# Son of Return to the Valley of "What is Tonality?": Part XIII: The Reckoning



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

*Son of Return to the Valley of "What is Tonality?": Part XIII: The Reckoning*

I will start this out by appealing to the highest authority I know, _The Harvard Dictionary of Music_ by Willi Apel, second edition (the 'big red book,' highly recommended).

Tonality (p. 855) is defined here as:

"Loyalty to a tonic, in the broadest sense of the word. One of the most striking phenomena of music is the fact that, throughout its evolution - in non-Western cultures, in Gregorian chant, and in harmonized music - practically every single piece gives preference to one tone (the tonic), making this the tonal center to which all other tones are related.

Although nearly all music in this sense of the word is tonal, the means of achieving tonality have greatly varied throughout history. Whereas in Gregorian chant and other monophonic music the relationships are purely melodic, a much more complex situation is encounterd in harmonized music. About 1700 came general acceptance of a system of tonal functions based on the establishment of three main chords - the tonic, the dominant, and the subdominant triads - as the carriers of harmonic as well as melodic movements. Broadened by the ample use of chromatic alterations and modulation into other keys, this system prevailed throughout the 18th and 19th centuries.

In current usage the terms "tonality" and "modality" are mutually exclusive, the former referring to music written in a "key" (major or minor mode) and the latter to pieces written in, or showing the influence of, the church modes. This usage is obviously not compatible with the broad definition of tonality above, which includes all tonal relationships, whether "tonal" or "modal." If the explanation of mode as the constituent scale is accepted, then tonality exists in different "modal" varieties, based, e.g., on the church modes, the major and minor modes, the pentatonic mode, the whole-tone mode, the diatonic mode, or, as in some modern music, the chromatic mode.

Tonality also exists in the quarter-tone mode (e.g. in the Greek enharmonic genus), although modern quarter-tone music tends to be atonal."
--------------------
This means that practically all folk-musics are tonal, and Indian ragas are tonal. This universal tonality, in its broadest sense, has always existed since Humanity began to create music. It existed long before "atonal" music existed (not to put atonality down).

"Atonal" can only be considered a relevant term in the more narrow context of "tonality" as it was accepted after 1700, as explained above.

Otherwise, practically all music is tonal, and always has been.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> In current usage the terms "tonality" and "modality" are mutually exclusive, the former referring to music written in a "key" (major or minor mode) and the latter to pieces written in, or showing the influence of, the church modes. This usage is obviously not compatible with the broad definition of tonality above, which includes all tonal relationships, whether "tonal" or "modal." If the explanation of mode as the constituent scale is accepted, then tonality exists in different "modal" varieties, based, e.g., on the church modes, the major and minor modes, the pentatonic mode, the whole-tone mode, the diatonic mode, or, as in some modern music, the chromatic mode."


Almost, tonal = having a tone centre. Modes can be thought of as having a tone centre because the pattern of intervals is dependent on the starting note - and this also means that you can (theoretically) start a mode on any note provided you preserve the pattern of intervals by suitable accidentals e.g. moving a Lydian up from F to G where the key sig would be two sharps (to get the augmented fourth).

All major and minor scales have identical interval patterns. The starting note (or tonic) then dictates a) what key signature you need and b) (in the case of a minor) what extra accidentals you need.

The trouble is that the chromatic "mode" has twelve notes with 11 intervals each of a semi-tone so there is no interval pattern so it doesn't matter where you start so there is no tone centre.

Secondly, this only applies to Western music based on a (roughly) even tempered scale and using the semitone as the smallest interval. When you move away from this into world (or even Hebridean!) music , then you have a whole other range of things to consider.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Taggart said:


> The trouble is that the *chromatic "mode" *has twelve notes with 11 intervals each of a semi-tone so there is no interval pattern so it doesn't matter where you start so there is no tone centre.


Do you *dare* to disagree with the Harvard Dictionary of Music? :lol: I disagree, and suggest you refer again to the Harvard Dictionary or, alternately, any later Miles Davis recording after _Bitches Brew. _A chromatic scale can have 12 possible starting points.



Taggart said:


> All major and minor scales have identical *interval patterns.* The starting note (or tonic) then dictates a) what key signature you need and b) (in the case of a minor) what extra accidentals you need. The trouble is that the *chromatic "mode" *has twelve notes with 11 intervals each of a semi-tone so there is no interval pattern so it doesn't matter where you start...


You're getting your interval patterns confused with "starting notes." Those are two different things. An interval pattern can be written as a Dorian scale, in semitones: 2-1-2-2-2-1-2. This does not imply a "starting tone" in any way; it defines only a sequence of intervals. What determines a "starting tone" or tonic is the tonic, or reference note.

Therefore, in a Miles Davis setting, chromatic notes are continuously played over a bass "groove" or reference. This video is an example:








Taggart said:


> Secondly, this only applies to Western music based on a (roughly) even tempered scale and using the semitone as the smallest interval. When you move away from this into world (or even Hebridean!) music , then you have a whole other range of things to consider.


Well, once again I refer you to the dictionary, which mentions quarter-tones (see addendum above). Actually, this definition of tonality could refer to any equal-tempered scale division of the octave: 7, 12, 19, 23, 31, 43, 56...any ET division of the octave preserves the octave.

Thai music, for example, divides the octave into seven equal intervals. I constructed a wind-chime thusly, and after a while, it began to sound tonal, even diatonic, even though Thai music is strictly melodic, monophonic, and has no chords or harmony.

Likewise, early Gregoriann chant sounds tonal, even though it is strictly melodic, with no chords or harmony.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

I dunno.... Harvard Dictionary, but Willi Apel -- isn't that, like, _a German_ name? Shouldn't theory be getting, you know, away from all that? 

In that Nadia Boulanger link I and some others keep bumping up, Leonard Bernstein says, off-handedly and ca. 1970 somesuch, that 'all music is tonal, even such as Pendercki' and then moves right along 

Maybe Lenny as back up might help you convince those yet heathen who believe tonality was 'destroyed' by composer(s) X, Y, or Z?


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Do you *dare* to disagree with the Harvard Dictionary of Music? :lol: ...A chromatic scale can have 12 possible starting points.


Agreed, but no reference point, because there's nothing to anchor it to.



millionrainbows said:


> You're getting your interval patterns confused with "starting notes." Those are two different things. An interval pattern can be written as a Dorian scale, in semitones: 2-1-2-2-2-1-2. This does not imply a "starting tone" in any way; it defines only a sequence of intervals. What determines a "starting tone" or tonic is the root, or reference note.


The tonic is often confused with the root, which is the reference note of a chord, rather than that of the scale.



millionrainbows said:


> Well, once again I refer you to the dictionary, which mentions quarter-tones (see addendum above). Actually, this definition of tonality could refer to any equal-tempered scale division of the octave: 7, 12, 19, 23, 31, 43, 56...any ET division of the octave preserves the octave.
> 
> Likewise, early Gregorian chant sounds tonal, even though it is strictly melodic, with no chords or harmony.


Ho Hum. I was *very careful* to specify in that section "to Western music based on a (roughly) even tempered scale". As you can see in the selection you quoted.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

There are several other scales that have the ambiguities of a chromatic scale. The most famous of these are the whole tone scale (a mode of 2-2-2-2-2) and the octatonic scale (1-2-1-2-1-2-1).

Messiaen was fond of these and their very unique properties, and he discovered the rest of them, calling them modes of limited transposition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modes_of_limited_transposition


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Keep it simple.

Tonality - A system or an arrangement of seven tones built on a tonic key. 

So what, it a system get over it .........


----------



## Guest (May 7, 2013)

With due respect to Million ShadesOfGrey, PetrB, Mahlerian _et al_, arguments about 'tonality' and and other pitch organizations forget that they are simply alternative (and equally valid) ways of rendering meaningful 'musical discourse'. What counts finally is how the 'music' (let us call it "sonic material") is structured. 
The tried and tested 'pitch-time' paradigm (for us in the Occident) is simply one material approach out of several, and is highly conditioned by notational constraints. I wonder sometimes if the notation defines (or limits) what can be 'said' by the music, when surely it should be the other way round. To put it another way (and forgive me the simplistic soundbite), there is a universe of music between the lines. 
I for one am bored of the arguments raging on this forum concerning the 'wigs' and 'radicals', especially when one need only consider that the argument (such as it is) revolves around contrasting systems of pitch organization (to oversimplify).


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Amen to all that.

To me, 'tonality' has never been an 'issue.' because I hear it all, from Gregorian to Pendercki, etc. as 'tonal.'

I do think the limitations of words, and an academic need / over-adoration of definition is at much at work regarding 'the issue' as are the listener's ears, some listeners really confined to what is actually a very brief period in Western (Occidental if you will) music.

Some, especially on fora, take up the banner just for the sake of 'fun in argument.'

I do believe others are hoping to open up the doors to later non-CP music, and to convince those who 'believe in CP tonality _only_' (see _keep it simple_ above so many of whom seem inexorably bound and stuck, that there is music much more than merely 'interesting' past those doors. The whole 'campaign' being to the benevolent purpose of leading people to allow in more of the richness of what all later occidental music is and can be.

Thoroughly trained, I think theory and its terminology don't go very far in inviting 'the people' in to these other realms of great music, and feel too, that 'post-tonal harmony' already sounds 'retro' and somehow weirdly apologetic  I.e. theory will never convince anyone of the essential worth, or beauty, of a work.

Theory, or its terminology, never wrote a piece, and it less than rarely 'wins' any of these sorts of arguments. It becomes in this sort of instance, a pedant sport of jargon slinging for a handful whom find some joy in that sport, but nothing more.

There is, too, the concrete fact that some people are just not interested in more contemporary music, and in that case, someone is beating a drum and making a noise in a neighborhood where they are both unwelcome _and_ a nuisance, as well as wasting their time insofar as effecting a change of listening habits.

If you can think of another, better and effect way to successfully invite more of the listening public to consume more of the contemporary non CP works, and to stay, i.e. beyond recommending a simple "sit down and listen to this, and drop your resistances while so doing," I would be more than happy to see that happen.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Tonality (p. 855) is defined here as:
> 
> "Loyalty to a tonic, in the broadest sense of the word. One of the most striking phenomena of music is the fact that, throughout its evolution - in non-Western cultures, in Gregorian chant, and in harmonized music - practically every single piece gives preference to one tone (the tonic), making this the tonal center to which all other tones are related.


And then we never argued about it again.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Are you volunteering to police this state of agreement........... You could call it the law of tonal agreement!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Taggart said:


> Agreed, but no reference point, because there's nothing to anchor it to.


Yes there is; the starting note, any one of twelve.



Taggart said:


> The tonic is often confused with the root, which is the reference note of a chord, rather than that of the scale.


Okay, I changed "root" to "tonic" in my statement. That doesn't contradict the overall context; I still stand behind that statement.



Taggart said:


> Ho Hum. I was *very careful* to specify in that section "to Western music based on a (roughly) even tempered scale". As you can see in the selection you quoted.


Yawn...Your statement was,



Taggart said:


> Secondly, this _(broad definition of tonality and inclusion of modal tonality-ed.)_ only applies to Western music based on a (roughly) even tempered scale and using the semitone as the smallest interval.


"This" I assume refers to the inclusion of tonal modality, which some strict academics do not accept. Is this your point? Are you splitting hairs to impede this discussion? I certainly hope not!

Otherwise,any scale or mode with a tonic can be considered to be tonal.

...And you an be assured that I will never, ever confuse "root" and "tonic" again, sir!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Keep it simple.
> 
> Tonality - A system or an arrangement of seven tones built on a tonic key.
> 
> So what, it a system get over it .........


Thanks for your valuable input, and don't miss "Son of Return to the Valley of "What Is Tonality?": Part IX: Planet of the Trolls"!!!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Are you volunteering to police this state of agreement........... You could call it the law of tonal agreement!


There are no rules, just conventions people have decided to agree upon, all rather 'arbitrary' or 'capricious' as dictated by the common collective taste of the peoples of a place and time.

"Everything is in flux." ~ Herodotus. This quote from antique classical history is more 'modern' than any seven-tone scale upon which is hung the temporal convention of 'one sort of tonality.'


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

TalkingHead said:


> With due respect to Million ShadesOfGrey, PetrB, Mahlerian _et al_, arguments about 'tonality' and and other pitch organizations forget that they are simply alternative (and equally valid) ways of rendering meaningful 'musical discourse'. What counts finally is how the 'music' (let us call it "sonic material") is structured.
> The tried and tested 'pitch-time' paradigm (for us in the Occident) is simply one material approach out of several, and is highly conditioned by notational constraints. I wonder sometimes if the notation defines (or limits) what can be 'said' by the music, when surely it should be the other way round. To put it another way (and forgive me the simplistic soundbite), there is a universe of music between the lines.
> I for one am bored of the arguments raging on this forum concerning the 'wigs' and 'radicals', especially when one need only consider that the argument (such as it is) revolves around contrasting systems of pitch organization (to oversimplify).


Well, if you're bored, don't participate any further. Thanks for stopping by, anyway.

This whole question came about on another thread in reference to Brahms.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Thanks for your valuable input, and don't miss "Son of Return to the Valley of "What Is Tonality?": Part IX: Planet of the Trolls"!!!


Oh NOooooooo! A sequel already in the development stages?

What about a prequel?

Have you officially franchised this topic and registered all the sub-headings? 

Here is a lovely tonal piece to help convert those hide-bound simplistic heathens:

Georg Friedrich Haas ~ In Vain




Of course, he is Austrian, so this perpetuates that "Eurocentric / Germanic Hegemony stranglehold on music" cliche....

Though 'In Vain' might just still everyone for an hour or so.

But, hey, "Tonality." What're ya gonna do... sigh.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

PetrB said:


> I do believe others are hoping to open up the doors to later non-CP music, and to convince those who 'believe in CP tonality _only_' (see _keep it simple_ above so many of whom seem inexorably bound and stuck, that there is music much more than merely 'interesting' past those doors. The whole 'campaign' being to the benevolent purpose of leading people to allow in more of the richness of what all later occidental music is and can be.


Nope, that's not my hope. I don't care who listens to "later non-CP music." I only want to stress that "tonality" can be taken in a broad sense, and that CP tonality does not have exclusive claim to tonal-sounding music.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

PetrB said:


> There are no rules, just conventions people have decided to agree upon, all rather 'arbitrary' or 'capricious' as dictated by the common collective taste of the peoples of a place and time.
> 
> "Everything is in flux." ~ Herodotus. This quote from antique classical history is more 'modern' than any seven-tone scale upon which is hung the temporal convention of 'one sort of tonality.'


Ah- I like your thinking, so if I take "Everything is in flux" further then in an "arbitrary' way and with no rules, atonal music makes much more sense than Tonal music...................


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ahammel said:


> And then we never argued about it again.


Spluttering w/ _lots_ of "but, but, but's" in a stream.... "What would we do for fun, then?"

Actually listen to great music?
Lucia Dlugoszewski ~ Fire Fragile Flight


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Ah- I like your thinking, so if I take "Everything is in flux" further then in an "arbitrary' way and with no rules, atonal music makes much more sense than Tonal music...................


No more, no less... it just becomes music you judge on its face value, without the 'prejudice' of a little less than just two hundred years of 'occidental' music jamming your brain and ears.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Nope, that's not my hope. I don't care who listens to "later non-CP music." I only want to stress that "tonality" can be taken in a broad sense, and that CP tonality does not have exclusive claim to tonal-sounding music.


Ah, a sheerly self-indulgent pedant pleasure, for which you desire / require an audience, then?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

PetrB said:


> No more, no less... it just becomes music you judge on its face value, without the 'prejudice' of a little less than just two hundred years of 'occidental' music jamming your brain and ears.


Agreed, damn what has millionshadesofgrey started here - a utopian state of agreement


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Agreed, damn what has millionshadesofgrey started here - a utopian state of agreement


I prefer to think of it as a non-utopian state where music is judged on its face value, rather than held up to one tiny envelope of premise and convention of 'tonality.' It's all made up of 'tones' -- if it 'works' there is probably something 'holding it together.'

It's a pretty safe assumption that the floor plan of what I live in and call home is different from the floor plan of where you live and call home -- they're both homes, and further, the decor (or absence thereof) is also likely very different. Yet, if anyone visited us, they would recognize each as 'a home.' Tonic = home, analogy complete.

Look on the shelves in a hardware store - many brands of glue, all of which 'hold things together,' and that before all the other sorts of adhesives available, or which one can make. Not only, to spew a spate of quotes and apposite cliches, is "Everything in flux," but "there is more than one way to skin a cat."

_(... and that, from an animal lover _


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Doh, duped response, again :-/


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

PetrB said:


> There are no rules, just conventions people have decided to agree upon, all rather 'arbitrary' or 'capricious' as dictated by the common collective taste of the peoples of a place and time.
> 
> "Everything is in flux." ~ Herodotus. This quote from antique classical history is more 'modern' than any seven-tone scale upon which is hung the temporal convention of 'one sort of tonality.'


No, tonality in its broad definition is not based on "arbitrary rules or capricious conventions as dictated etc. etc. "

Tonality is based on physics; i.e., the way the ear hears harmonics. It may be later proved to be convention if an alien arachnid species is discovered to have an arachnid form of music that our ears can't hear.

Also, not just 7 notes. Remember chromatic tonality, whole-tone tonality, diminished tonality....


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Ah, a sheerly self-indulgent pedant pleasure, for which you desire / require an audience, then?


No, there are several reasons other than that; but I do enjoy the topic. Maybe in the future, you too will find a topic you really, really like, and devote the rest of your life to it. :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Agreed, damn what has millionshadesofgrey started here - a utopian state of agreement


That's very possible, if we all tune in to the same tonic...OOOOmmmmmmm.....:lol:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> No, tonality in its broad definition is not based on "arbitrary rules or capricious conventions as dictated etc. etc. "
> 
> Tonality is based on physics; i.e., the way the ear hears harmonics. It may be later proved to be convention if an alien arachnid species is discovered to have an arachnid form of music that our ears can't hear.
> 
> Also, not just 7 notes. Remember chromatic tonality, whole-tone tonality, diminished tonality....


So mankind just reflexively responded to some 'organic' maths and physics, coincidentally the number base of those disciplines '10' and that, as they say, is that?

Some love to believe all falls in line with numbers, and make 'proofs' only those who believe completely in those numbers could possibly accept.

And just what part of advanced physics was in mind when 'tonality' first came to be thought of as such, Euclidean Geometry in a format far simpler than was in circulation a thousand and more years later when European musicians were codifying the Gregorian modes? <g>

There again, I believe too many are imposing the thoughts and sciences of the present upon a past where they did not exist in anywhere near the complexity of contemporary thought -- like that imposed contemporary feminist view on Oedipus Rex, it just really does not apply.

But if ordering a private universe by numbers keeps one person grounded, that is what they are compelled to do.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> No, there are several reasons other than that; but I do enjoy the topic. Maybe in the future, you too will find a topic you really, really like, and devote the rest of your life to it. :lol:


I have, but I was pulled into music rather than to some aspect more 'on,' 'around,' or 'about' it.

Which brings this nicely 'round to circumstance, happenstance, and anything but some cosmically ordered and right universe governed by mathematical thought.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

PetrB said:


> So mankind just reflexively responded to some 'organic' maths and physics, coincidentally the number base of those disciplines '10' and that, as they say, is that?


No, I think it has more to do with ratios. If a frequency is doubled, it becomes an octave higher. This is called "octave equivalency."



PetrB said:


> Some love to believe all falls in line with numbers, and make 'proofs' only those who believe completely in those numbers could possibly accept.


No, not numbers as quantities. As ratios. That's the "art" part. You know, the Golden Mean and all that crap.



PetrB said:


> And just what part of advanced physics was in mind when 'tonality' first came to be thought of as such, Euclidean Geometry in a format far simpler than was in circulation a thousand and more years later when European musicians were codifying the Gregorian modes? <g>


Over here, it was Pythagoras and a string. In China, it was probably a guy deciding where to cut the stick of bamboo to make a piccolo to go with his flute.



PetrB said:


> There again, I believe too many are imposing the thoughts and sciences of the present upon a past where they did not exist in anywhere near the complexity of contemporary thought -- like that imposed contemporary feminist view on Oedipus Rex, it just really does not apply.


But Petr, "one" has always been "one," as far back as mankind can remember. If you feel the need to reinvent it, go right ahead. That's what I had to do to fully "grok" it.



PetrB said:


> But if ordering a private universe by numbers keeps one person grounded, that is what they are compelled to do.


Or like my father used to say, "Go ahead and do what you want to instead of what's right." Yeah, Dad, it's a way of life...:lol:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

PetrB said:


> I have, but I was pulled into music rather than to some aspect more 'on,' 'around,' or 'about' it.
> 
> Which brings this nicely 'round to circumstance, happenstance, and anything but some cosmically ordered and right universe governed by mathematical thought.


"God does not play dice with the universe." Still, music is a relatively simple system. It's just that there are fewer Renaissance men around than there used to be.

Yet, Equal Temperament was not perfected absolutely until 1917. You call that advanced?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> "God does not play dice with the universe." Still, music is a relatively simple system. It's just that there are fewer Renaissance men around than there used to be.
> 
> Yet, Equal Temperament was not perfected absolutely until 1917. You call that advanced?


Aaaah. you believe in a God, then? ... and one with dice, no less  I do not. Maybe that is a very big difference in belief systems, whether it is faith in numbers or other.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Aaaah. you believe in a God, then? ... and one with dice, no less  I do not. Maybe that is a very big difference in belief systems, whether it is faith in numbers or other.


You mean, you don't think that everything is related to THE BIG TONIC? You mean the universe is atonal?


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> You mean, you don't think that everything is related to THE BIG TONIC? You mean the universe is atonal?


I think this conversation is running away from me.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ahammel said:


> I think this conversation is running away from me.


Don't worry, these tonality / tone-centric threads run regularly, like buses in an urban area: not only will another come along in a few minutes, it will even have the same driver.


----------



## Guest (May 8, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I will start this out by appealing to the highest authority I know, _The Harvard Dictionary of Music_ by Willi Apel, second edition (the 'big red book,' highly recommended).
> 
> Tonality (p. 855) is defined here as:
> 
> ...


This reads like a blog. I feel like I'm being lectured, not offered a point of view with which I am being invited to engage.

And what's with the tiny print? I struggle to read it!


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

ahammel said:


> I think this conversation is running away from me.


You too hey. I'm still trying to work out what the THE BIG TONIC - maybe the big sonic bang?was and i fear the short lived utopian state of agreement is dead.

Oh for a universe governed by mathematical thought number base of the floor plan of 10 disciplines and the Golden Mean belief systems absolutely until 1917, Pythagoras and what is really bothering me is the hardware store of glue holding string theory together and is this a officially franchised topic.........

think i need a shrink now


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> I only want to stress that "tonality" can be taken in a broad sense, and that CP tonality does not have exclusive claim to tonal-sounding music.




I agree with this.

However, God _does _play dice with the universe as Einstein eventually had to concede. Or perhaps Laplace was more accurate when he said "I have no need of that hypothesis [the existence of God]"

It's all in the numbers.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

PetrB said:


> So mankind just reflexively responded to some 'organic' maths and physics, coincidentally the number base of those disciplines '10' and that, as they say, is that?


10 is *always* the base of any number system. (Think about it! )


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Well if I wanna be a bit facetious, atonality (& serialism) has this triumvirate. No need even to name them around here. Schoenberg, Berg, Webern. 

But you look at something like bitonality - heaps of composers used this in the early 20th century, it was very common. Holst, Stravinsky, Milhaud to name three. But there are heaps of others (even more 'conservative' guys, like Dohnanyi). But bitonality has no triumvirate, no kind of holy trinity type associations. So you don't get these regular bunfights over it. Of course there are other reasons. But I've been thinking of this, since recently listening to Holst's choral pieces. While The Planets (which uses bitonality as well) has become part of the repertoire, the other things haven't. But the thing is, when I mention Holst (who was influenced by Stravinsky, of course Wagner, Debussy and quite likely Schoenberg), he's not controversial at all. So what I'm saying is that atonal can equal these, gods, these unquestionable untouchable (to some) gods. Equally god-like to Beethoven, Bach, Mozart and so on (but probably not Wagner, the big cheese of gods). But other techniques which also changed music, like bitonality, they don't ignite these bunfights. They don't have these near holy dogmas and ideologies attached to them. These sacred things, almost. 

