# Tonality into Chromaticism



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

A very interesting area of musical thought.

Here is a simple chart:

*1. Common-practice tonality (with tonal functions based on one root), which includes extremely chromatic tonality, such as R. Strauss' Metamorphosen and Schoenberg's Pelleas und Mellisande

*In late Romanticism, when the modulation and chromaticism became so pervasive that tonal function and analysis was no longer applicable, we had entered a non-tonal world of total chromaticism. Note that this is still listed under the umbrella of tonality.

*2. Chromatic music (non-tonal); music in which the chromatic scale is the starting-point, and there is no "one root" hierarchy
*
Tonal function and tonal thinking, which divided the octave by the fifth, was replaced by "12-note/chromatic thinking," which divided the 12-note scale equally at the tritone, and exploited inherent symmetries. These symmetries were the smaller divisions of 3 and 4, which naturally suspended tonality by diminished seventh, whole-tone, and augmented harmonies and scales.

In chromatic music (of the non-tonal variety), *local tone-centers* can be established, the music "sounds" harmonic, but there is no tonal hierarchy of "one root."

I see these chromatic ways of thinking, although connected to tonality, as being more of a departure from tonality, and sharing more concerns with modern serial thought than with tonality.

Common tonality, up to late-Romantic chromaticism, gave rise to a totally chromatic approach (2), which then gave rise to Schoenberg and all serial thought (3).

The problem most people have in sorting out this is that common tonality (1) and chromatic music (2) are both "harmonic" and based aurally; chromatic music does not have a single root, but is broken-down into localized tone-centric events which follow their own logic. Thus, listeners who like Bartok but dislike Babbitt.

*3. Schoenberg and all serialism which followed*


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I like theory. 

I think that any suggestion of an "anti-theory" argument is a confusing and artificial distinction, and unnecessary.

There is a time & place for music theory, and that may not always be while discussing music; but let's be clear about the necessity of theory & ideas, and not suggest that theory is somehow "toxic."


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

As a listener rather than a theorist or a composer or a musician - If I like the music, I like the music. 

Milton Babbitt* might not care if I listen, and I don't care if he theorizes, but it happens that I enjoy his music so everyone's happy! 

(I know the poor man is dead, may he rest in peace, but I'm using him here to stand for all the theorists who would say that if I'm not interested in theory then their music isn't for me.) 

The truth is, I am interested in theory - I appreciate concepts like "chromaticism" and "tonality" to the degree they help to describe what I experience as I listen, but not a bit more. And I definitely don't appreciate any ideology about how music has to be if it is to be respected by some elite class of elite elites.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

The decline of music began with the invention of the black keys. To disguise this travesty, a lot of early keyboards made these keys white and the rest black (see Wiki). But discerning people were not deceived.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

KenOC said:


> The decline of music began with the invention of the black keys. To disguise this travesty, a lot of early keyboards made these keys white and the rest black (see Wiki). But discerning people were not deceived.


I've often wondered why when the equal tone temperament was adopted the keyboard continued to have black keys instead of having twelve white keys, it seems also more intuitive.


----------

