# Analogies for Tonality and Atonality



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

This is NOT meant to be an opportunity to debate the merits of atonality. Simply a means of more fully understanding what tonality IS and what it means to have atonality. :tiphat:

*The Balloon and the Popped Balloon*
When I first learned about atonality, I was taught, probably like many of you, that through the romantic era, music become more and more saturated with chromaticism. Harmonies became more and more complex - we had Wagner's famous Tristan chord, we had the exoticism of Debussy, Richard Strauss was pushing boundaries. It was as if tonality were like a balloon that was being blown up little by little, bigger and bigger, until....

Schoenberg and his school decided to pop the balloon. Why be limited by the boundaries of the walls of the balloon!? Liberate the notes so that essentially no pitches receive greater or lesser weight.

*Gravity*
Since that time, I have thought many times how tonality is really a lot like gravity. If you throw a ball or fire a rifle or watch rain falling in a blizzard -- with all of these activities we have an innate sense of how things will fall to the ground. They will follow physical trajectories that we have all witnessed throughout our entire lives.

As humans have explored the space directly above our earth, they naturally, and first-hand, have experienced what it is like to still have gravity, but to have it be weakened. Astronaughts on the moon are able to take steps that move them several meters rather than the usual 30cm. They are still experiencing gravity though in it's weakened state.

Atonality is like the absence of gravity. Things can still move with a certain amount of logic and one can still see and predict where those projectiles are going, but there is no gravity to eventually bring the projectiles back to ground zero. Lasers can shoot and bounce of walls with no sense of falling.

*What other analogies do you have? What does it mean to experience tonality vs atonality?*


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Tonal forces are the good, the Alliance. Atonal is the Dark Side.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Tonal is like paintings that depict scenes or persons, eminently recognizable.
Atonal is like abstract paintings.

I would not be surprised if people who can't stand atonal also can't stand abstract paintings.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

To me, many tonal works seem like novels with a clear-cut narrative. At any given moment, you have some idea of what the protagonists are feeling and what obstacles they are encountering. There's usually a strong sense of form, where you know whether you're in the beginning, middle or end of the work.

Many atonal works, on the other hand, seem like stream-of-consciousness or surrealist works of literature (by authors such as Joyce and Beckett, for example). It's hard to predict what's coming next, because the work doesn't seem to follow any conventional patterns. So far, I have not been able to derive as much emotional or intellectual satisfaction from atonal music as I do from tonal music, but there are aspects of atonality that I enjoy. It is interesting to hear how other musical features, such as timbre, often become more prominent in the absence of tonal harmony.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Wow, this is a hard one. I've noticed when I listen to a lot of atonal (and thank goodness we can use that word now without incident) -- when I listen to a lot of atonal it starts sounding more tonal ? I know that doesn't make a lot of sense, but it's somewhat true. Or maybe more normal is the correct term.

So an analogy for both tonal and atonal might be the Haptic effect. If you place one hand in warm water and the other in cold water and hold them for a while, then immerse both in the same room temperature water, the hand previously warm feels cold and vice versa. So tonal and atonal may be like warm and cold. I'll leave you to decide which is which.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

Weston said:


> Wow, this is a hard one. I've noticed when I listen to a lot of atonal (and thank goodness we can use that word now without incident) -- when I listen to a lot of atonal it starts sounding more tonal ? I know that doesn't make a lot of sense, but it's somewhat true. Or maybe more normal is the correct term.
> 
> So an analogy for both tonal and atonal might be the Haptic effect. If you place one hand in warm water and the other in cold water and hold them for a while, then immerse both in the same room temperature water, the hand previously warm feels cold and vice versa. So tonal and atonal may be like warm and cold. I'll leave you to decide which is which.


Brilliant! Tonalism and Atonalism can arguably be context or exposure specific. This is a lot like when a molecular gastronomist chef gives you a pill to trick your taste buds just before eating an entre. The result is that your mind gets thrown for a loop as what it looks like you are eating tastes like something else. Here is a related link: http://www.molecularrecipes.com/techniques/flavor-tripping-miracle-berry/


----------



## BabyGiraffe (Feb 24, 2017)

Bettina said:


> Many atonal works, on the other hand, seem like stream-of-consciousness


Stream of consciousness is closer to the endless melodies of Wagner and his imitators.
I would say that the atonal is closer to the experimental post-modern novels.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

BabyGiraffe said:


> Stream of consciousness is closer to the endless melodies of Wagner and his imitators.
> I would say that the atonal is closer to the experimental post-modern novels.


Wagner's melodies, although they are quite long, are usually unified through his use of Leitmotives. Therefore, they don't seem like streams of consciousness; there's too much thematic development for that.


----------



## topo morto (Apr 9, 2017)

Tonality : trying to write a novel in French, using French vocabulary.
Atonality: trying to write a novel that is not in French, still using French vocabulary.


----------



## BabyGiraffe (Feb 24, 2017)

Bettina said:


> Wagner's melodies, although they are quite long, are usually unified through his use of Leitmotives. Therefore, they don't seem like streams of consciousness; there's too much thematic development for that.


And there is no development of the ideas or the plot in the stream of consciousness novels or what... I would argue that there are stream of consciousness novels that are way more tightly plotted and structured than a late romantic Wagner work or something by his followers.


----------



## Omicron9 (Oct 13, 2016)

Tonal: Paintings limited to the three primary colors, no blending, and no more than three colors.
Atonal: Use of a full palette is allowed.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Tonal music is like the sound of the birdsong of sparrows, robins and doves in the morning. Atonal music is the sound of a bunch of crows...


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Art Rock said:


> Tonal is like paintings that depict scenes or persons, eminently recognizable.
> Atonal is like abstract paintings.
> 
> I would not be surprised if people who can't stand atonal also can't stand abstract paintings.


I would say that perhaps some people rather than just people. I, myself, love Pollock and Kandinsky. But I tend to favour tonality in my music.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Tonality:Atonality = USA:North Korea.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

*Tonality,* and the age of heroes, equals "God" at first, everything related to God, then in the 19th century, Nietzsche and Wagner "took over" from God, and Man became elevated to Godlike status as the 'great atheist' whose values are self-justifying and self-sustaining. Same result in both cases.

*Atonality* is post World War I and II, and Man (some of them) realized that Man was not the highest power, and was destroying civilization (or at least most of Europe). The hydrogen bomb sealed the deal. So Boulez, Cage, and Stockhausen abandoned the old "Man" paradigm, and began creating music out of systems which were self-generating.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Atonality: John Cage
Tonality: Donald Trump


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

millionrainbows said:


> *Tonality,* and the age of heroes, equals "God" at first, everything related to God, then in the 19th century, Nietzsche and Wagner "took over" from God, and Man became elevated to Godlike status as the 'great atheist' whose values are self-justifying and self-sustaining. Same result in both cases.
> 
> *Atonality* is post World War I and II, and Man (some of them) realized that Man was not the highest power, and was destroying civilization (or at least most of Europe). The hydrogen bomb sealed the deal. So Boulez, Cage, and Stockhausen abandoned the old "Man" paradigm, and began creating music out of systems which were self-generating.


When I saw that you had posted, I wondered: "What will million rainbows come up with? I'll bet it will be intense"
Well, you didn't let me down. A fantastic entry.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> Atonality: John Cage
> Tonality: Donald Trump


Donald Trump: 'I am going to repeal and replace every note of atonal works.'


----------



## topo morto (Apr 9, 2017)

DaveM said:


> Tonal music is like the sound of the birdsong of sparrows, robins and doves in the morning. Atonal music is the sound of a bunch of crows...


Oddly, I think that the (wonderful) sound of birdsong is more deserving of the title "atonal music" than man's lesser efforts at making 'atonal' music using tools built for tonality.


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

Tonality: Dodecaphonic music as The Bible:Finnegans Wake (Free atonal music, like Schoenberg's early works and melodic atonal music, like Alban Berg, is the Ulysses inbetween)


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

Tonality:Atonality as Traditional cooking:Molecular gastronomy


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

DaveM said:


> Donald Trump: 'I am going to repeal and replace every note of atonal works.'


When Schoenberg sends his students, he's not sending his best. They're bringing disharmony. they're bringing tone matrices, they're pretentious. And some, I assume, write good tonal music.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Tonality: A lovely walk down one of several familiar tree-lined lanes on a fine Spring day
Atonality: Dental work, without anesthesia (and in some cases, a root canal, also without anesthesia)


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Well I'm certainly glad this thread exists. I now wonder why I find some dental work so fascinating.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BabyGiraffe said:


> And there is no development of the ideas or the plot in the stream of consciousness novels or what... I would argue that there are stream of consciousness novels that are way more tightly plotted and structured than a late romantic Wagner work or something by his followers.


Historically, stream-of-consciousness in the novel was actually inspired by Wagner's use of leitmotiv as a dramatic and unifying device. Woolf and Joyce were both Wagner enthusiasts.

Wagner's works are quite strongly constructed, though not uniformly so. I can't think of any operatic structure tighter than, say, the final act of _Die Walkure_ or _Tristan._ A comparison between opera and novel sounds like a difficult one in any case.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Tonality: Donald Trump


The mind of Trump is about as atonal as it can be and still express itself in a semblance of language. Harmony is alien to him. Tonality is a principle of integrated order and centeredness; his substitute is an obsessive pounding on one pitch that creates an illusion of coherence masking a fundamental chaos. "A-" means "without." His "tonality" is illusory and false. At the center is not a tonic but a black hole.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> The mind of Trump is about as atonal as it can be and still express itself in a semblance of language. Harmony is alien to him. Tonality is a principle of integrated order and centeredness; his substitute is an obsessive pounding on one pitch that creates an illusion of coherence masking a fundamental chaos. "A-" means "without." His "tonality" is illusory and false. At the center is not a tonic but a black hole.


Trump believes in himself, and sees no higher power. He believes in the power of Man. He has faith in the paradigm of Man's greatness, as it stands alone, without God. He is secular Man par excellence. He determines his own fate. He is in the great tradition of Wagner, creating his world by sheer will. Like Nietzsche, what does not kill him will make him stronger.

John Cage, on the other hand, does not embarrass us with histrionics and bravado. He leaves a place cleaner after he has left it. He is considerate and inclusive.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

It is interesting to me that Trump is apparently so toxic that we just project him onto whatever we don't like, whatever that might be. Maybe that is as close to agreement as we are going to get.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Omicron9 said:


> Tonal: Paintings limited to the three primary colors, no blending, and no more than three colors.
> Atonal: Use of a full palette is allowed.


Almost harsh, but woah! Deep and brilliant.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

mathisdermaler said:


> When Schoenberg sends his students, he's not sending his best. They're bringing disharmony. they're bringing tone matrices, they're pretentious. And some, I assume, write good tonal music.


Good impersonation of the rhythm and vocabulary of Trump talking!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Trump believes in himself, and sees no higher power. He believes in the power of Man. He has faith in the paradigm of Man's greatness, as it stands alone, without God. He is secular Man par excellence. He determines his own fate. He is in the great tradition of Wagner, creating his world by sheer will. Like Nietzsche, what does not kill him will make him stronger.
> 
> John Cage, on the other hand, does not embarrass us with histrionics and bravado. He leaves a place cleaner after he has left it. He is considerate and inclusive.


Your constantly reiterated analogy between art which is hierarchically structured and human arrogance and hubris is superficial and moralistic (wrongly value-burdened). Hierarchical organization is fundamental to consciousness, even the consciousness of an infant and even non-human consciousness. It is also, not coincidentally, a basic principle of order in the universe, of which consciousness is a product and a reflection. Consider: without the hierarchies of perception and conceptual thought, the God which you think tonality defies or ignores would not exist.

Tonality in music has evolved in widely divergent cultures. It derives from and is analogous to, not egotism, but to the basic structures of the perceived universe and of our physical, affective, and conceptual natures. What else could account for its worldwide origin, its powerful hold on humankind's sensibilities, and its persistence in his musics?

(I must also say that your description of Donald Trump as "secular Man par excellence" is a bit jaw-dropping.)


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Omicron9 said:


> Tonal: Paintings limited to the three primary colors, no blending, and no more than three colors.
> Atonal: Use of a full palette is allowed.


No. Tonality allows all colors, but finds an underlying tone as a basis for a harmonious color scheme. If a painting is good, there will be a hierarchy of importance in the colors chosen. As a painter, I have experiential confirmation of this.


----------



## Totenfeier (Mar 11, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> The mind of Trump is about as atonal as it can be and still express itself in a semblance of language. Harmony is alien to him. Tonality is a principle of integrated order and centeredness; his substitute is an obsessive pounding on one pitch that creates an illusion of coherence masking a fundamental chaos. "A-" means "without." His "tonality" is illusory and false. At the center is not a tonic but a black hole.


Nailed it in one.


----------



## Omicron9 (Oct 13, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> No. Tonality allows all colors, but finds an underlying tone as a basis for a harmonious color scheme. If a painting is good, there will be a hierarchy of importance in the colors chosen. As a painter, I have experiential confirmation of this.


Respectfully sorry Woodduck; it's my analogy, and I'm sticking with it. Key word here: analogy.

Thanks,
-09


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Your constantly reiterated analogy between art which is hierarchically structured and human arrogance and hubris is superficial and moralistic (wrongly value-burdened).


These kinds of hierarchical schemes seem to work better when the top of the hierarchy is presumed to be God. Human arrogance steps in when God is replaced by Man. Still, both are a projection of Man's ego. It is not "moralistic" to transcend the ego. What is "immoral" is when the ego takes precedence from being, and destroys the balance and natural order.



Woodduck said:


> Hierarchical organization is fundamental to consciousness, even the consciousness of an infant and even non-human consciousness.


You are confusing 'ego' with 'being.' Being has no hierarchy; ego does. I've never heard of babies starting wars, or animals destroying the world.



Woodduck said:


> It is also...a basic principle of order in the universe, of which consciousness is a product and a reflection.


No, consciousness is not being unless it is pure being. "Ego" is artificial, designed for predator survival. Only if ego serves being will the balance be healthy. Otherwise, we have World Wars and hydrogen bombs.



Woodduck said:


> Consider: without the hierarchies of perception and conceptual thought, the God which you think tonality defies or ignores would not exist.


It "defies or ignores" according to that paradigm, not mine. You have the "ignore" paradigm ingrained in your Humanism. Perception is perception, thought is thought, and being is being. Being is beyond both thought & sense perception.



Woodduck said:


> Tonality in music has evolved in widely divergent cultures. It derives from and is analogous to, not egotism, but to the basic structures of the perceived universe and of our physical, affective, and conceptual natures.


But you think the "basic structures of the perceived universe and of our physical, affective, and conceptual natures" is analogous to "ego," not being. Yes, tonality is universal, but the Western paradigm, culminating with Wagner, perverted it.



Woodduck said:


> What else could account for its worldwide origin, its powerful hold on humankind's sensibilities, and its persistence in his musics?


That's correct, it came from being. It got "reassigned" to ego later on.



Woodduck said:


> (I must also say that your description of Donald Trump as "secular Man par excellence" is a bit jaw-dropping.)


That's what you admire the most, and he is a reflection of the same thing.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Tonality: Sound has meaning which is structured along preconceived, agreed-upon conventions. The hierarchy of sound reflects harmonic phenomena of which our being is also a model, but got re-assigned to serve the ego-paradigm projection of the God-hierarchy, later replaced by Humanism. In the meantime, being got buried under all that stuff.

Atonality: Sound has meaning according to geometric and arithmetical principles of symmetry and cycles of projection. It serves no hierarchy, but is free to be what it is, if people would let go of their hierarchy-ego-paradigms and accept music for what it is: the sound itself, with no baggage.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> No. Tonality allows all colors, but finds an underlying tone as a basis for a harmonious color scheme. If a painting is good, there will be a hierarchy of importance in the colors chosen.


The underlying tone found is a bias of the ego, which is self-serving and self-referential. What we are left with is an image of the ego. If a painting is "good" it reflects the existing power hierarchy correctly, and serves that.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> Atonality: Sound has meaning according to geometric and arithmetical principles of symmetry and cycles of projection. It serves no hierarchy, but is free to be what it is, if people would let go of their hierarchy-ego-paradigms and accept music for what it is: the sound itself, with no baggage.


Man am I getting tired of hearing the premise that a dislike for atonal music is some sort of limitation that I need to work on. That music is sound itself with no baggage is a gross oversimplification. The sounds of a jackhammer and nails on a blackboard have a certain geometry and arithmetic symmetry.

My demand for music that has accessible melody and melodic development is not part of a hierarchy-ego-paradigm, it is something that was demanded by audiences for hundreds of years. I can't imagine an atonal love theme that lives up to its name.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> These kinds of hierarchical schemes seem to work better when the top of the hierarchy is presumed to be God. Human arrogance steps in when God is replaced by Man. Still, both are a projection of Man's ego. It is not "moralistic" to transcend the ego. What is "immoral" is when the ego takes precedence from being, and destroys the balance and natural order.
> 
> You are confusing 'ego' with 'being.' Being has no hierarchy; ego does. I've never heard of babies starting wars, or animals destroying the world.
> 
> ...


Apparently you understand nothing of what I'm saying. Your responses either distort or completely fail to address the statements they're presuming to respond to.

The hierarchical principle, basic in nature and consciousness, is not a "projection of man's ego." Your statement "I've never heard of babies starting wars, or animals destroying the world" is irrelevant and hilarious. "Consciousness is not being unless it is pure being" is pseudo-metaphysical hooey (do you keep Heidegger in the bathroom?). "'Ego' is artificial, designed for predator survival" is pseudo-biology. "Tonality is universal, but the Western paradigm, culminating with Wagner, perverted it" is pseudo-aesthetics. "[Tonality] came from being. It got 'reassigned' to ego later on" is pseudo...whatever (there aren't enough pseudos to cover this stuff).

I'll do you a favor and not tell you where you can put your remark about Donald Trump being a reflection of what I admire most. You'd have no business telling me what I admire most even if you were capable of knowing it, which you clearly are not.

Tonality, being the most fully integrative device of musical structuring known (and maybe even possible), allows the representation and expression of a lot of things. Your Johnny-one-note attempt to reduce it to a mere symbol of ego - not even ego, really, but egotism - and use this shrunken view of it to promulgate some pseudo-Buddhist dream of human consciousness as existing only in and for the infinitesimal moment, fails to see the implications of tonality's roots in reality: in human consciousness and the functional patterns of perception and thought, in the structures and functions of the human body, in the dynamics of motion, in basic patterns of order in physical reality. Tonality relates to all these dimensions: the cosmos is shot through with hierarchy, and the mind, reflecting the outer world, is as well. Your obsession with "ego-transcendence" overlooks, distorts, and even demonizes all of this.

