# My first Piano Sonata



## Samuel Kristopher

I've been afraid of showing anyone beyond close friends and family some of my compositions, but after lots of encouragement and seeing the gracious treatment of compositions here, I'd like to submit my Sonata for public feedback. I'm eager for any feedback, technical or general 






Sadly, I never discovered my love for classical until very recently, about 2 years ago, in fact. I played violin for 4 years in high school, however, and I've been learning music theory for about a year and I've had a dinky (but charming) little upright to practice piano on for about 6 months. Naturally, my creative urges race ahead a hundred times faster than my personal abilities can keep up, which resulted in some sketches that eventually became this. It's far beyond my skill level, and due to my ignorance it's possibly unplayable in some parts, but my pianist housemate says that necessary adjustments wouldn't make much of a difference to the overall sound.

I try not to analyse my own music too much, but as far as influences go, I'm a huge fan of Tchaikovsky and Chopin. I'm also a big fan of solo electric guitarists like John Petrucci, and I feel like something of his melodic atmosphere came out in the 2nd movement.

A final note - at the time that I put this video together, I hadn't gone through and added the full range of dynamics and rubato that I envision for it, so it sounds a little mechanical sometimes.


----------



## Stirling

Will listen too it seriously after my Mahler fix...


----------



## Stirling

It is a fine effort - for a student piece. What do you want to say with the piano? Also start learning Scriabin and Prokofiev.


----------



## Mahlerian

You say your first movement is in sonata allegro form. How did you articulate this? Your form is not clear on first listen to me because the continuity seems far from obvious.

The way you treat the piano sounds very much non-classical (your melodic/harmonic material, too), always with a melody in one register and accompaniment in the other. Adding more clear dialogue or interchange between the two would do a lot to help create and sustain interest.


----------



## Samuel Kristopher

Thanks for your comments, Mahlerian and Stirling! That's very helpful, especially your second point about the accompaniment. 

As for the Sonata form, it could well just be my inexperience and lack of really feeling what a strict Sonata form should actually be. Having said that, the main way that I've been learning about form and structure (other than watching every Robert Greenberg lecture) is by analysing and deconstructing works of other composers, since I have no access to any teacher or course for composition. In the months preceding this Sonata, I'd been going through Tchaikovsky's symphonies (1st movements) and making notes about how he states his themes, when he restates them and to what extent they have been developed, and everything else I can learn about them. 

I guess the danger in this is that composers often broke rules because they first understood the rule itself, whereas by following in their steps, I'm likely also breaking rules without realising it. That's something I'll be able to remedy (hopefully) sometime this year, as there's a composition teacher here in St. Petersburg who's agreed to teach me, once my Russian just gets a little bit better!

Could you recommend anything else, in the meantime, for getting a better understanding of Sonata form? 

I suppose it wouldn't go amiss to turn my analytical studies to those who used the form more strictly. I've studied some of Beethoven's Sonatas but maybe Haydn, Mozart, and Adolf Marx?


----------



## SeptimalTritone

The almost solely melody/accompaniment textures are a more serious problem than the "sonata form" issue.

The lack of harmonic continuity and goal is another major problem, again, irrespective of sonata form. For example, you often end a phrase with a pause, then start the music again with an unrelated harmony.

How does one create harmonic continuity? A good bass line and harmonic rhythm is a great way to do this. An understanding of secondary dominants (or other chords) for chromatic inflections is important too. Focus more on chromatic inflections of particular notes rather than "what key you are in". I would forget about sonata form, and do the following. Listen to some of the common practice era piano sonatas (or other works) that you like and are familiar with. When listening, focus not on the right hand melody or first violin part, but just focus on the bass line, usually the bottom of the left hand or the cello/double bass part. Read along with the score on IMSLP if you wish. Realize how a shapely bass line with goal works. Try to learn what a good bass line looks like and sounds like. It should elaborate the tonic or dominant, or have good stepwise or sequential motion, or have a melodic shape.

If you like Chopin (as you say in your initial post) then learn _precisely_ what kind of harmony and counterpoint makes his music work. Look, for example, at the chromatically descending bassline in the E minor prelude that goes from the tonic to the dominant onto a half cadence, then does it again, finally full cadencing B -> E minor. This is a great example that combines good bassline motion, harmonic rhythm, phrasing, and (small scale) form.

Write much, much shorter pieces that are only a few minutes long. Focus more intently on music theory learning. Focus on harmonic rhythm, phrasing, bassline motion, counterpoint, stepwise and leaping melodic motion of voices, chromatic inflections (again, secondary dominants, secondary diminished sevenths, augmented fifth dominants, mode mixing to the parallel minor/major, Neapolitan or augmented sixths).

