Statistics for atonal music

[ahinton]

Well aware as I obviously am that one cannot realistically compare one composer's orchestral music with another's piano music, just tell me whether you believe that the two Boulez works that I mentioned evidence connections with a French musical tradition less - or no more than - than his Second Sonata does with that great French tradition of piano music from Fauré, Debussy, Ravel or even his one-time mentor Messiaen; all three Boulez piano sonatas seem to me to be notably less concerned with connections with his earlier compatriots' piano music than the two works that I cited are with earlier French orchestral music. But perhaps I'm just talking a load of old rubbish. If Boulez were a forum member, he could at least put us all right about this (though I'm not saying that he necessarily would)...

Best,

Alistair

[ryguillian]

Ondine, whether by Ravel or Debussy, was not orchestrated by the composers.  Piano solo only.  And the topic was regarding "French" orchestration?

And you really shouldn't accuse people of not thinking before they write.  I mean, we might get the idea that you are, well, rude.   

Actually, dumbshit. The original thing Alistair mentioned was Boulez's 2nd piano sonata. Which is for.... PIANO. So no, the topic wasn't regarding French orchestration, but French music. Learn to read.

Just in case you needed proof that I'm not rude.

[cmg]

Finesse of texture and orchestration. "Fluidity" of music. I can't imagine Alistair is using "French" to mean what, for example, Bach meant it to mean in his French Suites, etc.

You yourself introduced the word "orchestration" into this Boulez discussion, as you can see above.  One could reasonably make the error of assuming both you and ahinton were discussing Boulez works beyond those solely for piano.

All that aside, your sociopathic behavior on this forum has brought you to the attention of the webmasters.  Your unprovoked vitriol and name-calling aimed at Mr. Eisenbruk and general disarray is unnecessary and quite embarrassing.  Although, as a sociopath, that doesn't trouble you, I know. 

Nevertheless, continue to behave this way here and more of us will lodge protests against you. 

[ryguillian]

You yourself introduced the word "orchestration" into this Boulez discussion, as you can see above.  One could reasonably make the error of assuming both you and ahinton were discussing Boulez works beyond those solely for piano.

All that aside, your sociopathic behavior on this forum has brought you to the attention of the webmasters.  Your unprovoked vitriol and name-calling aimed at Mr. Eisenbruk and general disarray is unnecessary and quite embarrassing.  Although, as a sociopath, that doesn't trouble you, I know. 

Nevertheless, continue to behave this way here and more of us will lodge protests against you. 

You aren't a psychiatrist or a psychologist and so you're incapable of diagnosing me with anything. And even if you were, you haven't been in a setting with me that would allow you to make such an audacious diagnosis. So you fight name calling with name calling? Sensible. And besides, WELCOME TO THE INTERNET!

And embarrassing... really? I'm not embarrassed. Are you? The only people who should be embarrassed are those who post useless shite on this forum.

[loonbohol]

I composed an atonal music.
By the way what is my statistics.??

[ahinton]

I do believe that it is perfectly possible to respond to the statistical data that opened this thread with remarks that wholly undermine its validity without resorting to being uncivil. All that really needs to be said is that these figures prove nothing beyond the fact of their having been collected and posted here. No account is taken of the definition of tonality or atonality, the extent to which some of the composers listed wrote both tonal and atonal music or, most significantly, the myriad sources of listening besides Google and Youtube (which are not even fully represented themselves in support of those figures). It is a pity to have to discredit this list and the percentages so fundamentally, but the compiler has really left us no alternative option.

Best,

Alistair

[term]

I know, these numbers are just sad.

Why is it sad?  :-? There's a reason for it - one is taste. If people don't like the music of these composers, they don't listen.

[ahinton]

Why is it sad?  :-? There's a reason for it - one is taste. If people don't like the music of these composers, they don't listen.

True, of course - although one really should give music a listen first before deciding whether or not one might like it - and that might involve several listens to each piece in some cases. That said, this is not really the point at issue here, which is as I wrote in my previous post; the figures tell us nothing at all except that they have been collated from a tiny fraction of the relevant information and they take no account of precisely what is meant by the terms tonality and atonality or of composers who have written both tonal and atonal music. It also occurs to me that I didn't add the other missing factor, which is perhaps at least as vital as any of the others - and that is that it is arguably impossible to determine why some listeners will enjoy listening to some atonal music and not other atonal music (just as is also the case with tonal music). Nothing has therefore been proved by these figures and it's about time we all just accepted that and moved on.

