Crawler.
Who is? On what grounds? And to whom or where?
Is it not legitimate to express what one thinks on this forum provided that it is not unduly insulting or illegal? I had assume that it was so but, if not, I'd better quit.
Whilt I'm still here, however, let's pick apart a thing or three in the post to which you appear to have found my response objectionable.
Gep wrote
I always find it somewhat amusing when people say (or write) the term 'atonal' when speaking about music in the same tones as they would say ‘half a mouse’ when speaking about their dinner. As if there were as distinction between tonal and atonal music as absolute as between a dinner with or without half a mouse (and even in the latter case the distinction may not be as absolute as you think, or would hope).I suppose that much might depend upon whether or not one has a cat but, that aside, what seems to amuse him is what likewise bothers me, namely when people speak of piece of music or passages in such music as "atonal" as though "atonality" (a term detested by Schönberg) were some kind of eternal absolute rather than a matter of degree; one wonders what they use for ears.
He then notes
There isn’t such a thing as tonal music and atonal music. There is only music, or varying chromatic colour, with various ways of making harmony. Rakhmaninov as considered by Joseph Haydn would be atonal as Hell, and possibly not even music at all. Rakhmaninov as considered by Xenakis is lame and flaccid.There's no sensible argument against the first two sentences here. Whether "atonality" could have been perceived by Haydn as "Hell"ish might be up for speculation and the question of what Haydn might have thought of Rakhmaninov or what Bach might have thought of Brahms or what Mozart and Liszt might have thought of Schönberg pinching their ideas for 12-tone melodies is open to possible debate, as indeed would be what Xenakis (who adored Brahms, incidentally) might have thought of Rakhmaninov (which prompts me to recall what the audience at a London Prom concert might have thought of the programme that pitched Xenakis's
Nomos Gamma and
Ais against Rakhmaninov's
The Isle of the Dead before ending with Shostakovich's 9th Symphony!) - but gep's first two sentences here are really beyond argument. What can "atonal" music be other than music with no tones? - for that is what the term literally means!
He continues
In fact, no single composer ever wrote purely 100% tonal music (i.e. without any sharps or flats, other than in the key signature). And even then; strike a chord (in the key of C major) consisting of D,E,F. These notes are all in the C major scale. But is the chord therefor tonal or atonal? Please define. But even then; a pure ‘tonal’ chord (say C,E,G) is, strictly speaking, not pure in the equal temperament. And still, what is considered consonant or dissonant is nothing more but an agreement upon what is the one and what is the other. Based on musical theory and habit. These things have changed over time and will continue to change. People often think music has gotten more ‘atonal’ over history (i.e. since Bach or so). Try listening to Monteverdi. And quite a bit of Medieval music was consonant (ie tonal) according to the rules then, but would be considered dissonant now.What arguments would you put up against any of this?
Lastly, he writes
Pretty much all music other the Plainchant is about harmony. Key signatures and the 'rules' of it were only a fairly recent invention (16th Century). As such nothing essential different from Schönbergs system. Both 'Classical' tonality and, say, dodecaphony are systems, crutches to hang the music on. Most of the really worthwhile and enduring music is (in harmonic part) based on breaking the rules, rather than adhering to them. Both Bruckner's and Mahler's Ninths are firmly tonal, but harmonically they are far from simply being in this or that (or any) key. Messiaen's music would for quite a lot of people be atonal, but his music is pretty much obsessed with harmony. You could say Boulez is 'atonal', but it's all about how he does what with the notes he uses. That the result does or does not appeal is a question of personal tastes. Which one can try to develop, or take for granted as absolute. In the latter case, you'd be like someone who shudders at half a mouse in his dinner, but won't mind if there's cochineal in it, because he doesn't (care to) know what it is.Again, why not put forward logical arguments against any or all of this if you have any. Schönberg was steeped in tradition and schooled his students in the works of Bach, Haydn, Beethoven, Brahs et al and, when described once as an auto-didact, famously riposted that,
au contraire, he was a pupil of Mozart!". Messiaen was likewise steeped in Franck, Debussy, Roussel, Ravel and others and even Boulez, despite somje of his early trenchant pronouncements that might be seen as having give rise to something of a detour from the late 40s to the early 60s, was likewise indebtedted to his major French forebears and also went on to conduct the work of a number of composers including Wagner, Bruckner and Mahler as well as that of some of his earlier compatriots.
Come on, Thal; tell us what you don't agree with in gep's post (or indeed what I've written above). That would be much more interesting than an empty single word, non-response!
Best,
Alistair
Topic: hardest pianoist concertos