And finally, aim for a much clearer and memorable main melody that's supported by a harmonic rhythm. A great thing to look at would be (since you also like Tchaikovsky) the slow introduction to the fifth symphony. Look at the chords used, the bassline used, and the balanced phrasing, and how only at the end of the slow introduction does it really have an emphatic cadence (here a half cadence). Notice how a clear root position dominant->tonic is avoided and stepwise bassline is emphasized, giving it its agonized, mysterious, ambiguous feel. Notice how there are even deceptive resolutions in the key of G to the E minor chord, i.e. weak modal cadences. Very romantic era stuff.

On the other hand, compare this unique and famous Tchaikovsky excerpt to some of Mozart's stuff, and realize how in Mozart strong PACs, imperfect PACs, and HCs are used liberally and frequently and there's much much more bass line motion by fourth/fifth, but still there's linearity of the bassline that neighbors the tonic or dominant, to not as much of an "out there" degree as in Chopin/Tchaikovsky but still present.

A lot needs to be learned regarding melody, harmony, bass line motion, harmonic rhythm, and chromaticism. Form can then emerge out of these elements when treated over a larger scale over the course of minutes.


----------



## Samuel Kristopher

Thanks a lot Septimal! I really appreciate the time you took for this, it gives me a great sense of direction and I feel that's what I've needed. Teaching oneself music theory isn't easy I guess, but this gives me a lot to work with!


----------



## Stirling

For classical sonata form consider Rosen's two works: The Classical Style and Sonata Forms.


----------



## Mahlerian

Samuel Kristopher said:


> As for the Sonata form, it could well just be my inexperience and lack of really feeling what a strict Sonata form should actually be. Having said that, the main way that I've been learning about form and structure (other than watching every Robert Greenberg lecture) is by analysing and deconstructing works of other composers, since I have no access to any teacher or course for composition. In the months preceding this Sonata, I'd been going through Tchaikovsky's symphonies (1st movements) and making notes about how he states his themes, when he restates them and to what extent they have been developed, and everything else I can learn about them.


You seem to be looking at Sonata form as a thematic process, whereas the thematic development is almost always a surface manifestation of an underlying harmonic process. You don't necessarily have to do this as was done in the classical or romantic eras, where you have a theme in the tonic, a theme in the dominant, a development, and a recapitulation that states both in the tonic key, but you should realize that that's the kind of contrast that trained listeners will be expecting (consciously or unconsciously).

Taking the surface level of thematic introductions, developments, and repetitions is only going to get you so far, because you need a deeper continuity to sustain a movement of any real length. On the positive side, you've avoided the trap that many fall into, of just sticking in a single key without much, if any, departure. That's really important, as you need contrast for any good sonata form movement. But as Septimal says, many of the contrasts you've introduced feel like non sequiturs rather than continuations. That's what I would work on.


----------



## Nigun22

Its like saying the same word with a different tone...

I would like to hear a beginning, a journey and a destination...


----------



## Samuel Kristopher

> On the positive side, you've avoided the trap that many fall into, of just sticking in a single key without much, if any, departure.


I'm glad you mention that, since modulation and keys is something I've struggled to understand for a long time, and after spending a good month practicing and reading everything online about it that I could, I wanted to see how well I could do at writing a lengthy piece that transitions through keys as convincingly as possible. I do normally write very short pieces for a particular purpose, to practice some particular skill.

Something I started getting more in depth into a few weeks ago was Fugues, because as I understand it they represent the strictest format for counterpoint and harmony. Inspired by Shostakovich's set, I thought it would be a useful, perhaps even essential step. Is that a good direction, or do I need to focus on harmony and chromatic inflections, as Septimal suggested?


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Sam, I'm glad you're asking these questions.

Here's the thing: harmony books teach you "what the chords are and how to correctly incorporate chromaticism" and counterpoint books teach you "how to write 2 or more lines that correctly fit with each other with concepts like passing tones, suspensions, etc."

Unfortunately, while well-intentioned and useful, I think that both of these sorts of books are severely lacking.

It is much much more important to first start out looking at the bass line. Most beginning composers know what a melody looks like (although harmonic concepts like PAC, IAC, HC, and DC should be learned in order to understand the goal of a melody). However, most beginning composers don't really know what a bass line looks like. This is why one should look at classical or romantic era bass lines of pieces one knows and loves.

