!  I didn't know that!


No, just kidding.  I answered your question.  Aleatoric music does not have an aurally perceivable tone structure.  Penderecki is Aleatoric.  Rzewski 36 Variations, despite having improvised cadenzi, is not aleatoric.  You are apparently getting Aleatoric and Improvisational mixed up.

[counterpoint]

  Aleatoric music does not have an aurally perceivable tone structure. 

 Every composer uses the word "aleatoric" in his own way, it means something complete different, if you talk about Cage's aleatoric or about Lutoslawski's or about Stockhausen's. I didn't know, that Penderecki has composed "aleatoric" music.

[Derek]

Assuming a loose definition of atonality: "lots and lots of dissonance, and very little conjunct melodic stuff"....  the way I differentiate this style of music from random notes is whether it sounds good or not. Whether the composer clearly had an intuition for musical beauty. If it doesn't affect me at all and bores me, it is much more likely that the composer of that particular "atonal" piece wasn't trying very hard to make something beautiful.    The funny thing is, I apply the same reasoning to tonal pieces.  There might be intentional, non random elements in a tonal piece, but if it is boring, they might have "randomly" chosen that pattern as a starting point, but then not added any creativity to it.

[invictious]

You know...dissonance or consonance aren't words that are supposed to appear in atonal music, you guys know that right..? You can't call atonal music dissonant, it's not musically right.

[soliloquy]

You know...dissonance or consonance aren't words that are supposed to appear in atonal music, you guys know that right..? You can't call atonal music dissonant, it's not musically right.

That is absolutely incorrect.  What I hope you meant to say is that "dissonance and atonality are different".  For instance, Walter Zimmermann's Wustenwanderung is atonal but primarily consonant, while Liszt's Etude "Ab Irata" is tonal but dissonant.  Both tonal and atonal music can be primarily consonant or primarily dissonant.  Of course Schoenberg's music is atonal, and of course it is dissonant; it uses unresolved, unstable chords.

[ramseytheii]

That is absolutely incorrect.  What I hope you meant to say is that "dissonance and atonality are different".  For instance, Walter Zimmermann's Wustenwanderung is atonal but primarily consonant, while Liszt's Etude "Ab Irata" is tonal but dissonant.  Both tonal and atonal music can be primarily consonant or primarily dissonant.  Of course Schoenberg's music is atonal, and of course it is dissonant; it uses unresolved, unstable chords.

Well it is really a question of semantics and context.  The expression,  "Schoenberg emancipated dissonance", refers to his conception of dissonance and consonance.  Here's what he wrote in his theory textbook:

"...the more immediate overtone contribute more [to the body of the tone], the more remote contribute less.  Hence, the distinction between them is only a matter of degree, not of kind.  They are no more opposites than two and ten are opposites, as the frequency numbers indeed show; and the expressions 'consonance' and 'dissonance,' which signify an antithesis, are false.  it all simply depends on the growing ability of the analyzing ear to familiarize itself with the remote overtones, thereby expanding the conception of what is euphonious, suitable for art, so that it embraces the whole natural phenomenon."

As far as unresolved chords, chords can only be considered unresolved if there is something to resolve into, in other words if they operate in a functional system.  I can't think of a single phrase in Schoenberg (and I've played almost everything written for piano) that would sound good if it ended in a Classical triad.  The idea is just absurd when applied to his music.

Are they unstable chords?  That requires more subjectivity.  I think he has unstable textures, but his harmony is like Bach's in that it all comes from intertwining voices (polyphony) rather than coming in blocks, like in Liszt or Handel.  Depending on the action of the combination of voices - whether they agree with each other, or contradict each other, or create confusion - stability and instability is sensed and defined.

Lots of people have tried to make analogies between his efforts in twelve-tone composition with functional harmony, but they never hold up completely.  There just isn't a polarity between dominant and tonic, the essence of functional harmony, in his music, no matter how you manipulate the tonal rows.  Other factors are at play!

Walter Ramsey

[soliloquy]

Well it is really a question of semantics and context.  The expression,  "Schoenberg emancipated dissonance", refers to his conception of dissonance and consonance.  Here's what he wrote in his theory textbook:

"...the more immediate overtone contribute more [to the body of the tone], the more remote contribute less.  Hence, the distinction between them is only a matter of degree, not of kind.  They are no more opposites than two and ten are opposites, as the frequency numbers indeed show; and the expressions 'consonance' and 'dissonance,' which signify an antithesis, are false.  it all simply depends on the growing ability of the analyzing ear to familiarize itself with the remote overtones, thereby expanding the conception of what is euphonious, suitable for art, so that it embraces the whole natural phenomenon."

As far as unresolved chords, chords can only be considered unresolved if there is something to resolve into, in other words if they operate in a functional system.  I can't think of a single phrase in Schoenberg (and I've played almost everything written for piano) that would sound good if it ended in a Classical triad.  The idea is just absurd when applied to his music.

Are they unstable chords?  That requires more subjectivity.  I think he has unstable textures, but his harmony is like Bach's in that it all comes from intertwining voices (polyphony) rather than coming in blocks, like in Liszt or Handel.  Depending on the action of the combination of voices - whether they agree with each other, or contradict each other, or create confusion - stability and instability is sensed and defined.

Lots of people have tried to make analogies between his efforts in twelve-tone composition with functional harmony, but they never hold up completely.  There just isn't a polarity between dominant and tonic, the essence of functional harmony, in his music, no matter how you manipulate the tonal rows.  Other factors are at play!

Walter Ramsey

I'm not trying to get into some huge argument about whether or not you can apply the terms "dissonance" and "consonance" to Schoenberg; he said "atonal music", and I just used him as an example, along with W. Zimmermann and Liszt.  Also, a chord can be pointillistically unstable; its consonance/dissonance is not necessarily dependent on the musical form or surrounding passages.

[ramseytheii]

Actually, my point was that there is nothing to argue about. 

Walter Ramsey