So its got nothing, or not much to do with the technical aspects or differences between so called tonal and atonal music. Its got more to do with dogma and ideology. & you can't really have a 'rational' argument against these things. They're polarising and divisive. They're like a political party or religion. They will attract people who will close ranks and not in any way validate the views, sometimes even the more moderate views, of the other side.

& btw I like two of the Viennese guys a lot. The only one I'm so so about is Webern. So I'm trying to be as objective as I can here. Also I saw & sometimes foolishly took part in some of these 'tonal' versus 'atonal' bunfights on the forum. Waste of time, total waste of time imo. If you like it, good. If you don't like it, same thing. If you're interested in it, you can get into it like anyone else. Its a free world guys.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> This reads like a blog. I feel like I'm being lectured, not offered a point of view with which I am being invited to engage.
> 
> And what's with the tiny print? I struggle to read it!


No, I don't desire that anyone "engage" with a definitive definition from a high authority, although several attempts have already occurred. Let me help out in identifying this reaction, since it seems so vague and mystifying to some.

Some people feel "affronted" by a broad definition of tonality which includes all music, even "world," ethnic, folk, and minimalism, that falls outside the definition formed in the prescribed Western time frame of 1700-1900. 

Plus, this umbrella definition of tonality invalidates the notion of CP tonality being dominant and "winning" the war against non-tonal serial music, reducing that argument to a mere academic exercise.

This broad, inclusive tonality existed long before CP tonality developed.



MacLeod said:


> And what's with the tiny print? I struggle to read it!


On my computer, all other members' posts are the same size; I have no idea why only my posts appear smaller to anyone.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

PetrB said:


> So mankind just reflexively responded to some 'organic' maths and physics, coincidentally the number base of those disciplines '10' and that, as they say, is that?


Off topic, but nothing in math or physics requires a decimal number system. That really is just a convention.

In fact, some people think base six makes more sense for basic arithmetic.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Sid James said:


> Well if I wanna be a bit facetious, atonality (& serialism) has this triumvirate. No need even to name them around here. Schoenberg, Berg, Webern.


You seem to be couching this broad definition of tonality I have presented in terms of the "CP tonality/atonality" debate. The fact is, tonality is bigger than that, and more pervasive. This broad definition of tonality is based on universal harmonic truths, which have arisen spontaneously through mankind's history, in folk/ethnic musics which are widely geographically separated. This tonality is hard-wired into our ears and brains; it's not an "adopted" system of "chord functions" as CP tonality is. It's much older than the 1700-1900 CP tonal system.



Sid James said:


> But other techniques which also changed music, like bitonality, they don't ignite these bunfights. They don't have these near holy dogmas and ideologies attached to them. These sacred things, almost.


As far as I am concerned, neither "serialism" nor "CP tonality" are "sacred;" both are products of the Western development of CP tonal function, realized from 1700-1900 to present, and its development into or opposition by those chromatic, atonal or serial-derived methods of musical thought which sought to "dismantle" or gravitate to other systems and ways of thinking about and creating music in the Western classical context.



Sid James said:


> So its got nothing, or not much to do with the technical aspects or differences between so called tonal and atonal music. Its got more to do with dogma and ideology.


You're still talking about an academic battle of CP tonality vs. atonalit; true tonality, in the broad sense, existed long before any "system.'" We hear a 2:1 relationship of pitches as an octave, and we always did. This is a physical fact of vibration; a harmonic "given." No system needed.



Sid James said:


> ...& you can't really have a 'rational' argument against these things. They're polarising and divisive. They're like a political party or religion. They will attract people who will close ranks and not in any way validate the views, sometimes even the more moderate views, of the other side.


Yes, in the academic debate, this is true. Also, I might add, CP tonal function is a "system" that was developed by 1700, and put into use until 1900 to the present.



Sid James said:


> ...Also I saw & sometimes foolishly took part in some of these 'tonal' versus 'atonal' bunfights on the forum. Waste of time, total waste of time imo.


That's true, I agree; but the purpose of this thread, and the broad definition of tonality it presents, is intended to put the 'tonal' versus 'atonal' debate into proper perspective. 

CP tonality does not have exclusive domain over what is properly called "tonality" in its broader sense; nor could any non-harmonic or "atonal" system ever displace or destroy tonality taken in its broad sense.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Taggart said:


> 10 is *always* the base of any number system. (Think about it! )


would have to say this is incorrect. Binary is base 2 and there have been many number systems used by the ancients that were not base 10 i.e. the measurement of time is not base 10 but base 12, as used by the ancients and still in use today!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

ahammel said:


> Off topic, but nothing in math or physics requires a decimal number system. That really is just a convention.
> 
> In fact, some people think base six makes more sense for basic arithmetic.


Don't confuse quantity with ratio; one is quantitative, the other is a relationship.

The reason the "12 inch" foot was used is because it allowed carpenters to divide things in half, or by thirds. The decimal system, by contrast, only allows division by factors of 2 or 5; thirds become 33.33333333....


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> would have to say this is incorrect. Binary is base 2 and there have been many number systems used by the ancients that were not base 10 i.e. the measurement of time is not base 10 but base 12, as used by the ancients and still in use today!


Yeah, I thought that too, so I asked him and it was an esoteric joke ... trust me, he can explain!


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> would have to say this is incorrect. Binary is base 2 and there have been many number systems used by the ancients that were not base 10 i.e. the measurement of time is not base 10 but base 12, as used by the ancients and still in use today!


Only if you stick to decimal - in binary (base 2) 2 is represented as 10. In octal (base 8) 8 is represented as 10. In duodecimal (base 12) 12 is represented as 10. In hexadecimal (base 16) 16 is represented as 10.

So (in their own base system) the base of any number system is 10. (Mathematicians joke:cheers


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> You too hey. I'm still trying to work out what the THE BIG TONIC - maybe the big sonic bang?was and i fear the short lived utopian state of agreement is dead.


The answer is here, at 20 seconds in...






Actually, the idea of the universe being a big "note" or vibration is not that far-fetched. Astronomers have detected astral phenomena which vibrate at super-low frequencies. Sound, and light, are just small sections of the electromagnetic spectrum.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> You too hey. I'm still trying to work out what the THE BIG TONIC - maybe the big sonic bang?


From The Holography Handbook. Unterseher, Hansen, Schlesinger

1. When examined closely, matter is found to be made up of energy.
2. We have a limited sensory experience of matter and energy, since we are only used to viewing enormous aggregates of these phenomena. We may not see what they are truly made of.
3. Matter cannot be precisely located in space and can be shown to exist anywhere, and even everywhere, if it travels at very high speeds.
4. If matter is energy and travels as waves, these waves can interact and form interference patterns.
5. Energy, filling the whole of the universe, suddenly, instantaneously, "collapses" to form a particle.
6. Energy filling all of space, of necessity, forms interference patterns, and out of this all-pervasive condition, matter is instantaneously formed.

We have just described the making of a hologram.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

I know exactly where THE BIG TONIC is....
It's in my BIG GIN..........hic.......


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

(I don't actually know anything about music, but this is what I understand, so feel free to correct me)

Let's not focus so much on "definitions", because "tonality" is a word and words get redefined all the time. I'm more interested in how our brains understand music. 

I understand that tonality is about hierarchical relationships between notes, about precedence. When we hear two notes, we hear an interval, and when we hear many other notes, many intervals are created. Let's say, in a three note chord or sequence of notes there are three intervals: the first with the second note, the first with the third, and the second with the third. As we add more notes, more intervals appear. But the brain does not parses all those intervals independently, and tonality is about how the brain arranges the precedence between the note and the intervals. As I see it, it's not only about just the tonic, but about the whole hierarchy. For example, in an old fashioned diatonic scale, the tonic is the most important note, and the other notes have importance related to it, but the dominant fulfills a similar role to the tonic, and it's also an important note, just not as important. So when we modulate, it's easy to modulate to the dominant precisely because of that.

As I understand it then, dodecaphonic music for example is about not letting those hierarchies to be built, so it keeps destroying those hierarchies our brain builds all the time.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

niv said:


> (I don't actually know anything about music, but this is what I understand, so feel free to correct me)...*Let's not focus so much on "definitions", because "tonality" is a word and words get redefined all the time. I'm more interested in how our brains understand music.*


No, by all means, we should bear in mind the definition of tonality, and constantly refer back to it. Tonality, according to the definition provided by the Harvard Dictionary of Music, has a specific meaning, and refers to specific things. It's not just a word; you have to understand what the word is referring to.

Surely you aren't presuming to dispute The Harvard Dictionary of Music.



niv said:


> As I understand it then, dodecaphonic music for example is about not letting those hierarchies to be built, so it keeps destroying those hierarchies our brain builds all the time.


Before you go there, you need to know what tonality is, and that our ears hear consonance and dissonance in degrees as interval relationships, expressed in ratios, all in relation to "1" as a tonic.

Most dissonant intervals to most consonant intervals, within one octave, using C as the reference, tonic, and "1" to which the ratios are part of:

1. minor seventh (C-Bb) 9:16
2. major seventh (C-B) 8:15
3. major second (C-D) 8:9
4. minor sixth (C-Ab) 5:8
5. minor third (C-Eb) 5:6
6. major third (C-E) 4:5
7. major sixth (C-A) 3:5
8. perfect fourth (C-F) 3:4
9. perfect fifth (C-G) 2:3
10. octave (C-C') 1:2
11. unison (C-C) 1:1

The intervals have a dissonant/consonant quality determined by their ratio, all in relation to a "keynote" or unity of 1; our ears/brain experience this as an instantaneous visceral sensation.

The intervals have a scale degree and place in relation to "1" or the Tonic, and triads can be constructed on these steps/notes. The chords thus constructed can then be given a "function" which is modeled after this harmonic relation to the keynote. Function is dependent on forward progression in time, and context, and both rely on memory.

This harmonic model is where all "linear function" originates, and is still manifest as ratios (intervals) which were derived from physical harmonic phenomena, which existed first.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

millionrainbows said:


> ...
> ....
> 
> CP tonality does not have exclusive domain over what is properly called "tonality" in its broader sense; nor could any non-harmonic or "atonal" system ever displace or destroy tonality taken in its broad sense.


Well I agree, I don't have much time either for people who say one composer, or group of composers, destroy things. Schoenberg, or whatever other 'bogeyman' people create, didn't set out to do that. There are things like anarchist tendencies in music and the arts but thats another thing.

You're right I was talking about things here in a broad sense. I don't query what you're saying, the gist of it. Even Schoenberg himself said he was aiming to extend traditions in his own way. He revered everyone from Bach to Handel, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner and so on. I see him no different to those composers, great in his own time and place. I would give credit to others as well, whatever techniques they employ.

Only thing is that what I said has some validity to the basis of many of these 'atonal' vs. 'tonal' or old vs new music debates on this forum. Bitonality doesn't have this type of controversy. Niether do the innovations of French composers around the turn of the 20th century, eg. Ravel, Debussy, Faure, Satie. Neither does Stravinsky's rhythmic innovations, or the road back to folk which was a huge thing (Bartok, Kodaly, Vaughan Williams, Holst, Grainger, de Falla to name some biggies). Or what about jazz coming into music (Gershwin, Milhaud, Bernstein, also Stravinsky, Ravel, Debussy had a go at it, etc.). & also innovations in sonority (Bartok, Varese, later Penderecki, Sculthorpe). All these sorts of movements and trends in music that brought about significant changes don't have half the controversy of atonal, serialist, etc. & that, I think, is in a large part to do with things outside technical issues. Its about the 'politics' of music, the dogma, the mythologies I was talking about the big three of the '2nd Viennese School.' The only other thing that has such controversy is John Cage. Again, you got a lot of 'baggage' around him, even his name can elicit very emotional and polarised responses.

But I agree I am focussing on things not strictly the topic of this thread. But I think they're relevant in at least some ways.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Sid James said:


> Only thing is that what I said has some validity to the basis of many of these 'atonal' vs. 'tonal' or old vs new music debates on this forum. Bitonality doesn't have this type of controversy. Niether do the innovations of French composers around the turn of the 20th century, eg. Ravel, Debussy, Faure, Satie. Neither does Stravinsky's rhythmic innovations, or the road back to folk which was a huge thing (Bartok, Kodaly, Vaughan Williams, Holst, Grainger, de Falla to name some biggies). Or what about jazz coming into music (Gershwin, Milhaud, Bernstein, also Stravinsky, Ravel, Debussy had a go at it, etc.). & also innovations in sonority (Bartok, Varese, later Penderecki, Sculthorpe).


Hmmm, an interesting use of "passive criticism by omission." Isn't the net effect of your pointing out this supposed pattern on this forum, and the two following, a disparagement of atonality and its offshoots? Or if not that, a tacit acknowledgement that "modern innovation" does not have to come at the "price" of atonality/serialism? I think so.



Sid James said:


> All these sorts of movements and trends in music that brought about significant changes don't have half the controversy of atonal, serialist, etc. & that, I think, is in a large part to do with things outside technical issues. Its about the 'politics' of music, the dogma, the mythologies I was talking about the big three of the '2nd Viennese School.'


All the "other modern" music you mention has this commonality, including jazz: it has to varying degrees given up the idea of CP tonal function, and has returned to a more basic universal tonality (in the broad sense). No big loss for the ear.

All of these musics, CP tonality included, are under the larger umbrella of tonality (in the broad sense). Therefore, it is universally apprehended by the ear, according to the physics of tone and its sensation, and appears to be music.

Atonality bucked the CP system, and bucked the harmonically-based hierarchy of function which it runs forward on; but the ear remains the same. Dodecaphony created a new hierarchical system for a way of utilizing the materials of music, but it did so, at least early on, in the context of that same classical tradition, as if "subverting" that system.

Still, the ear remains the same. It is a trusting ear; it will hear as it will hear, as it was designed to hear. No wonder that when exposed to a system which has dispensed with the harmonic hierarchy as its determining basis, there is often conflict.

But music is music, and sound is sound. The ear will hear, regardless. If it is not given music in an obvious way, there can be conflict.



Sid James said:


> The only other thing that has such controversy is John Cage. Again, you got a lot of 'baggage' around him, even his name can elicit very emotional and polarised responses.


We can't leave John Cage out of this blanket accusation of "conflict-creation." John Cage...Ahh, and what happens when you get rid of the "idea" of music altogether? The ear will abide, but now the brain will rebel. But let us tread lightly; all Cage did was stir the glass of water. The sediment which settled at the bottom is what clouded the water.


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> No, by all means, we should bear in mind the definition of tonality, and constantly refer back to it. Tonality, according to the definition provided by the Harvard Dictionary of Music, has a specific meaning, and refers to specific things. It's not just a word; you have to understand what the word is referring to.
> 
> Surely you aren't presuming to dispute The Harvard Dictionary of Music.


I'm sure the people who wrote the harvard dictionary of music know a lot more about music than I do. That said, I think a lot of discussions are not about concepts but about words, about mere labels. This might sound a bit arrogant but... I think many discussions are simply discussions about definitions. What is romanticism? is bitches brew jazz? is the laptop a musical instrument? they're all the same kind of debates, and they often lead to nowhere.

To me, words aren't defined by dictionaries. Words are defined by their use, and when people use words, they constantly redefine them. Then, later on, someone writes a dictionary and tries to pin down one or more meanings. Like I said, I know nothing about music, but the mere fact that some people used "pantonal" and other people used "atonal" to refer to the same thing (when etimologically they mean the opposite thing!) to me just to mention a minor thing is a hint about how the word "tonality" has not a single definition.



> Before you go there, you need to know what tonality is, and that our ears hear consonance and dissonance in degrees as interval relationships, expressed in ratios, all in relation to "1" as a tonic.
> 
> Most dissonant intervals to most consonant intervals, within one octave, using C as the reference, tonic, and "1" to which the ratios are part of:
> 
> ...


Ok, so far I think I already got that. If you have a little bit of patience with someone that does not understand this very well (me), can you explain me how does the brain resolve, given a series of notes, which is the tonic or the tonics in presence of modulation? If I'm listening to this series of notes:

C D E F# G# A# C D E F# G# A#....
(i.e. the whole-tone scale)

which is the tonic?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

niv said:


> Ok, so far I think I already got that. If you have a little bit of patience with someone that does not understand this very well (me), can you explain me how does the brain resolve, given a series of notes, which is the tonic or the tonics in presence of modulation? If I'm listening to this series of notes:
> 
> C D E F# G# A# C D E F# G# A#....
> (i.e. the whole-tone scale)
> ...


Inherently? None.

Which is the tonic if this sequence is played?

D-E-F-G-A-B-C-D

Once again, inherently, none, because we are used to having a leading tone.

In both cases, actual music (rather than theory or unaccompanied unaccented scales/modes) will emphasize certain pitches over others, and the ear will be drawn to one or at most two of these in particular.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

niv said:


> ...can you explain me how does the brain resolve, given a series of notes, which is the tonic or the tonics in presence of modulation? If I'm listening to this series of notes:
> 
> C D E F# G# A# C D E F# G# A#....
> (i.e. the whole-tone scale)
> ...


Context, context, context. We don't usually hear scales in isolation, but I'd like to make these observations:

The whole tone scale is a 6-note scale, and consists of all major second intervals. On a piano, this would be C, skip a note, D, skip a note, and so on.

It's not written in stone, but if your starting note is C, this implies a C tonality. If the scale appears in the key of C as an alteration of C, then it shares the C,E, and G. But it is more often than not used on the dominant degree of a scale as an augmented dominant sound: In the key of C, this is G-A-B-C#-D#-F, which shares F-G-B-D# of the G aug dom7. Thelonious Monk frequently did this, and used a signature "dominant whole-tone" run.

But the whole tone scale is by nature, unstable, because it has a tritone (C-F#). In fact, it is full of tritones: D-G#, E-A#, F#-C, G#-C, and so on. Tritones (flatted fifths) are unstable because stable chords have a fifth, like C-E-G major triads. The whole tone scale produces a series of augmented chords.

There are two whole tone scales in the chromatic set: one beginning on C, and one on C#, not counting iterations.

Iteration=the repetition of a process

So it produces 2 areas of unstable or "suspended" tonality, and Debussy used this as two areas of tonality he could "modulate" to.

So you are inquiring about a "glitch" in CP tonality, which was one of the elements which led to chromaticism. The other "glitch" is the diminished scale.

Here is Monk doing his Whole tone scale run, at :50 to :52, again at 1:19-1:20, and again at 2:18-2:19. It goes by quickly, don't blink. It appears that he really liked this riff.

Ah, if I could only convey the harmonic satisfaction that Monk gives me! To some it may appear clumsy, but I just love it.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Taggart said:


> Only if you stick to decimal - in binary (base 2) 2 is represented as 10. In octal (base 8) 8 is represented as 10. In duodecimal (base 12) 12 is represented as 10. In hexadecimal (base 16) 16 is represented as 10.
> 
> So (in their own base system) the base of any number system is 10. (Mathematicians joke:cheers


I like your logic but can you explain string theory for me know.............. like to get your take


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> I like your logic but can you explain string theory for me know.............. like to get your take


You mean how long is a piece of string?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> I know exactly where THE BIG TONIC is....
> It's in my BIG GIN..........hic.......


And next, it creates interference patterns in the brain, called a hangover...


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Context, context, context. We don't usually hear scales in isolation, but I'd like to make these observations:
> (...)
> It's not written in stone, but if your starting note is C, this implies a C tonality.


My example was more like, I sit on the piano and start playing the notes all in the same duration without any rhytmic accentuation whatsoever. By the second C comes around I (think I) have a hard time "feeling" it's the tonic, like it was blurred out.

(great song btw)


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> D-E-F-G-A-B-C-D
> 
> Once again, inherently, none, because we are used to having a leading tone.
> 
> In both cases, actual music (rather than theory or unaccompanied unaccented scales/modes) will emphasize certain pitches over others, and the ear will be drawn to one or at most two of these in particular.


A bare mode doesn't naturally have a tonic - because there's no way to know which mode is meant. If you treat it as a Dorian mode sequence and add suitable (triad) chords then you can sense the "tonality" - I know it's not truly tonal because it doesn't have the I IV V chord workings that a true minor scale would have - but it will still respond to a V I cadence at the end. ( Oh and yes I'm aware that as a minor scale the IV chord is "off" because it doesn't have a B flat).


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Taggart said:


> A bare mode doesn't naturally have a tonic - because there's no way to know which mode is meant. If you treat it as a Dorian mode sequence and add suitable (triad) chords then you can sense the "tonality" - I know it's not truly tonal because it doesn't have the I IV V chord workings that a true minor scale would have - but it will still respond to a V I cadence at the end. ( Oh and yes I'm aware that as a minor scale the IV chord is "off" because it doesn't have a B flat).


Which is why I specified unaccompanied and unaccented.

Anyway, I'm also familiar with the fact that in performance, conventions of musica ficta usually added an unwritten leading tone to cadences.

But the pull towards a center of modal scales, even harmonized, is not the same thing as functional tonality. It is certainly centered on a certain note, but it is so because of emphasis more than anything else. Music written on the whole tone scale (or any other symmetrical scale) works similarly.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Taggart said:


> You mean how long is a piece of string?


I think so, well at least from a serialist point of view- can a string be a tone row!

I like your thoughts on a twelve-tone string..................


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Which is the tonic if this sequence is played?
> 
> D-E-F-G-A-B-C-D
> 
> ...


The dual term "scales/modes" is discouraged as being unclear.

Common usage indicates that a scale in and of itself can be designated as having a tonality:

The Harvard Dictionary: "Still another consideration in the concept of "scale" is the center tone (tonic, home tone), whereby the various tones of the scale are not considered equally important but are related and subordinated to one of them. *Thus, the diatonic scale is usually interpreted as a "C-major scale," because C is its initial tone*....For the sake of clarity, the term "scale" should be avoided for what are better termed modes. (p. 753)


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> ...the pull towards a center of modal scales, even harmonized, is not the same thing as functional tonality. It is certainly centered on a certain note*,* but it is so because of emphasis more than anything else...
> 
> Music written on the whole tone scale (or any other symmetrical scale) works similarly.


If you are talking in terms of academic mode-talk (which only confuses the question of tonality for laymen), then you should _not_ include scales such as the WT, and stay with your academic example.

In a "scale" (not a mode or tetrachord), the pull towards a tonic is inherently determined by vertical harmonic factors, not horizontal "emphasis" by repetition or accent. That comes later.

This chart has been posted here already.

1. minor seventh (C-Bb) 9:16
2. major seventh (C-B) 8:15
3. major second (C-D) 8:9
4. minor sixth (C-Ab) 5:8
5. minor third (C-Eb) 5:6
6. major third (C-E) 4:5
7. major sixth (C-A) 3:5
8. perfect fourth (C-F) 3:4
9. perfect fifth (C-G) 2:3
10. octave (C-C') 1:2
11. unison (C-C) 1:1

So a C major scale's _CP tonal horizontal functions_ could, but don't have to, easily correspond to these harmonic relations; or at least one can observe how these functions were derived, or not:

I - 1:1
ii - 8:9
iii - 4:5
IV - 3:4
V - 2:3
vi - 3:5
vii - 8:15

Their importance in establishing the tonality would be ranked by the order of consonance to dissonance, with smaller-number ratios being more consonant.