The above is more important than modulations, keys, and chord inversions. After that is learned, one can proceed to modulation. Typically modulation is a dramatic end goal of a bass line. One can write good modulations by thinking about the bass line's linear goal and progression.

For example:










Notice how the goal of this excerpt is measures 9 and 10 where we have the first inversion E minor chord. This has a G in the bass. Notice the bass line progression. The beginning is a clear D major root position. Then (excluding inessential neighboring chords) the bass line note goes like B->G->A->F#->G in such a smooth, linear way where the final goal is that G in the bass. That G (the first inversion E minor chord) then serves as a predominant to measure 11 dominant chord, and on the next page (not shown) there's a deceptive resolution that mirrors measure 4.

I don't want to go through the entire slow introduction, especially the mega-surprise of utter misery  at measure 16, but let me say this. Note how the whole slow introduction's goal is the bass note A, the dominant of D major (the main key) and note how the bass line is over the course of pages trying to elaborate it. The chromatic inflections of this bass line elaboration provides the chromatic harmony, but the fact that there are sharps/flats/whatever in this chromatic harmony isn't nearly as important as its slowly moving stepwise energy.

So yeah, don't focus on keys. Don't worry about fugues. Don't even worry about modulations (believe it or not, in that whole slow introduction, there isn't any modulation in spite of the chromaticism, there are just weak tonicizations of certain chords at most). Focus on the bass line. Again, focus on the bass line: a good bass line is more important than life itself.


----------



## Samuel Kristopher

Thank you! Good to hear about the books, as I was pondering whether I should order some from overseas. If my Russian was better, I'd probably go to the library (or just music school, at that rate), and I think that Wikipedia is probably the most grueling and hopeless music teacher out there 

I have one question, and I feel like it might sound really stupid, but you mention that the bass line from measure 9 to 10 goes in a B->G->A->F#->G fashion. Is that in one particular voice, or is this taken from combining the bass voices or something? It seems to me that the Cellos are doing a G>A>G>A>G, ending on the G of the E minor chord. I can still see how significant this is for the harmonic motion, but what have I missed?

In any case, I'm excited to see how important bass lines are. I'll focus on that in my future studies


----------



## SeptimalTritone

No problem:

Realize first that the first three measures are just the D major tonic chord in root position. I know there's some bass arpeggiation in measure 3, but ignore that.

The B comes at measure 4. I realize that there's a neighboring A# acting as a secondary dominant leading tone, but ignore that because that's meant to resolve to the "real" note B.

The G is at measure 5. Again, ignore the leading F#.

The A is at measure 7, and the F# is at measure 8.

Finally, the G is at measure 9.

Sing out loud the notes B->G->A->F#->G (please do this!). Notice that it's melodic, and that G is the goal. I realize that these notes that form the bass line are changing really slowly, but this slow bass motion is very characteristic (it's in the Chopin example I gave you as well). Of course, these exact particular notes in either the Mozart or Chopin example aren't as important as the general idea of bass line linearity.

Wikipedia is completely insufficient, and you'll learn absolutely nothing from it.

For reading, harmony books, counterpoint books, and musicology books are still good, although incomplete. For musicology, Charles Rosen's "The Classical Style" and "The Romantic Generation" are very good. Although, one will need some harmony/counterpoint skill for them to make sense. A good counterpoint book is "Counterpoint in the Style of Bach" by Thomas Benjamin. Some will recommend the Fux book, but... I don't like this book because the examples are hopelessly simple (really, way too simple to be helpful) and there isn't any emphasis on tonic-dominant polarity (or the avoidance of it in the romantic era), or chromaticism, and there isn't any teaching of broken chord voice-leading or other liberties one can take in resolving dissonance in instrumental music as opposed to vocal music. For harmony, you can use anything.

Keep in mind that the division of music theory study into "harmony" and "counterpoint" is a bit misleading. It gives the false impression that there are two types of music: "regular music or melody-chord progression music" and "fugal music or imitative contrapuntal music". I prefer to think of it this way: every voice should have some independence and some shape. They don't necessarily need to be "equal". In a canon or fugue, of course, they need to be equal or almost equal, but in Chopin or Mozart, it's much more important for there just to be linearity and goal for each voice, especially the bass line.

Perhaps someone else can recommend a good book that teaches linearity of the bass line. This is the central thing that beginners lack, and it's not emphasized amongst both textbooks and people on the internet who give advice. Trust me: this is hugely, hugely important and not well pedagogically taught. It's kind of like how in physics textbooks, the (very general) concepts of orders of magnitude, or similarity of differential equations describing seemingly different phenomena, or the elegance of "what else could it be" logic in deriving equations are somewhat poorly emphasized: one kind of learns these concepts through osmosis.