It seems very odd that someone sufficiently scientific to insist on the importance of harmony's roots in acoustics, should be so indifferent to the sciences - neurology, psychology, epistemology, physics, anthropology - where an understanding of tonality is concerned. But then, when people glom on to religious solutions to their existential dilemmas, reality does tend to be expendable, if not consigned to the very devil.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DaveM said:


> Man am I getting tired of hearing the premise that a dislike for atonal music is some sort of limitation that I need to work on.


You're just a hopeless egotist, DaveM. Tonality is a perversion of nature! But don't worry: Dr. Cage and his nurse practitioner Rainbow have the magic pill that will free you from your all-too-human self-awareness and rationality and allow you to groove mindlessly on the eternal moment. Take it with a glass of pure spring water and 4'33" later you'll experience pure Being-In-Itself, just like a paramecium or a rock. Sound good?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> You're just a hopeless egotist, DaveM. Tonality is a perversion of nature! But don't worry: Dr. Cage and his nurse practitioner Rainbow have the magic pill that will free you from your all-too-human self-awareness and rationality and allow you to groove mindlessly on the eternal moment. Take it with a glass of pure spring water and 4'33" later you'll experience pure Being-In-Itself, just like a paramecium or a rock. Sound good?


Guilty as charged. Magic pill taken as directed. Choking on it as we speak.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> The underlying tone found is a bias of the ego, which is self-serving and self-referential. What we are left with is an image of the ego. If a painting is "good" it reflects the existing power hierarchy correctly, and serves that.


Post deleted... (There are no permissible words for stuff like this.)


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

Tonality is like poetry with strict rhym and meter. Atonality is like freeverse.


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

Atonality clearly ruffles some feathers. I guess that shows it has some impact and relevance, whether it's deemed "good" or not.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Omicron9 said:


> Tonal: Paintings limited to the three primary colors, no blending, and no more than three colors.
> Atonal: Use of a full palette is allowed.


I definitely disagree with this.
Tonality, modality, extended harmonies and all kinds of chromaticism allow a huge variety of colors and shades, because the tensions are always different. But strict atonality is much more "black and white" exactly because those "gravity" and "change of gravity" (due to modulations) effects don't exist anymore.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Omicron9 said:


> Tonal: Paintings limited to the three primary colors, no blending, and no more than three colors.
> Atonal: Use of a full palette is allowed.


I definitely disagree with this.
Tonality, modality and all kinds of chromaticism allow a huge variety of colors, because the tensions are always different. But strict atonality is much more "black and white" exactly because those "gravity" and "change of gravity" effects don't exist anymore.
The "three primary colors" could be a good analogy in my opinion for a lot of simple pop/rock/country music, with few chords and without sophisticated extended harmonies involved.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

DaveM said:


> Man am I getting tired of hearing the premise that a dislike for atonal music is some sort of limitation that I need to work on. That music is sound itself with no baggage is a gross oversimplification. The sounds of a jackhammer and nails on a blackboard have a certain geometry and arithmetic symmetry.
> 
> My demand for music that has accessible melody and melodic development is not part of a hierarchy-ego-paradigm, it is something that was demanded by audiences for hundreds of years. I can't imagine an atonal love theme that lives up to its name.


You just wait until I finish my Sonata for Blackboard and Jackhammer. Then I will turn to my Love Duet for Shrieking Harp and Violin Prepared with Firecrackers.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

norman bates said:


> I definitely disagree with this.
> *Tonality, modality and all kinds of chromaticism allow a huge variety of colors, because the tensions are always different. But strict atonality is much more "black and white"* exactly because those "gravity" and "change of gravity" effects don't exist anymore.
> The "three primary colors" could be a good analogy in my opinion for a lot of simple pop/rock/country music, with few chords and without sophisticated extended harmonies involved.


Yes. I forget who it was who said that Schoenbergian atonal music tends to sound "gray," in that the need to keep the entire chromatic scale in play in order to avoid consonances which might suggest tonality results in an insistent sameness in the harmony. Black and white in any mixture do of course produce gray.

As for your analogy between pop/rock/country and primary colors, I was thinking of posting that very idea.

I like the way you think. :tiphat:


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Yes. I forget who it was who said that Schoenbergian atonal music tends to sound "gray," in that the need to keep the entire chromatic scale in play in order to avoid consonances which might suggest tonality results in an insistent sameness in the harmony. Black and white in any mixture do of course produce gray.
> 
> As for your analogy between pop/rock/country and primary colors, I was thinking of posting that very idea.
> 
> I like the way you think. :tiphat:


Whoever said that obviously didn't listen to the Five Pieces for Orchestra. Schoenberg lacking in color is one of the oddest accusations I've yet seen thrown at him.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

JAS said:


> You just wait until I finish my Sonata for Blackboard and Jackhammer. Then I will turn to my Love Duet for Shrieking Harp and Violin Prepared with Firecrackers.


Love is lurking in unexpected places. :kiss:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Chronochromie said:


> Whoever said that obviously didn't listen to the Five Pieces for Orchestra. Schoenberg lacking in color is one of the oddest accusations I've yet seen thrown at him.


His orchestral palette is extremely varied.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Chronochromie said:


> Whoever said that obviously didn't listen to the Five Pieces for Orchestra. Schoenberg lacking in color is one of the oddest accusations I've yet seen thrown at him.


it must be said that (besides the fact that the "colors" due to the orchestration and the colors due to the pitch are different things) free atonality it's still different and less extreme than serialism, so in a sense there's still a link with tonality. Probably we still perceive tonal centers here and there.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Love is lurking in unexpected places. :kiss:


Perhaps I will give it a more appealing subtitle, like "amore doloroso." I do _not_ recommend using a Stradivarius for this piece.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Fine. Then take the 3rd string quartet, the Serenade, the string trio, heck, take the piano Suite, none of those feel "grey" to me.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

apricissimus said:


> Tonality is like poetry with strict rhym and meter. Atonality is like freeverse.


This seems right to me.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Chronochromie said:


> Fine. Then take the 3rd string quartet, the Serenade, the string trio, heck, take the piano Suite, none of those feel "grey" to me.


The serenade (is the only one I remember quite well right now) and onestly I disagree with you.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

Art Rock said:


> *Tonal is like paintings that depict scenes or persons, eminently recognizable.
> Atonal is like abstract paintings.*
> 
> I would not be surprised if people who can't stand atonal also can't stand abstract paintings.


I think that's a poor metaphor to describe tonal music because tonal music is also totally abstract, unless you're emulating a bird or a train or something. Tonal music isn't a representation of the world around us (like a traditional painting), it's an abstract art form capable of evoking an array of feelings that somehow remind us of other feelings and also evoking feelings that even have nothing to do with any other feelings.

For me tonal music is as abstract (or even more so) as the most abstract painting but far more sophisticated, complex and far more in tune with the human mind.

And atonal music well.....is abstract too of course. But I would say (despite all the technical discussions in other threads about the difference between tonal and atonal) the big difference is that tonal music is cultural and atonal music is not cultural.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Razumovskymas said:


> the big difference is that tonal music is cultural and atonal music is not cultural.


not cultural meaning that you don't like it I guess.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

norman bates said:


> not cultural meaning that you don't like it I guess.


Not cultural meaning atonality freed itself from centuries of musical evolution and tried to start from scratch. Although now I think about it not completely because it uses equal temperament, which is a cultural "product".

But in any case I'm not looking at "cultural" as something more valuable then "not cultural"

I try to keep my personal preference out of these important discussions :lol:

As for atonal music my personal view on that hasn't gotten any further then "refreshing" (until now)


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

DaveM said:


> Man am I getting tired of hearing the premise that a dislike for atonal music is some sort of limitation that I need to work on.


Well, your 'dislike' has certain conditions which go along with it. The main one is a refusal to engage. This refusal is, I believe, a limitation you have put on yourself.



DaveM said:


> That music is sound itself with no baggage is a gross oversimplification.


I don't think so; what else is music but sound?



DaveM said:


> The sounds of a jackhammer and nails on a blackboard have a certain geometry and arithmetic symmetry.


I think the problem is your idea of what music is supposed to be, and if it does not meet those criteria, you reject it. That's your prerogative.



DaveM said:


> My demand for music that has accessible melody and melodic development is not part of a hierarchy-ego-paradigm, it is something that was demanded by audiences for hundreds of years.


That's because that paradigm has existed for hundreds of years.



DaveM said:


> I can't imagine an atonal love theme that lives up to its name.


Modern music is not Tchaikovsky, so quit expecting it to be.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Apparently you understand nothing of what I'm saying. Your responses either distort or completely fail to address the statements they're presuming to respond to.


That's because you are presuming from an entirely different paradigm, which you assume to include my paradigm as well, but they are completely different. I'm not distorting, but simply pointing out these differences. I have addressed all of your statements, point by point.



Woodduck said:


> The hierarchical principle, basic in nature and consciousness, is not a "projection of man's ego."


I think that it is.



Woodduck said:


> Your statement "I've never heard of babies starting wars, or animals destroying the world" is irrelevant and hilarious.


I think that your inclusion of babies and animals as "having egos like Man" is equally ludicrous.



Woodduck said:


> "Consciousness is not being unless it is pure being" is pseudo-metaphysical hooey (do you keep Heidegger in the bathroom?).


Careful of ad hominems!



Woodduck said:


> "'Ego' is artificial, designed for predator survival" is pseudo-biology.


No it isn't.



Woodduck said:


> "Tonality is universal, but the Western paradigm, culminating with Wagner, perverted it" is pseudo-aesthetics.


You yourself tout Wagner as the apotheosis of tonality, so it follows that he is the apotheosis of that paradigm, which is a distortion of the natural order.



Woodduck said:


> "[Tonality] came from being. It got 'reassigned' to ego later on" is pseudo...whatever (there aren't enough pseudos to cover this stuff).


Being came first; ego and thought followed, and should rightly be at the service of being. If not, we get chaos and unbalance.



Woodduck said:


> I'll do you a favor and not tell you where you can put your remark about Donald Trump being a reflection of what I admire most.


You have touted Humanism, with Man at the center, and Donald Trump represents that paradigm, however imperfect he may be. Again, careful of ad hominem remarks, or I will report.



Woodduck said:


> You'd have no business telling me what I admire most even if you were capable of knowing it, which you clearly are not.


I merely pointed out that you are a Humanist, and that Donald Trump represents the kinds of mistakes that can result when Man is given too much power.



Woodduck said:


> Tonality, being the most fully integrative device of musical structuring known (and maybe even possible), allows the representation and expression of a lot of things. Your Johnny-one-note attempt to reduce it to a mere symbol of ego - not even ego, really, but egotism - and use this shrunken view of it to promulgate some pseudo-Buddhist dream of human consciousness as existing only in and for the infinitesimal moment, fails to see the implications of tonality's roots in reality: in human consciousness and the functional patterns of perception and thought, in the structures and functions of the human body, in the dynamics of motion, in basic patterns of order in physical reality.


I think you have confused "being" with "ego." Yes, tonality can, and in many cases, does reflect these basics, but the paradigm which peaked in the nineteenth century distorted it.



Woodduck said:


> Tonality relates to all these dimensions: the cosmos is shot through with hierarchy, and the mind, reflecting the outer world, is as well. Your obsession with "ego-transcendence" overlooks, distorts, and even demonizes all of this.


I merely reject it; I have no need to 'demonize' it.



Woodduck said:


> It seems very odd that someone sufficiently scientific to insist on the importance of harmony's roots in acoustics, should be so indifferent to the sciences - neurology, psychology, epistemology, physics, anthropology - where an understanding of tonality is concerned.


The flaw is in the paradigm, which is not scientific, but a delusion.



Woodduck said:


> But then, when people glom on to religious solutions to their existential dilemmas, reality does tend to be expendable, if not consigned to the very devil.


In my view, _you_ are the one stuck in a religious paradigm with the inversion of it into a humanistic Man-centered view of reality. That's part of _your_ dialectic, not mine.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> You're just a hopeless egotist, DaveM. Tonality is a perversion of nature! But don't worry: Dr. Cage and his nurse practitioner Rainbow have the magic pill that will free you from your all-too-human self-awareness and rationality and allow you to groove mindlessly on the eternal moment.


Careful of ad hominems!



Woodduck said:


> Take it with a glass of pure spring water and 4'33" later you'll experience pure Being-In-Itself, just like a paramecium or a rock. Sound good?


Help! I'm a rock!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

DaveM said:


> Guilty as charged. Magic pill taken as directed. Choking on it as we speak.


Be careful what you drink, but more, who you drink it with!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Post deleted... (There are no permissible words for stuff like this.)


Be careful of_ implied_ ad hominems!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

norman bates said:


> I definitely disagree with this.
> Tonality, modality, extended harmonies and all kinds of chromaticism allow a huge variety of colors and shades, because the tensions are always different. But strict atonality is much more "black and white" exactly because those "gravity" and "change of gravity" (due to modulations) effects don't exist anymore.


I think all harmonic structures in music have color. The atonal colors are more strange and exotic, unfamiliar, and perhaps unnameable.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

JAS said:


> You just wait until I finish my Sonata for Blackboard and Jackhammer. Then I will turn to my Love Duet for Shrieking Harp and Violin Prepared with Firecrackers.


Will that be after you've listened to Brahms "Academic Festival Overture," some Elgar, then maybe some Tchaikovsky? How about some Mozart flute concertos, played with a wooden flute? :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Yes. I forget who it was who said that Schoenbergian atonal music tends to sound "gray," in that the need to keep the entire chromatic scale in play in order to avoid consonances which might suggest tonality results in an insistent sameness in the harmony. Black and white in any mixture do of course produce gray.
> 
> As for your analogy between pop/rock/country and primary colors, I was thinking of posting that very idea.


I think that when serialism is linear, as in some Webern, it can tend to sound stark ("black and white"), because of the paucity of harmony.

But if you are going to use chromaticism as the basis of 'non-color,' then Wagner is very guilty.

Yes, the more notes used, the less contrast and more redundancy on a linear note-by-note basis, resulting in less tonality, but this is offset by vertical factors.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Love is lurking in unexpected places. :kiss:


So music is supposed to manifest old-fashioned traditional Romantic values? How sweet!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

JAS said:


> Perhaps I will give it a more appealing subtitle, like "amore doloroso." I do _not_ recommend using a Stradivarius for this piece.


How about calling it "The Perils of Pauline," and you could put a bunch of diminished chords in there. Use a Theremin.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

norman bates said:


> The serenade (is the only one I remember quite well right now) and onestly I disagree with you.


Well, the Serenade is based on Baroque forms and is very linear. I still don't think it sounds colorless.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> I think all harmonic structures in music have color. The atonal colors are more strange and exotic, unfamiliar, and perhaps unnameable.


Clearly using analogies like that it's difficult to say something extremely precise. But I think that atonality (and especially serialism) has definite limitations in expressions of moods. That doesn't mean that there isn't atonal music that I love, but I see atonality like a little subset of the possibilities of what it's possible to do with notes, more than the half of a supposed tonal/atonal dichotomy.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Razumovskymas said:


> I think that's a poor metaphor to describe tonal music because tonal music is also totally abstract, unless you're emulating a bird or a train or something. Tonal music isn't a representation of the world around us (like a traditional painting), it's an abstract art form capable of evoking an array of feelings that somehow remind us of other feelings and also evoking feelings that even have nothing to do with any other feelings.
> 
> For me tonal music is as abstract (or even more so) as the most abstract painting but far more sophisticated, complex and far more in tune with the human mind.
> 
> And atonal music well.....is abstract too of course. But I would say (despite all the technical discussions in other threads about the difference between tonal and atonal) the big difference is that tonal music is cultural and atonal music is not cultural.


Yeah, but to make the metaphor work, you have to equate "representational" art with what is "recognizable" to us. Tonal music has conventions which are "recognizable" because we have heard them before, and associate them with certain emotions or states of being. In this way, the metaphor is perfectly acceptable.

Your comment at the end about "cultural" is helpful. These accepted conventions are culturally ingrained, like Tchaikovsky's Romanticism.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

norman bates said:


> Clearly using analogies like that it's difficult to say something extremely precise. But I think that atonality (and especially serialism) has definite limitations in expressions of moods. That doesn't mean that there isn't atonal music that I love, but I see atonality like a little subset of the possibilities of what it's possible to do with notes, more than the half of a supposed tonal/atonal dichotomy.


Schoenberg's "Five Pieces" evoke all sorts of moods, emotions, and states of being in me. Tchaikovsky does, too, but he seems simpler.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Will that be after you've listened to Brahms "Academic Festival Overture," some Elgar, then maybe some Tchaikovsky? How about some Mozart flute concertos, played with a wooden flute? :lol:


No, no, no. I wouldn't want anything that might accidentally inspire something as pedestrian as a melody in my great modern work. I am an _artist_ and like all _great geniuses_, I am my own center, around which my universe of ideas flows at my command. I am not bound by taste, tradition, rules or convention (although I would like to be paid). I might call it "new complexity," but I understand that it has already been used, besides which it is a mere label, and labels are for pedants. (Wait a minute. Is pedant a label? If it is, can I use it and still claim absolute freedom from rules, even a rule of my own making? Hmmmm. This artistic genius stuff is harder than it looks.)


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> Yeah, but to make the metaphor work, you have to equate "representational" art with what is "recognizable" to us. Tonal music has conventions which are *"recognizable"* because we have heard them before, and associate them with certain emotions or states of being. In this way, the metaphor is perfectly acceptable.
> 
> Your comment at the end about "cultural" is helpful. These accepted conventions are culturally *ingrained*, like Tchaikovsky's Romanticism.


Yeah, but it's not just about "recognizable" and "ingrained" when it comes to tonal music (I love the enthusiasm of promotors of atonal music but the way they sometimes oversimplify tonal music is a bit of-putting) . It's about every generation (or every composer) giving new meaning to "recognizable" and "ingrained" elements. Certain "gestures" (to use one of your expressions) getting new meaning with every new kind of use. Irony, humor, parafrase, effect, innuendo..... a so called recognizable motive (from big themes to small motives and cells to microrhythmic elements) these days has dozens of layers of meaning and carries an enormous potential of different interpretations. These interpretations all strongly connected and rooted in centuries of evolution. I know, to compose interesting tonal music these days is probably a bit scary, intimidating and demands a lot of courage, but many did (after Schoenberg)

In my eyes it is as valid to blame someone who rejects tonal music of refusal to engage and limiting himself as it would for someone who rejects atonal music.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

JAS said:


> No, no, no. I wouldn't want anything that might accidentally inspire something as pedestrian as a melody in my great modern work. I am an artist and like all great geniuses, I am my own center, around which my universe of ideas flows at my command. I am not bound by taste, tradition, rules or convention. I might call it "new complexity," but I understand that it has already been used, besides which it is a mere label, and labels are for pedants. (Wait a minute. Is pedant a label? If it is, can I use it and still claim absolute freedom from rules, even a rule of my own making? Hmmmm. This artistic genius stuff is harder than it looks.)


