Re: Atonal - need help

On 30/11/03 12:17 pm, in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Smack"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> The Gunslinger wrote:
>> How do I start into that dreaded atonal world so offensive to my tonal ears?
> 
> Ease into it.  How far have you gotten?  Debussy?  Sibelius?  Bartok?
> Stravinsky?  Just push yourself a little bit deeper at a time, and don't
> be afraid to give a piece a second, third, fourth, fifth chance, etc.
> You don't necessarily want to plunge right into Boulez if you can't
> appreciate Hindemith yet.
> 
> When I first heard Stravinsky, I had to be told later that a lot of
> people considered his music dissonant.  Coming from a jazz background, I
> wondered what the big deal was.  Then, when I first heard Schoenberg I
> didn't know what to make of it.  After several listens to Pierot
> Lunaire, though, it started to all make sense.
> 
> Don't forget, though, there is plenty of bad atonal music out there, so
> just because something's not working for you doesn't necessarily mean
> it's your fault.  Just move on to something else.  Maybe you'll come
> back to it later and appreciate it more, and maybe not.

A linear progression through musical history works for some people. Others
however discover the modernists of the 20th century via totally different
routes. Many of my most enthusiastic correspondents, sharing an appreciation
of Stockhausen, Xenakis or John Cage, have little or no connection with
"classical" music (though many others do). Sometimes I have found far less
resistance to these modernists among jazz and rock fans than I encountered
at music college.
I remember discovered Stravinsky's "The Rite Of Spring" as a child, without
knowing any Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, or Wagner. If the
idea of atonality, and originality excites you, then you will continue to
look until you find.