----------



## Truckload

SeptimalTritone - My compliments on your excellent posts in this thread. You really put a lot of work and thought into these comments. The OP is fortunate to receive such helpful guidance. And your emphasis on the importance of bass line motion is very illuminating and interesting. 

I do not know of any books that specifically focus on bass line motion, but I hope someone else comes up with one. 

I am curious as to how far we can extend the principles you allude to in your post. Once we arrive at popular music, beginning as early as popular songs and band music of the 19th century, I believe there are some contradictions. Similarly the use of "coloristic" harmonies might be problematic. However, the usefulness of a focus on the bass line seems compelling to me despite any exceptions that may exist. And the lack of obvious literature on the subject is a compliment to you in making such perceptive remarks. I would think this would be an excellent subject for a dissertation in Music Theory.


----------



## Truckload

Samuel Kristopher said:


> Thank you! Good to hear about the books, as I was pondering whether I should order some from overseas. If my Russian was better, I'd probably go to the library (or just music school, at that rate), and I think that Wikipedia is probably the most grueling and hopeless music teacher out there
> 
> I have one question, and I feel like it might sound really stupid, but you mention that the bass line from measure 9 to 10 goes in a B->G->A->F#->G fashion. Is that in one particular voice, or is this taken from combining the bass voices or something? It seems to me that the Cellos are doing a G>A>G>A>G, ending on the G of the E minor chord. I can still see how significant this is for the harmonic motion, but what have I missed?
> 
> In any case, I'm excited to see how important bass lines are. I'll focus on that in my future studies


There are many books on theory available, but most are better for classroom study than for self study. For independent study, it is important to have lots of examples, and an answer key for quiz and self-tests so that you will have some feedback on whether you are mastering the material. I recommend "Tonal Harmony" by Kotka and Payne. All of the modern harmony books are superior learning tools to what I used in college in the 1970's, but the Kostka and Payne particularly stands out because of the abundance of self-test material, making it perfect for self study.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Truckload said:


> SeptimalTritone - My compliments on your excellent posts in this thread. You really put a lot of work and thought into these comments. The OP is fortunate to receive such helpful guidance. And your emphasis on the importance of bass line motion is very illuminating and interesting.
> 
> I do not know of any books that specifically focus on bass line motion, but I hope someone else comes up with one.
> 
> I am curious as to how far we can extend the principles you allude to in your post. Once we arrive at popular music, beginning as early as popular songs and band music of the 19th century, I believe there are some contradictions. Similarly the use of "coloristic" harmonies might be problematic. However, the usefulness of a focus on the bass line seems compelling to me despite any exceptions that may exist. And the lack of obvious literature on the subject is a compliment to you in making such perceptive remarks. I would think this would be an excellent subject for a dissertation in Music Theory.


Thank you, but the bass line thing everyone already knows about. While I haven't specifically read much on Schenkerian analysis, this is probably where one would find material on it.

The thing really is that I have found almost all music theory books to be inadequate... more due to their insufficient pedagogy than their lack of knowledge. I would wager that pretty much every author of a music theory textbook knows this, but doesn't emphasize it well enough. Perhaps the Walter Piston counterpoint book that talks about harmonic rhythm may be a good choice.

To my limited knowledge, pop music in general has much less focus on voice leading and linearity of parts. The classical giants of the 20th century, on the other hand, excelled at it. Schoenberg, for example, absolutely excells at bass line linearity within his fully chromatic harmony and that's one of the reasons for his music being so appealing. Just look at the below!


----------



## Truckload

SeptimalTritone - I agree that your comments are not the first time I ever encountered similar ideas about the importance of a good bass line in isolation, but you presented the connection between bass line, harmonic motion and phrasing in a very clear and convincing manner. I can't claim to be an expert since my degree is 40 years out of date, but I have read a lot about theory, and your methodology or insight or approach (whatever it should be called) is certainly new and refreshing to me. It seems to me that it would be an excellent methodology for analysis as well as composition instruction to focus on the bass line first and the harmonic analysis second. Fux does recommend writing the melody first, then the bass line, then filling in the harmonies, but he never explains WHY.