Melodies are in fact acceptable in contemporary Classical, but only if they remain unrecognized as melodies by JAS.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Chronochromie said:


> Melodies are in fact acceptable in contemporary Classical, but only if they remain unrecognized as melodies by JAS.


That will work for me . . .


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

I see tonality as a bottle of Balvenie Doublewood, whereas atonality is a Talisker.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

Blancrocher said:


> I see tonality as a bottle of Balvenie Doublewood, whereas atonality is a Talisker.


Do me a Tyrconnel for tonality!

Atonality is more like Vodka, a strong kick but little nose, palette and aftertaste :lol:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> ...you are presuming from an entirely different paradigm, which you assume to include my paradigm as well, but they are completely different. I'm not distorting, but simply pointing out these differences.
> 
> You yourself tout Wagner as the apotheosis of tonality, so it follows that he is the apotheosis of that paradigm, which is a distortion of the natural order.
> 
> ...


I prefer to look at tonality empirically, as a many-faceted phenomenonon arising from man's biological situation, and to try to point to its sources in basic aspects of nature and human perception as key to its meaning. You want to begin with an esoteric religious doctrine and squeeze tonality into a simplistic, dichotomous "paradigm" opposing "ego" and "being" - an approach that lands you in such absurdities as identifying atonal music's lack of a harmonic syntax with advanced "spirituality" or some such thing (I remember a thread in which you talked about Webern approaching "god" through atonality, which frankly had me rolling my eyes). You're obviously entitled to imagine music to be "about" anything that occurs to you, but don't imagine for a minute that you have some special divinatory power to say what it should mean to others, or that your personal biases make your theories of musical meaning somehow more correct or superior to those of other listeners.

You may not think so - I say this because you keep harping (inappropriately) on my " atheistic humanism" - but I am not only theoretically but experientially acquainted with the sort of quasi-Buddhist ideology you go on and on about. In fact I respect, and have benefited personally from, the truths it contains. But as for viewing the specific phenomena of tonality and atonality in relation to it, I find it at best only peripherally, and in certain instances, applicable, and very, very far from explanatory of the varieties of musical expression rooted in those structural principles. That's why I call your theorizing "Johnny-one-note": like every religious "paradigm" (I'm starting to hate that word, thanks to you), it seizes on a crumb of truth and tries to make it stand for the whole loaf ("No man cometh unto the father but by me." Bleah!).

I suppose that nothing anyone says about the nature of music and their perceptions of it can cause the slightest ripple in the ceaselessly gushing river of your evangelical fervor. Well, preach away. But remember that your preoccupation with "ego" and "being" is really all about you, and your attempt to shoehorn music into such a metaphysical antinomy bespeaks not the universal meaning of music but rather your personal quest. As such it need not concern anyone else. If you can remember that, you might hesitate the next time you're tempted take your "paradigm" and use it as a stick to beat your "atheist humanist" inferiors with.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

^ "Atonal" music doesn't lack a harmonic syntax, only a different syntax.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

eugeneonagain said:


> ^ "Atonal" music doesn't lack a harmonic syntax, only a different syntax.


"Syntax" as in "system" or "set of principles." _A_-tonality is not syntactic. It's premised on the avoidance of a certain kind of syntax.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> "Syntax" as in "system" or "set of principles." _A_-tonality is not syntactic. It's premised on the avoidance of a certain kind of syntax.


Please don't do that. You spent a lot of words in that above post accusing millionrainbows of taking a superior position.

I know perfectly well what syntax means. All atonal music is not random music, it also has underlying structural principles. It is not 'premised' on the avoidance of syntax.

If you are going to debate this (with anybody) I suggest you take the advice you gave me regarding Wagner and not take the position that your own aesthetic sensibilities represent factual truth.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

eugeneonagain said:


> Please don't do that. You spent a lot of words in that above post accusing millionrainbows of taking a superior position.
> 
> I know perfectly well what syntax means. All atonal music is not random music, it also has underlying structural principles. It is not 'premised' on the avoidance of syntax.
> 
> If you are going to debate this (with anybody) I suggest you take the advice you gave me regarding Wagner and not take the position that your own aesthetic sensibilities represent factual truth.


Don't do what? All I did was explain what I meant by "syntax." And I haven't insulted you, I've merely disagreed with your statement.

I didn't say that all atonal music was random. I said that atonality is not a syntactic principle. The concept does not imply any underlying structural principles - but _atonal music_ may certainly have structural principles not related to tonal organization.

I hope that clarifies things.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Razumovskymas said:


> Do me a Tyrconnel for tonality!
> 
> Atonality is more like Vodka, a strong kick but little nose, palette and aftertaste :lol:


We might need an extra thread for music-liquor analogies.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

It can't be non-random _and_ devoid of syntax (syntactic principles, which means putting in order or adhering to an order). This is goalpost shifting.

It is a common misconception that atonal music does not adhere to structural principles or that it follows whimsical fancies. Schoenberg's music (even though he rejected the term atonal, but that is what it was) is highly structured. 'Atonal' is merely a description of music that doesn't follow traditionally accepted conventions. So much 'atonal' music has shifted into the accepted 'tonal' realm. The early church musicians deplored intervals of a third for harmony on the grounds that it wasn't euphonious. This seems so absurd now.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> I prefer to look at tonality empirically, as a many-faceted phenomenon arising from man's biological situation, and to try to point to its sources in basic aspects of nature and human perception as key to its meaning.


Wisely said. I think we can look upon tonality/atonality and similar dualities as arising from the two irreconcilable natures of man: one, a being of the spirit with a unique apprehension of the universe and a cool, penetrating intelligence that has made him master of his environment; the other, an animal that eats, digests, defecates, couples endlessly and often mindlessly, and is blown hither and yon by garish prejudices and untamed glandular secretions. Our first nature may prefer Bach; the other may prefer Wagner. Or even, _in extremis_, atonal music.

Which is to say, it may well be that both tonality and atonality are needed to maintain the balancing act of being human. It may even be that, if atonality didn't exist, we would have to invent it. (Really, I just wanted to use that last phrase, and all the rest is an excuse!)


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

eugeneonagain said:


> It can't be non-random _and_ devoid of syntax (syntactic principles, which means putting in order or adhering to an order). This is goalpost shifting.
> 
> It is a common misconception that atonal music does not adhere to structural principles or that it follows whimsical fancies. Schoenberg's music (even though he rejected the term atonal, but that is what it was) is highly structured. 'Atonal' is merely a description of music that doesn't follow traditionally accepted conventions. So much 'atonal' music has shifted into the accepted 'tonal' realm. The early church musicians deplored intervals of a third for harmony on the grounds that it wasn't euphonious. This seems so absurd now.


No goalpost-shifting. I agree that atonal music may carelessly be accused of randomness. Atonal music may have order, even very strict forms of order, _but not by virtue of being atonal._ It's order must be of a sort unrelated to tonality; otherwise it wouldn't be a-tonal.

I don't agree that 'atonal' is merely a description of music that doesn't follow traditionally accepted conventions. That's too general. What atonal music doesn't follow is a very particular sort of convention, namely the convention of having a tonal center (or "keynote," in common practice tonality) and a system of relationships among its scale notes in relation to that center and to each other. Tonality is not synonymous with euphony, although in loose, popular usage the term often ends up being no more than that ("I hate that atonal stuff" - meaning any music that sounds dissonant or unpleasant). I'm using the term in its strict sense.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> Well, your 'dislike' has certain conditions which go along with it. The main one is a refusal to engage. This refusal is, I believe, a limitation you have put on yourself.


Absolutely. And every time I listen to many (not all, unless they are atonal then assume 'all') examples of contemporary music that are either recommended or provided as examples of what some members here are listening to (such as in the 21st Century Chain thread), the appropriateness of my refusal to engage is reinforced.



> I don't think so; what else is music but sound?


I thought your definition of the music you are defending was 'music without baggage'. Are you now simplifying the definition even further?



> That's because that paradigm has existed for hundreds of years.


Bingo! 17th century, 18th century, 19th century. All those people over all that time! Somehow, I don't feel like an outlier.



> Modern music is not Tchaikovsky, so quit expecting it to be.


What does Tchaikovsky have to do with anything? Silly me, but my understanding was that a love theme, composed by any composer, was meant to evoke the feeling of that emotion by the average listener. Care to present me with a convincing example of an atonal love theme?


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

DaveM said:


> Absolutely. And every time I listen to many (not all, unless they are atonal then assume 'all') examples of contemporary music that are either recommended or provided as examples of what some members here are listening to (such as in the 21st Century Chain thread), the appropriateness of my refusal to engage is reinforced.
> 
> I thought your definition of the music you are defending was 'music without baggage'. Are you now simplifying the definition even further?
> 
> ...


_Tristan und Isolde_ stretches the boundaries of tonality with its chromatic "love music." Does that count?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Post deleted... (There are no permissible words for stuff like this.)


The word you're looking for is....gobbledegook! Served up fresh and piping hot!


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> I prefer to look at tonality empirically, as a many-faceted phenomenonon arising from man's biological situation, and to try to point to its sources in basic aspects of nature and human perception as key to its meaning. You want to begin with an esoteric religious doctrine and squeeze tonality into a simplistic, dichotomous "paradigm" opposing "ego" and "being" - an approach that lands you in such absurdities as identifying atonal music's lack of a harmonic syntax with advanced "spirituality" or some such thing (I remember a thread in which you talked about Webern approaching "god" through atonality, which frankly had me rolling my eyes). You're obviously entitled to imagine music to be "about" anything that occurs to you, but don't imagine for a minute that you have some special divinatory power to say what it should mean to others, or that your personal biases make your theories of musical meaning somehow more correct or superior to those of other listeners.


Yeah, without mentioning names, I must say that some posts in this thread richly illustrate just how utterly vapid most philosophy is. From the comfort of the armchair, one can demonstrate literally anything using pure logic and reason, with the help of some arbitrarily chosen premises that may or may not have anything at all to do with the observable universe.

I think you are right: we can _observe_ that all human cultures spontaneously invent some form of tonality. Thus, it is by far the most "natural" way of musical thinking, and it explains why the vast bulk of people dislike atonal music.

Now I do not conclude from this that atonality is somehow wrong or bad. A lot of stuff we do nowadays is "unnatural."

I found it interesting to see how different posters here came up with different attempts at analogies between music and the rest of the arts/universe. It illustrates the dangers of analogy, perhaps. 

I'm not sure I can come up with any such analogies that are meaningful. If we have to use painting as analogy, I would think that an "atonal" painting would be a rather garishly colorful one (because instead of basing the picture on some limited color or set of colors, the artist insists that all colors take equal precedence). Note that the word "chromatic" literally means colorful. It is perhaps also noteworthy that atonal music was developing at the same time as fauvist and expressionist painting, but I would be reluctant to try jumping to too many conclusions here. Over the past century, people have been coming up with a whole universe of stiff that never occurred to us before. I don't know what, if anything, we should make of that.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Bettina said:


> _Tristan und Isolde_ stretches the boundaries of tonality with its chromatic "love music." Does that count?


That is some of my favorite music. I've never thought of it as atonal.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

DaveM said:


> That is some of my favorite music. I've never thought of it as atonal.


This has been the subject of many heated debates on TC and it's probably best not to revisit it here in too much detail. I probably shouldn't have (re)opened that can of worms! Anyway, if you're interested, the topic of (a)tonality in _Tristan _was discussed extensively in this thread: http://www.talkclassical.com/47741-tristan-und-isolde-s-3.html. My posts #39 and #49 set forth my opinions on this issue.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Bettina said:


> This has been the subject of many heated debates on TC and it's probably best not to revisit it here in too much detail. I probably shouldn't have (re)opened that can of worms! Anyway, if you're interested, the topic of (a)tonality in _Tristan _was discussed extensively in this thread: http://www.talkclassical.com/47741-tristan-und-isolde-s-3.html. My posts #39 and #49 set forth my opinions on this issue.


Yes, I remember that thread. I think I understand your view. I can relate to the premise that if there is a continuum from tonal music to atonal then Wagner was sometimes on it. But IMO, he never came close to the endpoint of a Schoenberg and the like.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DaveM said:


> Yes, I remember that thread. I think I understand your view. I can relate to the premise that if there is a continuum from tonal music to atonal then Wagner was sometimes on it. But IMO, *he never came close to the endpoint of a Schoenberg and the like.*


I agree. Without wishing to rehash thoroughly that other thread, I need to say that it's fundamentally significant that long before Schoenberg - centuries before - composers were using heavy chromaticism and tonal uncertainty and ambiguity for expressive purposes in the context of works which were to be heard as basically tonal. Such suspensions of "normal" harmonic activity were never considered a basic idiom or principle of harmonic movement; they were special effects, almost always occurring in programmatic works or works with texts expressing extreme states of emotion. This is no less true in Wagner, even in _Tristan,_ which is essentially text-based program music and an immensely prolonged, intensely expressive delay of tonal resolution, representing not an abrogation of tonality but an extreme exploitation of its potential to illustrate a dramatic idea (insatiable longing). Rapidly fluctuating tonal centers and uncertainty of long-range direction are not atonality, neither in fact nor in purpose. Wagner's purpose in _Tristan_ was to reach B major and to put us through hell getting there.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> I agree. Without wishing to rehash thoroughly that other thread, I need to say that it's fundamentally significant that long before Schoenberg - centuries before - composers were using heavy chromaticism and tonal uncertainty and ambiguity for expressive purposes in the context of works which were to be heard as basically tonal. Such suspensions of "normal" harmonic activity were never considered a basic idiom or principle of harmonic movement; they were special effects, almost always occurring in programmatic works or works with texts expressing extreme states of emotion. This is no less true in Wagner, even in _Tristan,_ which is essentially text-based program music and an immensely prolonged, intensely expressive delay of tonal resolution, representing not an abrogation of tonality but an extreme exploitation of its potential to illustrate a dramatic idea (insatiable longing). Rapidly fluctuating tonal centers and uncertainty of long-range direction are not atonality, neither in fact nor in purpose. Wagner's purpose in _Tristan_ was to reach B major and to put us through hell getting there.


As I reported on another forum: I once read an interesting theory about this somewhere, but I can't for the life of me remember where. It went something like this: composers use dissonant passages to create tension, which is then resolved by a return to a consonant passage. But what we experience as dissonance changes over time. There was a time when a major third was considered dissonant, so presumably it was now and then thrown in to create tension.

But as such dissonances become more common, audiences get used to them to the point where they longer feel like dissonances, and composers resort to more extreme ones. In this way, music will inevitably evolve towards atonalism, or at least far more extreme chromaticism than what medieval listeners were used to. But then the process must surely end; you can't really get more atonal than completely atonal.

After that, music may evolve into myriads of different forms and directions, which is exactly what we currently see around us (especially if we think not just of the classical tradition). But one possible way for music to move "forward" is to move back: centuries after medieval music, that kind of music now sounds wonderfully fresh and exotic to a modern ear, and thus one possible thing to do is to "reset" the system and start composing music that has more in common with Machaut than with Schoenberg. Perhaps this is precisely what happened with composers like Pärt.


----------



## Guest (Jun 23, 2017)

*Coherent Language vs. Double Talk*

It takes skill to weave a thread of words that sounds as if it must have meaning but no one can quite grasp. It leaves you wondering if you heard it correctly or missed something important. If you don't know it's double talk it can make you very uneasy. That is how the music of Schoenberg, Berg and Webern sound to me.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Jerome said:


> *Coherent Language vs. Double Talk*
> 
> It takes skill to weave a thread of words that sounds as if it must have meaning but no one can quite grasp. It leaves you wondering if you heard it correctly or missed something important. If you don't know it's double talk it can make you very uneasy. That is how the music of Schoenberg, Berg and Webern sound to me.


Actually, even a computer program can do it:

http://www.elsewhere.org/journal/pomo/

But perhaps it takes more skill for a postmodernist philosopher.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> No goalpost-shifting. I agree that atonal music may carelessly be accused of randomness. Atonal music may have order, even very strict forms of order, _but not by virtue of being atonal._ It's order must be of a sort unrelated to tonality; otherwise it wouldn't be a-tonal.
> 
> I don't agree that 'atonal' is merely a description of music that doesn't follow traditionally accepted conventions. That's too general. What atonal music doesn't follow is a very particular sort of convention, namely the convention of having a tonal center (or "keynote," in common practice tonality) and a system of relationships among its scale notes in relation to that center and to each other. Tonality is not synonymous with euphony, although in loose, popular usage the term often ends up being no more than that ("I hate that atonal stuff" - meaning any music that sounds dissonant or unpleasant). I'm using the term in its strict sense.


This really needs addressing, largely because it tends to generate vigorous nods from a majority who want to confirm their erroneous views of what constitutes so-called a-tonal music.

The idea of tonality/atonality is so misleading. A 'tonal centre' can be perceived even where there isn't a specified key system. Listen to Berg's violin concerto, it has harmony (and melody) that repeatedly suggests a general chord progression recognisable in 'tonal' composition. Very often in serialism parts of the series' contain recognisable parts of scales, sometimes whole-tone scales and these suggest common harmonies (and so often are harmonised in a common way). It happens because certain notes form centres of many related chords. It's very difficult to avoid it without deliberately doing so.
Another interesting case is Messien, whose work ebbs and flows between what would be regarded as tonal/atonal. There is even an idea known as tonal serialism to embrace this.

One needs to be careful when talking about what is tonal and what isn't, especially when referring it specifically to western music. Classic Western tonality is but one approach. The overlap between Eastern and Western ideas of tonality - since e.g. Debussy - has altered the perceptions of what is harmonically desirable. In any case some of this was already present in western musical ideas before the development of the key system and influential domination of the classical period.

I don't for a moment buy into the claptrap about serialism/atonalism being anything to do with spiritual wonder. It is about extending the possibilities and tools for composition.


