Satoshi Akima <[log in to unmask]> writes:

>Talking about whether one likes or dislikes "atonal" music is rather like
>asking if one likes modal music.  The answer should be that it depends on
>the composition.

Not at all.  Since the entire process of atonal composition is inconducive
to producing anything resembling beauty, it does not take a leap to dislike
every last one of them.

>The term "atonal" is also rather too vague to mean much.

It is generally taken to mean "without tonal center," which is specific
enough.

>Nonetheless in saying "I don't like atonal music" I can tell straight away
>at what composers this is directed against.  I really however don't think
>writing a lengthy apologia will get anywhere.
>
>So the first rule is not to be frightened by the music.

Who the devil is frightened of it? No one.  Saying one is repulsed by it,
can't stand it, wish it never existed so as to drive audiences away from
modern works, and so forth, is a far cry from being frightened of it.

>If you can listen to late Mahler, Bartok, Strauss, and late Shostakovitch
>(especially the late string quartets) then it really shouldn't present
>much problem to you.

This is a bit like saying, "If you like orange juice, then gulping down
this nice glass of sulfuric acid really shouldn't present much problem
to you." It's the old atonalists' mantra:  Hardly anyone likes what you
want them to like, so that means they haven't heard enough of it, are
closed-minded toward it, etc.  SNORE!

-Jocelyn Wang
Culver Chamber Music Series
Come see our web page: http://members.xoom.com/culvermusic/