As you pointed out, harmonic rhythm is another important factor in a great composition. I believe, if my memory serves, that harmonic rhythm is actually mentioned fairly routinely in the literature. The Piston "Counterpoint" has been around forever, and I am ashamed to say that I forgot it almost immediately after working through it. In my view, and it may just be the way my mind works, a terrific book that has stayed with me and addresses similar but not identical ideas is Hindemith's excellent book "The Craft of Musical Composition" which I need to pull out and read again.

But the more I think about it, the more impressed I am with the way you connected bass line motion with harmonic goals and phrasing. I can imagine lots of potential for better understanding of why harmonic sequences work so well and how composers like Wagner achieve the kind of endless phrasing typical of that style. Just thinking about it makes me want to pull out some Wagner and look closely at the bass lines! If you ever decide to expound upon that methodology and write a book, I would certainly buy it!

Thanks for posting the Schoenberg example, but the appeal of Schoenberg is lost on me. I need the vocabulary of tonal harmony.

I recently worked through "Analyzing Classical Form" by Caplin. I think it is probably, at this time, THE definitive work on high classical era form or structure. What an awesome book. I wish it had been around when I was a young man, I would be much further down the road of greater understanding by now if it had been.

I just pulled it out and did a quick thumb through. Caplin does a very good job on Harmonic rhythm, which he frequently calls "harmonic acceleration". He also does a fantastic job with explaining the various types of cadences and the relationship between form and harmony in the high classical era. He is very clear and helpful in his approach to analyzing and writing various melody forms, but there isn't even an index entry for "bass line".


----------



## Mahlerian

Truckload said:


> Thanks for posting the Schoenberg example, but the appeal of Schoenberg is lost on me. I need the vocabulary of tonal harmony.


What about Hindemith and Debussy? They don't use the vocabulary of tonal harmony either. Neither did any composer before the 17th century.

If you're including those things as tonal, then you should include Schoenberg, too.


----------



## Vasks

Truckload said:


> Fux does recommend writing the melody first, then the bass line, then filling in the harmonies, but he never explains WHY.


The answer to why lies in the fact that you must and foremost have a good melody. Once that's in place the bass line is the next essential component. Why, because the ear picks up two parts more strongly than anything else. The top and the bottom. It is then up to the composer to create an interesting bass; hopefully melodic in nature and yet different in design than the soprano/melody so that it can be heard distinctively.

I remember reading a quote from a book by Roger Sessions (you know, one of those atonal/12-tone guys) that said that all great music have really good bass lines.


----------



## Truckload

Mahlerian said:


> What about Hindemith and Debussy? They don't use the vocabulary of tonal harmony either. Neither did any composer before the 17th century.
> 
> If you're including those things as tonal, then you should include Schoenberg, too.


There really is no point in starting yet another debate on the meaning of tonality.

I would include the music of Debussy and most Hindemith as tonal. I think Hindemith himself is the best advocate for his music. I recommend his book on Harmony and his book on Composition.


----------



## Truckload

Vasks said:


> The answer to why lies in the fact that you must and foremost have a good melody. Once that's in place the bass line is the next essential component. Why, because the ear picks up two parts more strongly than anything else. The top and the bottom. It is then up to the composer to create an interesting bass; hopefully melodic in nature and yet different in design than the soprano/melody so that it can be heard distinctively.
> 
> I remember reading a quote from a book by Roger Sessions (you know, one of those atonal/12-tone guys) that said that all great music have really good bass lines.


All excellent points. Perhaps I am the only one to see the significance. Perhaps I am too focused on minutiae. In any event, I should not take this thread in a direction so far afield from the intent of the OP.


----------



## Mahlerian

Truckload said:


> There really is no point in starting yet another debate on the meaning of tonality.
> 
> *I would include the music of Debussy and most Hindemith as tonal*. I think Hindemith himself is the best advocate for his music. I recommend his book on Harmony and his book on Composition.


But they're not tonal by a definition of tonality that excludes Schoenberg. Why not just say you don't like Schoenberg instead of forcing him into a category that doesn't even describe his works?

The meaning of tonality *is* important because people *make* it important when they argue that Schoenberg's music is outside of the tradition, inferior, unnatural, etc. because of "atonality." That atonality is not here defined neutrally can be seen from attempts to take other things out of that category, even if they fit the initial definition just as well.


----------



## Truckload

Mahlerian said:


> But they're not tonal by a definition of tonality that excludes Schoenberg. Why not just say you don't like Schoenberg instead of forcing him into a category that doesn't even describe his works?
> 
> The meaning of tonality *is* important because people *make* it important when they argue that Schoenberg's music is outside of the tradition, inferior, unnatural, etc. because of "atonality." That atonality is not here defined neutrally can be seen from attempts to take other things out of that category, even if they fit the initial definition just as well.