----------



## Omicron9 (Oct 13, 2016)

eugeneonagain said:


> This really needs addressing, largely because it tends to generate vigorous nods from a majority who want to confirm their erroneous views of what constitutes so-called a-tonal music.
> 
> The idea of tonality/atonality is so misleading. A 'tonal centre' can be perceived even where there isn't a specified key system. Listen to Berg's violin concerto, it has harmony (and melody) that repeatedly suggests a general chord progression recognisable in 'tonal' composition. Very often in serialism parts of the series' contain recognisable parts of scales, sometimes whole-tone scales and these suggest common harmonies (and so often are harmonised in a common way). It happens because certain notes form centres of many related chords. It's very difficult to avoid it without deliberately doing so.
> Another interesting case is Messien, whose work ebbs and flows between what would be regarded as tonal/atonal. There is even an idea known as tonal serialism to embrace this.
> ...


Well said, and exactly right about the Berg Violin Concerto. I think there may be folks who've not spent time listening to 20th-century and/or atonal works, see the word "atonal," and think there is an utter lack of harmony. All without exposing themselves to the music.

Your last sentence sums it up, in my opinion, perfectly. (Emphasis added by me.)

Regards,
-09


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

eugeneonagain said:


> This really needs addressing, largely because it tends to generate vigorous nods from *a majority who want to confirm their erroneous views of what constitutes so-called a-tonal music.*
> 
> *The idea of tonality/atonality is so misleading.* A 'tonal centre' can be perceived even where there isn't a specified key system. Listen to *Berg's violin concerto, it has harmony (and melody) that repeatedly suggests a general chord progression recognisable in 'tonal' composition.* Very often in serialism parts of the series' contain recognisable parts of scales, sometimes whole-tone scales and these suggest common harmonies (and so often are harmonised in a common way). It happens because certain notes form centres of many related chords. It's very difficult to avoid it without deliberately doing so.
> Another interesting case is Messien, whose work ebbs and flows between what would be regarded as tonal/atonal. There is even an idea known as tonal serialism to embrace this.
> ...


I can't tell from this just what you're taking exception to. Are you saying that there's no such thing as atonality in music? That is certainly a view we've heard expressed by people who appear basically fearful of the word's popular negative connotations and careless use. However, I don't see it as negative in that way. Atonal music has its own sound worlds which are perfectly legitimate and enlarge the capabilities of music; as you say, it "extends the possibilities and tools for composition."

It isn't necessary to claim any particular music to be exclusively atonal in order to prove that atonality exists; the forces of tonal centricity and of conventional, systematic, functional, hierarchical relationships within a scale are a real and recognizable thing, but may assert themselves with any degree of prominence and strength in any particular piece of music or style. Berg's music is indeed full of tonal allusions, and we can argue uselessly about just how tonal or atonal it is (is his Piano Sonata "really" in b-minor?), but why bother? On the other hand, Schoenberg's Piano Suite is distinctly atonal; not even his insistent hammering on the note "D" in the "musette" can induce a sense of tonal gravitation where he clearly intends to avoid it, and the result is an interesting sleight of hand. A "pseudo-tonic" is not a real tonic.

Things which exist on a continuum do actually exist. I agree with you: one needs to be careful when talking about what is tonal and what isn't. One also needs to be careful talking about what is blue and what is green - but that doesn't mean that blue and green are not legitimate concepts and can't or shouldn't be distinguished by anyone who isn't color-blind. Musical "color-blindness" is common enough, but with practice it seems to have a pretty good cure rate.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

I see tonality as astronomy, whereas atonality is more like quantum mechanics.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Simply defined by the names, "tonality" and "atonality," they are each necessarily defined as being "not the other." Based on that assumption, if you were to draw a Venn diagram, they would be circles that did not overlap at any point. In more practical terms, these are broad names derived from aspects of one specific feature of music that does share, in varying degrees, other characteristics, so that the terms are not all-encompassing. A Venn diagram would probably have two circles with some considerable area of overlap, but it is not possible that it would show two circles one of which encapsulated the other. Any choice of analogy, to be reasonably sustained, must avoid this encapsulation issue.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

I see tonality as four hammers sounding in a blacksmith's shop, and atonality as the addition of a fifth hammer.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Blancrocher said:


> I see tonality as four hammers sounding in a blacksmith's shop, and atonality as the addition of a fifth hammer.


Is the fifth one le marteau sans maitre?


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

I see tonality as a huge number of likes, and atonality as a moderate number of likes.


----------



## Dr Johnson (Jun 26, 2015)

KenOC said:


> Wisely said. I think we can look upon tonality/atonality and similar dualities as arising from the two irreconcilable natures of man: one, a being of the spirit with a unique apprehension of the universe and a cool, penetrating intelligence that has made him master of his environment; the other, an animal that eats, digests, defecates,* couples endlessly* and often mindlessly, and is blown hither and yon by garish prejudices and untamed glandular secretions. Our first nature may prefer Bach; the other may prefer Wagner. Or even, _in extremis_, atonal music.
> 
> Which is to say, it may well be that both tonality and atonality are needed to maintain the balancing act of being human. It may even be that, if atonality didn't exist, we would have to invent it. (Really, I just wanted to use that last phrase, and all the rest is an excuse!)


Not these days, chum.

I wonder if I listened to more Schoenberg whether...

Probably not.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Dr Johnson said:


> Not these days, chum.
> 
> I wonder if I listened to more Schoenberg whether...
> 
> Probably not.


If you try it, go for _Verklaerte Nacht_ but avoid _Erwartung._


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

I'll address each paragraph. With a few snips for brevity..



Woodduck said:


> I can't tell from this just what you're taking exception to. Are you saying that there's no such thing as atonality in music? That is certainly a view we've heard expressed by people who appear basically fearful of the word's popular negative connotations and careless use. However, I don't see it as negative in that way. Atonal music has its own sound worlds which are perfectly legitimate and enlarge the capabilities of music; as you say, it "extends the possibilities and tools for composition."


I think I was pretty clear. I don't make a deep distinction between so-called tonality and atonality and I'm certainly neither fearful nor afraid of any negative connotations. Clearly diatonic and chromatic harmony and melody contain all the ingredients for music one may designate as 'tonal' or 'atonal'. It is all encompassed by the 12 tone equal temperament system. The system or even 'decision' of employing certain conventions of melody and harmony within this tuning at no time points to some innate 'naturalness' of diatonic tonality. The tuning of western music is not a shared system worldwide among many musical cultures. 
I'm stressing this because earlier on in this thread - page one or two - you made a remark about 'tonality' being analogous to the universe and our human conceptual natures. This is just 100% false.



Woodduck said:


> It isn't necessary to claim any particular music to be exclusively atonal in order to prove that atonality exists; the forces of tonal centricity and of conventional, systematic, functional, hierarchical relationships within a scale are a real and recognizable thing, but may assert themselves with any degree of prominence and strength in any particular piece of music or style. Berg's music is indeed full of tonal allusions, and we can argue uselessly about just how tonal or atonal it is (is his Piano Sonata "really" in b-minor?), but why bother? On the other hand, Schoenberg's Piano Suite is distinctly atonal; not even his insistent hammering on the note "D" in the "musette" can induce a sense of tonal gravitation where he clearly intends to avoid it, and the result is an interesting sleight of hand. A "pseudo-tonic" is not a real tonic.


There is no need to uselessly argue about anything. I'm afraid you are trapped in the prism of western diatonic/chromatic usage and setting it up as the natural basis of music. It isn't. Worrying about whether something is tonal or atonal is really a pseudo discussion of a pseudo problem. Aesthetics plays the larger part and there is little to be said about that on an analytical basis.



Woodduck said:


> Things which exist on a continuum do actually exist. I agree with you: one needs to be careful when talking about what is tonal and what isn't. One also needs to be careful talking about what is blue and what is green - but that doesn't mean that blue and green are not legitimate concepts and can't or shouldn't be distinguished by anyone who isn't color-blind. Musical "color-blindness" is common enough, but with practice it seems to have a pretty good cure rate.


Now here the analogy has more meat. There will clearly be a point on a colour continuum when blue noticeably stops being blue - according to agreement - and takes on the characteristics of green. The transitional stages will be disputed. However, this is not entirely analogous to music as a whole, it's more like the differences between one chord or another or one note and another. 
J.M.W. Turner's popular paintings - executed in the realist representative style of the time were painted with all the same available materials as the much more impressionist paintings he did in private, such as his Venice watercolours. Debussy is his musical kindred spirit doing much the same thing.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

Blancrocher said:


> I see tonality as four hammers sounding in a blacksmith's shop, and atonality as the addition of a fifth hammer.


Does that blacksmith happen to be harmonious? :lol:


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Razumovskymas said:


> Does that blacksmith happen to be harmonious? :lol:


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Blancrocher said:


> I see tonality as four hammers sounding in a blacksmith's shop, and atonality as the addition of a fifth hammer.


If I take your idea that atonality is basically tonality-plus, I would say that tonality is ice cream or pie or cake for desert and atonality is anything you can put in your mouth as desert.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

eugeneonagain said:


> I don't make a deep distinction between so-called tonality and atonality and I'm certainly neither fearful nor afraid of any negative connotations. Clearly diatonic and chromatic harmony and melody contain all the ingredients for music one may designate as 'tonal' or 'atonal'. It is all encompassed by the 12 tone equal temperament system. The system or even 'decision' of employing certain conventions of melody and harmony within this tuning at no time points to some innate 'naturalness' of diatonic tonality. The tuning of western music is not a shared system worldwide among many musical cultures.
> I'm stressing this because earlier on in this thread - page one or two -* you made a remark about 'tonality' being analogous to the universe and our human conceptual natures. This is just 100% false.*
> 
> I'm afraid you are trapped in the prism of western diatonic/chromatic usage and setting it up as the natural basis of music. It isn't. Worrying about whether something is tonal or atonal is really a pseudo discussion of a pseudo problem. Aesthetics plays the larger part and there is little to be said about that on an analytical basis.
> ...


100% false, eh? Them's fightin' words, pardner!

That nearly all musical traditions worldwide have developed with a sense of tonal gravitation and hierarchical relationships within their scales is an empirical fact, and empirical fact always seems to me a good place to start. I think it's a pretty safe bet that the simultaneous evolution of tonal perception in widely divergent cultures and styles of music is not some sort of weird coincidence, and I'm interested in why it has occurred. Seeking a basis for it in nature, I observe the occurrence of centricity, gravitation, hierarchy, and movement away from and back to a steady state, as principles common and basic to natural phenomena, as well as to human experience in its physical, intellectual, and affective dimensions. Centricity occurs in the structure of things living and inanimate, from cells to galaxies to cities. Gravitation is the dynamic principle that holds things together and keeps us grounded. Hierarchical organization characterizes the processes of perception, conceptual thought, and value-formation, with ascending levels of complexity related to a root. Movement away from and back to a place of rest is the rhythm of life. What could be more natural than that music should evolve and order itself so as to reflect, and affirm to the human mind and emotions, such fundamental, universal forms of being and experience?

Btw, I'm not setting up a diatonic/chromatic dichotomy. Tonality isn't just a matter of chromaticism. Music may be either diatonically simple or highly chromatic (or neither, in various tonal systems) and still be intensely tonal in effect. I don't identify tonality as such with Western harmonic practice, which is a particular tonal system, one among many to be found in the musics of the world (although in its more limited, Western-centric, non-anthropological definition the term is used for our common practice harmonic system only).

Don't fixate on the blue/green business. It was just an analogy meant to make the point that although a given work of music may be more or less tonal in effect - i.e., it may occupy a place along a continuum, as do colors - tonality and atonality are not invalid concepts.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> 100% false, eh? Them's fightin' words, pardner!
> 
> That nearly all musical traditions worldwide have developed with a sense of tonal gravitation and hierarchical relationships within their scales is an empirical fact, and empirical fact always seems to me a good place to start. I think it's a pretty safe bet that the simultaneous evolution of tonal perception in widely divergent cultures and styles of music is not some sort of weird coincidence, and I'm interested in why it has occurred. Seeking a basis for it in nature, I observe the occurrence of centricity, gravitation, hierarchy, and movement away from and back to a steady state, as principles common and basic to natural phenomena, as well as to human experience in its physical, intellectual, and affective dimensions. Centricity occurs in the structure of things living and inanimate, from cells to galaxies to cities. Gravitation is the dynamic principle that holds things together and keeps us grounded. Hierarchical organization characterizes the processes of perception, conceptual thought, and value-formation, with ascending levels of complexity related to a root. Movement away from and back to a place of rest is the rhythm of life. What could be more natural than that music should evolve and order itself so as to reflect, and affirm to the human mind and emotions, such fundamental, universal forms of being and experience?


It's not an empirical fact. Just one obvious example: the 'whole-tone' scale, evident in several cultures (including that of western music now) does not represent a position equal to that of general diatonic tonality. It does not have the same dominant-to-leading tone, no feeling of returning to a position of 'rest'. On the contrary it suggests uncertainty.
In terms of Western music viewed from a 'diatonic' perspective when you isolate such a scale, it becomes obviously dissonant, but it has turned up in many places throughout musical history; in so-called 'tonal' composition. Clearly because it is not outside the scope of 12-tone equal temperament underpinning western music.

The point being that structure is actively impressed upon the world by people, by observers. I don't see much difference between trying to ally tonalism/atonalism to mystical quackery and trying to ground it in some kind of natural phenomena of elegant design. Art is not merely an immediate, unaffected extension of physical reality.



Woodduck said:


> Btw, I'm not setting up a diatonic/chromatic dichotomy. Tonality isn't just a matter of chromaticism. Music may be either diatonically simple or highly chromatic (or neither, in various tonal systems) and still be intensely tonal in effect. I don't identify tonality as such with Western harmonic practice, which is a particular tonal system, one among many to be found in the musics of the world (although in its more limited, Western-centric, non-anthropological definition the term is used for our common practice harmonic system only).
> 
> Don't fixate on the blue/green business. It was just an analogy meant to make the point that although a given work of music may be more or less tonal in effect - i.e., it may occupy a place along a continuum, as do colors - tonality and atonality are not invalid concepts.


I am not fixated on the blue/green analogy. It was not my analogy I just addressed its application relevance. Tonality-atonality are just denotation conventions, the same Aristotelian categorisation.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

I see tonality as a hedgehog, and atonality more as a porcupine.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

eugeneonagain said:


> It's not an empirical fact. Just one obvious example: the 'whole-tone' scale, evident in several cultures (including that of western music now) does not represent a position equal to that of general diatonic tonality. It does not have the same dominant-to-leading tone, no feeling of returning to a position of 'rest'. On the contrary it suggests uncertainty. In terms of Western music viewed from a 'diatonic' perspective when you isolate such a scale, it becomes obviously dissonant, but it has turned up in many places throughout musical history; in so-called 'tonal' composition. Clearly because it is not outside the scope of 12-tone equal temperament underpinning western music.
> 
> The point being that structure is actively impressed upon the world by people, by observers. I don't see much difference between allying tonalism/atonalism to mystical quackery and trying to ground it in some kind of natural phenomena of elegant design. Art is not merely an immediate, unaffected extension of physical reality.


Can you cite an indigenous musical tradition (any out of those "several cultures") that uses the whole tone scale? A Wiki search brings up but one example - a single atypical raga in Indian music, which like other (distinctly tonal) music in that tradition would certainly be heard against the grounding of the drone and so would not express the "uncertainty" exploited by modern Western music using that scale.

In bringing up "dominant"and "leading tone" you seem to be defining "tonality" as identical to the Western common practice system. I've defined it more broadly (see above so I don't have to repeat myself). The broader concept is used in various disciplines to study musical styles and musical perception. If you take it in its broader meaning, I think you will find my statement that tonality is nearly universal to be correct. The only indigenous music I've heard or heard of that exhibits no tone-centricity is music that doesn't employ scales at all. Yes, such music exists, and I admit to not having heard all the world's musical traditions, so I'd be interested in exceptions that prove what is apparently the rule.

Your statement that "structure is actively impressed upon the world by people, by observers" doesn't take us anywhere in understanding _why_ music is structured the way it is. Of course "art is not merely an immediate, unaffected extension of physical reality." Nobody said it was "merely" anything. In fact I didn't come anywhere close to saying that. I'm not ignoring the differences in cultures. It's those very differences that make the similarities so interesting. So unless you just want to claim that the common elements in different musical traditions are purely accidental, you'll need to advance a better hypothesis than mine. But then, if you don't hear the tonality in Inuit or Sami or Iranian or Japanese or Croatian music, you may mot feel that there's anything in need of explanation.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

For me, tonality is like cumulus clouds, whereas atonality is more like stratus clouds.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> *Can you cite an indigenous musical tradition (any out of those "several cultures") that uses the whole tone scale?* A Wiki search brings up but one example - a single atypical raga in Indian music, which like other (distinctly tonal) music in that tradition would certainly be heard against the grounding of the drone and so would not express the "uncertainty" exploited by modern Western music using that scale.


Almost all (if not all) traditional Asian music is based upon the whole-tone scale. It is also present in traditional Hawaiian music. In African music too. It turns up in Eastern European music. In Arabic (and surrounding cultures). A drone in a raga is not a sign of the tonality which, contrary to what you wrote in the paragraph below, you did indeed identify as Western practice. This goalpost-shifting between replies is really not cricket and rather disingenuous.



Woodduck said:


> In bring up "dominant"and "leading tone" you seem to be defining "tonality" as identical to the Western common practice system. I've defined it more broadly (see above so I don't have to repeat myself). The broader concept is used in various disciplines to study musical styles and musical perception. *If you take it in its broader meaning, I think you will find my statement that tonality is nearly universal to be correct*. The only indigenous music I've heard or heard of that exhibits no tone-centricity is music that doesn't employ scales at all. Yes, such music exists, and I admit to not having heard all the world's musical traditions, so I'd be interested in exceptions that prove what is apparently the rule.


I am not the one identifying it as Western anything. I clearly set out several pages back that music is categorised using denotative terms, sometimes even superficially. It's frankly ridiculous that you are now claiming to have adopted this position from the outset. Not only that you contradict this in the part I bolded above, really by employing a one-size-fits-all personal definition of 'tonality' which encompasses everything and nothing as required.



Woodduck said:


> Your statement that "structure is actively impressed upon the world by people, by observers" doesn't take us anywhere in understanding _why_ music is structured the way it is. Of course "art is not merely an immediate, unaffected extension of physical reality." Nobody said it was "merely" anything. In fact I didn't come anywhere close to saying that. I'm not ignoring the differences in cultures. It's those very differences that make the similarities so interesting. So unless you just want to claim that the common elements in different musical traditions are purely accidental, you'll need to advance a better hypothesis than mine. *But then, if you don't hear the tonality in Inuit or Sami or Iranian or Japanese or Croatian music, you may mot feel that there's anything in need of explanation*.