I - 1:1
V - 2:3
IV - 3:4
vi - 3:5
iii - 4:5
ii - 8:9
vii - 8:15

Using this model, a "function" hierarchy can be applied to any scale, if one is flexible enough, and after the degrees of dissonance are ranked; or not, if you do not wish to:

Whole Tone scale: C-D-D-F#-G#-A#

C - 1:1
D -8:9
E -4:5
F#- 45:32
G# - 8:5
A# - 16:9

Whether or not you attach Roman numerals to the above is optional; but by the numbers, one can see a ranking:

C - 1:1
E -4:5
G# - 8:5
D -8:9
A# - 16:9
F#- 45:32


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> The dual term "scales/modes" is discouraged as being unclear.


It *is * unclear which is meant because you then have to appeal to authority:



millionrainbows said:


> The Harvard Dictionary: "..Thus, the diatonic scale is usually interpreted as a "C-major scale," because C is its initial tone....For the sake of clarity, the term "scale" should be avoided for what are better termed modes. (p. 753)


Your next post :



millionrainbows said:


> If you are talking in terms of academic mode-talk (which only confuses the question of tonality for laymen), then you should _not_ include scales such as the WT, and stay with your academic example.


Modes are used by two other groups of people apart from academics: church musicians and people who sing plainchant; and folkies. I am in both camps. Those who disparage academic activity all too often miss the activity of the ordinary people.



millionrainbows said:


> In a "scale" (not a mode or tetrachord), the pull towards a tonic is inherently determined by vertical harmonic factors, not horizontal "emphasis" by repetition or accent. That comes later.


But how do you *know* that it is a scale? In your first post on the topic, you appealed to an Academic Music Dictionary to say that it is "usually interpreted" as a scale. Hmm.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

The original question (niv, post #55) was:



niv said:


> "...can you explain me how does the brain resolve, given a series of notes, which is the tonic or the tonics in presence of modulation? If I'm listening to this series of notes:
> 
> C D E F# G# A# C D E F# G# A#....
> (i.e. the whole-tone scale)
> ...


Originally Posted by millionrainbows:
The dual term "scales/modes" is discouraged as being unclear.



Taggart said:


> It *is *unclear which is meant because you then have to appeal to authority:


Originally Posted by millionrainbows:
The Harvard Dictionary: "..Thus, the diatonic scale is usually interpreted as a "C-major scale," because C is its initial tone....For the sake of clarity, the term "scale" should be avoided for what are better termed modes. (p. 753)



Taggart said:


> Your next post :


 Originally Posted by millionrainbows 
If you are talking in terms of academic mode-talk (which only confuses the question of tonality for laymen), then you should not include scales such as the WT, and stay with your academic example.

I'm glad I posted my response very defensively, because I _knew_ this sort of inquisition would result. There seems to be a desire to place the entire question of _the tonality of a designated scale_ in terms of an academic CP context.

It seems that an academic proof of "scale" is needed before proceeding to answer a simple question from an admitted non-expert. (niv, post #55)

"Scale" means scale, according to the definition provided.

The original query was "Does the whole tone scale have a tonic," (niv, post#55) and the question designated a scale. Beyond this, the question of whether a whole tone scale is a "mode" is silly.



Taggart said:


> Modes are used by two other groups of people apart from academics: church musicians and people who sing plainchant; and folkies. I am in both camps. Those who disparage academic activity all too often miss the activity of the ordinary people.


 Then this is the academician contingent at work. Non-academic practicing "folkies" (not musicologists) certainly don't need academic definitions of "modes." They naturally respond and use the broad, universal definition of tonality as stated in the OP: "In current usage the terms "tonality" and "modality" are mutually exclusive, the former referring to music written in a "key" (major or minor mode) and the latter to pieces written in, or showing the influence of, the church modes. This usage is obviously not compatible with the broad definition of tonality above, which includes all tonal relationships, whether "tonal" or "modal." If the explanation of mode as the constituent scale is accepted, then tonality exists in different "modal" varieties, based, e.g., on the church modes, the major and minor modes, the pentatonic mode, the whole-tone mode, the diatonic mode, or, as in some modern music, the chromatic mode."

Originally Posted by millionrainbows: In a "scale" (not a mode or tetrachord), the pull towards a tonic is inherently determined by vertical harmonic factors, not horizontal "emphasis" by repetition or accent. That comes later.



Taggart said:


> But how do you *know* that it is a scale?



Because it was specified to be a scale in the query. If we prove it, there won't be anything to argue about.

"If the explanation of mode as the constituent scale is accepted, then tonality exists in different "modal" varieties."



Taggart said:


> In your first post on the topic, you appealed to an Academic Music Dictionary to say that it is "usually interpreted" as a scale. Hmm.


"If the explanation of mode as the constituent scale is accepted, then tonality exists in different "modal" varieties."

That's the assumption in the question, and that's the common interpretation. Moreover, this is how scales are used naturally, before Western designations of modes existed. Tonality is a universal phenomenon, which needs no long-winded explanations or defenses. What a waste of my time, and other's.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Oh dear. Posts 65 and 66 on this thread, which I referred to, were quoting Mahlerian. Why bring in somebody else?

Bad case of De gustibus ...

Even folkies are well aware of the different three chord tricks needed to accompany modal as opposed to major \ minor tunes - nothing to do with academic acronyms.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

The whole reason to distinguish between tonal and modal, or tonal and atonal, is to indicate different types of harmonic/melodic practices. If you conflate tonality and modality, as you are fond of doing, then you need to state at that exact moment that there is no such thing as "atonal" music under your definition. Otherwise, you're going to confuse your audiences into thinking that tonal and modal music are both connected under an umbrella of "tonality", while 20th century expressionist and serial music are excluded for one reason or another.

So-called atonal music is closer in harmonic/melodic practice to common practice tonality than it is to the music of the middle ages.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Taggart said:


> Oh dear. Posts 65 and 66 on this thread, which I referred to, were quoting Mahlerian. Why bring in somebody else? Bad case of De gustibus ...("e gustibus non est disputandum" is a Latin maxim meaning "In matters of taste, there can be no disputes.") Even folkies are well aware of the different three chord tricks needed to accompany modal as opposed to major \ minor tunes - nothing to do with academic acronyms.


Are we on the same page here? If my post gets quoted, I will respond to it, regardless of who I originally quoted. It's really not clear what this exchange is in reference to; I still stand by the inclusive definition of "tonality" and "scale" as designating a modal tonality.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> The whole reason to distinguish between tonal and modal, or tonal and atonal...


Hold it right there. "Tonal and modal, or tonal and atonal..." Who's conflating now?



Mahlerian said:


> If you conflate tonality and modality (as being both connected under an umbrella of tonality) as you are fond of doing, then you need to state at that exact moment that there is no such thing as "atonal" music under your definition.


No I don't, because "atonal" is just a vague term used in reference to the breakdown of CP tonal function.

Under the larger umbrella of tonality in its broad sense, "atonal" music is tonal, or at least has many chances to be, in the ears of the beholders, or whenever it gets the chance.



Mahlerian said:


> Otherwise, you're going to confuse your audiences into thinking that tonal and modal music are both connected under an umbrella of "tonality", while 20th century expressionist and serial music are excluded for one reason or another.


Are you including 20th century expressionist and serial music under the umbrella of the vague term "atonality" as you (and modernism's detractors) are fond of doing? I tried to tell you that the term "atonal" was no good, and would confuse your audiences.



Mahlerian said:


> So-called atonal music is closer in harmonic/melodic practice to common practice tonality than it is to the music of the middle ages.


The only thing 20th century expressionist and serial music ("atonal" music) is excluded from is "CP tonality." Under the larger umbrella of tonality in its broad sense, "atonal" music is tonal, if you can refer it to whatever tonics might pop up along the way. :lol:


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

You're not even disagreeing with me here. I think we're simply unclear on a few things.

If one defines tonal such that is equivalent to common practice functional tonality, then music before (< c.1600) and after (> c.1910) is not tonal.

If one defines tonal to include all music that centers on one or more pitches throughout its duration, then one would have a hard time coming up with an example of music that is _not_ tonal.

This is important to distinguish because there exist people who consider (using the second of these definitions) pre-Baroque music tonal, but not post-1910 music. There is no theoretical basis for this whatsoever, in my opinion, and it needs to be explicitly stated.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> If one defines tonal such that is equivalent to common practice functional tonality, then music before (< c.1600) and after (> c.1910) is not tonal.
> 
> If one defines tonal to include all music that centers on one or more pitches throughout its duration, then one would have a hard time coming up with an example of music that is _not_ tonal.
> 
> This is important to distinguish because there exist people who consider (using the second of these definitions) pre-Baroque music tonal, but not post-1910 music. There is no theoretical basis for this whatsoever, in my opinion, and it needs to be explicitly stated.


Quite agree. Tonality is built around a number of things - a tonic; major and minor scales; triads; the importance of the I IV V triads for harmony and the importance of triads in cadences.

Any music lacking this is not fully tonal. Modes are partly tonal because they have a tonic and they can use triads in harmony\accompaniment - usually I V and VII - and in cadences - mainly I and V. Any system not based around an 8 tone pattern is in trouble because of the difficulty of defining triads - simplest example is the "scotch" pentatonic based on the black notes (?? B Major with gaps ??).

Once we understand what is going on, then we can talk sensibly about tonality, atonality, pan-tonality and any of the multi -faceted systems that make up "music". Two Wittgenstein quotes spring to mind :

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." („Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.")

and

"The limits of my language are the limits of my world." („Die grenzen meiner sprache sind die grenzen meiner welt.")


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> You're not even disagreeing with me here. I think we're simply unclear on a few things.
> 
> If one defines tonal such that is equivalent to common practice functional tonality, then music before (< c.1600) and after (> c.1910) is not tonal.


I think common practice functional tonality should always be referred to as "CP tonality."



Mahlerian said:


> If one defines tonal to include all music that centers on one or more pitches throughout its duration, then one would have a hard time coming up with an example of music that is _not_ tonal.


I can see this qualification, "music that centers on one or more pitches throughout its duration," as being applicable to certain chromatic music with "tone-centric" areas (Bartók, etc.), but it is derived from academic practices and developments in chromatic thinking that (I think) are best considered to be part of the Western CP concern and development of harmonic thinking.

There is a sense in which "tonality as a constantly moving target" begins to erode the meaning of "basic tonality which refers to a reference note or tonic" in its basic sense and intent, which should be universally obvious, not an academic issue.



Mahlerian said:


> This is important to distinguish because there exist people who consider (using the second of these definitions) pre-Baroque music tonal, but not post-1910 music.


I think there are plenty of reasons for including post-1910 music in the Western classical tradition, and this music should be properly seen as belonging; and "tonality" in any sense should not be the criteria used to exlude any modern, 12-tone, or serial music from this tradition;

...but there comes a point when "tonality" must exclude music not based on a harmonically-modeled hierarchy...But you seem to think this weakens the position of serial music, so this needs further discussion.



Mahlerian said:


> There is no theoretical basis for this whatsoever, in my opinion, and it needs to be explicitly stated.


Okay, we can explore this theoretical basis; I'd love to. But what I'm saying is that "tonal or atonal" in any sense should not be the defense to use in the inclusion of 12-tone or serial-derived music, nor should it be used to exclude it. Then we can freely explore the theoretical issues which underly this conflict. Can you suspend your judgement for long enough to discuss it?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

As for defining tonality, I stand behind my post #66 above; tonality is harmonically based, and "harmonic unity" is based on degrees of consonance and dissonance in relation to these ratios. 

CP tonality and its functions are also based on these same harmonic degrees of consonance and dissonance in relation to tonic, regardless of convention.

Once this is accepted as a general "given," then discussion of 12-tone and serial systems can proceed.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

What's so "different" about a very broad, basic definition of tonality (all notes related to a tonic) versus the "functional" common practice tonality which arose around 1700?

Vertically (harmonically), they are both derived from the same hierarchy: relation to a tonic pitch.

CP tonality has "functions" assigned to the scale steps of the major and minor scales, but these functions are derived from the same vertical consideration: degrees of consonance/dissonance in relation to the tonic, expressible as ratios.

So it seems to me that CP tonality is merely a specialized form of tonality in its broader sense. CP tonality's basis is the major and minor scales, with functions assigned to the degrees.

The conflict seems to arise when academic, inflexible notions of tonality are challenged, by a "working musician's" basic idea of tonality which is touted or presented in musical situations, such as jazz; situations which otherwise make perfect sense to the ear of all who witness it.

I don't think the idea of "function" is essential for an idea of "tonality," since it is a horizontal, time-based idea, and derived from vertical (harmonic) considerations which could be applied to any scale.

In fact, I think the idea of "function" is largely irrelevant to an essential, basic idea of tonality in its broadest, vertical sense.

It seems, as well, that "function" could be assigned to any scale or mode, regardless, according to the degree of consonance/dissonance in relation to the tonic. Jazz players know this intuitively; no need to argue the point when it comes to practical application.

Further, I think that the idea of "function" has been used to confuse or obfuscate an agreement on what tonality means in its most basic vertical sense, for various reasons.

It seems simple to me; your ears will tell you if music is tonal or not, according to the most basic sensations of tone; beyond that, detecting tonality becomes a more cerebral, horizontal pursuit.

Eventually, it comes down to a matter of degree: how much "relation to a tonic" is audible, can you hear it, and for how long before it becomes meaningless as tonality? At what point does music with a constantly-shifting "tonic" retain its "tonality" before the concept of tonality becomes too vague, too irrelevant, or not applicable? 

Isn't this situation what is meant by the "breakdown of tonality?" How did this term "breakdown of tonality" come into use, if we are not prepared to acknowledge the point at which music is either "tonal" or not?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

So what is tonality? It's an hierarchical relationship of notes to a tonic.

I just listened to Panufnik's Piano Concerto. Is it tonal? No, he clearly states how it is constructed, using two intervals, a minor second and a major second.

Does it "sound" tonal? In a way, yes; my ear hears these sequences of intervals, and it sounds vaguely like a tonal progression, especially during the slow second movement, where there are sustained tones which create a "tonal" feel. But is it tonal?

No, because it's not constructed on a tonal hierarchy. Would it be tonal if Panufnik manipulated the intervals to emphasize a certain note, or place that note in the bass, or built triads on that note?

No, because it's constructed with intervals, not an hierarchy of tones relating to a tonic.

Is it tonal if it seems to have constantly shifting tone centers or areas of "tone-centricity?" No, because it is not a tonally-conceived work.

Our ears will always hear "harmonically;" our ears will always try to hear a tone center, or make sense out of what is presented to it; that's the way our ears hear. This is the "art" behind using such non-tonal methods; to create patterns the ear will grab on to,and make intelligible.

It's no use defensively calling Schoenberg's later 12-tone music "tonal," in order to justify it, or connect it to tradition, because it's not. 

Why do we need to "justify" Schoenberg's music with connections to tonality? These connections may exist as "metaphors" to various tonal procedures, such as "areas" of tonality which "function" similarly to tonal key areas; but this is not true tonality, nor is is based structurally on tonal principles.

It simply has "harmonic consequences" which are exploited and manipulated by the composer, because music is an art of the ear, as well as the brain.

There comes a time when you must call a thing what it is.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Looks like your slipping further into the depths of the Valley of Eternal Tonality!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Looks like your slipping further into the depths of the Valley of Eternal Tonality!


Nah, I'm just trying to make a fine distinction, which is, no doubt, lost on most people.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Nah, I'm just trying to make a fine distinction, which is, no doubt, lost on most people.


Isn't it exactly the same distinction that I've been trying to make this entire time, between music that gives the effect of tonality through manipulation of triadic/pseudo-triadic materials in a non-functional way and music that is functionally (and thus hierarchically) tonal?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Isn't it exactly the same distinction that I've been trying to make this entire time, between music that gives the effect of tonality through manipulation of triadic/pseudo-triadic materials in a non-functional way and music that is *functionally (and thus hierarchically) tonal?*


I don't think so; we still seem to differ as to what role functionality plays. We seem to differ as to the definition of tonality.

You seem to regard tonal function as defining tonality, while I see a more basic vertical hierarchy of tones relating to a root as being the defining feature (as in the OP Harvard definition), with function derived from that.

This "basic vertical hierarchy of tones relating to a root" has a broad application, and has to do not with function, but the "consonance/dissonance" chart of intervals related to a root, and from which "function" is _derived_ and then assigned to the various triads built on the scale degrees.

Besides, your specification of music which "gives the effect of tonality through manipulation of triadic/pseudo-triadic materials in a non-functional way" is limited in certain ways, because of the inferences it makes in regard to "tonal features."

Tonality can be inferred with two notes, or non-triadically; and their being done in a "non-functional way" has very little to do with a sense of tonality. It can be one note at a time, like Morton Feldman, or as in music before "function" was developed. It seems you are always using "function" in your statements of tonality.

The horizontal dimension exists with or without function.

You seem to be unwilling to approach the question directly, instead couching it in "assumed inferences" of tonality, or as if "music without a tone center" does not exist except as in some reference to tonality.

I think the music of John Cage and Morton Feldman proved this point very eloquently; that "music" is just "sound," and the ear will hear it as music if unimpeded. Cage simply "put sounds together" as did Feldman, and it still has "tonal remnants", regardless.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

*Tonality is based on a harmonic model; serial music is not*

Yes, it's very simple. Tonality is reference to a tonic note, just as higher harmonics are related to a fundamental tone. This fundamental is the "complete" tone, and the harmonics are smaller, constituent parts of it. This is expressed as ratios, in relation to "1" just as all fractions are.

Moreover, this is the way the ear hears, from "bottom" (fundamental) to "top" (harmonics). This is why chord inversion works in tonality; C-E-G/E-G-C/G-C-E are all heard as the same chord, a C major triad.

In serial inversion, C-E-G becomes C-Ab-F, which is different, an F minor triad. This is because 12-tone and serial music is not based on a harmonic model; the harmonic hierarchy is gone. It is NOT tonal music, because its hierarchy makes no reference to a root. This can be proven several different ways.

So if any harmonic effect is present in "non-tonal" music, it is not due to there being reference to a tonic; it is there for other reasons, either put there by the composer, or as a result of how the ear hears it, but not as part of its inherent structure.

The harmonic model is not built-in to music based on serial procedures; serialism is based on relative interval values related to the intervals present in the set, not to a single reference "tonic" note.

12-tone and serial music's hierarchy is not "recursive," as tonality's is; this is why the "circle" model works in tonality, but serial procedures are best seen on a straight number-line.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Tonality is based on a harmonic model; serial music is not.......


Serial inversion is not in the least bit equivalent to chordal inversion. There is an equivalent in tonality of serial inversion, but around the diatonic axis, and it is a horizontally-based procedure, so an arpeggio of a C major chord, C E G, would become C A F, an F major triad (not functionally equivalent).

And functionally, a G-C-E triad is treated as a dominant, not a tonic. It is not generally seen as a stable formation.

Furthermore, you say 12-tone method does not inherently give you music with a defined tonal center. _So what?_ As I've been saying, neither do modal or other symmetrical scales.

The relationships of notes to one another in a piece entirely on the whole tone scale does not produce anything equivalent to a functional hierarchy of tones.



Millionrainbows said:


> So if any harmonic effect is present in "non-tonal" music, it is not due to there being reference to a tonic; it is there for other reasons, *either put there by the composer,* or as a result of how the ear hears it, but *not as part of its inherent structure.*


What???

So, it's not there. Even if you hear it, it's not there. Even if the composer put it there, it's not there....

12-tone method is, I repeat, not intended to create pieces of music without reference to other formal procedures. It was never intended to be a starting point, which is why Schoenberg never taught it to his students. He taught traditional counterpoint and harmony, because those had to come first.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Nah, I'm just trying to make a fine distinction, which is, no doubt, lost on most people.


Oh by all means. Fine distinctions and those who make them are not merely rare, they seem to be entirely singular. Must be very very lonely there.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Serial inversion is not in the least bit equivalent to chordal inversion.


That's what I said. You should re-read the post. Serial inversion is not harmonically/ratio based; it is discrete quantities (interval distances on a line).



Mahlerian said:


> There is an equivalent in tonality of serial inversion, but around the diatonic axis, and it is a horizontally-based procedure, so an arpeggio of a C major chord, C E G, would become C A F, an F major triad (not functionally equivalent).


I don't understand what you are referring to.



Mahlerian said:


> And functionally, a G-C-E triad is treated as a dominant, not a tonic. It is not generally seen as a stable formation.


G-E-C is a C major triad, any way you stack it. "Dominant" refers to function. That's not what I'm talking about.



Mahlerian said:


> Furthermore, you say 12-tone method does not inherently give you music with a defined tonal center. _So what?_ As I've been saying, *neither do modal or other symmetrical scales.*


Yes they do. According to the OP Harvard Dictionary definition, if the constituent scale is D Dorian, the tonic is D. Any jazz player knows that, and every listener.



Mahlerian said:


> The relationships of notes to one another in a piece entirely on the whole tone scale does not produce anything equivalent to a *functional hierarchy of tones.*


No, but I'm note talking about *function;* I'm talking about a tone center, and as the Thelonious Monk example showed, there are numerous ways to do this.

millions: "So if any harmonic effect is present in "non-tonal" music, it is not due to there being reference to a tonic; it is there for other reasons, *either put there by the composer,* or as a result of how the ear hears it, but *not as part of its inherent structure."*



Mahlerian said:


> What??? 12-tone method is, I repeat, not intended to create pieces of music without reference to other formal procedures.


You're talking history now, not music theory. It doesn't matter what Schoenberg's original intent was; the 12-tone method is not inherently tonal. If he wanted to use it to refer to tonal procedures, that was his artistic prerogative.



Mahlerian said:


> It was never intended to be a starting point, which is why Schoenberg never taught it to his students. He taught traditional counterpoint and harmony, because those had to come first.


Still, that's all Schoenberg's intent. That's history. The fact still stands: the 12-tone method is not inherently tonal. Serialism proved that; are you invalidating all serial music which was derived from the use of ordered sets, which Schoenberg created?

You must be using Schoenberg as your example, because he saw 12-tone as an extension of chromaticism; but 12-tone's hierarchy is based on specific set-order, not scales, so no tonal hierarchy (reference to a single tonic) is possible. It's not tonal music, so it is a new starting point, harmonically speaking.

He only taught it to select students for other reasons, so it wouldn't be used too radically; just like Pierre Boulez took it & ran with it.

So if Schoenberg created, in his traditional view, a "monster" which ran away from him, that's just his opinion and short-sightedness. The 12-tone method is not tonal, and its ordered sets are why.

What is your agenda here? You seem to be defending something, but I don't know what or why. The OP Harvard Dictionary is still my only point; this is the proper definition of tonality. Refer back to it.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Isn't it exactly the same distinction that I've been trying to make this entire time, between music that gives the effect of tonality through manipulation of triadic/pseudo-triadic materials in a non-functional way and music that is functionally (and thus hierarchically) tonal?


This is what happens with modes - which are *not* (strictly) tonal.



millionrainbows said:


> I don't think so; we still seem to differ as to what role functionality plays. We seem to differ as to the definition of tonality.
> 
> You seem to regard tonal function as defining tonality, while I see a more basic vertical hierarchy of tones relating to a root as being the defining feature (as in the OP Harvard definition), with function derived from that.
> 
> ...


I've mentioned modes above which use an eight note pattern. What about pentatonic (usually folk melodies) and the various blues scales built around anything from 6 to 9 notes? What about the whole idea of a lead sheet for jazz where the music is not in a scale?



millionrainbows said:


> Tonality can be inferred with two notes, or non-triadically; and their being done in a "non-functional way" has very little to do with a sense of tonality. It can be one note at a time, like Morton Feldman, or as in music before "function" was developed. It seems you are always using "function" in your statements of tonality.
> 
> The horizontal dimension exists with or without function.


I would argue that just because you analyse two notes and think they are tonal is meaningless without either the rest of the melody or the accompaniment because they don't have to be on a diatonic scale. So "The horizontal dimension exists ... without function."