Best,

Alistair

[mikey6]

Apart from the fact that it would be abit on an impertinence to suggest that anyone do such a thing during his 101st year, I take leave to suggest that, even if he did, some people out there would then immediately start using that second "t" when it was no longer appropriate!

Best,

Alistair

So learn to live with it, I'm sure it hasn't decreased Mr Carter's life thinking about that extra 't'.
'Those dam pianostreet people can't spell my name!'

[ahinton]

So learn to live with it, I'm sure it hasn't decreased Mr Carter's life thinking about that extra 't'.
'Those dam pianostreet people can't spell my name!'

I think that there is every reason to suppose that it hasn't - and long may it continue not to do so.

Best,

Alistair

[jakub_eisenbruk]

Saying they're "not 100%" accurate is certainly true, no doubt. But so is saying that the Earth is made of things. These numbers aren't even useful as an approximation.

And you've messed yourself when trying to defend yourself. Cute. "[A] constantl level of stylistic"? REALLY?

You're neither simple nor concise nor accurate nor precise (although I don't imagine you know the difference). And I'm oh-so-glad you know "people like me", and when you do finish your psychoanalysis of me don't bother publishing it as I'm sure it'll be quite error-ridden.

Ryan David Patrick Hayes-Nørretranders,

Malebolge.

I'am sorry to have to keep this discussion going on, but I'll just briefly comment on this post.

I find it humorous that you still insisted on answering the part of my post which dealt with percentual accuracy, since I really said all my points, and there is no tangible purpose in such an action. By the way, I will note that you didn't even answer any of my arguments - probably because there was no way for you to do so.

And I'am really sorry, but I somehow suspect I didn't mess myself up; only somebody lacking basics of english, logic, reading comprehension or empathy could say that. But at least it's cute.

Any open-minded and unbiased person who might in the future review this thread will know, that your statement concerning my not being simple, concise, accurate or precise and the status of my knowledge about the meaning of these respective words is not true - period. I might as well point out the fact, that I'am more than well familiar with the meaning of these words, since I have used them regularly for a long time in spanish as well - the most similar of the being simple, conciso and preciso. The word accurate does not have such a similarly sounding form - usually it's translated as exacto, but there is also the word acertado, which has a pretty similar meaning in certain contexts.

You might be glad - at least you are not acting like a flamer-posts-enjoying-person, which you pretended to be for some part of this discussion; but that has at least ended now. Fortunately for me, I don't know many persons like you; in fact, there's only one student in my class who resembles you, although he doesn't hate me for my musical taste, writing style or statistical "methods". And I'am sorry Ryan, but double standards again - you enjoy accusing me of creating psychoanalysis concerning your behavior, but you sure have no problem describing in public the - as I already made clear in this post, quite mistaken - problems I have with defending myself, acting in some way, or acquiring, possessing and retaining a certain level of essential linguistic and intellectual knowledge.

Short in short, these accusations are really pointless. Any honest person can see, that I'am writing in a normal style; surely my english teacher would have pointed that out long ago, along with the myriads of other internet users who've read my posts on other websites. I'd also like to invite some people on this website, partly to end this meaningless debate, and partly to encourage a more interesting discussion on this issue, to create their own statistics for atonal or contemporary classical music. I would be interested in seeing the numbers that somebody else might obtain - just for the sake of having the chance to compare my own results with other statistics.

Jakub Eisenbruk,

Prague.

[ahinton]

Whatever anyone else may do or have done, I am not accusing you of anything, but I must again draw your attention to the fact that the percentages that you quote have absolutely no basis in fact and are, accordingly wholly uninformative; I will not repeat the reasons for my assertion here, since I had already provided them in detail nearer the time when you originally posted your list, in which I can, frankly, see no point at all.

Best,

Alistair

[ikedian]

I don't think Alistair would qualify, given that his music isn't atonal, at least from what I've heard.

Neither are Sorabji, Hindemith or Rautavaara.

[communist]

Neither are Sorabji, Hindemith or Rautavaara.

Are you sure Rautavaara isn't atonal? but I would take your word for it.

[ikedian]

Are you sure Rautavaara isn't atonal? but I would take your word for it.

Pretty sure...

[communist]

Pretty sure...

you would probably know more than I would.