The position you are taking does clearly imply that accidental structure determines artistic structure. So yes, you did say it. Now it may be that we are talking at cross-purposes: the structure of the world does indeed put limitations on what can be apprehended - sound frequencies etc. However, the decision to choose certain elements and to structure them in a particular way does in no way mean that this is all there is to this fundament of possibilities. It's possible to build housing in the shape of cones or pyramids, but we generally make a decision based upon certain criteria, usually practicality, and we choose cuboids from the possibilities. It's not a universal decision as attested by the tipi or igloo.

The final bolded sentence is really a disgrace. It basically implies that if I don't believe or accept something it is because I fail to apprehend (hear) it. This is the selfsame position you have previously denounced where proponents of "atonal music" accuse its detractors of falling short. Why employ the same tactic?

This tenacity for the sake of tenacity is without credit.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

eugeneonagain said:


> *Almost all (if not all) traditional Asian music is based upon the whole-tone scale. *It is also present in traditional Hawaiian music. In African music too. It turns up in Eastern European music. In Arabic (and surrounding cultures). A drone in a raga is not a sign of the *tonality which, contrary to what you wrote in the paragraph below, you did indeed identify as Western practice. This goalpost-shifting between replies is really not cricket and rather disingenuous.*
> 
> I am not the one identifying it as Western anything. *I clearly set out several pages back that music is categorised using denotative terms, sometimes even superficially.* It's frankly ridiculous that you are now claiming to have adopted this position from the outset. Not only that you contradict this in the part I bolded above, really by employing a one-size-fits-all personal definition of 'tonality' which encompasses everything and nothing as required.
> 
> ...


Oh please. Now I'm "disingenuous"? Well, let's see about that...

I most certainly have offered a concept of tonality as broader than Western common practice. I am always at pains to do this to avoid the usual confusion on the subject. Evidently I should have been more explicit from the start. But then, there really wasn't a starting point to this discussion. Sometimes a little patience is required as people unfold their views, yes? So here:

In post #88: "...a very particular sort of convention, namely the convention of having a tonal center (or "keynote," in common practice tonality) and a system of relationships among its scale notes in relation to that center and to each other." Here I mention common practice as a particular species of tonality using its own terminology (for example, "keynote" to refer to the central tone). Implicit is that other forms of tonality have a tonic or central tone and a hierarchy but don't have "keys."

In post #102: "the forces of tonal centricity and of conventional, systematic, functional, hierarchical relationships within a scale are a real and recognizable thing, but may assert themselves with any degree of prominence and strength in any particular piece of music or style." No implication here that I mean only common practice.

In post #114: "That nearly all musical traditions worldwide have developed with a sense of tonal gravitation and hierarchical relationships within their scales is an empirical fact..." Again, I'm not talking about common practice specifically. And: "I don't identify tonality as such with Western harmonic practice, which is a particular tonal system, one among many to be found in the musics of the world (although in its more limited, Western-centric, non-anthropological definition the term is used for our common practice harmonic system only)." So that makes my concept of tonality absolutely explicit.

Thus, your statement "A drone in a raga is not a sign of the tonality which, _contrary to what you wrote in the paragraph below, you did indeed identify as Western practice_" is a clear misrepresentation of my stated view. Evidently you were thinking of Western common practice and you read it into what I was saying. I'm happy to clear that up now.

Now to particulars. You are mistaken about the whole tone scale. You appear to be thinking of the pentatonic scale (the one you get when you play on only the black keys of the piano). That scale is indeed common worldwide, and allows for tonal hierarchy. The whole tone scale - play C-D-E-F#-G#-A# - is the one Debussy used to create his floating, ambiguous harmonic atmospheres. No indigenous music in the world (that I know of) uses this and, as I say, if it occurs anomalously in Indian music as one raga among numerous others it would not create the same feeling of ambiguity because of the grounding effect of the drone, which is, I believe, always the principal, foundational note in any raga, with which any piece begins and ends.

Much else of what you're saying seems unclear to me. I don't understand the statement "music is categorised using denotative terms, sometimes even superficially," or see it as a response to anything I've said. The statement "accidental structure determines artistic structure" is very abstract. Accidental structure of what? Then there's "the decision to choose certain elements and to structure them in a particular way does in no way mean that this is all there is to this fundament of possibilities. It's possible to build housing in the shape of cones or pyramids, but we generally make a decision based upon certain criteria, usually practicality, and we choose cuboids from the possibilities. It's not a universal decision as attested by the tipi or igloo." How does this address my basic thesis that common musical structures appear to be rooted in the perception of fundamental patterns of physical, intellectual, and affective experience? The practical requirements of housing construction are hardly a suitable metaphor for living processes, and especially not for the perception and conceptualization of the world entailed in producing art.

So far you've not answered my rather elementary challenge: If you don't think I'm onto anything, what's _your_ suggestion for why tonality is a widespread phenomenon? And as for my final sentence - "if you don't hear the tonality in Inuit or Sami or Iranian or Japanese or Croatian music, you may not feel that there's anything in need of explanation" -being a "disgrace," maybe it will seem more acceptable if I phrase it as a question: _Do_ you hear the tonality in Inuit or Sami or Iranian or Japanese or Croatian music? And if you do, why do you suppose it's there? That is the question at issue. I think tonal organization represents a primal perception of basic patterns of existence and life of which music is a metaphor. That doesn't imply that those patterns are rigidly prescriptive or that the perception of them is not affected by a multitude of factors. The sheer variety of music testifies to that.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

I have repeated that 'tonality' - which I keep on putting into inverted commas for good reason because the organisation of tones in some traditions would not be described by 99% of listeners on this forum as 'tonal' - is not a very useful term. It gives the false impression that one sort of music is organised, naturalistic, mirrors 'reality', relates to human nature etc, and another sort of music has no organisational structure or deliberately avoids these naturalistic structures.

I focused on the whole-tone scale for a reason to make the relation between Eastern and 'new' Western musical sensibilities since that scale has a strong relationship with the pentatonic scale due to its whole steps and tones. They are both (along with the chromatic scale) 'tonally' ambiguous. I am not confusing it with the pentatonic scale or octotonic scale or any other scale. I suggested a possibility of talking at cross purposes because I completely believe that _all_ music produced is encompassed and bound by physical reality. Cultural habits generated by regional differences and histories are the only reasons for differences in tastes and perceptions.

I think the point about "accidental structures", these being the non-designed structures of physical reality (unless one happens to be some sort of theist) not being carried over wholesale and unchanged into 'designed' art is a rather simple and clear point. Equally so with the metaphor of practical architecture choices taken from all existing possibilities. It's not my fault if you can't or won't recognise it.

I'm afraid you have not set a challenge, elementary or otherwise and I suspect that you don't really understand musical theory. I hate saying this because it will not go down well.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

I see tonality as an English breakfast, whereas atonality is more like huevos rancheros.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Blancrocher said:


> I see tonality as an English breakfast, whereas atonality is more like huevos rancheros.


Well that's great. Huevos rancheros is probably quite 'tonal' for some people too.


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

Tonality is like a 7 layered onion and atonality a 12 layered onion.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

And nevertheless all onions.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

eugeneonagain said:


> I have repeated that 'tonality' - which I keep on putting into inverted commas for good reason because the organisation of tones in some traditions would not be described by 99% of listeners on this forum as 'tonal' - is not a very useful term. It gives the false impression that one sort of music is organised, naturalistic, mirrors 'reality', relates to human nature etc, and another sort of music has no organisational structure or deliberately avoids these naturalistic structures.


A lot of wasted time has been spent on the value or appropriateness of the term 'atonal'. In the end, it's just semantics and, inevitably, no matter what alternative term might be applied, there would be disagreement. All that matters is whether most people familiar with classical music have a good idea what kind of music 'atonal' refers to and the fact is, after all this time that the word has been in use, most people do.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

eugeneonagain said:


> I have repeated that *'tonality'* - which I keep on putting into inverted commas for good reason because the organisation of tones in some traditions would not be described by 99% of listeners on this forum as 'tonal' -* is not a very useful term. It gives the false impression that one sort of music is organised, naturalistic, mirrors 'reality', relates to human nature etc, and another sort of music has no organisational structure or deliberately avoids these naturalistic structures.*
> 
> I focused on the whole-tone scale for a reason to make the relation between Eastern and 'new' Western musical sensibilities since that scale has a strong relationship with the pentatonic scale due to its whole steps and tones. They are both (along with the chromatic scale) 'tonally' ambiguous. I am not confusing it with the pentatonic scale or octotonic scale or any other scale. I suggested a possibility of talking at cross purposes because I completely believe that _all_ music produced is encompassed and bound by physical reality. *Cultural habits generated by regional differences and histories are the only reasons for differences in tastes and perceptions.*
> 
> ...


Well, you're good at snark, I'll give you that!_ "It's not my fault if you can't or won't recognise it." "I suspect that you don't really understand musical theory. I hate saying this because it will not go down well." 
_
Well, your suspicions are wrong, and therefore they don't "go down" at all. And I feel sure that you don't hate saying what you say. I, at least, don't say things that I hate saying.

You're entitled to feel that "tonality" and "atonality" are not "very useful" terms. I've encountered that view before. But using it as a reason to ignore the realities people refer to when they use these terms (people, by the way, with extensive musical knowledge and in a variety of disciplines) just looks, here, like a too-easy way of dismissing the issue I've raised. "Cultural habits generated by regional differences and histories are the only reasons for differences in tastes and perceptions"may be largely a true statement, but it isn't differences in taste and perception I'm concerned with.

Perhaps I need to point out that I'm not raising questions about music's nature and origins in a vacuum. I'm not making this stuff up. Tonality, broadly defined as the organization of musical syntax around a centrally important tone(s), is actually a subject of discussion in various academic quarters, and not only by musicians, out there in the wide world. There is an eminently reasonable, cross-disciplinary assumption that we cannot understand the structure, and therefore the meaning, of music adequately unless we come to terms with those elements which recur with striking frequency in mankind's musical thought. You seem set against this whole idea, because, by your own statement, you think that the term "tonality" in and of itself "gives the false impression that one sort of music is organised, naturalistic, mirrors 'reality', relates to human nature etc, and another sort of music has no organisational structure or deliberately avoids these naturalistic structures." I'm sure that _I've_ never said that non-tonal music "has no organizational structure," and I don't know of any musically knowledgeable person who has. You initially misinterpreted my statement that "_atonality_ has no syntax" to mean that "_atonal music_ can have no syntax," and despite my immediate clarification, you still seem to think that that's what I meant.

Similarly, you mistake my meaning when you say: "I think the point about 'accidental structures', these being the non-designed structures of physical reality (unless one happens to be some sort of theist) not being carried over wholesale and unchanged into 'designed' art is a rather simple and clear point." I have never said that "non-designed structures of physical reality" are "carried over _wholesale and unchanged_ [emphasis mine] into 'designed' art." I don't even know how that could happen; photography, perhaps? What I do believe is that dynamic patterns of cognitive and affective activity, as well as patterns in external reality, are pertinent to the structuring of music. Musical structures are not photographic transmissions of information about the world, but they do relate metaphorically to basic patterns of life.

Given our difficulty in understanding each other, and given your apparent conviction that talking about tonality at all is just a bad idea (which makes me wonder why you'd be interested in a thread looking for analogies to it), I think we've passed the point where further conversation is useful. I'll only suggest that, if you have even a smidgeon (sp?) of interest in this subject, you investigate the concept of "cross-domain mapping." It's a concept in cognitive psychology which has found its way into the study of musical origins and musical structure. The basis of this idea is that human cognition is profoundly metaphorical: observed patterns in one "domain" of experience are readily and constantly transferred to other domains in order to make sense of them. Increasingly, music is being investigated as one of these domains.

Here's an interesting study: http://zbikowski.uchicago.edu/pdfs/Zbikowski_Conceptual_models_1997.pdf


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

DaveM said:


> A lot of wasted time has been spent on the value or appropriateness of the term 'atonal'. In the end, it's just semantics and, inevitably, no matter what alternative term might be applied, there would be disagreement. *All that matters is whether most people familiar with classical music have a good idea what kind of music 'atonal' refers to and the fact is, after all this time that the word has been in use, most people do*.


And that's why "most people" end up in a disagreement. I'm not fool enough to deny that you can point to what people call 'tonal music'. I am saying that problems arise when people start cooking up theories about it being part of the 'natural order' if things.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

If you read the post above, though it;s not like I haven't already said it, it's easy to see that I don't deny that people use these terms and also acknowledge why they use them.



Woodduck said:


> people, by the way, with extensive musical knowledge and in a variety of disciplines...


This snippet above is what really underpins these walls of text. The resident self-appointed polymath doesn't want to be challenged.

Well, it's happened.

I only entered the discussion because there is a lot of balderdash written about so-called atonal music.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

I see tonality as a margarita, whereas atonality is a martini.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Blancrocher said:


> I see tonality as a margarita, whereas atonality is a martini.


I drink margarita-martini cocktails.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Tonality: where everybody in TC gets along and talk about favourite composers.
Atonality: where some 'rigorous' discussion on TC takes place.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

eugeneonagain said:


> This snippet above is what really underpins these walls of text. The resident self-appointed polymath doesn't want to be challenged.
> 
> Well, it's happened.
> 
> I only entered the discussion because there is a lot of balderdash written about so-called atonal music.


Yes, it has happened. And all you - um, he - can do in response is dance around the central question - _What is the significance of tonality in the music of mankind?_ - and sniff at a proposed approach to it that y... he himself clearly hasn't entertained. I suppose you've taught us to expect this sort of at-the-ready contempt: we were treated to it when you descended upon a discussion of Wagner just to tell us that he too is "balderdash" (or worse) and that we who love his works are members of a "cult." We had hoped to put the memory of that unpleasantness behind us. But no such luck.

Well, as far as "balderdash" is concerned, one of the prime pieces of balderdash written about atonality is the idea that it doesn't really exist, or isn't really anything distinguishable from tonality (which therefore also doesn't really exist), or that it's somehow preferable not to make the distinction, and that if we don't mention it it will just go away and not bother us. You might not care to put it so baldly, but that's all your attempt at discussing the subject has yielded thus far. Hence it's no surprise that you're unwilling even to consider the sources or significance of that nonexistent or suspect thing called tonality which people persist in talking about. And to show that you're unwilling, you ignore my descriptions of it and pronounce my observations and speculations about it unworthy and "disingenuous" - exactly as you pronounce other people's insights into Wagner, and Wagner's work itself, unworthy, and call people insulting names merely because you don't find in him the meaning and value that they do. What a splendid strategy for broadening one's own knowledge and understanding - not to mention making friends!

By the way, I hesitated to point out the irony of your telling me that I know little about music theory, when you made the egregious mistake of claiming that the whole tone scale is used in indigenous musical traditions on several continents, confused it with the very different pentatonic scale, and then scrambled to rationalize their "similarities" (papering over the difference critical to this discussion: the whole tone scale is intervalically undifferentiated and non-hierarchical, while the pentatonic scale, containing a perfect fifth and unequal intervals, has tonal implications for the ear which are naturally exploited in the musics which utilize it).

Maybe I'm mistaken in thinking that you don't know what the general (as opposed to the "common practice") concept of tonality refers to when musicians, music scholars, ethnomusicologists, anthropologists, and psychologists use it. So, if you can share any thoughts on tonality and atonality beyond the obvious and inconsequential fact that many people who speak about them don't know what they're talking about, please do so. But you do say that you came into this discussion only to point out that other people are out to lunch. So maybe, now that you've done that, people interested in this "so-called" subject can pursue their interest in it without being pelted with further put-downs and accusations of dishonesty?


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

What more can I do? I've already said I know that people use the terms tonality/atonality and that I know why they use it. I am putting forward reasons for why I think it is unhelpful at times and how it allows people to make spurious arguments about 'tonal' music - which we all know is used to mean tuneful, with standard harmony - being more rooted in human an/or physical reality. I can only say it in so many ways. You either accept it or you do not. Pretending not to fathom how it is expressed is just tiresome.

I didn't make any confusion between the whole-tone and pentatonic scales, I already explained it. I really should have just said 'pentatonic scale' in relation to Far Eastern music, but that scale is not the whole story for Far Eastern music. Not by any means.

The only possibly universal part of musical organisation is the existence of the octave and how it is - and has historically been - divided into scales. This does not correspond with 'tonality' as that word is most often used.

The argument I have pursued has been concerned with the idea that what is so often called 'atonal' music is not only as much rooted in musical history as any other, but is also organised and has a syntax. The very things you were denying at the start before meandering off into more nebulous pseudo-philosophy.

In short: everything created as and given the name _music_ springs from the same related origins. So called 'atonal' music can't escape how music 'works' and is therefore really just a reorganisation of the same elements. Only taste and culture and lack of listening exposure makes it appear unnatural.

Now what I'd really like to know is: what is the great benefit of designating some music as atonal? And if it is designated as such, how then are its origins explained if they are so divorced from tonalism?

BTW - forget about Wagner. He is not related to this discussion. That other thread is concluded. Don't use it as an emotional lever here.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

eugeneonagain said:


> The only possibly universal part of musical organisation is the existence of the octave and how it is - and has historically been - divided into scales. This does not correspond with 'tonality' as that word is most often used.
> 
> The argument I have pursued has been concerned with the idea that what is so often called 'atonal' music is not only as much rooted in musical history as any other, but is also organised and has a syntax. The very things you were denying at the start before meandering off into more nebulous pseudo-philosophy.
> 
> ...


Now these are clear points I can address, and I'd like to try, admitting at the outset the limits of my ethnomusicological knowledge.

The only possibly universal part of musical organisation is the existence of the octave and how it is - and has historically been - divided into scales. This does not correspond with 'tonality' as that word is most often used.

There is some music (Native American, some Asian I think) which consists only of a few tones and never uses the octave. Native American melodies nevertheless revolve around a central, "homing" tone, the primary characteristic of tonal music by the more general, non-common-practice (non-Western-harmonic) definition. The octave is pretty universally perceived and is likely to be discovered, if only because male and female voices tend to be pitched an octave apart. The fact that tone-centering is so nearly universal in world music is a much more provocative fact than the occurrence of octaves, a purely physical phenomenon.

...what is so often called 'atonal' music is not only as much rooted in musical history as any other, but is also organised and has a syntax...everything created as and given the name music springs from the same related origins. So called 'atonal' music can't escape how music 'works' and is therefore really just a reorganisation of the same elements. Only taste and culture and lack of listening exposure makes it appear unnatural.