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Taggart said:


> This is what happens with modes - which are *not* (strictly) tonal.
> 
> I've mentioned modes above which use an eight note pattern. What about pentatonic (usually folk melodies) and the various blues scales built around anything from 6 to 9 notes? What about the whole idea of a lead sheet for jazz where the music is not in a scale?
> 
> I would argue that just because you analyse two notes and think they are tonal is meaningless without either the rest of the melody or the accompaniment because they don't have to be on a diatonic scale. So "The horizontal dimension exists ... without function."


Taggart posted the above while I was still composing my last post, so I will not respond until he gets a chance to read it.

Also, although I am quoted in Taggart's post, he needs to specify who he is addressing, because there was some confusion the last time this happened.

Additionally, I think I've made my position clear as to what the definition of tonality is, in the OP quoting the Harvard Dicionary, so I suggest that others here likewise make their positions clear.

Also, we need to read these posts more carefully and put a little more thought into our responses. When I said _"Tonality can be inferred with two notes, or non-triadically; and their being done in a "non-functional way" has very little to do with a sense of tonality,"_ I was referring to the way the ear hears it, not a functional analysis, which should be obvious from the phrase _"...their being done in a "non-functional way" has very little to do with a sense of tonality."_


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Taggart said:


> I would argue that just because you analyse two notes and think they are tonal is meaningless without either the rest of the melody or the accompaniment because they don't have to be on a diatonic scale. So "The horizontal dimension exists ... without function."


Are you addressing Mahlerian or me? 

If you are addressing me, two notes, in isolation, can infer a tone center; this is discussed by Schoenberg in _Structural Functions of Harmony. _See my blog_ "Root Movement."

_I find this sentence structure confusing. I'm not sure if you agree or disagree:



Taggart said:


> I would argue that just because you analyse two notes and think they are tonal is meaningless without either the rest of the melody or the accompaniment *because they don't have to be on a diatonic scale. *


(?) That's what I'm saying: the two notes don't have to be on a diatonic scale. It's an inference to the ear only.



Taggart said:


> So "The horizontal dimension exists ... without function."


Are you quoting this because you agree, or disagree? And in what sense are you using the word "function," since I was referring to an "inferred" sense of tonality?


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Also, although I am quoted in Taggart's post, he needs to specify who he is addressing, because there was some confusion the last time this happened.


Rather than quoting the hash tag of the post, you will note that beside the "Originally Posted by x" there is a double arrow icon which leads back to the original post being quoted. This means you can easily see what is being referred to.

Next point, if a tune is D Dorian, the tonic is D. That may be obvious to the ear. It is not tonal because unlike D Minor, the IV is major. Secondly, the harmonies used will depend on how "modal" it is i.e. the accidentals used and how close it gets to a major or minor. That's why the horizontal dimension is without function because it can't identify the harmonies without a better understanding of whether the piece is normally tonal.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Taggart said:


> Rather than quoting the hash tag of the post, you will note that beside the "Originally Posted by x" there is a double arrow icon which leads back to the original post being quoted. This means you can easily see what is being referred to.


That's cold. But the question is not what the quote refers to, but who it is addressed to.



Taggart said:


> Next point, if a tune is D Dorian, the tonic is D. That may be obvious to the ear. It is not tonal because unlike D Minor, the IV is major. Secondly, the harmonies used will depend on how "modal" it is i.e. the accidentals used and how close it gets to a major or minor. That's why the horizontal dimension is without function because it can't identify the harmonies without a better understanding of whether the piece is normally tonal.


Ah, at last you state your case, a strict academic definition of tonality, using only the major and minor scales as reference.

And you seem to distinguish between "tonic" and "tonal," in disagreement with the broad Harvard Dictionary of Music definition.

That's it for me, now that this issue has been dragged-out needlessly.

This has been like playing "I've Got A Secret."

I still stand by my OP, and my other posts, and the broad definition of tonal in the OP.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Taggart said:


> Quite agree. Tonality is built around a number of things - a tonic; major and minor scales; triads; the importance of the I IV V triads for harmony and the importance of triads in cadences.
> 
> Any music lacking this is not fully tonal.





millionrainbows said:


> That's cold. But the question is not what the quote refers to, but who it is addressed to.
> 
> Ah, at last you state your case, a strict academic definition of tonality, using only the major and minor scales as reference.
> 
> That's it for me, now that this issue has been dragged-out needlessly. This must be "I've Got A Secret." I still stand by my OP, and my other posts, and the broad definition of tonal in the OP.


The post is addressed to the forum. I make no secret of the fact that I use the strict academic definition of tonality as I stated in an earlier post.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Taggart said:


> The post is addressed to the forum. I make no secret of the fact that I use the strict academic definition of tonality as I stated ibn an earlier post.


Don't you feel better now that the truth is out? I certainly do. But the OP definition broadens the academic definition; that's the whole point of the thread. Thanks for finally filling us in.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Don't you feel better now that the truth is out? I certainly do. But the OP definition broadens the academic definition; that's the whole point of the thread. Thanks for finally filling us in.


As Taggart 'made no secret' of the fact that he uses the academic definition of tonality, he feels exactly the same as he did before. 
We are, however, very pleased that you feel better.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Ingenue said:


> As Taggart 'made no secret' of the fact that he uses the academic definition of tonality, he feels exactly the same as he did before. We are, however, very pleased that you feel better.


Quite the contrary; I dislike this sort of "shell-game." I stated my position clearly throughout.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Taggart said:


> Tonality is built around a number of things - a tonic; major and minor scales; triads; the importance of the I IV V triads for harmony and the importance of triads in cadences. Any music lacking this is not fully tonal. Modes are partly tonal because they have a tonic and they can use triads in harmony\accompaniment - usually I V and VII - and in cadences - mainly I and V.


 No, I disagree. This is a "specialized" form of tonality, which was developed from 1700-1900.

All music is tonal if it has a tonic.

The academic requirement for triads also disqualifies all monophonic music, such as bagpipe music. Is this a British conceit? Those troublesome Irish...

I also noticed that many upper-class colonial-minded Brits were upset by The Beatles' interest in the "non-tonal" monophonic music of India, and George Harrison's lifelong friendship with Ravi Shankar. Why, the very idea! They were servants!


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> No, I disagree. This is a "specialized" form of tonality, which was developed from 1700-1900.
> 
> All music is tonal if it has a tonic.
> 
> ...


As a Beatles fan, I remember this era well, and noticed no such 'colonial-minded Brits' emoting over GH's friendship with Ravi Shankar. I actually went to a Ravi Shankar concert at the Albert Hall & there were lots of posh limos parked outside!

And the bagpipes - Irish sometimes, but primarily Scottish.

What are you on about? This post is so full of Aunt Sallies, they're crowding out the meaning.

Have a nice day, Millionrainbows!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Ingenue said:


> As a Beatles fan, I remember this era well, and noticed no such 'colonial-minded Brits' emoting over GH's friendship with Ravi Shankar. I actually went to a Ravi Shankar concert at the Albert Hall & there were lots of posh limos parked outside!


I know all about the British.



Ingenue said:


> And the bagpipes - Irish sometimes, but primarily Scottish.


I know; I used "Irish" for a reason.

What are you on about? This post is so full of Aunt Sallies, they're crowding out the meaning.[/QUOTE] I don't know, I guess I'm like a cute little kitty cat....real cute until you pick it up by the scruff of the neck and shake it...



Ingenue said:


> Have a nice day, Millionrainbows!


Yes, you two as well.


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

at risk of being redundant and pedantic.... this is exactly why being overly attached to words leads to pointless discussions.

there is no proper definition of tonality. I say this not because I know about music (i know nothing) but because I know a thing or two about words. words get redefined all the time. feminism. romanticism. jazz. classical music. tonality. human being. all those words dont have a proper definition because that's not how language works. it is useless to argue endlessly about what tonality IS. evidently million rainbows has a definition, taggart has another, instead of arguing whether this or that is or isnt tonal.... why dont we acknowledge this difference in definition and then we can argue about the CONCEPTS behind the words?


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Uilleann pipes, people!

Carry on... :tiphat:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

niv said:


> At risk of being redundant and pedantic.... this is exactly why being overly attached to words leads to pointless discussions....There is no proper definition of tonality.


Pointless? I disagree totally. The OP has a nice, broad, inclusive definition of tonality, from no-less an authority than The Harvard Dictionary of Music, which works for every situation, and for everybody except those who adhere to a strict, exclusive, Western definition which excludes many other non-Western approaches to tonality in its most universal and inclusive sense. 
That's not my problem; I'm trying to open-up the definition, not restrict it. See how the responses are so defensive?



niv said:


> I say this not because I know about music (i know nothing) but because I know a thing or two about words. words get redefined all the time. feminism. romanticism. jazz. classical music. tonality. human being. all those words dont have a proper definition because that's not how language works. it is useless to argue endlessly about what tonality IS. evidently million rainbows has a definition, taggart has another, instead of arguing whether this or that is or isnt tonal.... why dont we acknowledge this difference in definition and then we can argue about the CONCEPTS behind the words?


Well, I see it as being more about a cultural attitude, which is more than words.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

What is the root impetus of a Western-based strictly academic definition of tonality? I think the fact that Western classical music evolved from rituals and ceremonies of the Catholic Church has something to do with it. 


I feel this "exclusiveness" of a Western-based strictly academic definition of tonality is also


• The impetus behind Classical music purists' attempts to exclude modernism and serial music from the canon; 


• The impetus behind Classical music purists' attempts to exclude or reject Minimalism from the canon (Philip Glass, Steve Reich, Terry Riley, immersed in world cultures and Eastern religion); 


• The impetus behind Classical music purists' attempts to exclude or reject John Cage as a legitimate composer (Eastern influence, Zen); and


• The impetus behind Classical music purists' attempts to exclude or reject broad definitions of tonality as "not tonal;" 


...which excludes monophonic "world" musics as "non-tonal," as well as any music which does not adhere strictly to an academic definition of tonality based strictly on major/minor scales, triads, and functionality of these triads.


So what did, and does a Western-based, strictly academic definition of tonality represent? 


It represents an exclusive, Christian-derived culture of music which was, at that time and perhaps still, a "good ol' boys" club with exclusive membership, which has excluded almost every other type of approach to tonality and culture except its own Western-style.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> What is the root impetus of a Western-based strictly academic definition of tonality? I think the fact that Western classical music evolved from rituals and ceremonies of the Catholic Church has something to do with it.
> 
> I feel this "exclusiveness" of a Western-based strictly academic definition of tonality is also
> 
> ...


In other words, it's politicised? Is it objectively exclusive?

See, I don't think there's anything wrong with 'Christian-derived culture', be it music or any of the arts. Bring on the heavyweights of every field and Christian-derived culture stands its ground, easily. I also see a purpose in keeping a form pure, but has that happened in classical music? Because I think it's far more varied than just the old-school wigs, and now includes Glass and Cage and so on.

That seems to be what I'm reading on the forum, anyhow, when I read what people are listening to...


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Kieran said:


> In other words, it's politicised? Is it objectively exclusive?
> 
> See, I don't think there's anything wrong with 'Christian-derived culture', be it music or any of the arts. Bring on the heavyweights of every field and Christian-derived culture stands its ground, easily. I also see a purpose in keeping a form pure, but has that happened in classical music? Because I think it's far more varied than just the old-school wigs, and now includes Glass and Cage and so on.
> 
> That seems to be what I'm reading on the forum, anyhow, when I read what people are listening to...


Well, on the other hand, serialism is frequently accused of being an "ideology," so that's all I'm saying as well; tonality is an ideology which is derived from Christianity.

As far as keeping a form "pure," that's fine with me; but Western-defined tonality was only developed from around 1700 to 1900; it's a specialized form of tonality which, BTW, rejects most Minimalism (except John Adams) as being "non-tonal" because it has no "function, although any two-year-old would understand it as being tonal in its most basic and natural sense.


----------



## Guest (May 14, 2013)

niv said:


> at risk of being redundant and pedantic.... this is exactly why being overly attached to words leads to pointless discussions.
> 
> there is no proper definition of tonality. I say this not because I know about music (i know nothing) but because *I know a thing or two about words*. words get redefined all the time. feminism. romanticism. jazz. classical music. tonality. human being. all those words dont have a proper definition because that's not how language works. it is useless to argue endlessly about what tonality IS. evidently million rainbows has a definition, taggart has another, instead of arguing whether this or that is or isnt tonal.... why dont we acknowledge this difference in definition and then we can argue about the CONCEPTS behind the words?


 [my bold]

If your punctuation is anything to go by, I'm not sure you do.


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

Pardon me, english is not my first language, plus I wrote that in a cellphone.

What I mean is that I know a bit of "philosophy of words", not grammar. Nothing I've invented myself, of course it's the sort of thing Wittgenstein and Alfred Korzybski already said. Anyway, I think this link explains this better than I could: http://lesswrong.com/lw/np/disputing_definitions/

Here more or less happened the same that it is described in that article. When Taggart says "Next point, if a tune is D Dorian, the tonic is D. That may be obvious to the ear. *It is not tonal* because unlike D Minor, the IV is major.", when he says that, he's just using another definition. But he's not saying there is no reference to a root, in fact, he already acknowledged the existence of the tonic. And according to the very first post in this thread, "Tonality (p. 855) is defined here as: Loyalty to a tonic, in the broadest sense of the word. (...)". i.e. he's accepting it as tonal, according to the first definition.

So if there is not real disagreement between the concepts, accept the difference in definitions. Because if not, whenever anyone says what is or is not tonal is going to lead into confusion (you might have seen a few more posts after the one I quoted, it ended up with tsiaggart saying he used a restricted definition of tonality).

I still think the most interesting discussion arises when concepts are discussed, not words. What's the main difference to the ear between the strict, functional tonality of taggart and the loyalty-to-a-tonic tonality of millions?


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

niv said:


> I still think the most interesting discussion arises when concepts are discussed, not words. What's the main difference to the ear between the strict, functional tonality of taggart and the loyalty-to-a-tonic tonality of millions?


Absolutely. The easiest way to hear this is when you have a piece in what is described as missal tone (i.e. modal) followed by a piece in a diatonic scale - it sounds (very) odd - classic case is a preface followed by a (modern harmonised) Sanctus.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Kieran said:


> In other words, it's politicised? Is it objectively exclusive?


I think Western tonality is highly politicized. Note Taggart's references to "missal," which is a reference to the Liturgy. All this stuff was prescribed, and melodies had to adhere to strict guidelines, melodies were "reformed," etc.

This specialized concept of 'tonality' just reeks of Church doctrine and ritual, and should really not be considered in an open, free discussion of the "broad concept of tonality" presented by the Harvard Dictionary of Music.

This is like a Church of Christ walking in to an Inter-Faith dialogue, and declaring that everybody else is going to Hell.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> This is like a Jehova's Witness walking in to an Inter-Faith dialogue, and declaring that everybody else is going to Hell.


I don't think JW's believe in hell! :devil:

As for liturgy etc, these things are important. Can't just add a drumbeat and expect to retain the proper solemnity. Personally speaking, I don't like guitars and tambourines in the Church - chants and choirs are more my thing. 

But I know, you're talking about the structure rather than the substance of the music...


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

niv said:


> Pardon me, english is not my first language, plus I wrote that in a cellphone.
> 
> What I mean is that I know a bit of "philosophy of words", not grammar. Nothing I've invented myself, of course it's the sort of thing Wittgenstein and Alfred Korzybski already said. Anyway, I think this link explains this better than I could: http://lesswrong.com/lw/np/disputing_definitions/
> 
> ...


That's a nice, "inter-faith" sentiment, and I'm flexible enough to see all sides of an issue, but adherents to strict Church-derived notions of "tonality" have proven to be inflexibly rigid in their convictions. To them, it's all mixed-up with Church modes, Gergorian chant, tetrachords, and the Catholic Liturgy.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Kieran said:


> I don't think JW's believe in hell! :devil:
> 
> As for liturgy etc, these things are important. Can't just add a drumbeat and expect to retain the proper solemnity. Personally speaking, I don't like guitars and tambourines in the Church - chants and choirs are more my thing.
> 
> But I know, you're talking about the structure rather than the substance of the music...


Sure, tradition is important. Then this is a conflict between tradition and a wider-ranging, inclusive definition of tonality. Besides, in my defense, I'm not trying to degrade Church tradition, I'm just asking that a definition of tonality be used that allows us to discuss this in terms of modernism, Debussy, Bartok, etc.


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

Taggart said:


> Absolutely. The easiest way to hear this is when you have a piece in what is described as missal tone (i.e. modal) followed by a piece in a diatonic scale - it sounds (very) odd - classic case is a preface followed by a (modern harmonised) Sanctus.


Pardon my ignorance, I don't get how this explains the difference between the two kind of "tonalities"... do you have an example?


----------



## Guest (May 14, 2013)

niv said:


> Pardon me, english is not my first language, plus I wrote that in a cellphone.
> 
> What I mean is that I know a bit of "philosophy of words", not grammar. Nothing I've invented myself, of course it's the sort of thing Wittgenstein and Alfred Korzybski already said. Anyway, I think this link explains this better than I could: http://lesswrong.com/lw/np/disputing_definitions/
> 
> ...


All well and good. Except in the example in your link, the resolution is brought about by using new words, each with their own distinct definitions.


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

You forgot to mention the time machine as well.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

niv said:


> I still think the most interesting discussion arises when concepts are discussed, not words. What's the main difference to the ear between the strict, functional tonality of taggart and the loyalty-to-a-tonic tonality of millions?





Taggart said:


> Absolutely. The easiest way to hear this is when you have a piece in what is described as missal tone (i.e. modal) followed by a piece in a diatonic scale - it sounds (very) odd - classic case is a preface followed by a (modern harmonised) Sanctus.





niv said:


> Pardon my ignorance, I don't get how this explains the difference between the two kind of "tonalities"... do you have an example?


He's being deiberately obscure. I can't tell for sure who he's talking to, or if he disagrees or not. I think he's pointing out a difference.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Taggart said:


> Absolutely. The easiest way to hear this is when you have a piece in what is described as missal tone (i.e. modal) followed by a piece in a diatonic scale - it sounds (very) odd - classic case is a preface followed by a (modern harmonised) Sanctus.


I'm not sure which one you're saying sounds odd. 
You should explain or provide examples. 
I'm not sure what you mean by "odd." 
This sounds like academic gobbledygook, and has little to do with a broad-based definition of tonality.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

*Obviously not compatible
*
From_ The Harvard Dictionary of Music_by Willi Apel, second edition (the 'big red book,' highly recommended).

Tonality (p. 855) is defined here as:

"Loyalty to a tonic, in the broadest sense of the word. One of the most striking phenomena of music is the fact that, throughout its evolution - in non-Western cultures, in Gregorian chant, and in harmonized music - practically every single piece gives preference to one tone (the tonic), making this the tonal center to which all other tones are related.

Although nearly all music in this sense of the word is tonal, the means of achieving tonality have greatly varied throughout history. Whereas in Gregorian chant and other monophonic music the relationships are purely melodic, a much more complex situation is encounterd in harmonized music. About 1700 came general acceptance of a system of tonal functions based on the establishment of three main chords - the tonic, the dominant, and the subdominant triads - as the carriers of harmonic as well as melodic movements. Broadened by the ample use of chromatic alterations and modulation into other keys, this system prevailed throughout the 18th and 19th centuries.

In current usage the terms "tonality" and "modality" are mutually exclusive, the former referring to music written in a "key" (major or minor mode) and the latter to pieces written in, or showing the influence of, the church modes. This usage is obviously not compatible with the broad definition of tonality above, which includes all tonal relationships, whether "tonal" or "modal."

--------------------
This means that practically all folk-musics are tonal, and Indian ragas are tonal. This universal tonality, in its broadest sense, has always existed since Humanity began to create music.

Academic Westerners use the term "tonality" to refer to practices which arose in Church music, where tonality refers to major/minor scales, and the church modes, each with a starting point or "finalis" and a specified octave range or "ambitus." As stated, this use of "modality" is _obviously not compatible_ with the broad definition of tonality above, which includes all tonal relationships, whether "tonal" or "modal." 

"Atonal" is a term which is valid in a broader sense as well, "atonal" meaning "not based on a vertical harmonic hierarchy."

Otherwise, practically all music is tonal, and always has been.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

*The atonal music of the Church modes: tone rows 'n tetrachords*

Intuitively, in Western Church music, where tonality refers to major/minor scales, and the church modes, each with a starting point or "finalis" and a specified octave range or "ambitus," the effect, in many cases, is an "ambiguous" sense of tonality, which does not cater to the ear's sense, but rather adheres rigidly to the "finalis" practice mentioned above.

When phrases in chant begin or end on these specified notes, it makes the actual tonality of the tonic become ambiguous. I've often experienced this when listening to chant, wondering "where's the tonic?" as the melody wanders.

This type of specialized "tonality" is actually as arbitrary and systematic as twelve-tone music, which was an inspiration for Schoenberg to emphasize the melodic dimension in his 12-tone method, and later, Webern.

So, the specialized form of "tonality" represented by these church modes, each with a starting point or "finalis" and a specified octave range or "ambitus," is less "tone-centered" than the basic definition of tonality espoused above, "loyalty to a tonic." It's more like "loyalty to a system" of "finalis" tones and "ambitus" octave ranges. In this sense, it is "atonal" or, at the very least, not tonal, and based on systematic principles, not harmonic principles.

It appears that the roots of the gradual dissolution of tonality ("loyalty to a tonic") are directly attributable to this early systematic practice which created the first tonal ambiguities in Western music, and were also the first "systematic" approach to music, an approach which eschewed the natural tendency of the ear's "loyalty to a tonic," and replaced it with an arbitrary system of "starting tones" and octave ranges.

But just because Schoenberg's method can be said to have in some sense a traditional connection to these early practices, this should not be used to "tie-down" Schoenberg into a context of this specialized "tonality." Tonality is "loyalty to a tonic," and this overriding principle should transcend all other considerations. If something is "atonal," then it is because it exhibits no "loyalty to a tonic" over other considerations, and this holds true for early Western chant, as well as Schoenberg.


----------



## Kleinzeit (May 15, 2013)

Enjoying the brawl from a non-musician's distance. Don't understand a word. I argue about painting at this engineering level, so I can feel what's at stake.

Carry on then.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> That's a nice, "inter-faith" sentiment, and I'm flexible enough to see all sides of an issue, but adherents to strict Church-derived notions of "tonality" have proven to be inflexibly rigid in their convictions. To them, it's all mixed-up with Church modes, Gergorian chant, tetrachords, and the Catholic Liturgy.


Do you mean to agree that you're just arguing over the definition of a word?

And also, do you mean that your definition of tonality is more flexible than the "Church-derived" definition, or that your definition is different but equally inflexible?

I'm wondering because this post made me suspect that the issue is religious/political rather than purely musical (like our jazz disagreement).


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

science said:


> Do you mean to agree that you're just arguing over the definition of a word?
> 
> And also, do you mean that your definition of tonality is more flexible than the "Church-derived" definition, or that your definition is different but equally inflexible?
> 
> I'm wondering because this post made me suspect that the issue is religious/political rather than purely musical (like our jazz disagreement).


When you say "just arguing over the definition of a word," this trivializes the issue; yes, I'm arguing over the *definition* and *meaning* of a word.

No, I'm not coming from an ideological stance, but the definition Mahlerian and Taggart are using to derail or refuse to engage in this discussion is definitely Church-derived, and really only pertains academically to Mass settings, etc.

As I have an interest in jazz , it's distracting to hear these responses which deal with modes in the academic Church way. The opening definition I posted said "This sense of modality is obviously not compatible with a broad definition of tonality."

I don't know Taggart's intent.

I think Mahlerian's intent is to avoid separating "atonal" music from tonality. He's afraid, I suppose, that this will "marginalize" or exclude 12-tone and serial music (if people hate it, this will happen anyway; what's to protect?).

I'm not worried about that, and I'm advocating a definition of "tonality" in a broader sense, in order to point out some of the differences in modern music, especially in the case of Debussy.

I think most listeners would agree that Debussy sounds "tonal;" Debussy is "ear-based" music, in that it is based on harmonic principles, and "reference to a tonic," however fleeting that may be;

Yet Mahlerian keeps insisting that since Debussy does not use triads "functionally," and uses "modes" as scales, that his music is "atonal." I disagree, and think this is needlessly confusing, and disingenuous as to the "ear qualities" inherent in Debussy's music.

If we adhere to the premise that "tonality" means "loyalty to a tonic note," then we can begin to sort through the ambiguities of chromaticism, and distinguish what qualities of a music are "tonal" or not, in the broad sense.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> I think Mahlerian's intent is to avoid separating "atonal" music from tonality. He's afraid, I suppose, that this will "marginalize" or exclude 12-tone and serial music (if people hate it, this will happen anyway; what's to protect?).
> 
> I'm not worried about that, and I'm advocating a definition of "tonality" in a broader sense, in order to point out some of the differences in modern music, especially in the case of Debussy.


I'm afraid that people who don't understand the import of the terms they use will conflate mutually exclusive ideas and go through other leaps of logic specifically in order to exclude or malign things they do not like.



> I think most listeners would agree that Debussy sounds "tonal;" Debussy is "ear-based" music, in that it is based on harmonic principles, and "reference to a tonic," however fleeting that may be;
> 
> Yet Mahlerian keeps insisting that since Debussy does not use triads "functionally," and uses "modes" as scales, that his music is "atonal." I disagree, and think this is needlessly confusing, and disingenuous as to the "ear qualities" inherent in Debussy's music.
> 
> If we adhere to the premise that "tonality" means "loyalty to a tonic note," then we can begin to sort through the ambiguities of chromaticism, and distinguish what qualities of a music are "tonal" or not, in the broad sense.


I have not called Debussy's music atonal. My preferred term for the harmonic/melodic practice of Debussy/Messiaen/Ravel/Takemitsu is actually "neomodal".

And it doesn't sound tonal to me. If it sounds tonal to others, that is because their conception of tonality is different from mine.

My conception of tonality is based around hearing not only a root fundamental (which I hear in Schoenberg, Webern and many others) but also a leading tone and a sense of distance in modulations. I have kept to this pretty consistently. You berated me for even retaining an idea of "atonal" music (non-functional chromaticism) just a few months ago. You insisted that I was helping "the other side" then, and now you're berating me for trying to make overtures in the other direction.

I couched my definitions in hypotheticals (if you take tonal to mean... etc.) for exactly this reason, because my definitions have not changed.


----------



## Minona (Mar 25, 2013)

I wonder if a lot of these continuing issues are due to the fact that music is sound. 

Why do we assume we can ever successfuly define what music or tonality is in words? Maybe in solfege


----------



## Guest (May 20, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Debussy is "ear-based" music


No, surely you didn't really just say that...???

I suppose all those other composers wrote....what?...eye-based music? Hand-based music?


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> No, surely you didn't really just say that...???
> 
> I suppose all those other composers wrote....what?...eye-based music? Hand-based music?


A brilliant idea for classification: heart-based music, spleen-based, guts-based, brain-based - but I would go for hair-based music; it grows on you.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> You berated me for even retaining an idea of "atonal" music (non-functional chromaticism) just a few months ago. You insisted that I was helping "the other side" then, and now you're berating me for trying to make overtures in the other direction.


I did not "berate" you. Show me a quote.

"Atonal" music (if such a negative term must be used) can not be sufficiently characterized as "non-functional chromaticism" because this only says what it is_ not._ It is a negative term, equivalent to saying "non-tonal."

A good definition of "atonality" should be positive, and ideally refer to "music which has no reference to a tonic," in addition to whatever other characteristics _have replaced the tonal hierarchy, _such as division of the octave at the tritone, localized tonal centers, and use of seconds and thirds as generators of material. If this is what is meant by "chromaticism," then "atonal chromaticism" might suffice, but not "non-functional."


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Minona said:


> I wonder if a lot of these continuing issues are due to the fact that music is sound.
> 
> Why do we assume we can ever successfuly define what music or tonality is in words? Maybe in solfege


Good, Minona, then we agree: Music is sound; music is _not_ "function" or systems of church modes.

Tonality is when the ear hears harmonically, in reference to a tonic. This is the broad, ear-based definition of tonality.

You see, Mahlerian? The average laymen who are listeners, not theoreticians, will always agree with their ears, and consequently, with the broad, ear-based definition of tonality.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> No, surely you didn't really just say that...???
> 
> I suppose all those other composers wrote....what?...eye-based music? Hand-based music?


No, I mean "ear-based" music.

Tonality is when the ear hears harmonically, in reference to a tonic. This is the broad, ear-based definition of tonality.

Wanna play games? Or brain/system based, just like the modality of the church modes with their "ambitus" and "finalis" system.

Debussy has more obvious ties to a broad, _ear-based definition of tonality_ than late Schoenberg, who bases his 12-tone music on an hierarchy which is non-harmonic. This has been demonstrated several times with the C-E-G/C-Ab-F "inversion" example. This type of serial inversion is not based on "ear/harmonic stacking" principles. It is "non-tonal."


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Ingenue said:


> A brilliant idea for classification: heart-based music, spleen-based, guts-based, brain-based - but I would go for hair-based music; it grows on you.


Or "systems-based" music, "religious tradition-based" music," or "academic true believer" music;

...but I would go for "My Life as a Choirboy" music, which characterizes the "modality" idea of the church modes with their "ambitus" and "finalis" system. :lol:


----------



## Guest (May 20, 2013)

...or miss-the-point music...

We can all read and reread what you've written and rewritten, but that doesn't help us understand what 'ear-based music' might be...what kind of music _isn't _ear-based?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Out of 130 posts, about 55 are by the OP (this being now entry #131).
WOW!
Some are back to back, three, four in a row.
Wondering what that tipped ratio would be if it were tallied in words, column inches...
and if this is some sort of record breaker on TC 

Give that man a cigar!


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Debussy has more obvious ties to a broad, _ear-based definition of tonality_ than late Schoenberg, who bases his 12-tone music on an hierarchy which is non-harmonic. This has been demonstrated several times with the C-E-G/C-Ab-F "inversion" example. This type of serial inversion is not based on "ear/harmonic stacking" principles. It is "non-tonal."


The inversion bit is utterly irrelevant, because the row and its inversion are intended to be heard as different things, not as the same thing.

There is no more hierarchy in Debussy than in late Schoenberg. Since you are so fond of systems and theory: explain the tonal relations found in the second prelude of Book II.

Since it is _ear music_ based on _tonal thinking_, you should be able to do it.

I gave you an example of Schoenberg's use of triads divorced from function, just as Debussy uses them. You have at various times changed your position such that:

At times, Schoenberg is indisputably harmonic music, and therefore tonal.
At other times, Schoenberg is indisputably not hierarchical music, and therefore not tonal.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Out of 130 posts, about 55 are by the OP (this being now entry #131).
> WOW!
> Some are back to back, three, four in a row.
> Wondering what that tipped ratio would be if it were tallied in words, column inches...
> ...


Don't. It might be construed as inflammatory. Also banned on elf 'n' safety grounds.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> ...or miss-the-point music...


...or get-up-and-go-to-a-piano-and-find-out-for-yourself music...



MacLeod said:


> We can all read and reread what you've written and rewritten, but that doesn't help us understand what 'ear-based music' might be...


I think I've provided a good explanation, and if you refer back to the Harvard Dictionary definition, that definition of tonality is "ear music," or music based on the harmonic series and the way our ears hear that.

It's basic physics; anyone with access to a piano can step on the sustain pedal, hit a note, and have the proof of harmonics. Tonality is when the ear hears _harmonically,_ in reference to a tonic. This is the broad, ear-based definition of tonality.



MacLeod said:


> what kind of music _isn't _ear-based?


!2-tone and serial music, because it replaces the tonal hierarchy (all notes relating to a tonic) with a series of ordered notes related only to each other.

There's a "caveat" to that question, though, and I see the attempt at a "hole" being punched in the idea of "ear-based" music, since all music is "heard."

But "ear-based" music is music in which the structures and sounds are based on the harmonic hierarchy, i.e., all notes (harmonics, or constituent parts) related to a fundamental or tonic.

This has been demonstrated several times with the C-E-G/C-Ab-F "inversion" example. This type of serial inversion is not based on "ear/harmonic stacking" principles. It is "non-tonal," because it considers a C major and an F minor to be structurally equivalent. To our ears, they are different.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Out of 130 posts, about 55 are by the OP (this being now entry #131).
> WOW!
> Some are back to back, three, four in a row.
> Wondering what that tipped ratio would be if it were tallied in words, column inches...
> ...


Thank you, PetrB. I do enjoy a good cigar on occasion.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> The inversion bit is utterly irrelevant, because the row and its inversion are intended to be heard as different things, not as the same thing.


I agree completely! Serial inversion _is _a different thing indeed, and _is not intended to be heard as the same;_ that's precisely why tone-rows are "non-harmonic based" entities.



Mahlerian said:


> I gave you an example of Schoenberg's use of triads divorced from function, just as Debussy uses them.


This is another good example of how 12-tone music is not based on audible principles of the ear. In order for a triad to be comprehensible as such, the voicing must be in relative proximity to be audible as a triadic entity, not spread-out in different registers and displaced rhythmically...but serial pitch-classes are used all over the registers.

When Debussy uses parallel motion major triads, he is often outlining melodically, and these are easy to hear.



Mahlerian said:


> (Yes, I said: "At times, Schoenberg is indisputably harmonic music, and therefore tonal.
> At other times, Schoenberg is indisputably not hierarchical music, and therefore not tonal."


If he's using tone rows, he's not using a harmonically based system.

That's not to say that "harmonic impressions" are not created, or that Schoenberg did not strive to create results that "sound good."

But if he's using tone rows, he's not creating harmonically based music, i.e. tonal music...but like McLeod said, "...all music is _heard._"

"Ear-based" music is music in which the structures and sounds are based on the harmonic hierarchy, i.e., all notes (harmonics, or constituent parts) related to a fundamental or tonic.

This has been demonstrated several times with the C-E-G/C-Ab-F "inversion" example. This type of serial inversion is not based on "ear/harmonic stacking" principles. It is "non-tonal," because it considers a C major and an F minor to be structurally equivalent. To our ears, they are different.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

A few months ago you were saying that 12-tone music is inherently "ear music", now you're saying the exact opposite.

And you deny that you did this? You even change my words within your post in order to suit your point? That's what our "friend" over at the river forum did.

I can't argue with you anymore.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> There is no more hierarchy in Debussy than in late Schoenberg. Since you are so fond of systems and theory: explain the tonal relations found in the second prelude of Book II. Since it is _ear music_ based on _tonal thinking_, you should be able to do it.


You are referring to _Feuilles mortes,_ which lasts just over 3 minutes.

You want me to explain "tonal relations" in this piece? That sounds like a trap, since you and Taggart have been using your strict academic definition of "tonality" and "modality" with their accompanying "approved functions."

An analysis of Debussy must be intuitive, based on the logic of your ear, as it hears things. If Debussy is tonal, in a broad-based sense (notes relating to a tonic), then it will be apparent to the ear. Debussy uses the "harmonic vestiges" of earlier tradition, so be prepared to dispute my impressions.

I will use Paul Jacobs version, on Elektra/Nonesuch, as the common reference for timings, as well as the Durand edition score.

Right off the bat, we see a key signature of 4 sharps, meaning in traditional terms either E major or C# minor. I'll say our tonic is C#, with a caveat, because the first chord has a flatted-seventh, F#7b9. This chord is derived from an F# diminished "half-whole" 8-tone scale, which all the chord notes are drawn from: F#-G-A-A#-B#-C-D#-E, which is moved down two steps, in exact "parallel" motion; but a new root, C#, appears in the bass, making it a C# rather than an E7b9, thus yielding a I-V movement, F#7b9 to C#7b9.
The "parallel" movement is actually a result of a scale-wise movement down, through the diminished half/whole scale.

We start off in diminished/b9 territory, so since this "tonality" has a flatted 7, there goes your precious leading tone. We also have plenty of room for tritone double-meanings, as just these first two chords demonstrate; our ear thinks it's F# to E, when the new bass note makes it F#-C#. Surprise! Yes, so far it's very tonal!

This is tedious, and if you really want me to proceed, I will do so later, as I am exremely sweaty right now; I'm having a new air-conditioner put in, as my compressor went out on Friday. Whew!!


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> An analysis of Debussy must be intuitive, based on the logic of your ear, as it hears things. If Debussy is tonal, in a broad-based sense (notes relating to a tonic), then it will be apparent to the ear. Debussy uses the "harmonic vestiges" of earlier tradition, so be prepared to dispute my impressions.....etc.


I don't disagree with the way you hear things here. I am just telling you that I hear late Schoenberg _the exact same way_, and that it is significantly different enough from functionally tonal music that I classify such musics together.

The 12-tone method is not a way of structuring music harmonically. It was not intended to be. But that in no way implies that 12-tone music is not harmonic music on your definition, corresponding to the natural series of overtones.

The use of the diminished/octatonic scale is not a method for structuring music based on a single tone, although one can structure music using the octatonic scale and by doing so base it on a single tone. Debussy does this, Messiaen does this, Stravinsky does this.

Similarly, one can write music using the 12-tone method based on a single tone and its projected overtones, but the use of the 12-tone method does not in itself guarantee this.

Conversely, tonal music is by itself a method that structures music around a single tone and its projected overtones.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> A few months ago you were saying that 12-tone music is inherently "ear music", now you're saying the exact opposite.


Well, it is; all music is "ear" music insofar as it is heard by the ears, harmonically; but serial music is not based on harmonic principles, and these other principles result in structures that are not inherently harmonic, like the C major/F minor example.



Mahlerian said:


> And you deny that you did this? You even change my words within your post in order to suit your point? That's what our "friend" over at the river forum did.


What is this, Perry Mason? I am not aware of any words being changed.



Mahlerian said:


> I can't argue with you anymore.


I'm not arguing, I'm just saying that Debussy is more tonal than Schoenberg's _String Trio_. :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> I don't disagree with the way you hear things here. I am just telling you that I hear late Schoenberg _the exact same way_, and that it is significantly different enough from functionally tonal music that I classify such musics together.


It's not nearly as easy for me. Isn't that why Debussy is more liked by more traditional listeners?



Mahlerian said:


> The 12-tone method is not a way of structuring music harmonically. It was not intended to be. But that in no way implies that 12-tone music is not harmonic music on your definition, corresponding to the natural series of overtones.


Well, as I said, and like McLeod said, "...all music is _heard._" We always hear harmonically; but not all music is derived from the harmonic principle of "reference to a tonic."



Mahlerian said:


> The use of the diminished/octatonic scale is not a method for structuring music based on a single tone, although one can structure music using the octatonic scale and by doing so base it on a single tone. Debussy does this, Messiaen does this, Stravinsky does this.


That's a pretty confusing, unclear statement. I never said that the diminished/octatonic scale is a "method for structuring music" based on a single tone.

Diminished/b9's were used all the time by Beethoven, Debussy, Igor, etc. A C# diminished scale has a tonic of C#, so what's the problem?



Mahlerian said:


> Similarly, one can write music using the 12-tone method based on a single tone and its projected overtones, but the use of the 12-tone method does not in itself guarantee this.


Confusing. Example?



Mahlerian said:


> Conversely, tonal music is by itself a method that structures music around a single tone and its projected overtones.


I agree with that...


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> I don't disagree with the way you hear things here. I am just telling you that I hear late Schoenberg _the exact same way_, and that it is significantly different enough from functionally tonal music that I classify such musics together.


Would you cite a late Schoenberg piece that you hear harmonically in a similar way to _Feuilles mortes_? That is, can serial music have a sense of _harmonic resolution_ which I think the Debussy does?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> Would you cite a late Schoenberg piece that you hear harmonically in a similar way to _Feuilles mortes_? That is, can serial music have a sense of _harmonic resolution_ which I think the Debussy does?


Every single one of them has harmonic resolution in my ears. The notes move from one to another and are drawn there by force of their natural tendencies.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> Would you cite a late Schoenberg piece that you hear harmonically in a similar way to _Feuilles mortes_? That is, can serial music have a sense of _harmonic resolution_ which I think the Debussy does?


One more, and I think that the similarities to the Debussy are bigger than the differences here.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> One more, and I think that the similarities to the Debussy are bigger than the differences here.


Nobody here is denying that Schoenberg was a great master, but this piece, Op. 33a, was composed using the 12-tone method, so the only "harmonic" effects are the ones Schoenberg _intended_ to put there, as a result of controlling intersecting contrapuntal lines.

There are no _inherently_ harmonic structures here, as this was composed using a non-tonal, non-harmonic system.

The 12-tone method has no _inherent _principles which create harmonic results; harmonic entities must be put there by intent, or occur arbitrarily as a result of intersecting contrapuntal lines (the tone-rows and their permutations).

The 12-tone method is "melodic" and horizontal by nature, since it uses ordered rows of notes. The only harmonic (vertical) control is gained by intervals between the notes, if the row is "stacked." This "stacking," however, is not based on any reference to a tonic; any harmonic effects it produces are the result of the structure of the tone row itself. Therefore, its "harmony" is not derived from the result of any _harmonic_ principle, but only the series itself.

These intervals between the notes of the series do have a consonance/dissonance factor within themselves, most obvious when the series is stacked vertically rather than projected melodically as a series of horizontal events; but they are related only to each adjacent note, and there the reference ends. There is no reference to a "1" or tonic note, so the consonance/dissonance is not gauged, or in an hierarchy which refers to consonance/dissonance; this "hierarchy of the ear" is irrelevant, as far as the structural principles of serial structures go.

"Consonance/dissonance" become equivalent, and therefore meaningless in this system. 

I'm not saying that's good or bad; that's just the way the system works. But like our C major/F minor example, our ear will still hear major-minor quality differences, as well as degrees of consonance/dissonance, because the ear always hears a 1:1 as an octave, a 2:3 as next, and 3:4, 4:5, etc, _sensually_. This is a_ physical sensation,_ a result of simple/complex ripples on the eardrum.

In tonality, the "functions" of chords are gauged according to their degree of consonance/dissonance to one interval, the interval created by the note an the tonic.

In atonal music, the degree of consonance/dissonance at any time is determined by the interval created by the note an its adjacent note.

Music will be heard "harmonically" by the ear, no matter how it is derived or constructed; but in the end result, this is a matter of degree. 

Debussy is _easier, inherently,_ to hear as being harmonic, because it uses harmonic principles, i.e., it is tonal (in the broadest sense).

Schoenberg's 12-tone music is _harder, inherently,_ to hear as being harmonic, because it uses non-harmonic principles, i.e., it is atonal, in the sense that it makes no reference to vertical structures related to a tonic, but only to each other note.

There is no way for serial music to attain the degree of consonance which tonal music achieves, because the tone-row idea itself "equalizes" all that, and insures against any naturally-occuring formation of consonance/dissonance that is inherent to the ear, and the way it hears.

Wasn't this Schoenberg's intent, to treat consonance/dissonance as equals?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Nobody here is denying that Schoenberg was a great master, but this piece, Op. 33a, was composed using the 12-tone method, so the only "harmonic" effects are the ones Schoenberg intended to put there, as a result of controlling intersecting contrapuntal lines.


Both of the examples I gave are 12-tone.



millionrainbows said:


> There are no inherently harmonic structures here, as this was composed using a non-tonal, non-harmonic system.


I beg to differ (and as the rest of your post just expands upon this same point, with that as well).

Schoenberg composed with the creation of a harmonic structure in view. This is audible in his works, in which we do not hear a significant difference between those works composed freely without recourse to the 12-tone method and those that utilized it.

Whether or not the system is inherently harmonic is beside the point. I do not hear Debussy's music as any more or less harmonic, and not really as more tonal (more slowly shifting in its tonal center, yes, but not more strongly drawn there).



millionrainbows said:


> There is no way for serial music to attain the degree of consonance which tonal music achieves, because the tone-row idea itself "equalizes" all that, and insures against any naturally-occuring formation of consonance/dissonance that is inherent to the ear, and the way it hears.


This is entirely, 100% untrue. You can write tonal music using the 12-tone system.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Schoenberg composed with the creation of a harmonic structure in view. This is audible in his works, in which we do not hear a significant difference between those works composed freely without recourse to the 12-tone method and those that utilized it.


You need to distinguish between:

1. Tonal chromaticism, in which the 12 notes are referring to tonality; this chromaticism is achieved by using tritone substituted roots, diminished scales, whole-tone scales, shifting tonality, etc.

2. True chromaticism in which the twelve chromatic notes are treated as material in their own right, without any pre-established relationships between them; and using the chromatic scale as a starting-point, with methods derived structurally rather than tonally: division of the octave at the tritone, localized tone-centers, etc. When you reach this realm, structural principles begin to supplant harmonic references.



Mahlerian said:


> Whether or not the system is inherently harmonic is beside the point. I do not hear Debussy's music as any more or less harmonic, and not really as more tonal (more slowly shifting in its tonal center, yes, but not more strongly drawn there).


I think many ears would disagree.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> You need to distinguish between:
> 
> 1. Tonal chromaticism, in which the 12 notes are referring to tonality; this chromaticism is achieved by using tritone substituted roots, diminished scales, whole-tone scales, shifting tonality, etc.
> 
> 2. True chromaticism in which the twelve chromatic notes are treated as material in their own right, without any pre-established relationships between them; and using the chromatic scale as a starting-point, with methods derived structurally rather than tonally: division of the octave at the tritone, localized tone-centers, etc. When you reach this realm, structural principles begin to supplant harmonic references.


Whole-tone and diminished scales already divide the octave at the tritone. Is it such a surprise that I don't hear very much of a difference between Nos. 1 and 2?

If there is such a difference between serially derived music and non-serially, how come most people can't tell the difference between Schoenberg's non-12-tone works and his 12-tone ones? How come some can't even distinguish between his expressionist works and his tonal ones? Why are you focusing on the theory instead of the music?



millionrainbows said:


> I think many ears would disagree.


I'm not convinced of that.










Any observers who happen not to already know, is it immediately apparent which of these was freely composed and which via the 12-tone method?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Out of 130 posts, about 55 are by the OP (this being now entry #131).
> WOW!
> Some are back to back, three, four in a row.
> Wondering what that tipped ratio would be if it were tallied in words, column inches...
> ...


I don't care! I think this has been one of the most interesting threads in a while. I only had two semesters of music theory, so I didn't get to this kind of level of thought, and I can almost understand most of what they're saying, and it's great for me. Plus, there are no assignments, and I don't have to remember anything for tests, and at no point will anyone compare what I did with a certain series of chords to what Beethoven did with it, so that's all even better.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Whole-tone and diminished scales already divide the octave at the tritone. Is it such a surprise that I don't hear very much of a difference between Nos. 1 and 2?


Yes, but they make reference to previous tonal relationships, as I stated already. The "tritone" of a diminished seventh/b9 chord is a "major third/seventh" tritone. There is a tonal reference.

By contrast, the division of the octave at the tritone is a structural consideration, based on symmetry. There is no tonal reference, only structural.

1. Tonal chromaticism,_ in which the 12 notes are referring to tonality;_ this chromaticism is achieved by using tritone substituted roots, diminished scales, whole-tone scales, shifting tonality, etc.

2. True chromaticism in which the twelve chromatic notes are treated as material in their own right, _without any pre-established relationships between them;_ and using the chromatic scale as a starting-point, with methods derived structurally rather than tonally: division of the octave at the tritone, localized tone-centers, etc.

"All tritones are not created equal."



Mahlerian said:


> If there is such a difference between serially derived music and non-serially, how come most people can't tell the difference between Schoenberg's non-12-tone works and his 12-tone ones? How come some can't even distinguish between his expressionist works and his tonal ones?


You're right, I agree! If music is "freely composed" using the chromatic scale as the starting point (species B, true chromaticism), _it is already beginning to become a music of systematic principles rather than harmonic principles._ No wonder you can't tell the difference!