"Atonal music," if we mean the Schoenbergian 12-tone sort, can hardly be said to be "as much" rooted in history as any other music. I'm unaware of the existence of any atonal music through all the millennia and over all the globe prior to 20th century Vienna, and even then it was not a broadly understood and shared product of gradual stylistic evolution but an individual's idea, put forth with a freightload of theoretical baggage aimed at proving that it was indeed a "natural and inevitable" product of musical evolution (poor Darwin found himself in the oddest places).

The decision to abandon the tonal center and the hierarchies of harmony around it was a fundamental change in the way music was organized and a radical challenge to the expectations of listeners, and I believe that the challenge was not merely to a set of conventions but to the brain's innate tendency to seek hierarchy in its quest for order. Schoenberg was well aware of the importance of hierarchical order in musical form, and his 12-tone method was in large part a device intended explicitly to order music in the absence of tonal hierarchies. But the row's capacity to impose order is not equivalent to the pervasive force of tonality, which operates on both a micro and macro scale and not as a static pattern but as a dynamic principle, constantly active as the music creates and plays against expectations in the mind of the listener. The hierarchies of tonality are analogous to the hierarchical structuring of perceptualization and conceptual thought, in which fundamental premises support other less fundamental ideas which relate to it and to the others in particular ways, with no idea, no matter how small, escaping significance in context. Sharing the hierarchical structures of thought is, I think, one of the things (maybe the principal thing) that gives tonality (of whatever sort) its pervasive, binding force and causes it to be felt as compellingly "logical," which, metaphorically, it is. No static template such as a tone row can substitute for tonality's intrinsic, dynamic, thoroughgoing ordering function, regardless of what structural relationships it imposes.

Now what I'd really like to know is: what is the great benefit of designating some music as atonal? And if it is designated as such, how then are its origins explained if they are so divorced from tonalism?

The benefit is the benefit of naming anything at all. Apart from the careless use of the term to mean "music that sounds dissonant" or "music I don't understand" (neither of which need worry us; people can learn to hear and think more precisely), the major pitfall seems to me to be the failure to recognize that music need not be purely tonal or purely atonal. Tonality is something perceived, a force to be felt, and music can make us feel that force to varying degrees. But there's nothing wrong with using the terms if we know what we're talking about. Otherwise we couldn't talk about one of music's most basic and important phenomena.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> You want to begin with an esoteric religious doctrine and squeeze tonality into a simplistic, dichotomous "paradigm" opposing "ego" and "being" - an approach that lands you in such absurdities as identifying atonal music's lack of a harmonic syntax with advanced "spirituality" or some such thing…


No, mine is not a religious paradigm. It's pre-religion. Your "humanistic" or "atheistic" paradigm does not specify anything, it only opposes the religious paradigm to which it is inextricably linked. Perhaps you'd care to explain your position on this instead of invalidating mine.



Woodduck said:


> You're obviously entitled to imagine music to be "about" anything that occurs to you, but don't imagine for a minute that you have some special divinatory power to say what it should mean to others, or that your personal biases make your theories of musical meaning somehow more correct or superior to those of other listeners.


That's what you are doing to me, when you reject Cage and Boulez' postwar stance. The only reason I talk about it is to defend it as a valid paradigm.



Woodduck said:


> You may not think so - I say this because you keep harping (inappropriately) on my " atheistic humanism" - but I am not only theoretically but experientially acquainted with the sort of quasi-Buddhist ideology you go on and on about. In fact I respect, and have benefited personally from, the truths it contains. But as for viewing the specific phenomena of tonality and atonality in relation to it, I find it at best only peripherally, and in certain instances, applicable, and very, very far from explanatory of the varieties of musical expression rooted in those structural principles. That's why I call your theorizing "Johnny-one-note": like every religious "paradigm" (I'm starting to hate that word, thanks to you), it seizes on a crumb of truth and tries to make it stand for the whole loaf ("No man cometh unto the father but by me." Bleah!).


You can call it that if you wish, but I do not use it as a religion, but as a fact of existence, the same way philosophers use the term 'being.'



Woodduck said:


> I suppose that nothing anyone says about the nature of music and their perceptions of it can cause the slightest ripple in the ceaselessly gushing river of your evangelical fervor. Well, preach away. But remember that your preoccupation with "ego" and "being" is really all about you, and your attempt to shoehorn music into such a metaphysical antinomy bespeaks not the universal meaning of music but rather your personal quest.


I'm just going by what John Cage, Boulez, and other modernists have said.



Woodduck said:


> As such it need not concern anyone else. If you can remember that, you might hesitate the next time you're tempted take your "paradigm" and use it as a stick to beat your "atheist humanist" inferiors with.


The only reason I bring it up is to explain to the uncomprehending or unwilling.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> "Syntax" as in "system" or "set of principles." _A_-tonality is not syntactic. It's premised on the avoidance of a certain kind of syntax.


Atonality is not based on a harmonic hierarchy, but there are other criteria that can be used instead. Whatever results, though, will not be harmonically based like tonality is.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

I give up. You are right about everything. I'm tired of reiterating and I have other things to do.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I'm just going by what John Cage, Boulez, and other modernists have said.


I have listened to, and read, a fair amount of material by modernists (composers, professional musicians and critics), and most of it falls in that broad category of absurdity that only has value as satire or light entertainment in a particularly dry spell of anything else to do. Just like any salesman, they are selling a product, and will say pretty much anything to do so. I would not put too much stock in it.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

I see tonality as a walk on the beach and atonality as a swim in the pool.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

I see tonality as a sparkling blue swimming pool and atonality as a mud puddle.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

DaveM said:


> I see ... atonality as a mud puddle.


Well, I'm sure this discussion will clear that up for you.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

DaveM said:


> I see tonality as a sparkling blue swimming pool and atonality as a mud puddle.


Ears blocked up with mud perhaps?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

JAS said:


> Just like any salesman, they are selling a product, and will say pretty much anything to do so.


Perhaps the FTC should step in.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

JAS said:


> I have listened to, and read, a fair amount of material by modernists (composers, professional musicians and critics), and most of it falls in that broad category of absurdity that only has value as satire or light entertainment in a particularly dry spell of anything else to do. Just like any salesman, they are selling a product, and will say pretty much anything to do so. I would not put too much stock in it.


It's historical fact that Boulez was interested in self-generating systems, as well as John Cage. Should I believe them or some stranger on the internet?:lol:


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> It's historical fact that Boulez was interested in self-generating systems, as well as John Cage. Should I believe them or some stranger on the internet?:lol:


Believe whatever and whomever you like. (In this case, if it is something verifiable, and not really a value judgment or claim of interpretive meaning, it might be safe to accept at face value. Something isn't inherently untrue just because a salesman says it.)

On the other hand, I recently watched a taped interview of Ferneyhough at the Library of Congress, and I would put that right up there with random stranger on the Internet or crazy homeless person on a street corner in New York City. The real question becomes whether or not he actually believes what he is saying.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

eugeneonagain said:


> I have repeated that 'tonality' - which I keep on putting into inverted commas for good reason because the organisation of tones in some traditions would not be described by 99% of listeners on this forum as 'tonal' - is not a very useful term. It gives the false impression that one sort of music is organised, naturalistic, mirrors 'reality', relates to human nature etc, and another sort of music has no organisational structure or deliberately avoids these naturalistic structures.


If you mean a strict, academic definition of tonality as the major/minor system, then that might be true; but tonality as a general condition is easy to create. All it takes is a scale which covers an octave, then triads built on the scale steps, which automatically creates an hierarchy, in relation to the tonic or starting note.
This is based on a "harmonic model." This does mirror reality, is natural, and relates to the way human hearing operates.

The thing to understand about atonal music is that is is still structured, but along different lines.

The whole tone scale is not a very good example for clarifying anything, since it has a dual nature: it is harmonic, in that it is a scale, and can have 6 possible roots, although the scale is tonally vague, since it has no fifths.

The WT scale is also "geometric" in nature, since it divides the 12-notes into 2 groups of six, and is totally symmetrical being the projection of the major second interval.


----------



## nature (Jun 25, 2017)

The most accurate analogy I can think of is to compare the two to their analogous art movements. Traditional "tonal" music somewhat developed alongside the old master painters and beyond. For example, Bach is somewhat like Caravaggio or Rubens. Beethoven is like a painting by Caspar David Friedrich. These composers mastered harmony and counterpoint in the same manner that these painters mastered painting figures, landscapes, and perspective in lifelike detail to create complex and harmonious compositions. To depict holy scenes and lofty emotions with accuracy and great detail.

Around the late 19th century, early 20th and especially after WWII, the feeling of many artists and composers was that to progress was to break away from conventions. It began with impressionism, then post-impressionism, then abstract, and so on. For painters, this meant finding new painting techniques for the same figurative subject matter, and eventually painting abstract images with no figurative subject at all. From this same school of thought emerged your modernist atonal composers, Schoenberg et al. What they did was essentially the same feat - much serialism / atonal music is analogous to an abstract painting by Jackson Pollock (the most well known example I can think of). As atonal music lacks an tonal center and traditional harmony, such is how a Pollock painting lack any figurative subject being portrayed, nor any emotion in the subject. Harmonious and masterful depiction of subjects does not apply, but a focus on textures.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> If you mean a strict, academic definition of tonality as the major/minor system, then that might be true; but tonality as a general condition is easy to create. All it takes is a scale which covers an octave, then triads built on the scale steps, which automatically creates an hierarchy, in relation to the tonic or starting note.
> This is based on a "harmonic model." This does mirror reality, is natural, and relates to the way human hearing operates.
> 
> *The thing to understand about atonal music is that is is still structured, but along different lines.*
> ...


Are you taking the rise? I already wrote that several times.

Tonality doesn't even need a scale and triads. "Tonality" is inescapable, as Debussy discovered and proved. Even serialism constantly collapses into tonality because overlapping chords create it whether the composer likes it or not. You have to work really hard to try and avoid it.

The fixation with the 'tonic' shows that so many people here are still trapped inside a 300 year-old temporary conception of how music works. Even you Millionrainbows as the evangelist of "atonal" music. I'm sorry, but while you were all napping ideas altered and it was already decades ago.

I didn't address it before because I didn't want to get drawn into this again, but the popular myth seems to be that everything collapsed in the 20th century when serialism came about and "atonal" music was born. Wrong..100% wrong in every single way. Liszt (that real innovator) was already employing 12 tone structures. You know, that Hungarian fellow who died 14 years before the 20th century even began. If he was working in a tonal manner and so-called atonal music is its new-born antithesis, how did that happen?

Before equal temperament and various other fixed ideas of Western music were put into place (though the Chinese already had a conception of equal temperament, but rejected it) everthing so-called "atonal" music does now was already being done and no-one batted an eyelid and no critics wrote boring exegeses about it.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

eugeneonagain said:


> Tonality doesn't even need a scale and triads. "Tonality" is inescapable, as Debussy discovered and proved. Even serialism constantly collapses into tonality because overlapping chords create it whether the composer likes it or not. You have to work really hard to try and avoid it.
> 
> The fixation with the 'tonic' shows that so many people here are still trapped inside a 300 year-old temporary conception of how music works. Even you Millionrainbows as the evangelist of "atonal" music. I'm sorry, but while you were all napping ideas altered and it was already decades ago.
> 
> ...


To quote you: 100% wrong in every way.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> To quote you: 100% wrong in every way.


Of course. And I have been proved wrong in every way, by a team of experts. Nice editing by the way.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

nature said:


> The most accurate analogy I can think of is to compare the two to their analogous art movements. Traditional "tonal" music somewhat developed alongside the old master painters and beyond. For example, Bach is somewhat like Caravaggio or Rubens. Beethoven is like a painting by Caspar David Friedrich. These composers mastered harmony and counterpoint in the same manner that these painters mastered painting figures, landscapes, and perspective in lifelike detail to create complex and harmonious compositions. To depict holy scenes and lofty emotions with accuracy and great detail.
> 
> Around the late 19th century, early 20th and especially after WWII, the feeling of many artists and composers was that to progress was to break away from conventions. It began with impressionism, then post-impressionism, then abstract, and so on. For painters, this meant finding new painting techniques for the same figurative subject matter, and eventually painting abstract images with no figurative subject at all. From this same school of thought emerged your modernist atonal composers, Schoenberg et al. What they did was essentially the same feat - much serialism / atonal music is analogous to an abstract painting by Jackson Pollock (the most well known example I can think of). As atonal music lacks an tonal center and traditional harmony, such is how a Pollock painting lack any figurative subject being portrayed, nor any emotion in the subject. Harmonious and masterful depiction of subjects does not apply, but a focus on textures.


In a way, it is the perfect analogy, but perhaps too perfect. Rather than an analogy, I think these are parallel manifestations of a common event, just in different fields of endeavor. But it is by no means an invalid entry in this thread, although perhaps insufficiently frivolous to suit the overall tone.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

I see tonality as a dolphin and atonality as a shark.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

I see tonality as a cake and atonality as a piece of it.


----------



## David OByrne (Dec 1, 2016)

Tonality and atonality are both religion


----------



## Ziggabea (Apr 5, 2017)

I think the best analogy, is that Tonal music is like abstract painting. It doesn't express anything outside of the basic materials of melodies and harmonies. Atonal music is more like nature, it has a biological type of flow of orchestration and timbres, often with allusions to birds, waves, water etc.


----------



## christomacin (Oct 21, 2017)

Atonality is from Mars, Tonality is from Venus


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Ziggabea said:


> I think the best analogy, is that Tonal music is like abstract painting. It doesn't express anything outside of the basic materials of melodies and harmonies. Atonal music is more like nature, it has a biological type of flow of orchestration and timbres, often with allusions to birds, waves, water etc.


Odd that most of the world's music would be rooted in a principle that doesn't express anything.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

Tonality is like classical architecture and poetry; atonality is like Dadaism
Tonality is like a landscape with a firm, stable ground and fruitful soil; atonality is like a swamp
Tonality is like the Roman Empire; atonality is like its ruins
Tonality is like a sane mind; atonality is like a deranged one
Tonality is like a living, healthy and well-functioning organism; atonality is like a rotting corpse


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Tonality... an Apple. Atonality... an Apple Being Eaten.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

Larkenfield said:


> Tonality... an Apple. Atonality... an Apple Being Eaten.


So THAT'S why atonal music sounds so crunchy!


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

Larkenfield said:


> Atonality... an Apple Being Eaten.


Or what becomes of it after it's been digested.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Improbus said:


> Or what becomes of it after it's been digested.


Tonality... an Orange. Atonality... an Orange Being Eaten. :cheers:


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

—duplicate post—


----------



## st Omer (Sep 23, 2015)

I don't even care for atonal music but it would be a shame to see such a stimulating conversation come to an end. 

I obviously don't have time to read every post but I have read enough of them to be able to make a comment. 

Tonality is Jennifer Lopez tastefully dressed and atonality is Roseanne Barr dressing like Kim Kardashian. 
Tonality is honey and atonality can't decide if it is vinegar or spoiled milk.
Tonality is Ward Cleaver and atonality is Norman Bates.


----------



## David OByrne (Dec 1, 2016)

Atonality is a normal person, and tonality is like a person being run over by a train with a cork in their behind


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Been reading up on dissonant counterpoint, and on varying degrees of dissonance. The highest degree of dissonance is actually based on close proximity to an octave or unison. It is in fact relative, while consonance is in most basic terms having higher degree of meeting points in different wavelengths.

Maintaining a high degree of disonnance may or may not lead to atonality. You can maintain a certain relative disonnance, which may sound atonal to some listeners, while it is actually reaffirming a certain tonic.

Of course you can also keep moving the disonnant intervals around, and there may never be an established tonic.


----------



## Ziggabea (Apr 5, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> Odd that most of the world's music would be rooted in a principle that doesn't express anything.


How doesn't it express anything? it's just far more abstract in the way it expresses, it's made of very vertical structures and concepts such as melody, which doesn't exist in nature. Do you see that as a bad thing?


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

Ziggabea said:


> How doesn't it express anything? it's just far more abstract in the way it expresses, it's made of very vertical structures and concepts such as melody, which doesn't exist in nature.


It's like a language, then?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Ziggabea said:


> How doesn't it express anything? it's just far more abstract in the way it expresses, it's made of very vertical structures and concepts such as melody, which doesn't exist in nature. Do you see that as a bad thing?


My response was ironic. You said, _"Tonal music is like abstract painting. It doesn't express anything outside of the basic materials of melodies and harmonies."_ Depending on what you could possibly mean by "outside of the basic materials of melodies and harmonies," I find your statement astoundingly uncomprehending of the ways musical expression is achieved, and of the power of tonality in achieving it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

You will not ever hear any music as being "atonal" except as it is an absence of tonality.

By the general Harvard Dictionary definition, you are hearing tonality if you hear tonal centers sustained through time long enough to be attributable to a tonal hierarchy in place.

All I hear in atonal works is_ momentary, instantaneous, local tonal points: _not system-wide, deep tonality which comes from an hierarchy.

Re: Minimalism, such as Philip Glass' _Music in Fifths:_

The piece is melodic, not harmonic. In that sense, it has no "deep, system wide" harmonic consequences (chords, functions, voice leadings, and other harmonic devices) which result. Since it is totally melodic, like Thai or Indian raga, it has no harmony, but is still tone-centric, and thus tonal.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

The octave equivalency of pitch (an A is an A whether high or low) is a natural fact, a consequence of the way our ears hear. Therefore, a scale which covers an octave from, say, A1 to A2 is inherently tonal, in that the notes of the scale are related to those tonic notes. This covers general tonality.

"Atonal" music uses principles which are not audible as harmonic phenomena. These are geometric and mathematical. Tonal music has always had this geometry, ever since the octave was divided into 12 notes. This geometry was not used as the primary basis of musical structure; it gradually creeped in, until Schoenbergian 12-tone music made it the main way of structuring. As such, atonality is "natural" if not absolutely "inevitable," in that it remained a set of potentialities for centuries. As such it is much rooted in musical thinking, and the Greeks called music an "arithmetic of sound" in the Quadrivium.

"...the row's capacity to impose order is not equivalent to the pervasive force of tonality, which operates on both a micro and macro scale and not as a static pattern but as a dynamic principle, constantly active as the music creates and plays against expectations in the mind of the listener."

I disagree with this conclusion that 12-tone and set-based music is "not equivalent" to tonality.

"...The hierarchies of tonality are analogous to the hierarchical structuring of perceptualization and conceptual thought, in which fundamental premises support other less fundamental ideas which relate to it and to the others in particular ways, with no idea, no matter how small, escaping significance in context."