On the other hand, how come most people _*can*_ tell the difference between Debussy and Schoenberg, or better yet, Bartók?

My point is not in comparing Schoenberg with Schoenberg, but in comparing Debussy to Schoenberg; there, the difference is more clearly audible. As I said, it's a matter of degree.



Mahlerian said:


> Any observers who happen not to already know, is it immediately apparent which of these was freely composed and which via the 12-tone method?


You're right, I agree!

If music was "freely composed" using the chromatic scale as the starting point (B), it is already beginning to become a music of _systematic principles_ rather than harmonic principles. _No wonder you can't tell the difference!

Again, I'm not saying one is better than the other; but the differences in method must be acknowledged to have inherently audible results._


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

science said:


> I don't care! I think this has been one of the most interesting threads in a while. I only had two semesters of music theory, so I didn't get to this kind of level of thought, and I can almost understand most of what they're saying, and it's great for me.


Agreed! I've almost every post from Millionrainbows and Mahlerian - and Taggart and others too - and though I understand little, this is a great thread, very erudite on all sides and I reckon the rest of us are winners. Good work all round...


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Kieran said:


> Agreed! I've almost every post from Millionrainbows and Mahlerian - and Taggart and others too -


I'd love to see the verb - loved, loathed, enjoyed, ignored 



Kieran said:


> and though I understand little, this is a great thread, very erudite on all sides and I reckon the rest of us are winners. Good work all round...


There is nothing to understand - it's a zen thing  I backed out of this when we got the psycho-social stuff about the dominance of religion and some of the isorhythm stuff which can flow into 20th century atonality. My idea of a modal tune is something like Brian Boru's March which is a weird old Dorian thing with the sixth missing - one setting has it starting in E with two sharps and it don't half sound odd.

I'm glad people have enjoyed the thread - maybe we could all meet up and do competitive music theory jousting - weddings, bar (bat) mitzvahs and funerals a speciality? :angel:


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Taggart said:


> I'd love to see the verb - loved, loathed, enjoyed, ignored


:lol: Sorry, "I've _*read *_almost every post..."


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Taggart said:


> maybe we could all meet up and do competitive music theory jousting - weddings, bar (bat) mitzvahs and funerals a speciality? :angel:


If you do it on instruments, we'll call it "jazz."


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> One more, and I think that the similarities to the Debussy are bigger than the differences here.


I can understand that one may get a sense of harmonic _progression_ in the Schoenberg but I was really making a distinction between that and _resolution_. I feel the Debussy is conceived harmonically and that the vertical dimension is fundamental to the Debussy in a way that it is not in the Schoenberg.
I don't have the score of either to hand but there are passages in the Debussy where there is a very strong sense of key even though they are short-lived and thwarted. There is for instance a passage that sounds like a G11 dominant build up that eventually takes a surprising twist and moves to C sharp. I suppose it may be more a question of _expected_ resolutions that don't materialise as opposed to actual resolutions. However there are definitely moments of harmonic repose that contrast with more unstable passages.
Do you really hear the Schoenberg example in a similar way? Schoenberg was obviously well aware of the vertical dimension in his piece but I just think that the _harmonic_ thinking is of a completely different order and of secondary importance. In the Debussy it is harmonic movement which is at the very heart of the construction I would go so far as to say I doubt that Debussy would have 'got' the Schoenberg at all.

I think millions is correct when he classifies the Debussy as belonging under the same umbrella as tonal/modal/jazz/pop music. Whereas serial music does not. If I have understood him that is


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

As I said before, I know nothing about music. But to my ears, feuilles mortes sounds "more tonal"[1] than schoenberg pieces, yet I intuitively tend to agree with Mahlerian, I think 12-tone is as "ear-based" as anything else.

I dont get what you mean millions when you say "the 12-tone method has no inherent principles which create harmonic results; harmonic entities must be put there by intent, or occur arbitrarily as a result of intersecting contrapuntal lines (the tone-rows and their permutations)", the 12-tone method is just that, a method, of course harmonic entities must be put there by intent, aren't harmonic entities put by intent in all music?

[1] though I'm not exactly sure what I mean by that.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

niv said:


> As I said before, I know nothing about music. But to my ears, feuilles mortes sounds "more tonal"[1] than schoenberg pieces, yet I intuitively tend to agree with Mahlerian, I think 12-tone is as "ear-based" as anything else.
> 
> [1] though I'm not exactly sure what I mean by that.


Of course you aren't. The term as it is used is incoherent.

If "atonal" means what it claims to mean, music "without tonal center", then there cannot be "more tonal" or "more atonal". There would be music that is atonal, and music that is not atonal. Perhaps there would be music that is closer to atonal or farther away, but not more or less atonal.

Remember that all sorts of music was called atonal at the beginning of the 20th century: Mahler, Stravinsky, Bartok, Debussy, Reger....just because only Schoenberg and co. are called atonal now doesn't make it true of them either.



Petwhac said:


> Do you really hear the Schoenberg example in a similar way? Schoenberg was obviously well aware of the vertical dimension in his piece but I just think that the harmonic thinking is of a completely different order and of secondary importance. In the Debussy it is harmonic movement which is at the very heart of the construction I would go so far as to say I doubt that Debussy would have 'got' the Schoenberg at all.


If by similar you mean that some tones resolve in an expected and others in an unexpected way, then yes, I really do hear it the exact same way. It sounds like music to me, not a bunch of random notes. There is a certain floating quality to both, because of the lack/blurring of tonal function, and a distinct preference for augmented sonorities.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> If "atonal" means what it claims to mean, music "without tonal center", then there cannot be "more tonal" or "more atonal". There would be music that is atonal, and music that is not atonal. Perhaps there would be music that is closer to atonal or farther away, but not more or less atonal.


Would you then consider the Debussy to be 'closer to tonal' than the Schoenberg? Wouldn't that explain niv's response?



Mahlerian said:


> If by similar you mean that some tones resolve in an expected and others in an unexpected way, then yes, I really do hear it the exact same way. It sounds like music to me, not a bunch of random notes. There is a certain floating quality to both, because of the lack/blurring of tonal function, and a distinct preference for augmented sonorities.


But is there an _expected _ harmony at any point in the Schoenberg? The dominant 11th chord in the Debussy has the weight of CP tonality behind it even if it doesn't treat harmony in a CP manner. The c-sharp that follows it comes as an interruption and a surprise (very pleasant one). Are there any similar instances in the Schoenberg, to your ears?

I am aware that Schoenberg was probably more tied to the past than some who followed him in developing serial techniques. What about Webern-Boulez-Stockhausen, would you say their music is further away from tonality than Schoenberg?


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

well, this is how I understand it: music happens in time, and a piece may imply one tonal center at one point and later may imply the same tonal center, a different one, or none. I guess that's what I meant when I said debussy is more tonal, through the piece I intuitively sensed more tonality while schoenberg gives me the feeling that whatever is the tonal center it is bouncing around all the time.

btw, how would you classify the rite of spring?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

niv said:


> well, this is how I understand it: music happens in time, and a piece may imply one tonal center at one point and later may imply the same tonal center, a different one, or none. I guess that's what I meant when I said debussy is more tonal, through the piece I intuitively sensed more tonality while schoenberg gives me the feeling that whatever is the tonal center it is bouncing around all the time.


I agree that the tonality in Schoenberg feels more fluid and that in Debussy more static.



niv said:


> btw, how would you classify the rite of spring?


Neo-modal, like Debussy or Messiaen.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

niv said:


> As I said before, I know nothing about music. But to my ears, feuilles mortes sounds "more tonal"[1] than schoenberg pieces, yet I intuitively tend to agree with Mahlerian, I think 12-tone is as "ear-based" as anything else.


Agreed; that's good; you should always listen to what your ears are telling you.



niv said:


> I dont get what you mean millions when you say "the 12-tone method has no inherent principles which create harmonic results; harmonic entities must be put there by intent, or occur arbitrarily as a result of intersecting contrapuntal lines (the tone-rows and their permutations)."
> 
> ...the 12-tone method is just that, a method, of course harmonic entities must be put there by intent, aren't harmonic entities put by intent in all music?...though I'm not exactly sure what I mean by that.


No, in tonal music, harmonic results are more or less "automatic." Everything refers to the tonic, so when a chord or melody is "inverted" (tonal inversion), the results are tonal.

For example, C-D-E, if tonally inverted, is C-B-A. The tonality is preserved by using scale pitches, which have an "identity" in relation to tonic C.

In serial inversion, the intervals are a direct mirror, yielding C-Bb-Ab. No regard for "pitch identity" in a tonal hierarchy is recognized, so tonality is not preserved, and our ears don't hear it tonally, either.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

In tonality, the vertical dimension is derived from consonance/dissonance of intervals in relation to "1" or tonic. These are expressed as "fractions" of that "1", falling within the octave (1:1). This is "ranked" by degree of increasing dissonance: 1:1, 2:3, 3:4, 4:5, 5:6, etc. These vertical intervals are then "projected" into the horizontal dimension as "functions:" I, ii, iii, IV, V, vi, vii.

In 12-tone rows, the order of the notes is already projecting the horizontal dimension; order equals time. So in serial rows, the vertical dimension "doesn't really exist" as a built-in concrete structural function, so any vertical relations must occur contrapuntally, as the result of simultaneously-sounding lines. So the 12-tone method took music back to a contrapuntal, "pre-function/pre-harmony" state.

The "harmony" which results from these intersections is wholly dependent on the row-order itself, structurally speaking.

This has always been the challenge in serial composition; this is why Milton Babbitt and George Perle showed such interest in "all-interval rows" which exhibited certain consistencies within the row itself, and when transposed, and when combined with certain other forms of the row. This was all in an attempt to control and define the vertical dimension.

Once again, serial music is not inherently, or structurally, tonal, or harmonically-based.

Since our ears hear everything harmonically, serial music has harmonic effects, as all music does which uses sustained pitches. This harmonic dimension is not inherently part of its structural function, though. It occurs as a consequence of other factors.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> In 12-tone rows, the order of the notes is already projecting the horizontal dimension; order equals time. So in serial rows, the vertical dimension "doesn't really exist" as a built-in concrete structural function, so any vertical relations must occur contrapuntally, as the result of simultaneously-sounding lines. So the 12-tone method took music back to a contrapuntal, "pre-function/pre-harmony" state.


Not necessarily true, although Stravinsky sometimes used the 12-tone method in this way. Furthermore, it is no more true than of pre-tonal modal musics, wherein the harmonies formed were unimportant compared to the motion of the individual lines.



millionrainbows said:


> The "harmony" which results from these intersections is wholly dependent on the row-order itself, structurally speaking.


And that row order can be stacked to produce triads or anything else you wish.



> This has always been the challenge in serial composition; this is why Milton Babbitt and George Perle showed such interest in "all-interval rows" which exhibited certain consistencies within the row itself, and when transposed, and when combined with certain other forms of the row. This was all in an attempt to control and define the vertical dimension.
> 
> Once again, serial music is not inherently, or structurally, tonal, or harmonically-based.
> 
> Since our ears hear everything harmonically, serial music has harmonic effects, as all music does which uses sustained pitches. This harmonic dimension is not inherently part of its structural function, though. It occurs as a consequence of other factors.


_*12-tone method does not by itself structure a piece!*_ I have said this multiple times.

Functional tonality by itself gives structure to a piece.

A mode does not, by itself, give structure to a piece.

A whole-tone scale does not, by itself, give structure to a piece.

Non-functional diatonicism does not, by itself, give structure to a piece.

12-tone method, likewise, does not give structure to a piece.

So any harmonic structures in any of the latter four cases will arise because of the composer's choices, rather than by the workings of the methods used. _*Why is this so hard to understand?*_


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> Would you then consider the Debussy to be 'closer to tonal' than the Schoenberg? Wouldn't that explain niv's response?


If anything, I feel the opposite in most cases. Debussy's music draws on a different paradigm, whereas Schoenberg's seems to be an extension of the old one.



Petwhac said:


> But is there an _expected _ harmony at any point in the Schoenberg? The dominant 11th chord in the Debussy has the weight of CP tonality behind it even if it doesn't treat harmony in a CP manner. The c-sharp that follows it comes as an interruption and a surprise (very pleasant one). Are there any similar instances in the Schoenberg, to your ears?


The chord that appears at 55 seconds seems a clear response to what came before it. Likewise, the first outburst at 1:14 is answered by a similar one at 1:40, and the harmonies in between have a sense of, if not repose, decreased activity. I've never actually seen the score for the piece, myself.



Petwhac said:


> I am aware that Schoenberg was probably more tied to the past than some who followed him in developing serial techniques. What about Webern-Boulez-Stockhausen, would you say their music is further away from tonality than Schoenberg?


Webern followed his own route out of Schoenberg's more aphoristic pieces like the Op. 19, but was influenced equally by Debussy (whom Schoenberg was more wary of) and Renaissance music. I don't usually hear "the row" behind Schoenberg's music, but when I listen to a piece like Webern's Symphony or Piano Variations, I can constantly hear fragments of the row, which structures my expectations.






The notes may appear in a different register than I expect, or clustered as a vertical, but I can usually hear them as expected. That said, you're right that it's a different experience from tonally related notes, so yes. I listen to Webern more the way I listen to Boulez or Takemitsu, where the vertical is a projection of the horizontal which itself projects back as vertical harmony.

But I don't see how it precludes harmonic expectation.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Here you go, a few bars in C major that use the 12-tone method exactly as specified by Schoenberg, cycling through every note of the chromatic scale twice, with none repeated before all of the others have appeared.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

niv said:


> btw, how would you classify the rite of spring?


That's the trouble with music. It is not like biology (unless you want to count _species_ counterpoint. :lol

The Rite is not _one _thing. There are very many diatonic passages, folk tunes etc. One of my favourite passages is really one big I-V cadence. The opening is quite clearly in C major/A minor and that is why the C-sharp entry of the horn is such a _shock_. I suppose you could call the opening bassoon tune modal but in the end people will label things however they wish.
It is bi-tonal, poly-tonal, modal, sometimes this and sometimes that. But always brilliant!


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

science said:


> If you do it on instruments, we'll call it "jazz."


Nay, nay and thrice nay! (Lurcio - Up Pompeii)

It would be a nice little motet with the OP doing the ground, Mahlerian the main counter melody and the rest of us little chorus bits. A wonderfully woven tapestry of musical colours.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Taggart said:


> Nay, nay and thrice nay! (Lurcio - Up Pompeii)
> 
> It would be a nice little motet with the OP doing the ground, Mahlerian the main counter melody and the rest of us little chorus bits. A wonderfully woven tapestry of musical colours.


Sounds a great idea. But I'll be the 'audience', just as I'm the 'reader' on this thread, which might as well be written in Klingon for all the meaning I get out of it.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Ingenue said:


> ...might as well be written in Klingon for all the meaning I get out of it.


That can be arranged


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Great Thread*

Mahlerian and Million, like many I find your exchanges fascinating even when you disagree.

As far as Debussy is concerned, I am not sure which side of the fence I would fall on. I think both of you have made some great comments.

I would be interested in your observations concerning Wagner's _Tristan and Isolde_.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Not necessarily true, although Stravinsky sometimes used the 12-tone method in this way. Furthermore, it is no more true than of pre-tonal modal musics, wherein the harmonies formed were unimportant compared to the motion of the individual lines.


Yes, I made the "pre-tonal" comparison...



Mahlerian said:


> And that row order can be stacked to produce triads or anything else you wish.


But there's only so far this will take you. The interval relations between the notes are what preserves the structural features of the row. If you do stack them, it should be in groups of 3, 4, 5 etc. consecutive notes of the row. Good luck with the results, because this is not an inherently "harmonic" way of creating harmony.



Mahlerian said:


> 12-tone method does not by itself structure a piece! I have said this multiple times.


I never said that it did; I also never said "a scale by itself structured a tonal piece," which you seem to be implying.



Mahlerian said:


> Functional tonality by itself gives structure to a piece.


No, I disagree. All that "function" does is project an hierarchy of triads, in relation to the tonic, by degree of consonance.



Mahlerian said:


> A mode does not, by itself, give structure to a piece. A whole-tone scale does not, by itself, give structure to a piece. Non-functional diatonicism does not, by itself, give structure to a piece.


True. These are just "scales," and any "structure" must be put there by the composer, just like 12-tone music.



Mahlerian said:


> 12-tone method, likewise, does not give structure to a piece.


True. It does give overall unity to a piece, but it does not "structure" a piece.



Mahlerian said:


> So any harmonic structures in any of the latter four cases will arise because of the composer's choices, rather than by the workings of the methods used. _*Why is this so hard to understand?*_


Hmmm, true, with certain caveats. In the case of "a mode," considered as the constituent scale, it has a tonic, and if triads are constructed on its scale-steps, an hierarchy of function will be automatically created, according to the degree of consonance present in relation to tonic, or I.

Example: D Dorian scale: D-E-F-G-A-B-C. Triads created: *i*-Dmin, *ii*-Emin,* III*-Fmaj, *IV*-Gmaj, *v*-Gmin, *viø *(half-diminished or min7b5)-Bmin7b5, *bVII*-Cmaj. I will not bother to rank them at this point.

So, to an extent, these structures are created "automatically" as a consequence of constructing triads on the scale-steps; and their functions are derived from harmonic considerations of consonance/dissonance in relation to I or tonic. Surely, you would not dispute this obvious act, which any jazz player would know.

In the case of the *whole-tone scale,* if it is referenced in a tonal context, it is inherently an unstable "deconstructing" element, tonally speaking; the best it can manage is a "suspended" feel, or altered dominant; but it can definitely be used to suggest tonal areas of function.

Like Thelonious Monk did, it can be used as a dominant element, reinforcing a dominant 7 sound.

Example: in C major, a whole-tone scale beginning on G (G-A-B-C#-D#-F) suggests a G aug 9, or a G7b5. Let's build some triads, from C: (C-D-E-F#(Gb)-G#(Ab)-A#(Bb).
*
I:* *C-E-Gb: Cmaj b5* and *C-E-G#: C aug,* which repeats on every scale step, since the scale is symmetrical. This makes it usable for those functions on each step. Any "modal" permutations (starting on D, E, F#, etc) are simply reiterations, and are essentially identical, and will yield the same content. Limited, but flexible.

Additionally, the whole-tone is a 6-note scale, so there are only 2 of them per octave. This allows 2 areas of tonality to be created, a semitone apart. Since the semitone can be a tritone substitution (the "chromatic/fifths" connection), this creates a "I-V" contrast which can be exploited tonally. Debussy did this. Schoenberg also used a row constructed on similar lines to "suggest" this same effect, although in essence, his tone-row is not "tonal" in a structural sense.

By contrast, if you create triads from tone rows, this does not create an hierarchy of functions which is derived from harmonic considerations of consonance/dissonance, as triads built on scale-steps does. Consonance/dissonance is not a structural element of tone-rows.

So, unlike the "ratios" of tonality, the intervals between the notes of tone-rows are not "qualities" or degrees of consonance/dissonance, but are simply "quantities" of distance between notes. Therefore, consonance/dissonance are not recognized as being different things; all is simply what it is.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

_(Re: Debussy and Schoenberg)_



Mahlerian said:


> If by similar you mean that *some tones resolve in an expected and others in an unexpected way,* then yes, I really do hear it the exact same way.


For Debussy, this all works; but not so for late Schoenberg.

Consonance/dissonance is not a structural consideration of tone-rows, but only of the ears. You seem to be hearing things that, structurally, are not there.

So where does "resolution" in hearing Schoenberg this way come from? Not from the structural elements of the system itself, but only as "references" or illusory metaphors, in your imagination.



Mahlerian said:


> There is a certain floating quality to both, because of the *lack/blurring of tonal function...*


There is no "function" at all in 12-tone music. The intervals between the notes of tone-rows are not "qualities" or degrees of consonance/dissonance, but are simply "quantities" of distance between notes. Triads created from tone rows have no "function."

So where does "function" in hearing Schoenberg this way come from? Not from the structural elements of the system itself, but only as "references" or illusory metaphors, in your imagination.



Mahlerian said:


> There is a certain floating quality to both, because of the...*distinct preference for augmented sonorities.*


There are no "augmented sonorities" in serial music. There are no "fifths" to be "augmented." Consonance/dissonance are not recognized as being different things, and are not structural considerations of tone-rows.

So where does "harmonic quality" of "chords" come from? Not from the structural elements of the system itself, but only as "references" or illusory metaphors, in your imagination.
----------------------------------------
This must be the reason that Boulez moved on past Schoenberg into total serial procedures. He saw no future in making allusions and metaphors to tonal music which were questionable, at best, and were not really designed to be "tonal."

Hearing 12-tone music tonally is like "trying to stuff a horse into a suitcase."

Sooner or later, the consequences of 12-tone and serial procedures must be accepted for what they are, as a new language of music which is fundamentally different than tonality.

Many 'tonally' oriented listeners will agree with this, but I do not see this as any as invalidating serial music; I simply accept it for what it is, and what it was supposed to do and to be. This is a truly "modern" vision of music, one which does not grasp at straws of the past.

This is not to denigrate Schoenberg, either; I accept him for what he was, a traditional tonal thinker who created a system which he used as he saw fit, but ultimately, a system which left him behind. Even Webern saw this, and accepted the new system, and used it, I daresay, more honestly, if not more artistically.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

So you tell niv to trust his/her ears, but not me? Don't you see the contradictions in what you're saying?

For example: a fifth is always a fifth and a triad is always a triad, because of the natural workings of the overtone series, except when a fifth is not a fifth and a triad is not a triad, because the music is constructed serially?

I never said I heard serial music tonally. I don't hear impressionism or jazz in the same way I hear tonal music either. Same thing with pre-Baroque.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> So you tell niv to trust his/her ears, but not me? Don't you see the contradictions in what you're saying?


No, I don't think it's a contradiction. I've been saying over & over that our ears hear harmonically. But you shouldn't let that bias your thinking, or you will end up saying things like "Schoenberg is just as tonal as Debussy."



Mahlerian said:


> For example: a fifth is always a fifth and a triad is always a triad, because of the natural workings of the overtone series, except when a fifth is not a fifth and a triad is not a triad, because the music is constructed serially?


C to G is a fifth, tonally, but C to G is just a distance of 1 to 7 on a serial number line. And they don't call it "a fifth." It's just a quantity, a distance between 2 notes. If you hear it as a fifth, that's fine.

As far as "triads," in serial terms these can be any 3 notes, like C-C#-D. Not so in tonal terms; there, triads are built on thirds.



Mahlerian said:


> I never said I heard serial music tonally. I don't hear impressionism or jazz in the same way I hear tonal music either. Same thing with pre-Baroque.


Your ears are designed to hear harmonically, so if music is obviously tonal, and references a tonic note in an obvious way, you will hear it tonally, the same as everyone else, regardless of genre or surface style.

It's a good bet that Schoenberg did hear his 12-tone stuff tonally, and strived to create tonal allusions in his 12-tone works. But it wasn't truly tonal music; it just made references and allusions to tonal devices.

12-tone music is not derived from tonal procedures; it is not based on a "ear-based harmonic hierarchy of reference to a tonic."


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Your ears are designed to hear harmonically, so if music is obviously tonal, and references a tonic note in an obvious way, you will hear it tonally, the same as everyone else, regardless of genre or surface style.


*Then why do people have a hard time telling the difference between tonal and atonal music?*

I have seen people call Verklarte Nacht atonal. I have seen people call Shostakovich's 5th symphony atonal. I have seen people call Berg's Violin Concerto tonal. I have seen people call John Adams' Harmonielehre atonal. I have seen people call Messiaen's Trois Petites Liturgies atonal. I have seen people call Stravinsky's Rite of Spring atonal.

You keep coming up with convoluted theories and explanations, appealing to everyone's ears, but only so far as they agree with your theory.

Here's an easy one for you:
_*People can't tell the difference!*_

This is getting frustrating.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Here's an easy one for you:
> 
> _*People can't tell the difference!*_
> 
> This is getting frustrating.


No, no, we're enjoying the fun. Every time you think you have him he either a) changes what he is saying or b) re-iterates at length what he has already said. It's got to 175 posts. I've given up because it's too silly to argue, but please keep it going just to see how bad it gets.

PS I do sympathise, but now it's got this far, let's see how far it will go.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> *Then why do people have a hard time telling the difference between tonal and atonal music?*


 Myself, I can tell, easily, the difference in tonal/atonal, but I've been blessed with good ears.

If you need more objective reasons, maybe it's because we all hear things harmonically, for one; and as music becomes more chromatic, it gets harder to tell.

I think it is established, though, that Debussy sounds more tonal than Schoenberg's Second String Quartet, even if you throw in the buried triads.



Mahlerian said:


> I have seen people call Verklarte Nacht atonal. I have seen people call Shostakovich's 5th symphony atonal. I have seen people call Berg's Violin Concerto tonal. I have seen people call John Adams' Harmonielehre atonal. I have seen people call Messiaen's Trois Petites Liturgies atonal. I have seen people call Stravinsky's Rite of Spring atonal.


Nix to the Shostakovich sounding "atonal;" his popularity alone is enough to persuade otherwise. Berg, yeah, that's a good example; Adams? Definitely tonal, in the broad sense, of course; Messiaen? Pretty chromatic, but with lots of localized tone centers; and his "Modes of Limited Transposition" are definitely tonal, as evidenced by the term "mode."



Mahlerian said:


> You keep coming up with convoluted theories and explanations, appealing to everyone's ears, but only so far as they agree with your theory.


No; I'm saying that our ears will always hear harmonically; but if non-harmonically based music sounds tonal to you, that is a result of your perception, not the inherent structures of the music, or even the intent of the composer.



Mahlerian said:


> Here's an easy one for you:
> _*People can't tell the difference!*_
> 
> This is getting frustrating.


Yeah, that 7-point headline lettering does create the impression that you're shouting. Perhaps you could use all caps next time, in bright red.

Myself, I can tell, easily, the difference in tonal/atonal, but I've been blessed with good ears, and a humble spirit of receptivity.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Taggart said:


> No, no, we're enjoying the fun. Every time you think you have him he either a) changes what he is saying or b) re-iterates at length what he has already said. It's got to 175 posts. I've given up because it's too silly to argue, but please keep it going just to see how bad it gets.
> 
> PS I do sympathise, but now it's got this far, let's see how far it will go.


I've gotten a lot of good blog material out of this exchange, and if you look, you will see that my position has been very consistent and unchanging. The "change" you see in my responses is not structural, but represents changing responses to changing arguments presented to me;

...and is also, simply the result of your perception.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

fifteen characters


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Taggart said:


> View attachment 18302
> fifteen characters


Translation! this is Riveting stuff!


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

I have to agree with millions in this: he hasn't changed his position at all.

@millions: I do get your point about 12 tone being structurally not oriented towards tonality. But what if the composed uses the 12-tone technique AND he nonetheless creates tonality? I'm particulary thinking about Berg Violin Concerto, which Mahlerian said some people found tonal (I for instance hear a lot of tonality in there, I'm not sure if the 12 tone technique is used through the whole piece, but the tone row itself is tonal because in it's basic form it contains three related triads)


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

niv said:


> I have to agree with millions in this: he hasn't changed his position at all.
> 
> @millions: I do get your point about 12 tone being structurally not oriented towards tonality. But what if the composed uses the 12-tone technique AND he nonetheless creates tonality? I'm particulary thinking about Berg Violin Concerto, which Mahlerian said some people found tonal (I for instance hear a lot of tonality in there, I'm not sure if the 12 tone technique is used through the whole piece, but the tone row itself is tonal because in it's basic form it contains three related triads)


Then Berg is making _allusions_ to tonality, but it is nonetheless "atonal" music which is based on tone row order, not tonal, unordered tonal scales which relate to a tonic. And, I dare say, it will not sound as consistently tonal as tonal music. It will have a tinge of strangenness.

Which is all fine with me; art is art. My purpose is to emphasize that tonal music (in the broad sense) is always going to sound more tonal than 12-tone or serial music can ever hope to; because serial-derived materials are not _structurally generated _from harmonic considerations or devices; these must be fabricated by the composer, after the fact, as a result of an effort to control the vertical results of tone-rows. Inherently, tone rows do not generate structurally harmonic results, as tonal scales "automatically" do.

Tonality (reference to a tonic) is not just a "subjective" phenomenon of tonality; the _horizontal_ triads and functions are derived from the _vertical _consonance/dissonance qualities of the scale notes in relation to tonic, _expressed as concrete ratios:_ 2:1/2:3/3:4, etc., and which are _perceivable by our ears _as such.

Schoenberg also used rows with tonal implications.

Here's an old post of mine from a "Schoenberg's Op. 26 Wind Quintet" thread elsewhere:

[The row is (first hexad) Eb-G-A-B-C#-C, which gives an augmented/whole-tone scale feel, with a "resolution" to C at the end, then (second hexad) Bb-D-E-F#-G#-F, which is very similar in its augmented/whole-tone scale structure, which only makes sense: there are only two whole-tone scales in the chromatic collection, each a chromatic half-step away from the other.

I've heard Debussy use the two whole-tone scales in this manner, moving down a half-step to gain entry to the new key area. This is why Schoenberg used a "C" in the first hexad, and the "F" in the second; these are "gateways" into the chromatically adjacent scale area. Chromatic half-step relations like these can also be seen as "V-I" relations, when used as dual-identity "tri-tone substitutions" as explained following.

Another characteristic of whole-tone scales is their use (as in Thelonious Monk's idiosyncratic whole-tone run) as an altered dominant, or V chord. There is a tritone present, which creates a b7/3-3/b7 ambiguity, exploited by jazz players as "tri-tone substitution". The tritone (if viewed as b7-3 rather than I-b5) creates a constant harmonic movement, which is what chromatic jazzers, as well as German expressionists, are after.

So Schoenberg had several ideas in mind of the tonal implications when he chose this row.]


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

niv said:


> @millions: I do get your point about 12 tone being structurally not oriented towards tonality. But what if the composed uses the 12-tone technique AND he nonetheless creates tonality? I'm particulary thinking about Berg Violin Concerto, which Mahlerian said some people found tonal (I for instance hear a lot of tonality in there, I'm not sure if the 12 tone technique is used through the whole piece, but the tone row itself is tonal because in it's basic form it contains three related triads)


Millions' answer above regarding the Berg concerto is mostly correct, but there are a few passages in the finale that are written without recourse to the row, namely the chorale (where Berg puts a key signature in parentheses for several bars), but even this grows out of the last few notes in a way.

I agree that 12-tone technique is not oriented towards creating tonality, but neither is anything else but common practice tonality, and many things besides have been used since the beginning of the 20th century.

The point of my examples was not to bring up things that I thought were marginal cases, but to controvert millionrainbows' assertion that people in general can tell the difference between tonal and atonal music. I chose pieces that most people agreed were either tonal or atonal, that some, using only their ears, "got wrong".

If people were immediately able to tell the difference, this would not be common. If people were immediately able to tell the difference, then music that was tonal would be unlikely to have been labeled at any time atonal by critics, people who exercise their ears regularly.

I guess we can't all be "blessed with good ears" and a "humble spirit".


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Myself, I can tell, easily, the difference in tonal/atonal, but I've been blessed with good ears.
> 
> If you need more objective reasons, maybe it's because we all hear things harmonically, for one; and as music becomes more chromatic, it gets harder to tell.
> 
> I think it is established, though, that Debussy sounds more tonal than Schoenberg's Second String Quartet, even if you throw in the buried triads.


The first three movements of Schoenberg's 2nd quartet are indisputably tonal, so once again, I'd say _they_ sound more tonal, not later Debussy. And the final movement has full harmonic resolution to an unadorned major triad, unlike a number of Debussy pieces (including the prelude we've been discussing).


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Translation! this is Riveting stuff!


Not quite - verb order - this stuff needs riveting.


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

Again I think it's all about words:



millionrainbows said:


> Then Berg is making _allusions_ to tonality, but it is nonetheless "atonal" music which is based on tone row order, not tonal, unordered tonal scales which relate to a tonic. And, I dare say, it will not sound as consistently tonal as tonal music. It will have a tinge of strangenness.


To me, "atonal" and "tonal" are just words. When you say it "is atonal" and that it is "not tonal", to me, they're just abstractions over what happens in the music, which cannot be easily classified as either tonal or atonal.

In the next sentence (" it will not sound as consistently tonal as tonal music") there is an implicit assuption that it is somewhat tonal, in fact I think we all agree here that the violin concerto cannot be easily classified as either completely "tonal" or "atonal", because it is somewhat of a mix. I think we also agree here that the twelve tone method is not "structurally oriented" towards creating tonality but nonetheless a composer can create tonality while using 12-tone (this is what mahlerian wanted to prove when posting the 12 tone C Major example, I believe?).

What varies is just words: whether it "*is* tonal" or it "*is* atonal". "is" are problematic because tonal and atonal are just words, words that point to a concept, it's true, but in practice, pieces of music might use a little more tonality there and a little more tonality that, if you want to say that Berg violin concerto or the rite of spring *are* or *aren't*tonal, you are just putting them into boxes that don't make them justice.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Millions' answer above regarding the Berg concerto is mostly correct, but there are a few passages in the finale that are written without recourse to the row, namely the chorale (where Berg puts a key signature in parentheses for several bars), but even this grows out of the last few notes in a way.


Mahlerian "forgot" to mention that this chorale is a direct quote from Bach; no wonder it sounds tonal!

from WIK:

_[The last four notes of the row, ascending whole tones, are also the first four notes of the chorale melody, Es ist genug (It Is Enough). Berg quotes this chorale directly in the last movement of the piece, where the harmonisation by Johann Sebastian Bach is heard in the clarinets._

_There is another directly quoted tonal passage in the work in the form of a Carinthian folk song in the second section of the first movement, which returns briefly before the coda in the second movement. This is perhaps the only section which does not derive its materials from the row.]_



Mahlerian said:


> I agree that 12-tone technique is not oriented *towards creating tonality,* _but neither is anything else but common practice tonality,_ and many things besides have been used since the beginning of the 20th century.


I disagree; much Debussy and other music has the "harmonic advantage" of having no "vertical restraints" on it, like ordered-set serial music does. Even if the music is not "creating areas of tonality" in a broad sense, if it is using "harmonic devices" then it is "ear friendly" because it is harmonic.

Thus, Debussy's parallel chords bouncing all over the place are at least recognizable as "harmonic entities." It is much more difficult to "recognize" aggregates of pitches in Boulez, even if they are intended as "just sounds," because, inherently, consonance/dissonance are not structural considerations in serialism, unless the composer manipulates the material after the fact, under severe vertical limitation.



Mahlerian said:


> The point of my examples was not to bring up things that I thought were marginal cases, but to controvert millionrainbows' assertion that people in general can tell the difference between tonal and atonal music. I chose pieces that most people agreed were either tonal or atonal, that some, using only their ears, "got wrong".


Well, you're talking about subjective impressions; I'm talking about objective structures inherent in both tonality and serial-music; and also, to convey that a "broad definition of tonality" will serve us well in clearing-up these ambiguities.



Mahlerian said:


> If people were immediately able to tell the difference, this would not be common. If people were immediately able to tell the difference, then music that was tonal would be unlikely to have been labeled at any time atonal by critics, people who exercise their ears regularly.


I have good ears, and I can tell the difference in music that was created harmonically and that which is produced using other methods. There comes a point where either music is tonal, or it is not.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

niv said:


> Again I think it's all about words: To me, "atonal" and "tonal" are just words. When you say it "is atonal" and that it is "not tonal", to me, they're just abstractions over what happens in the music, which cannot be easily classified as either tonal or atonal.


To me, tonality is something my ears hear, not a cerebral process dreamed-up by a composer struggling to "stuff a horse into a suitcase" as Schoenberg often seemed to be doing during his early struggles with the 12-tone method. This was all resolved by Webern and Boulez, who simply "got rid of the horse."



niv said:


> In the next sentence (" it will not sound as consistently tonal as tonal music") there is an implicit assuption that it is somewhat tonal, in fact I think we all agree here that the violin concerto cannot be easily classified as either completely "tonal" or "atonal", because it is somewhat of a mix. I think we also agree here that the twelve tone method is not "structurally oriented" towards creating tonality but nonetheless a composer can create tonality while using 12-tone (this is what mahlerian wanted to prove when posting the 12 tone C Major example, I believe?).


As I noted above, Berg's Violin Concerto is "not easily classified as either completely "tonal" or "atonal", because it is somewhat of a mix." Literally! With quotes from Bach!

...But I disagree; one "can create _the impression of tonality_ while using 12-tone," but again, it is not as consistent in its harmonic results, and is usually easily perceivable.

Besides, 12-tone and serial methods are not primarily used to create tonal music; why do you think they call it "atonal?" :lol:

A tone row is ordered; scales are not. Joseph Haur used unordered "strophes" in his "12-tone" method, so these have a better chance of inherently creating tonality than a tone-row does. Trope technique allows the integration of a formal concept into both a twelve-tone row and a harmonic matrix-and therefore into a whole musical piece.

Why? Because in any unordered scale (or "set") of notes, an hierarchy can be created, due to consonance/dissonance ratios. These can be ranked, free of any fixed order, according to their degree. Or not.



niv said:


> What varies is just words: whether it "*is* tonal" or it "*is* atonal". "is" are problematic because tonal and atonal are just words, words that point to a concept, it's true, but in practice, pieces of music might use a little more tonality there and a little more tonality that, if you want to say that Berg violin concerto or the rite of spring *are* or *aren't *tonal, you are just putting them into boxes that don't make them justice.


You're talking art, and that's fine; however you hear it is fine with me. My purpose is not to invalidate the subjective artistic intents of composers, or the subjective impressions of listeners.

I must fundamentally disagree, however, because of physics of sound, and its effect on the human ear.

Tonality (reference to a tonic) is not just a "subjective" phenomenon; the _horizontal _triads and functions are derived from the _vertical _consonance/dissonance qualities of the scale notes in relation to tonic, _expressed as concrete ratios:_ 2:1/2:3/3:4, etc., and which are _perceivable by our ears _as such.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

The thing that millions is pointing to is the presence in any particular piece of the trappings of tonality. And these trappings are major and minor triads. Renaissance music, Baroque through Debussy, Stravinsky, Jazz, Folk Pop, Rock ,Techno, Flamenco etc are all awash with major and minor triads. 
Whether or not the triads are used to reinforce the sense of key or used as parallel sonorities with no structural function, or decorated with 7ths 9ths 11ths and 13ths, the fact remains that they are a familiar reference which tie music together across the centuries.
When we hear the Bach chorale in the Berg we recognise the sound of the familiar. Berg in his wisdom used only the most harmonically adventurous and 'out there' harmonisation Bach wrote knowing that a more conventional one would sound too out of place. Yet the passage still stands out a mile. 

The beginning of Ligeti's etude Arc-en ciel whether it is tonal or not according to ones definition, certainly sounds closer to any number of tonal composers than it does to a Boulez sonata or a Stockhausen Klavierstuck. This is due entirely to the harmony which cleverly and nebulously alludes to tonality.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> The first three movements of Schoenberg's 2nd quartet are indisputably tonal, so once again, I'd say _they_ sound more tonal, not later Debussy. And the final movement has full harmonic resolution to an unadorned major triad, unlike a number of Debussy pieces (including the prelude we've been discussing).


Concerning this "marginal" work, the first three movements are tonal, though as in his first string quartet this is the very extended tonality of the late Romantic period. I think I can manage to hear it tonally, although due to Schoenberg's Expressionist aesthetic, he is purposely using more dissonance in order to create "jarring" or upsetting effects, which reflect his emotional state at this time (the Gerstl affair, etc.).

So he managed to squeeze out a major triad at the end? Amazing!


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

niv said:


> In the next sentence (" it will not sound as consistently tonal as tonal music") there is an implicit assuption that it is somewhat tonal, in fact I think we all agree here that the violin concerto cannot be easily classified as either completely "tonal" or "atonal", because it is somewhat of a mix. I think we also agree here that the twelve tone method is not "structurally oriented" towards creating tonality but nonetheless a composer can create tonality while using 12-tone (this is what mahlerian wanted to prove when posting the 12 tone C Major example, I believe?).


What I wanted to show is that it's not even difficult. I threw that example together in about a minute.

According to millionrainbows' position, though, that example cannot really be in C major, because the vertical considerations are not a part of the system used to create it, and any C major you hear is an illusion.

Your ears (or mine) just aren't good enough to realize that a C major triad is not really a C major triad when the 12-tone method is used, let alone a V-I cadence!


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

If a composer wants to create tonality using twelve-tone procedures, he is pursuing the pointless. Just as the guy who wrote a novel without using the letter _e_ was. If you want to write tonal music you don't need twelve-tone.


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

But millions, to me, there are "hints" or "impressions" (or whatever you want to call it) of tonality through the most part of the Berg Violin Concerto, not just at the end, because the tone row (and it's various manipulation) are meant to show it. Of course it's not "stable" tonality because that wasn't the point. Of course the 12 tone method itself didn't automatically or structually put those "impressions" of tonality there, the composer did. I still think we agree on this, even though you say we disagree, I'm reading the same concepts, just with different... words


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> What I wanted to show is that it's not even difficult. I threw that example together in about a minute.
> 
> According to millionrainbows' position, though, that example cannot really be in C major, because the vertical considerations are not a part of the system used to create it, and any C major you hear is an illusion.
> 
> Your ears (or mine) just aren't good enough to realize that a C major triad is not really a C major triad when the 12-tone method is used, let alone a V-I cadence!


I don't dispute what your ears hear; never did I say or imply that "Your ears (or mine) just aren't good enough." You seem to be succumbing to the incubus of ad-hominem.

Don't tell me that Berg derived a "C major triad" from a tone-row. He might have used the pitch classes C, E, and G, and it might have sounded the same, but there is only so far one can stretch it. If he then later decided to use their inversion, it would be F-Ab-C. That's not a C major, nor is it tonal.

There is no purpose in hunting for tonal chords in a 12-tone jungle, nor is there reason to prove that "Berg is tonal." It sounds like a justification of what doesn't need justifying.

I accept Berg's 12-tone music honestly, for what it is. Modern art must be approached head-on, honestly, not with apologies which compare it to what went before, and was exhausted.


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

I don't know about Mahlerian, but I definitely wasn't trying to prove that "Berg is tonal" (something I consider an empty statement for the reasons previously explained) nor I wasn't trying to "hunt" for tonal chords in a 12-tone jungle.

All I did is describing what I heard (and from what I've gathered, many others) as an explanation of why some people listen something *they* recognize as tonal[1] in works such as Berg's Violin Concerto.

"Don't tell me that Berg derived a "C major triad" from a tone-row. He might have used the pitch classes C, E, and G, and it might have sounded the same, but there is only so far one can stretch it"

Again, *we agree on this*, 'structurally' the 12-tone technique does not help you to derive triads.
But perhaps, when Berg used some triads, he knew what he was doing.
And perhaps some people listen to these triads, and their ears recognize something as "tonal"[1], even if only fleetingly because of the nature of the work.

[1] i.e. experienced something that they(we) associate with something related to the word "tonal".


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

niv said:


> ...All I did is describing what I heard (and from what I've gathered, many others) as an explanation of why some people listen something *they* recognize as tonal[1] in works such as Berg's Violin Concerto.But perhaps, when Berg used some triads, he knew what he was doing.
> And perhaps some people listen to these triads, and their ears recognize something as "tonal"[1], even if only fleetingly because of the nature of the work.


There are _intervals_ in tone rows; if you make a row with a lot of major and minor thirds in it, then stack them, you'll get some tertial-sounding triads. So harmonically, at least that aspect of it is under partial control; but the fixed order of the row is very limiting.

Schoenberg developed his system to be an extension of chromaticism, so he was actually trying to get "further out" from tonality. Sometimes tonal apologists seem to forget this; atonal music is radical, modern-sounding art. The _String Trio_ of Schoenberg, or Berg's _Lyric Suite _sound very hard-core atonal to me, and that's why I find them fascinating, if mystifying.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> There are _intervals_ in tone rows; if you make a row with a lot of major and minor thirds in it, then stack them, you'll get some tertial-sounding triads. So harmonically, at least that aspect of it is under partial control; but the fixed order of the row is very limiting.


Why? You can literally get any major or minor triad from the row if there's even a single triad in it (because major inverts to minor and vice versa).



millionrainbows said:


> Schoenberg developed his system to be an extension of chromaticism, so he was actually trying to get "further out" from tonality. Sometimes tonal apologists seem to forget this; atonal music is radical, modern-sounding art. The _String Trio_ of Schoenberg, or Berg's _Lyric Suite _sound very hard-core atonal to me, and that's why I find them fascinating, if mystifying.


Both of the pieces you mentioned have tonal leanings, and the Berg is not thorough-going 12-tone. It contains some passages composed in free chromatic style, and I could point out pervasive triadic harmony if I wished to go through the score (which I have glanced through).

I have not forgotten that chromaticism is an extension of tonality, but it is an extension and not a break. The word atonal has not been attested before 1922, over a decade after the first supposedly atonal pieces appeared. The composers themselves did not consider themselves to be writing atonal music; that didn't happen until total serialism, which was an extremely brief movement that quickly gave way to a much freer serial practice (like comparing Structures II to Le marteau).

Anyway, for anyone who doubts that Debussy was radical, read the following remarks by the New York Post in 1907:

"The Sea of Debussy does not call for many words of comment. The three parts of which it is composed are entitled From Dawn till Noon, Play of the Waves and Dialogue of the Wind and the Sea, but as far as any pictorial suggestiveness is concerned, they might as well have been entitled On the Flatiron Building, Slumming in the Bowery and A Glimpse of Chinatown During a Raid. Debussy's music is the dreariest kind of rubbish. Does anybody for a moment doubt that Debussy would not write such chaotic, meaningless, cacophonous, ungrammatical stuff, if he could invent a melody?... Even his orchestration is not particularly remarkable."


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> I have not forgotten that chromaticism is an extension of tonality, but it is an extension and not a break...


I disagree. Remember, there are two varieties of chromaticism; chromaticism which is an extension of tonality, which refers to tonality, and which uses tonality as its starting point;

...and true chromaticism, which uses the 12 chromatic notes as its starting point, including these features: division of the octave at the tritone for reasons of symmetry _(which differs from tonal tritone use in dim7 and whole-tone scales, which are used to create root substitutions; and this tonal tritone is M3/b7, not a flatted fifth), _areas of independent, moving tone centricity, use of 3, 4, and 6 note sets, etc.

Plus, _and this is very important to note, Mahlerian, both of these forms of chromaticism are harmonic_ in nature, since they both use unordered elements and scales.

The real "break" with tonality came when Schoenberg specified the use of ordered sets, thus replacing the vertical harmonic element, and becoming truly "atonal."



Mahlerian said:


> The composers themselves did not consider themselves to be writing atonal music; that didn't happen until total serialism...


That's true; their chromatic music, and increasingly systematized music was still harmonic in nature, not "atonal."



Mahlerian said:


> ...which was an extremely brief movement that quickly gave way to a much freer serial practice (like comparing Structures II to Le marteau).


Both of those pieces are serial, and therefore, non-tonal and non-harmonic. Their pitch-material is derived from tone-rows.



Mahlerian said:


> Anyway, for anyone who doubts that Debussy was radical, read the following remarks by the New York Post in 1907:


I never said Debussy was "not radical;" simply that his music is harmonically-based, and therefore "more ear-friendly" than 12-tone music of that era.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Plus, and this is very important to note, Mahlerian, both of these forms of chromaticism are harmonic in nature, since they both use unordered elements and scales.