Tonality does have a "perceptual" structure which corresponds to its conceptual aspects, but 'more integrated' does not make it automatically or axiomatically 'superior.'

Harmonic phenomena are present in all sound. If anything, the fact that tonality's 'perceptual' harmonically-based effects are permanently linked to its "conceptual" structures makes it more defined, more predictable, and more stable as a system of sound. This can be seen as good or bad, as stable or limiting, as reassuring or as predictable. Ultimately, the purpose of music is to serve Man's needs. Does Man want to be reassured, or to be made to question with uncertainty? Does he want to reinforce his own ego and identity and paradigm and belief-system, or does he want to question it?


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

Art Rock said:


> Tonal is like paintings that depict scenes or persons, eminently recognizable.
> Atonal is like abstract paintings.
> 
> I would not be surprised if people who can't stand atonal also can't stand abstract paintings.


There are beautiful and evocative abstract paintings and ugly or simple-minded ones.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

I see tonality as a Great Dane and atonality as a German Shepherd.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Tonality = tomato
Atonality = tomato pronounced the other way


----------



## Ziggabea (Apr 5, 2017)

Improbus said:


> It's like a language, then?


I don't think so, more like an abstract painting. But tonality in musical means, is an artificial system.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Ziggabea said:


> I don't think so, more like an abstract painting. But tonality in musical means, is an artificial system.


All music is equally artificial.


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2017)

With apologies to those over there:


VICTOR HUGO: The greatest happiness of life is the conviction that we love atonal music; loved for ourselves, or rather, loved in spite of ourselves.

LEO TOLSTOY: All, everything that I understand, I only understand because I love atonal music.

LES MISERABLES: And remember, as it was written, to love atonal music is to see the face of God.

COLIN FIRTH: It's a very dangerous state. You are inclined to recklessness and kind of tune out the rest of your life and everything that's been important to you. It's actually not all that pleasurable. I don't know who the hell wants to get in a situation where you can't bear an hour without atonal music.

HELEN KELLER: The best and most beautiful atonal music cannot be seen or even heard, but must be felt with the heart.

ANGELITA LIM: I saw that atonal music was perfect, and so I loved it. Then I saw that atonal music was not perfect and I loved it even more.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

isorhythm said:


> All music is equally artificial.


Well, I think Ziggabea is registering a justified a protest against the false idea that music written according to common practice (using equal temperament) is "natural". Along with all the fake psychology concocted to align with everything from human biorhythms to brain structure.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

Holding up "natural" as if it is some kind of obviously superior goal? What does natural have to do with anything. Artificial, as used in this thread, implies an organization (of sound), that wouldn't occur "on its own" (i.e. without human intervention?)

Heavens forbid we should live "naturally". It is natural to die of tooth decay before your 40th birthday. Cancer, polio, small pox, plague, sepsis are all natural. Famine is natural.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The most entertaining moment in discussions of tonality and atonality arrives with the pretense that "natural" can only mean "inhuman."

Once we accept that, meaningful discussion of the differences between tonality and atonality ends - usually before it gets off the ground.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Is it any worse than claiming the word 'natural' to bolster a particular view that one kind of artistic practice is a 'naturally occurring' extension of human existence?


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> Is it any worse than claiming the word 'natural' to bolster a particular view that one kind of artistic practice is a 'naturally occurring' extension of human existence?


Isn't it an "extension of human existence" supposing that tonal music has co-evolved with human beings?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Improbus said:


> Isn't it an "extension of human existence" supposing that tonal music has co-evolved with human beings?


That's like saying cars have co-evolved with humans. There may be better ways of looking at it!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

eugeneonagain said:


> Is it any worse than claiming the word 'natural' to bolster a particular view that one kind of artistic practice is a 'naturally occurring' extension of human existence?


Yes, it is worse, although all imprecise formulations are bad.

It's imprecise to flatly declare tonality "natural," but pointing out that tonal centricity has arisen in music all over the world, and showing that there are causes and correspondences for that in the _nature_ of human mental, emotional, and physical experience, ought to be regarded as useful and interesting.


----------



## Rosie (Jul 4, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> showing that there are causes and correspondences for that in the _nature_ of human mental, emotional, and physical experience, ought to be regarded as useful and interesting.


And how do you know this? just a feeling? or a solid, objective fact?


----------



## Rosie (Jul 4, 2016)

The only analogies I have is that there isn't one. Music is music


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

KenOC said:


> That's like saying cars have co-evolved with humans. There may be better ways of looking at it!


I'm not sure cars _evolved_ as much as they were deliberately _invented_, let alone co-evolved, which assumes some kind of reciprocal adaptation progressively over a long period of time.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Cars have purposely bred us to aid in their reproduction, or so I understand. They joke among themselves that we are their genital organs.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Rosie said:


> And how do you know this? just a feeling? or a solid, objective fact?


I've written many posts on this over the three years I've been on the forum. It is not an unstudied subject. I'm not feeling like producing another essay that hardly anyone will read and that will end up getting buried. I'll only point out that tonality is the most thorough structural representation possible in music of some basic principles operative in both human existence and physical nature, most fundamentally the hierarchical organization of parts into wholes around a central element. Perception, thinking and valuation are hierarchical; philosophical and religious systems are hierarchical; social structures are hierarchical; organisms are hierarchically structured; inorganic matter from atoms to solar systems tends to organize itself hierarchically. Tonality is thus an image of both the way we function and of the world we perceive. It is also the musical principle which most replicates the dynamic patterns of emotion, providing the most complete polarity between tension and relaxation, and permitting the exploitation of that polarity over time scales from the momentary to the very lengthy, with a detailed, hierarchically coherent exploitation of tensions and releases.

For us humans to gravitate to a way of organizing music which replicates the most basic patterns of reality and experience, and which therefore has the capacity to stimulate us both intellectually and emotionally and to seem to us to represent our inner lives in all its variety and depth, is something one might _naturally_ expect. And, _naturally,_ it actually occurred.

It's also _natural_ that at some point someone should conceive of music consisting of tones and yet lacking in tonal organization. But, _naturally,_ we might expect such music to have limited appeal. That too - _naturally_ - actually occurred.

Btw, when people ask for "solid, objective facts" about music, they are never satisfied with any answer they are given. One thing music will never be is a solid object.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Except that the tones - as organised in equal temperament are a deliberate creation and one that was arduously worked out over a long time as a compromise. Considered imprecise and even rejected by some contemporaries of the time who saw other ways of organising music as better. There are indeed reflections of natural and human organisation, but I'm drawing the line at:



> "It is also the musical principle which most replicates the dynamic patterns of emotion..."


That's just a personal theory.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

I don't see the need to be so specific as to bring up something like equal temperament when we're simply talking about tonal music in general, which people seem to have an instinctual perceptiveness to and inclination for from a very early age.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

eugeneonagain said:


> Except that the tones - as organised in equal temperament are a deliberate creation and one that was arduously worked out over a long time as a compromise. Considered imprecise and even rejected by some contemporaries of the time who saw other ways of organising music as better.


Tonality - the organization of the notes of a scale hierarchically around a central tone - exists in various forms in most of the world's music and doesn't depend on equal temperament, which is merely a development in Western common practice and facilitated chromaticism and modulation.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> Except that the tones - as organised in equal temperament are a deliberate creation and one that was arduously worked out over a long time as a compromise. Considered imprecise and even rejected by some contemporaries of the time who saw other ways of organising music as better. There are indeed reflections of natural and human organisation, but I'm drawing the line at:
> 
> That's just a personal theory.


The 12 tones were derived from the perfect fifths, so that actually supports the idea of "natural" tonality


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

It's important to a coherent discussion to distinguish tonality as a principle exhibited in numerous forms in world music from common practice tonality specific to Western harmony. The sense of tonality has manifested itself in different ways in different cultures, as well as in different styles of music and at different periods in Western music.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> Tonality - the organization of the notes of a scale hierarchically around a central tone - exists in various forms in most of the world's music and doesn't depend on equal temperament, which is merely a development in Western common practice and facilitated chromaticism and modulation.


Simply no. There are scales for non-western music that are not tied to a central tone or have several possible 'centres' leading to tonal vagary. It's reason Debussy was drawn to them. This was discussed months ago in a similar topic, but you are ignoring it.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

So here is a workable analogy.

Atonal music is like a long sentence with the order of the words seemingly jumbled randomly. Its possible to appreciate it, but it cannot be understood in the "conventional" sense.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> The 12 tones were derived from the perfect fifths, so that actually supports the idea of "natural" tonality


To develop 12 notes (or originally the octave) using fifths there was a lot of tuning manipulation required - in fact multiple attempts and systems. This is not a 'natural' state of affairs.

There's no Q.E.D. to be had here.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

I guess Schönberg wasn't so original after all when he abolished tonality. The real innovators and revolutionaries were in fact the composers of early common practice who defied and revolted against the old customs and created something utterly unheard of in the entire history of man. Unfortunately reactionaries like Schönberg would have nothing of that and restored normality in music.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

eugeneonagain said:


> Simply no. There are scales for non-western music that are not tied to a central tone or have several possible 'centres' leading to tonal vagary. It's reason Debussy was drawn to them. This was discussed months ago in a similar topic, but you are ignoring it.


I'm not ignoring anything. Systematic hierarchy in relation to points of gravitation is what's important. The presence of more than one point of gravitation in certain modes doesn't change this.

"Vagary" means an unexpected and inexplicable change in a situation or in behavior. "Vagaries" are up to the composer, not properties of a system. Options and variations are not vagaries.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Improbus said:


> I guess Schönberg wasn't so original after all when he abolished tonality. The real innovators and revolutionaries were in fact the composers of early common practice who defied and revolted against the old customs and created something utterly unheard of in the entire history of man. Unfortunately reactionaries like Schönberg would have nothing of that and restored normality in music.


I hope you won't mind if I add  to your analysis. I'm afraid for your reputation. :lol:


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> I'm not ignoring anything. Systematic hierarchy in relation to points of gravitation is what's important. The presence of more than one point of gravitation in certain modes doesn't change this.


This is the sort of prolix obfuscation (see?) that makes a pedestrian claim seem more complex. If no specific anchor can be determined, it makes a world of difference.



Woodduck said:


> "Vagary" means an unexpected and inexplicable change in a situation or in behavior. "Vagaries" are up to the composer, not properties of a system. Options and variations are not vagaries.


he basis of _vagary_ means wandering with no fixed place. The problem here is you think the human contrived system is the same as something "naturally occurring". The whole idea rests upon a quicksand of a theory about "systems" and analogies drawn between genuine naturally occurring phenomena and human contrived tuning systems derived partially from aesthetic judgements.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

eugeneonagain said:


> This is the sort of prolix obfuscation (see?) that makes a pedestrian claim seem more complex. If no specific anchor can be determined, it makes a world of difference.
> 
> The problem here is you think the human contrived system is the same as something "naturally occurring". The whole idea rests upon a quicksand of a theory about "systems" and analogies drawn between genuine naturally occurring phenomena and human contrived tuning systems derived partially from aesthetic judgements.


"A world of difference" is utterly meaningless in the context of a discussion of principles. I just said that the principles of hierarchy and tonal gravitation are not negated by the presence of more than one point of gravitation. That is simply a true, and perfectly clear, statement. Nothing is prolix or obfuscated.

There is very little music in the world in which "anchors" - points of gravitation - cannot be determined.

I've never said that "human contrived systems" are "naturally occurring," as if whole systems of tonality were fruits picked off trees. I've said that the tendency to organize music tonally comes naturally to the human mind, and that it does so for a number of reasons mentioned in summary fashion in post #190 above.

There's "a world of difference" between what I'm saying and what you're claiming I'm saying.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Going out on a limb here, since I'm pretty sure this one's a stretch: tonality is like 19th-century Viennese composers, whereas atonality is like the 2nd Viennese School composers.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> "A world of difference" is utterly meaningless in the context of a discussion of principles. I just said that the principles of hierarchy and tonal gravitation are not negated by the presence of more than one point of gravitation. That is simply a true, and perfectly clear, statement. Nothing is prolix or obfuscated.


_A world of difference_ is just a flowery, colloquial version of 'A lot'. A hierarchical principle in the scales and musics I alluded to _is_ negated because there is no centre, that's the point.



Woodduck said:


> I've never said that "human contrived systems" are "naturally occurring," as if whole systems of tonality were fruits picked off trees. I've said that the tendency to organize music tonally comes naturally to the human mind, and that it does so for a number of reasons mentioned in summary fashion in post #190 above.
> 
> _There's "a world of difference" between what I'm saying and what you're claiming I'm saying_.


I think not. The tendency to organise music naturally has been disrupted several times and based upon complex ideas that fly in the face of what was thought to be 'natural' beforehand.
The idea of 'Tonal' has changed several times - incorporating new harmonic and melodic developments (chromaticism in the late 18th to 19th centuries).

I confess to being a little unsure though of what is being talked about here: are we talking about the development of tuning systems or just 'organising music' i.e. composing music in a way that pleases conservative minds?
The music that upsets those conservative minds - all or most of this atonality and dodecaphonic stuff - also operates within the same tuning system of equal temperament.

So is it at bottom just the same old complaints of "no proper tunes", " not enough harmonies that sound enough like Dvorak, Wagner or whomever to satisfy what my emotions and my ears are accustomed to and expect"? I can discern little else.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> The problem here is you think the human contrived system is the same as something "naturally occurring".


Considering that tonality isn't a contrived system any more than English grammar I would like to know what you're referring to.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Improbus said:


> Considering that tonality isn't a contrived system any more than English grammar I would like to know what you're referring to.


Well that makes two of us. English grammar (and most other languages' grammars) is partially, formally constructed from random spoken patterns and informal rules.

Who says tonality isn't contrived?


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> Well that makes two of us. English grammar (and most other languages' grammars) is partially, formally constructed from random spoken patterns and informal rules.


Partially, yes, but only partially: the rest probably arose by a kind of natural, memetic evolution before it was ever cultivated or formalized.



> Who says tonality isn't contrived?


Are we instead to say that someone at some point sat down and made it up? I'm pretty sure it was a slow, unintended process over the course of some thousand centuries, quite unlike anything else apart from language, which seems to have been more or less involved with its evolution, if you take into account its similarities or just the fact that singing was probably the original form of music.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

A hierarchical principle in the scales and musics I alluded to _is_ negated because there is no centre, that's the point.

I'll say it again: the presence of more than one point of gravitation in a musical grammar does not make either gravitation or hierarchy impossible. A good example is Gregorian chant, where the finishing note may not be the same as the most prominent melody note, but where the notes of the melody are organized around both of these notes in a manner consistent with the particular mode and style. This is still tonality in the broad sense.

The tendency to organise music naturally has been disrupted several times and based upon complex ideas that fly in the face of what was thought to be 'natural' beforehand.
The idea of 'Tonal' has changed several times - incorporating new harmonic and melodic developments (chromaticism in the late 18th to 19th centuries).

What do you mean by "the tendency to organize music naturally has been disrupted"? The tendency under discussion is the natural propensity of the human brain to organize music tonally - i.e. into a hierarchical system around a tone (or tones) serving as a basic point of resolution and repose. I see no "disruption" of that tendency in most of the world's music regardless of stylistic changes. If you're talking only about chromatic harmony in Western music, its use doesn't negate music's basic tonal foundation, or uproot the brain's propensity to hear tonally, simply by creating local ambiguity. It's possible of course to create music in which there is no governing tonal gravitation, which is to say music that doesn't play to, or which defeats, any sense that note or chord A must or might proceed to note or chord B, or that there is in the basic syntax of the music any likely destination. That's where we enter into atonality.

I confess to being a little unsure though of what is being talked about here: are we talking about the development of tuning systems or just 'organising music' i.e. composing music in a way that pleases conservative minds?

Well, I'm not talking about either of those things. I don't know what you might be talking about.

The music that upsets those conservative minds - all or most of this atonality and dodecaphonic stuff - also operates within the same tuning system of equal temperament. 

Tuning systems are irrelevant.

So is it at bottom just the same old complaints of "no proper tunes", " not enough harmonies that sound enough like Dvorak, Wagner or whomever to satisfy what my emotions and my ears are accustomed to and expect"? I can discern little else.

If that's all you can discern, then it isn't surprising that you can't see a difference between tonality and atonality.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

I'm not going to dispute the long formalisation processes of anything: language, music, manners, what-have-you. So long as it is recognised that some things come to dominate for various cultural reasons and then get confused for 'natural processes'.

In this thread I'm only concerned with countering the complete rubbish offered in pithy sentences jabbing at music that isn't standard 'tonal' fare. Between the comedy there is a regular interlude where a small, but vocal and pushy group tries to peddle a story about regular 'tonal' music being _the_ music of humanity and human culture according to conjectural theses.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

I'll say it again: the presence of more than one point of gravitation in a musical grammar does not make either gravitation or hierarchy impossible. A good example is Gregorian chant, where the finishing note may not be the same as the most prominent melody note, but where the notes of the melody are organized around both of these notes in a manner consistent with the particular mode and style. This is still tonality in the broad sense. 

Well I don't know why you keep repeating it because it's just flowery emptiness. I'm aware of how chant and old modes work they are a just a precursor to western key-systems. There is more than this.

What do you mean by "the tendency to organize music naturally has been disrupted"? The tendency under discussion is the natural propensity of the human brain to organize music tonally - i.e. into a hierarchical system around a tone (or tones) serving as a basic point of resolution and repose. 

My god! You are obsessed with the idea of music being organised "hierarchically around a tone". Yes, this describes tonality, but no, it does not describe the whole of musical history and practice.

Many scales e.g: whole-tone, octatonic do not have leading tones or a sense of resolution and repose, and yet they turn up regularly throughout the history of music. The medieval modes are considered "pre-tonal", the Lydian, Mixolydian, Dorian, Phrygian and Locrian modes do not fit neatly into the 'tonal' system. Even the aeolian mode which turns up in 'tonal' music has never been a fixture because of its "unstable" sound. For modern 'tonality' the triads of these modes were considered _dissonant_ and the modal system rather shifting.

Tuning systems are irrelevant.

They're actually very relevant for pointing out to people that modern 'tonal' music originated from a revolution in tuning for western music.

If that's all you can discern, then it isn't surprising that you can't see a difference between tonality and atonality.

I can see a difference. The difference is that I'm not trying to hawk a duff theory predicated on my listening preferences...incidentally my preferences include very diverse kinds of music.