Oh? So now there's a big difference between 12-tone and freely written chromatic music? A few pages back you said that the latter was unquestionably related to serialism because it used the chromatic scale as its starting point. But don't take my word for it....



millionrainbows said:


> You're right, I agree! If music is "freely composed" using the chromatic scale as the starting point (species B, true chromaticism), _it is already beginning to become a music of systematic principles rather than harmonic principles._ No wonder you can't tell the difference!


So what does the you of now (rather than the you of four days ago) say in response to the contention that people don't seem to be able to tell a difference between "free atonality" and 12-tone music?



millionrainbows said:


> I never said Debussy was "not radical;" simply that his music is harmonically-based, and therefore "more ear-friendly" than 12-tone music of that era.


Given that there was no 12-tone music until 4 years after Debussy's death, that's not too surprising...


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Oh? So now there's a big difference between 12-tone and freely written chromatic music? A few pages back you said that the latter was unquestionably related to serialism because it used the chromatic scale as its starting point. But don't take my word for it....


I've _always_ said the reason serialism differs from tonality is that it is _non-harmonic,_ based on ordered rows.

However, true chromaticism is a step towards serialism, in its use of symmetry, note sets, and "systematic" processes. True chromaticism is still "harmonic" music, though, because it uses unordered scales. The vertical dimension is unencumbered by "ordered rows."



Mahlerian said:


> So what does the you of now (rather than the you of four days ago) say in response to the contention that people don't seem to be able to tell a difference between "free atonality" and 12-tone music?


Be careful you don't wander off into ad-hominem territory.



Mahlerian said:


> Given that there was no 12-tone music until 4 years after Debussy's death, that's not too surprising...


The key word is "era."


----------



## Marisol (May 25, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> In a "scale" (not a mode or tetrachord), the pull towards a tonic is inherently determined by vertical harmonic factors, not horizontal "emphasis" by repetition or accent. That comes later.


Interesting but argue that point with violinists who like to play Pythagorean scales while the rest either plays pure intonation or equal tempered or some mixture thereof. 



millionrainbows said:


> All music is tonal if it has a tonic.


Tonality can shift or temporarily be in limbo (think for instance about the "Tristan" chord, I would say it has undefined tonality but is not atonal), so I would agree that music that has a tonic is tonal but I would disagree with a statement that tonal music must have a tonic at all times.

Perhaps I misunderstand but there is absolutely nothing special about 7 whole or 12 half tones in an octave, one can extend this either by expanding fifths and thirds or extending it by introducing 7ths or even higher overtones.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Originally Posted by *millionrainbows* 
In a "scale" (not a mode or tetrachord), the pull towards a tonic is inherently determined by vertical harmonic factors, not horizontal "emphasis" by repetition or accent. That comes later.


Marisol said:


> Interesting but argue that point with violinists who like to play Pythagorean scales while the rest either plays pure intonation or equal tempered or some mixture thereof.


You haven't made your point very clearly, whatever is is. All intonations are "modeled" roughly after these "pure" ratios (see chart below), since "exact pure fifths" cannot be fit into an octave, and have been reduced by 2 cents each in ET. Major thirds (4:5) are even harder to accomodate. This chart is the "harmonic" model. No existing tuning can ever get all the intervals to be pure.

Most dissonant intervals to most consonant intervals, within one octave:

1. minor seventh (C-Bb) 9:16
2. major seventh (C-B) 8:15
3. major second (C-D) 8:9
4. minor sixth (C-Ab) 5:8
5. minor third (C-Eb) 5:6
6. major third (C-E) 4:5
7. major sixth (C-A) 3:5
8. perfect fourth (C-F) 3:4
9. perfect fifth (C-G) 2:3
10. octave (C-C') 1:2
11. unison (C-C) 1:1



Marisol said:


> Tonality can shift or temporarily be in limbo (think for instance about the "Tristan" chord, I would say it has undefined tonality but is not atonal)...


You have chosen a "glitch" in tonality, which does not clarify, but only obscures. Wagner's chord is ambiguous, but it is in reference to a tonal context, so this is "tonal chromaticism" at its most extreme. I agree that "it has undefined tonality but is not atonal," but you are jumping the gun by using the term 'atonal.' That term only becomes relevant when 12-tone music removes the vertical hierarchy of harmony, replacing it with ordered rows. Yes, there are different degrees of tonal strength; all Western tonal music is based on this ebb and flow.



Marisol said:


> ...I would agree that music that has a tonic is tonal but I would disagree with a statement that tonal music must have a tonic at all times.


Then you need to refer to the definition in the OP. I can't be bothered with quoting the entire definition every time I speak about tonality in a later post.

In order to be tonal (and not "atonal"), music must have *reference* to a tonic. This can be very strong, or become very ambiguous. In Wagner's case, this is ambiguous function, but is still clearly in the tonal realm, because of context. You can't just "zero in" on the tristan chord and say that because its function is ambiguous, that the whole opera is "not tonal because it doesn't have a clear tonic in one area."

Even in later "true chromaticism," as used by Bartók or Frank Martin, constantly-shifting tone centers are still "referring" to a tonic. Additionally, this type of "true chromaticism" is still *harmonic* in nature, so this factor "refers" it to tonality. Therefore, "true chromaticism" is "tonal," even if there is no constant tonic, because all of its structures are harmonic in nature, i.e., they "refer" harmonically to a tonic or localized chord root.

The only way tonality can be completely "dispensed with" is by dispensing with the vertical hierarchy.
When, as in 12-tone and serialism, the pitch material becomes non-harmonic, by replacing the tonal/harmonic hierarchy (see chart above) with an ordered row hierarchy, the music can be said to be non-harmonic in structure, or "atonal."



Marisol said:


> Perhaps I misunderstand but there is absolutely nothing special about 7 whole or 12 half tones in an octave, one can extend this either by expanding fifths and thirds or extending it by introducing 7ths or even higher overtones.


I don't understand what you're trying to convey; there can be only 6 whole tones in an octave (WT scale).

If you want to talk intervals, you should read my blog "Understandng Bartók" first.

http://www.talkclassical.com/blogs/millionrainbows/1024-understanding-bart-k.html


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> The only way tonality can be completely "dispensed with" is by dispensing with the vertical hierarchy.
> When, as in 12-tone and serialism, the pitch material becomes non-harmonic, by replacing the tonal/harmonic hierarchy (see chart above) with an ordered row hierarchy, the music can be said to be non-harmonic in structure, or "atonal."


I disagree. I don't think that you can make this distinction consistently. You yourself admitted the works of Schoenberg and Berg's Violin Concerto as border cases. I'd also like you to find a single other person who thinks that this is the dividing line between tonality and atonality.

Myself, I don't believe that atonality and tonality can be coherently defined such that:
Neoclassicism and Impressionism and the work of Bartok can be considered tonal
Music that predates 1600 can be considered tonal
_and_
The music of Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern (whether the dividing line is at the expressionist or the 12-tone period) can be considered atonal

This would imply that the former cases are closer in technique to each other than any of them to the latter, which is, in my view, obviously and demonstrably untrue. The expressionist style is a direct and clear outgrowth from late romanticism, and the 12-tone music of these composers grew out of their earlier work, such that I doubt that someone who is not already steeped in the styles of these composers could reliably distinguish between the periods. This is indicated by comments I have seen on the internet, which show no clear pattern in recognizing the same things as tonal and atonal.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> I disagree. I don't think that you can make this distinction consistently. You yourself admitted the works of Schoenberg and Berg's Violin Concerto as border cases.


If you're going to quote me, then at least go to the trouble of actually doing the work. This is "hearsay out of context." I'm using tonality in its broadest sense, and already stated why.



Mahlerian said:


> I'd also like you to find a single other person who thinks that this is the dividing line between tonality and atonality.


I'm using tonality in its broadest sense, and already stated why. There is no obvious, clear dividing line: tonality (loyalty to a tonic) gradually weakens & disperses, but does not become "atonal" until the ordered row is used. If other people choose to use other terms, so be it, but I see it as (1) tonality-referenced chromaticism, and (2) true chromaticism.

Both 1&2 are harmonic, and therefore both under the large umbrella of "harmonic" and tonal music. After that, is 12-tone.



Mahlerian said:


> Myself, I don't believe that atonality and tonality can be coherently defined such that:
> Neoclassicism and Impressionism and the work of Bartok can be considered tonal.


I do. I don't think music becomes "atonal" until it uses ordered rows instead of scales.



Mahlerian said:


> I don't believe that atonality and tonality can be coherently defined such that: Music that predates 1600 can be considered tonal.


I do. Gregorian chant is certainly loyal to a tonic in most instances.



Mahlerian said:


> I don't believe that atonality and tonality can be coherently defined such that:The music of Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern (whether the dividing line is at the expressionist or the 12-tone period) can be considered atonal.


I think the 12-tone works are atonal, because they use ordered rows which negate and undermine the vertical, harmonic dimension. The works which precede this, however chromatic, are tonal.



Mahlerian said:


> The expressionist style is a direct and clear outgrowth from late romanticism, and the 12-tone music of these composers grew out of their earlier work, such that I doubt that someone who is not already steeped in the styles of these composers could reliably distinguish between the periods.


Stylistically, the expressionist style is a direct and clear outgrowth from late romanticism and the atonal periods, but this is just surface aesthetics, not structure.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

In listening and understanding "atonal" music, one must realize that it's "atonal;" there is no "harmony" as a vertical consequence. In 12-tone and serial music, the "spaces" or intervals between the notes are the only contributors to consonance/dissonance, so one must listen in terms of general sonority, not in terms of "relation to a tonic."

In this sense, the construction of the tone-row itself, i.e. its interval content, will be the primary structural determinant of any consonance/dissonance qualities that one may perceive. Please note, however, that none of these row-intervals will relate back to a "tonic," but must be taken _in isolation,_ and will relate _only_ to the notes preceding and following.

Therefore, as in extreme chromaticism, consonance/dissonance will be experienced _vertically_ as a _moment-to-moment phenomenon,_ and _horizontally_ as a _general area of sonority_ determined by which row is in use, and its "interval content."


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Has anyone kept score for these two?

I count the tally at 32 Mahlerian and 160 by an exact pure fifth for millionrainbows but maybe I'm a semi-tone or two out! Or is there just some "vertical consequence" I'm not seeing.


----------



## Marisol (May 25, 2013)

Marisol said:


> Perhaps I misunderstand but there is absolutely nothing special about 7 whole or 12 half tones in an octave, one can extend this either by expanding fifths and thirds or extending it by introducing 7ths or even higher overtones.


Here is some info on the harmonic seventh, the "blue" or "barbershop seventh", which is not a Bb (which is a third below D) and also not a B (which is a fifth above G) but another tone, a seventh above C, which is lower than both the B and Bb.

In cents we have (rounded):

Harmonic Seventh = 968.8
Bb = 996.0
B = 1088.3

http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/7_4

Similarly we can construct an harmonic ninth which is different than the D in pure intonation.

Extending the thirds and fifths is also possible. For instance a person raised in Asia may sing a different A than someone raised in the West. The A in just intonation is a third above the F but in Asian cultures where pentatonic scales are common the A is a fifth above D. So we can extend the scale with an extra A. The same goes for all other tones except for the octaves.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Marisol said:


> Here is some info on the harmonic seventh, the "blue" or "barbershop seventh", which is not a Bb (which is a third below D) and also not a B (which is a fifth above G) but another tone, a seventh above C, which is lower than both the B and Bb.
> 
> In cents we have (rounded):
> 
> ...


Yeah, that's interesting. I call that a "harmonic seventh." It's a septimal seventh, because it's a "7" ratio of 7:4. This interval can be heard all through Terry Riley's _Shri Camel _(Sony/CBS) where he uses it in a minor tuning, playing a Yamaha electronic organ which has been re-tuned.

After hearing this flat-seventh, which is so consonant and resonant that it seems to resist resolution, it was easier for me to see how the basic functions of I7-IV7-V7 blues chords, based on all flat or dominant seventh chords, was sensible and workable in comparison to our "leading tone" seventh on I and IV. Of course, this was for vocalists, or guitarists tuned to open-chord tunings for "slide" or "bottleneck" guitar blues. It was probably derived from African pentatonic scales and instruments.

That WIK article also mentions a "harmonic chord" (4:5:6:7:8), which is a "stack" of just intervals. At the wind chime factory I used to work for, we made a "harmonic" tuning like this, consisting of five 5-inch diameter pipes of extruded aluminum, we called our "basso profundo." This thing sounded wonderful. The longest pipe was about 7 feet long. It required a pulley to hang it.

Hey Marisol, we should start a dedicated thread and discuss this stuff further.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Here's a juicy little quote from the liner notes of Vincent Persichetti's String Quartets (Centaur). Speaking about Quartets 1 & 2, Daniel Stepner says:

"They are tonal works - not in the functional, common practice sense, but but rather in their _constant tonal reference._ They don't _methodically avoid harmonic centers,_ as do the quartets of the newer Viennese school of Schoenberg and Webern.

At times, in fact, their open-fifth cadences or pivoting harmonies resemble the pre-tonal music of the middle ages. But their language is eclectic, modern, and highly skilled."

You see, Taggart: There are plenty of other folks out there, besides just me, who understand this broad definition of tonality.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

As you can see, it's well-nigh impossible to get anyone to agree on what "tonality" is; and to realize what "atonality" is, this is a necessary prerequisite.

Academics will give their stiff, inflexible definitions of common practice tonality, which include certain prescribed functions and church-based definitions of "modality."

Innocent, non-technical listeners will issue their same old worn-out plea of _"what does it matter?,"_ and in their next breath will throw these terms like _"atonal"_ around, as if they had actually paused to consider the meaning beyond the bounds of their ear-canal entryways.

Then, perhaps most tragically and ironically, there are the defenders of modernism, who are compelled to make tenuous comparisons with 12-tone music and CP tonality, as if the descent of late-Romantic tonality into near-total chromaticism somehow lends a respectable traditional connection to the ordered sets of 12-tone and its derivative serial methods. They never acknowledge that their precious bridge to respectable tonality was structurally (if not metaphorically) destroyed as soon as ordered sets were used, thus systematically and structurally avoiding any real structural reference to a tonic _except as a metaphorical reference to its memory,_ in a moment-by-moment denial of harmony. As if this needed defending.

Conversely, the defenders of modernism are quick to deny the obvious tonality in the music of Debussy, Ravel, some Bartók, and other non-CP tonal musics, on the grounds that this somehow "robs them" of the modernity they deserve. The truth is, this is simply a converse justification of the preceding argument, using Debussy and others to "lend credibility" to modernism.

Subsequently, this will probably lead to even more disputes. We must not let our academic posturing or our fears and insecurities concerning modernism prevent us from 1.) accepting a broad-based definition of tonality, and 2.) accepting a precise definition of what constitutes "atonality" and its systematic avoidance of reference to a tonic, however fleeting, ambiguous, or constantly-shifting this reference may be, and honestly accepting serial music on its own terms.



> In my next post, to be a blog as well, I will provide a concise, simplified outline of these definitions.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Here's an example which illustrates Mahlerian's contention that Schoenberg was composing "tonal" music, even while using hard-core tone-rows which are not harmonically derived.

His Wind Quintet, Op. 26, completed in 1924. Schoenberg, for most of his life, was not so much a tonal, or atonal composer as a _thematic _composer.

True, and they're all over the place, if you know what you're listening for. These "themes" are very angular, and do not follow a "normal" melodic contour. These "themes" would be considered quite "ugly" by tonal standards.

Leaping, angular, dissonant: sure, they are "themes" in the sense that they are derived from the row-content, and they can be identified as "pitch-entities," but beyond that, they are in no way "themes" as the term originally intended.

These themes are not tonal, and are not harmonically derived. In other words, Schoenberg's "themes" make no sense tonally, because, well,_ they're not tonal._

To call this way of making themes "a reference to tonal composition" is stretching things_ waaay _too far, and does a disservice to both tonality and to serialism.

Let's all face the fact that Schoenberg's twelve-tone composition, and methods which use serial procedures, is not harmonically based; i.e; it is not tonal.

Then, when we are free of our "tonal denial," we can get on with reality, and listen to & accept serial-based music on its own terms, and stop trying to "stuff this horse into a suitcase."


----------



## Guest (Dec 19, 2013)

But million, angularity is not a characteristic of serialism. It's more a result of wanting something other than smooth lines.

And there's plenty of angularity in tonal music. Leaping, angular, dissonant. You could be describing something in a Beethoven piano sonata or in a Berlioz symphony.

There is no such thing as a "normal" melodic contour. And many melodies in tonal music have been heard, especially early in a piece's existence, as incredibly ugly, and as not even melodies. (There's no such thing as a normal melodic contour, but there's plenty of people who have insisted that there is, and that whatever new piece is assaulting their ears--a symphony by Beethoven, a scherzo by Chopin, an opera by Bizet (_Carmen_ contains no tunes, did you know that?), a piano concerto by Bartok--is devoid of melody or musical sense.)

I think that the real difference in musics of the early twentieth century is between narrative musics and non-narrative musics. Schoenberg, narrative. Webern, non-narrative. Janacek, narrative. Varese, non-narrative. (Mostly.) The divide between tonal and non-tonal seemed at first to be a great one--and the focus on that has blinded us to other things going on in the last century. Or deafened us, I suppose I should say. While tonal music is almost always going to be narrative, there is nothing about serialism that makes it non-narrative. It is possible to be non-narrative with serial techniques. But serialism is not intrinsically non-narrative in the same way that tonal music is intrinsically narrative. Serialism can be either. Schoenberg, Wellesz, Berg, Skallkotas are all largely narrative. Webern was largely non-narrative. Gerhard did both. When Copland and Stravinsky joined up, their pieces were narrative.

And there were non-serial/non-narrative composers as well. Varese and Cage most consistently. But both Krenek and Sibelius had moments of non-narrative, sometimes even entire pieces. As did Petrassi and Maderna as well.

Oddly enough, when electroacoustic music started, many of its products were also narrative. The possibilities were there for non-narrative musics--it would seem to be a characteristic of tape music to be non-narrative. Like Cage's _Fontana Mix,_ for instance. But there was plenty of narrative stuff. I would even count _Poeme electronique_ and Stockhausen's _Gesang der Juenglinge._ Xenakis' _Orient-Occident_ is. _Bohor_ is not.

Anyway, that distinction seems more basic, more fundamental than the tonal/non-tonal distinction. But the latter got into both the popular imagination and into the academy. And hence, that's the distinction that has come to seem the fundamental one. But as time goes by, and more people listen to music, the more people will sense the kinship of Schoenberg, say, with the nineteenth century. Because that kinship is easier and easier to hear as time passes.

I'm not saying, just by the way, that narrative/non-narrative is the most fundamental distinction of the twentieth century. Just that it's more basic than the tonal/non-tonal one. That is, its products are more distinct from each other.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

some guy said:


> But million, angularity is not a characteristic of serialism. It's more a result of wanting something other than smooth lines.


Granted, that depends on the structure of the row; but much serial music, esp. the Schoenberg work mentioned, has very angular, leaping "themes."



> And there's plenty of angularity in tonal music. Leaping, angular, dissonant. You could be describing something in a Beethoven piano sonata or in a Berlioz symphony.


No; most tonal music has scale-like melodic contours, because it's based on scales, which are by nature stepwise. A serial row is, more often than not, less stepwise, if only for the fact that it must contain all twelve notes; tonal, diatonic scales only have 7 notes.

Additionally, serial music does not need to resolve dissonances; all sounds are equal. Therefore, the smooth voice-leading of tonality is no longer needed.



> There is no such thing as a "normal" melodic contour.


 I disagree; common practice of tonality uses certain guidelines which create melodies with "peaks" which are generally speech-like.



> And many melodies in tonal music have been heard, especially early in a piece's existence, as incredibly ugly, and as not even melodies...whatever new piece is assaulting their ears--a symphony by Beethoven, a scherzo by Chopin, an opera by Bizet...is devoid of melody or musical sense.


I didn't say "devoid of melody or musical sense;" I said "ugly" by comparison to normal, earlier tonal standards.


----------



## Guest (Jan 16, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> No; most tonal music has scale-like melodic contours, because it's based on scales, which are by nature stepwise. A serial row is, more often than not, less stepwise, if only for the fact that it must contain all twelve notes; tonal, diatonic scales only have 7 notes.


My comments were based on listening to pieces of music. And quite a lot of tonal music (I won't insist on most--why would I?) has angular lines. And, just by the way, 12 notes per octave sounds, on the face of it, to be much smoother, more "stepwise" than 7 notes per octave.

I think the sources of angularity or smoothness come from somewhere else than the particular system a composer uses.



millionrainbows said:


> ...common practice of tonality uses certain guidelines which create melodies with "peaks" which are generally speech-like.


Again. This does not correspond with any of the actual listening I have done to actual pieces of music. Nor does it correspond with any theory or any criticisms I have read of the music I just finished listening to.



millionrainbows said:


> I didn't say "devoid of melody or musical sense;" I said "ugly" by comparison to normal, earlier tonal standards.


I was not attributing "devoid of melody or musical sense" to you.

And "'ugly' by comparison to normal... standards" sounds much much worse to me than "devoid of melody or musical sense."

Be fair, neither are very good. Both use loaded terms. Both use non-descriptive terms as if they were descriptive. But the second seems much more egregious to me. But I know that you very much want "ugly" to be descriptive. Linguistically, it's just not that kind of word. But "oh well." And "normal." Normal? Really? I have seen that word many times. I have heard it on many people's lips. I've never seen anything it purportedly points to, however. A defect of vision on my part, perhaps.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

What is tonality? 
Schoenberg don't hurt me,
don't hurt me,
no more


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

some guy said:


> I think that the real difference in musics of the early twentieth century is between narrative musics and non-narrative musics. Schoenberg, narrative. Webern, non-narrative. Janacek, narrative. Varese, non-narrative. (Mostly.) The divide between tonal and non-tonal seemed at first to be a great one--and the focus on that has blinded us to other things going on in the last century. Or deafened us, I suppose I should say. While tonal music is almost always going to be narrative, there is nothing about serialism that makes it non-narrative. It is possible to be non-narrative with serial techniques. But serialism is not intrinsically non-narrative in the same way that tonal music is intrinsically narrative. Serialism can be either. Schoenberg, Wellesz, Berg, Skallkotas are all largely narrative. Webern was largely non-narrative. Gerhard did both. When Copland and Stravinsky joined up, their pieces were narrative.
> 
> And there were non-serial/non-narrative composers as well. Varese and Cage most consistently. But both Krenek and Sibelius had moments of non-narrative, sometimes even entire pieces. As did Petrassi and Maderna as well.
> 
> ...


The problem with the narrative/non-narrative thesis is that it is extra-musical, and could not result from formal analysis. Tonality, and serialism, are both systems which involve the use of the musical materials themselves.

For example, the case could be made that all modern music has an underlying paradigm, or meta-narrative; that of of a scientific, relativistic vision of the universe which excludes a centralized deity. (See my blog *Running From the Devil*)

Even Cage's Fontana Mix - as much as we'd like to think it excludes his personality - has very characteristic elements which identify it as "Cage-ian" through and through: humor (laughing), Zen (dogs barking, chanting, natural elements like water), excerpts of "classics," etc. Remember that in constructing the piece, several "categories" of sounds were collected: machine sounds, human voices, natural sounds, musical sounds; and these categories, as well as Cage's choices for their fulfillment, could easily be considered as idiosyncratic, and indicative of his Eastern outlook. I'm sure that* my *realization of the piece would be quite different.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Aramis said:


> What is tonality?
> Schoenberg don't hurt me,
> don't hurt me,
> no more


Pick up thy bamboo flute and play; there ye shall find tonality.


----------



## Guest (Jan 16, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> I'm sure that* my *realization of the piece would be quite different.


Not sure, but I think you just undercut your own thesis.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

some guy said:


> Not sure, but I think you just undercut your own thesis.


My point negates your thesis that there is "non-narrative" music. All music is narrative, in that it tells us about the artist.


----------