I like this colour quote highlighting thing.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

eugeneonagain said:


> I'll say it again: the presence of more than one point of gravitation in a musical grammar does not make either gravitation or hierarchy impossible. A good example is Gregorian chant, where the finishing note may not be the same as the most prominent melody note, but where the notes of the melody are organized around both of these notes in a manner consistent with the particular mode and style. This is still tonality in the broad sense.
> 
> Well I don't know why you keep repeating it because it's just flowery emptiness. I'm aware of how chant and old modes work they are a just a precursor to western key-systems. There is more than this.
> 
> ...


I do the color thing because I'm a computer ignoramus. It _is_ pretty, isn't it?.

I can't speak for anyone else, but my thoughts on tonality are not predicated on my listening preferences. I enjoy Balinese, Indian, Vietnamese, Chinese, and other non-classical music as well as a wide range of Western classical music from Medieval to contemporary (though not much recent music). The Western harmonic elaboration of the tonal idea is certainly unique but it doesn't define tonality. There's tonal organization in all of the following traditional musics:

Inuit: 



Native American: 



Saami: 



West African: 



East African: 



Vietnamese: 



Balinese: 



Chinese: 



Japanese: 



Indian: 



Bulgarian: 



Romanian: 



Hungarian: 



Persian: 



Andalusian: 



Basque: 




The list could go on, of course.

You seem to want to define tonality in terms of Western common practice only. That's the narrow, rather than the broad, definition of tonality, useful to Western theorists but not to ethnomusicologists or to anyone who studies the psychology of music. It should be obvious from most of what I've said about tonality's sources and prevalence that that I'm using the broad definition, because I'm talking about music as a broad human phenomenon, not merely a Western artistic tradition. Under that definition, your "pre-tonal" modes are tonal.

Why do you suppose most of world music has predictably placed tonal centers - points of gravitation - and cadences on particular notes? Why does it have hierarchy, i.e. certain steps of its scales which exhibit degrees of prominence and particular melodic and harmonic functions in relation to each other and to the gravitation points? Do you think tonal centers and hierarchical systems popped up all over the world because St. Cecilia rolled her dice and got lucky again and again?

(Btw, where in traditional musics do you find the whole tone scale?)


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> *You seem to want to define tonality in terms of Western common practice only*. That's the narrow, rather than the broad, definition of tonality, useful to Western theorists but not to ethnomusicologists or to anyone who studies the psychology of music. It should be obvious from most of what I've said about tonality's sources and prevalence that
> that I'm using the broad definition, because I'm talking about music as a broad human phenomenon, not merely a Western one.


On the contrary, that approach is what I am contradicting. So either I have gone mad, you have gone mad or we are talking at cross purposes.



Woodduck said:


> Under that definition, your "pre-tonal" modes are tonal.


Oh no, they are not 'tonal', they are just organised in a different way.



Woodduck said:


> Why do you suppose most of world music has tonal centers - points of gravitation - and cadences on particular notes? Why does it have hierarchy, i.e. certain steps of its scales which exhibit degrees of prominence and particular melodic and harmonic functions? Do you think tonal centers and hierarchical systems popped up all over the world because St. Cecilia rolled her dice and got lucky again and again?


I do _not_ think most world music has tonal centres. Playing and recognising notes in descending/ascending sequences hardly points to a grand universal system of tonality. To a human predilection for patterns, yes, but those patterns vary widely.



Woodduck said:


> (Btw, where in traditional musics do you find the whole tone scale?)


I feel like I've gone back in time several months... The pentatonic scale, which is not a true whole-tone scale, but very closely related, is a major feature of many traditional musics. Tonal centres are not a traditional feature of music.

I don't think I'll offer another reply on this. It's really a waste of time.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

I find it interesting learning how non-Western music is both tonal and not tonal at the same time. It really is food for thought.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I do _not_ think most world music has tonal centres. 

A tonal center, at minimum, is that note of a scale which is heard as having the most essential presence or value among the notes of that scale,_ even when it is not sounded._ The other scale notes will normally tend to be heard as having a stronger, more enduring relationship to that note than to others. Perhaps the most important indicator of that importance and stronger relationship is the tendency (not invariable, of course) of music to _cadence_ in such a way as to emphasize the tonal center, especially at the ends of sections or of the whole piece; another indicator, conspicuous in some musical traditions, is the constant presence of the tonal center as a drone which underlies other melodic and harmonic activity. But in some music an underlying tonality can be perceived even in the absence of these features. I hear tonal relationships, and usually clear tonal centers, in all the examples I listed in my last post. I don't know what you're listening for and not hearing that leads you to deny the presence of tonality.

Playing and recognising notes in descending/ascending sequences hardly points to a grand universal system of tonality. 

There is no grand universal system of tonality, but many systems. Who has claimed otherwise?

To a human predilection for patterns, yes, but those patterns vary widely.

They do. 

The pentatonic scale, which is not a true whole-tone scale, but very closely related, is a major feature of many traditional musics.

Closely related how? The whole tone and pentatonic scales are not even remotely related. The whole tone scale has no intrinsic tendency toward tonality and is actually inimical to it, for two reasons: all its steps are equally spaced, so that it has no focal note and suggests no differentiated functions, both of which are basic features of tonal systems; and it outlines no perfect fifth between any of its tones. The fifth is the most prominent interval in most tonal systems, creating a stable consonance with the tonal center and thus helping to establish the tonality, and it's often the most conspicuous melody note. By contrast, the pentatonic scale readily gives rise to tonal perception in both these ways: the scale's differentiated scale steps and the presence in it of two perfect fifths make it a basis for both "major" and "minor" tonalities, both of which are extensively represented in indigenous musical traditions. I know of no use of the whole tone scale in music until Debussy used it for the precise purpose of weakening or obliterating the sense of tonal gravitation.

I asked you some good questions last post, aimed at eliciting from you a specific concept of tonality which would support your denial that it exists in most world music. I'm sorry that answering is a waste of your time.


----------



## BabyGiraffe (Feb 24, 2017)

Improbus said:


> I find it interesting learning how non-Western music is both tonal and not tonal at the same time. It really is food for thought.


Non-Western music is 100 % tonal even when people are using stretched octaves and weird tunings (Gamelan). Arabs and turks even use a modulation systems based on tetra- and pentachord patterns that is similar to the Western practice.

Tonal doesn't mean juxtaposing the major scale and some related scales (like the melodic minor (which contains the same intervals as diatonic scale, but recombined ), harmonic minor, some of their modes + transpositions of these patterns to add novelty/contrast). This simplified description of the Western musical practice fits only almost insignificant period of time.

The correct term is common practice period tonality. 
Even when common practice became unfashionable and composers started exploring modal mixtures and synthetic scales, their music still counts as tonal as long it isn't something random.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

JeffD said:


> What does natural have to do with anything. Artificial, as used in this thread, implies an organization (of sound), that wouldn't occur "on its own" (i.e. without human intervention?)


"Natural," in tonality, means "harmonically derived." It's natural because it is heard that way by the ears, and is therefore a visceral sensation, which exists apart from any conceptual system. That's why a basic tonality is present in most "natural" ('primitive') ethnic and folk musics; because this music was composed "by ear," not by predetermined principles.

Atonal music is not structured in the same way, or is as dependent upon, these 'natural' harmonic principles, although it does use pre-determined intervals (which have a distinctive sound); but harmonically, atonal music (hopefully) uses the sensation of the harmonic aspect of sound, but in a way which is removed, _after the fact_ of its basic structuring. In other words, harmonic aspects are not a 'fixed' or predetermined part of its basic structuring principles, except as intervals.

This means that atonal music has more to do with melodic (thematic) and motivic principles, and these are again "removed" to a distance from specific pitch-centers, as the idea of intervals has been "abstracted" from any specific reference pitch; the interval is only a distance between two notes, and has no specific reference to any other pitch structurally. A fourth is a fourth (any fourth) and a third is a third (any third). Intervals are thus 'unto themselves' and stand alone as harmonic entities.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> Why do you suppose most of world music has predictably placed tonal centers - points of gravitation - and cadences on particular notes? Why does it have hierarchy, i.e. certain steps of its scales which exhibit degrees of prominence and particular melodic and harmonic functions in relation to each other and to the gravitation points? Do you think tonal centers and hierarchical systems popped up all over the world because St. Cecilia rolled her dice and got lucky again and again?


It seems to me the whole conversation about the definitions of tonal and atonal, in this thread, is besides the point. As in, the discussion is here and way over there is the point.

The only definition of tonal and atonal that matters in this thread is what the original poster meant. Whether right in your eyes, my eyes, academic literature, or not, it is the definition for which we are challenged to find an analogy.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Originally Posted by Woodduck 
_[Why do you suppose most of world music has predictably placed tonal centers - points of gravitation - and cadences on particular notes? Why does it have hierarchy, i.e. certain steps of its scales which exhibit degrees of prominence and particular melodic and harmonic functions in relation to each other and to the gravitation points? Do you think tonal centers and hierarchical systems popped up all over the world because St. Cecilia rolled her dice and got lucky again and again?]
_
It's because of the octave, and our identification of it being pitch-equivalent. As such, an octave is a "one note' identity, which can act as a harmonic model, and be divided in various ways. This 'models' how the overtones of a single note work.



JeffD said:


> It seems to me the whole conversation about the definitions of tonal and atonal, in this thread, is besides the point. As in, the discussion is here and way over there is the point.
> 
> The only definition of tonal and atonal that matters in this thread is what the original poster meant. Whether right in your eyes, my eyes, academic literature, or not, it is the definition for which we are challenged to find an analogy.


So, to answer your response, the simplest and most direct analogy of tonality is THE ONE NOTE.


----------



## Guest (Nov 1, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> So, to answer your response, the simplest and most direct analogy of tonality is THE ONE NOTE.


Everything in the universe is made of one element, which is a note, a single note. Atoms are really vibrations, which are extensions of THE BIG NOTE. Everything's one note. Everything, even the ponies. The note, however, is the ultimate power, but see, the pigs don't know that, the ponies don't know that.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

_~~~not worth the gyp~~~_


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Analogies… Tonality is like a cool bubbling brook, pure and clear, promising refreshment and an instant and delightful relief from thirst. Atonality is like a fetid oozing mass of filthy sludge issuing forth along with foul vapors from a diseased and reeking crack in the nether regions of Hell.

But of course to each to their own. And far, far be it from me to criticize the choices of others! :lol:


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

KenOC said:


> Analogies… Tonality is like a cool bubbling brook, pure and clear, promising refreshment and an instant and delightful relief from thirst. Atonality is like a fetid oozing mass of filthy sludge issuing forth along with foul vapors from a diseased and reeking crack in the nether regions of Hell.
> 
> But of course to each to their own. And far, far be it from me to criticize the choices of others! :lol:


Reminds me of the quote from my signature.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Analogies… Tonality is like a cool bubbling brook, pure and clear, promising refreshment and an instant and delightful relief from thirst. Atonality is like a fetid oozing mass of filthy sludge issuing forth along with foul vapors from a diseased and reeking crack in the nether regions of Hell.
> 
> But of course to each to their own. And far, far be it from me to criticize the choices of others! :lol:


It's OK. We're just glad you got out alive.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

just came across this article. it addresses a few topics talked about in this thread

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2010/nov/28/alex-ross-modern-classical-music


----------



## David OByrne (Dec 1, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> It's OK. We're just glad you got out alive.


No we're not, he should stay there


----------



## Guest (Nov 2, 2017)

Analogies cannot illustrate anything useful in the context of atonal / tonal. Every sound has a value, and every action is part of the universal diapason, a colossal vibration that makes energy rather than reflecting it.


----------



## Agamemnon (May 1, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> just came across this article. it addresses a few topics talked about in this thread
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/music/2010/nov/28/alex-ross-modern-classical-music


I think it merits a new topic (hold on...).


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Tonal: Music that uses the existence of a single, stable pitch as an organizational principle. Atonal: Music that does not. 

As many posts in this thread make clear, one could analogize the existence of a single, stable pitch to the existence of God, rationality or order in the universe, and atonality to the existence of uncertainty, chaos and destruction. But the irony is, only with the latest technology has mankind come anywhere near being able to produce a perfectly pure, perfectly accurate, overtone free, stable single pitch. (The tuning fork, which does a decent but far from perfect job, goes back to 1711.) Yet mankind has made music for tens of thousands of years, at least. So, do we mourn our inability to achieve that perfectly accurate pitch, or celebrate our inevitable deviations from it as what give us our character and uniqueness, in a word, our humanity?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

fluteman said:


> Tonal: Music that uses the existence of a single, stable pitch as an organizational principle. Atonal: Music that does not.
> 
> As many posts in this thread make clear, one could analogize the existence of a single, stable pitch to the existence of God, rationality or order in the universe, and atonality to the existence of uncertainty, chaos and destruction. But the irony is, only with the latest technology has mankind come anywhere near being able to produce a perfectly pure, perfectly accurate, overtone free, stable single pitch. (The tuning fork, which does a decent but far from perfect job, goes back to 1711.) Yet mankind has made music for tens of thousands of years, at least. So, do we mourn our inability to achieve that perfectly accurate pitch, or celebrate our inevitable deviations from it as what give us our character and uniqueness, in a word, our humanity?


Who has ever mourned the inability to achieve a perfectly pure, perfectly accurate, overtone free, stable pitch? (Sounds horrible, or at least boring.) And what does that have to do with tonality?

It seems as if you're positing an analogy between the central importance of the tonic note, and all the meanings that might be suggested by that, with the pseudo-ideal of a sterile acoustical phenomenon. I see a great expression of character, uniqueness and humanity in tonal music, but none in that spooky tone.

I know it's just an analogy, but it's an odd one, fluteman.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Who has ever mourned the inability to achieve a perfectly pure, perfectly accurate, overtone free, stable pitch? (Sounds horrible, or at least boring.) And what does that have to do with tonality?
> 
> It seems as if you're positing an analogy between the central importance of the tonic note, and all the meanings that might be suggested by that, with the pseudo-ideal of a sterile acoustical phenomenon. I see a great expression of character, uniqueness and humanity in tonal music, but none in that spooky tone.
> 
> I know it's just an analogy, but it's an odd one, fluteman.


I guess I could have expressed myself better. My overall favorite Beethoven string quartet cycle is the Budapest Library of Congress set from the early 1950s. There is no way I can pretend that there isn't more than a little dubious intonation in that set (though imo it's still more solid than their final, stereo cycle). There is no way I can pretend there aren't sets that feature better intonation and technically better playing in general, especially nowadays. I also very much like the second Lindsay cycle, and they too have far from perfect intonation. I've come to learn that the imperfect intonation is an important part of the appeal of these performances for me, strange as that sounds. That microtonal dissonance is an innate human characteristic, very much present in vocal music, and music can seem mechanical without it. No need to push it to Florence Foster Jenkins levels, of course.

All of which is to say, as much as tonality is a central feature of music across eras and cultures, as you've rightly pointed out in this thread and elsewhere, so is atonality, whether essentially random and indeterminate, as in my Beethoven string quartet example, or produced systematically. The human voice produces both the tonal and the atonal, they are both everywhere in our sound world. Some artists have tried to extract as much as possible some atonal elements of our sound world and examine them separately. That irritates some people. But it is what all artists do; they artificially manipulate what is naturally around them so we can see it in a new way, and the new is seldom entirely comfortable.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

fluteman said:


> I guess I could have expressed myself better. My overall favorite Beethoven string quartet cycle is the Budapest Library of Congress set from the early 1950s. There is no way I can pretend that there isn't more than a little dubious intonation in that set (though imo it's still more solid than their final, stereo cycle). There is no way I can pretend there aren't sets that feature better intonation and technically better playing in general, especially nowadays. I also very much like the second Lindsay cycle, and they too have far from perfect intonation. *I've come to learn that the imperfect intonation is an important part of the appeal of these performances for me, strange as that sounds. That microtonal dissonance is an innate human characteristic, very much present in vocal music, and music can seem mechanical without it.* No need to push it to Florence Foster Jenkins levels, of course.
> 
> All of which is to say, as much as tonality is a central feature of music across eras and cultures, as you've rightly pointed out in this thread and elsewhere, so is atonality, whether essentially random and indeterminate, as in my Beethoven string quartet example, or produced systematically. The human voice produces both the tonal and the atonal, they are both everywhere in our sound world. Some artists have tried to extract as much as possible some atonal elements of our sound world and examine them separately. That irritates some people. But it is what all artists do; they artificially manipulate what is naturally around them so we can see it in a new way, and the new is seldom entirely comfortable.


The beauty of imperfection! There we agree. Similarly to your feeling about the old Budapest and Lindsay performances (which i share), I love the lack of clinical perfection in orchestral performances under some old German conductors like Furtwangler and Knappertsbusch, where we feel that these people were too caught up in the spontaneous inspiration of musical re-creation to be distracted or inhibited by such sterile preoccupations as precision. That's not to say that they were sloppy, but that they were only as precise as they needed to be, so that they, and we, never lost contact with the deep human impulse to make music.

I don't think this has much to do with tonality or its absence, since atonal music is not an accidentally expressive byproduct of human effort but a deliberate choice to eschew a certain principle of order. A more exact parallel might be a composer attempting to create a work with perfectly logical structure but letting his need for immediate expression produce something less concise but possibly more interesting, rather like the longer original versions of Vaughan Williams's London Symphony and Brahms's Trio in b-minor.

On second thought, I do see a parallel between atonality and imprecise intonation if i think of both as representing the irrational, unpredictable element in human existence.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> On second thought, I do see a parallel between atonality and imprecise intonation if i think of both as representing the irrational, unpredictable element in human existence.


There you go. And if you push the analogy just a little further, you may even conclude that the soundscapes of the "far outs", as Virgil Thomson called them, have a significant place, and perform a significant function, in our culture. After all, shouldn't the entire human experience be fair game for the artist? Of course, that doesn't mean you are an ignoramus if John Cage isn't one of your favorite composers. I can't say he's one of mine.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Tulse said:


> Everything in the universe is made of one element, which is a note, a single note. Atoms are really vibrations, which are extensions of THE BIG NOTE. Everything's one note. Everything, even the ponies. The note, however, is the ultimate power, but see, the pigs don't know that, the ponies don't know that. -from Frank Zappa's "Lumpy Gravy"


There was an article in Scientific American which said that the universe 'resonates' at a certain low frequency, and that frequency was equivalent to a B flat.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> There was an article in Scientific American which said that the universe 'resonates' at a certain low frequency, and that frequency was equivalent to a B flat.


According to the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the meaning of life, the universe and everything is 42. And Domenico Scarlatti's keyboard sonata K. 42 is in what key? B-flat. Coincidence? I think not. Welcome back, Mr. Rainbows.


----------