I get it. I understand your frustration and your motivation. I know you would like to force me to adopt your perspective, but I will not. I am confident that my understanding of the terms used is consistent with the mainstream of music theory. I am also confident in my conclusions.


----------



## Mahlerian

Truckload said:


> I get it. I understand your frustration and your motivation. I know you would like to force me to adopt your perspective, but I will not. I am confident that my understanding of the terms used is consistent with the mainstream of music theory. I am also confident in my conclusions.


The mainstream of music theory does not call Debussy and Hindemith tonal. What are you talking about? At most they place them as some sort of in-between music that is neither tonal nor atonal (which is usually defined as music that doesn't conform to common practice norms and is based on the chromatic scale).

I'm not trying to force you to do anything, I'm trying to explain why your own definitions are inconsistent.


----------



## Dim7

If by "tonal harmony" Truckload means harmony based on major and minor triads he isn't completely wrong. If we are talking about the middle to late periods of each composer, Debussy is overall more triadic (though it's true that it would be silly to say that Brouillards has tonal harmony while Schoenberg's Op. 11 doesn't). Also Debussy is significantly more diatonic than Schoenberg. 

Now of course everyone knows that Debussy's tonalty is quite ambiguous and not quite the same traditional tonality of the 18th century. But the same can be said of Berg's Piano Sonata which to Mahlerian is obviously tonal - I don't think 18th century composers would have recognized its language as part of the same musical system they had. 

Nobody has the ultimate authority to define these terms and draw the lines, so you might consider being a bit more tolerant about other ways of looking at these things, Mahlerian.


----------



## Mahlerian

Dim7 said:


> If by "tonal harmony" Truckload means harmony based on major and minor triads he isn't completely wrong. If we are talking about the middle to late periods of each composer, Debussy is overall more triadic (though it's true that it would be silly to say that Brouillards has tonal harmony while Schoenberg's Op. 11 doesn't). Also Debussy is significantly more diatonic than Schoenberg.
> 
> Now of course everyone knows that Debussy's tonalty is quite ambiguous and not quite the same traditional tonality of the 18th century. But the same can be said of Berg's Piano Sonata which to Mahlerian is obviously tonal - I don't think 18th century composers would have recognized its language as part of the same musical system they had.


Right, but I'm not defining tonality as diatonicism or as solely triadic. Debussy used diatonicism and triads in non-tonal ways, as is more common in music around the world than the opposite.



Dim7 said:


> Nobody has the ultimate authority to define these terms and draw the lines, so you might consider being a bit more tolerant about other ways of looking at these things, Mahlerian.


You're suggesting that I be tolerant of what, exactly?

- Attempts to disparage music that I love?
- Sloppy definitions in the service of shutting something else out?
- Lies about what people do and don't like?
- Lies or mistaken ideas about what composers such as Schoenberg thought?


----------



## Dim7

Mahlerian said:


> Right, but I'm not defining tonality as diatonicism or as solely triadic. Debussy used diatonicism and triads in non-tonal ways, as is more common in music around the world than the opposite.


I know you don't, but many people do.



Mahlerian said:


> You're suggesting that I be tolerant of what, exactly?
> 
> - Attempts to disparage music that I love?
> - Sloppy definitions in the service of shutting something else out?
> - Lies about what people do and don't like?
> - Lies or mistaken ideas about what composers such as Schoenberg thought?


Tolerant of people who define Debussy as tonal and Schoenberg's expressionist and 12-tone music as non-tonal, for example. Or those who define diatonicism and triadicism the most important part of tonality.


----------



## Mahlerian

Dim7 said:


> I know you don't, but many people do.


Well, those people should be made aware that their understanding of tonality is not in line with the musical mainstream, shouldn't they?



Dim7 said:


> Tolerant of people who define Debussy as tonal and Schoenberg's expressionist and 12-tone music as non-tonal, for example. Or those who define diatonicism and triadicism the most important part of tonality.


But I don't think I am intolerant of those things, except when they are used as an argument to posit anything non-tonal as unnatural, as breaking with tradition, etc. etc.

It is also misleading because it gives people the wrong idea that the difficulties people have with Schoenberg, Boulez, etc. are a function of their music not being tonal, when this is certainly not the case (because by the definitions used to exclude them, they are tonal, and because by any other definition, there is other music which is not difficult and is also not tonal). This perpetuates lazy thinking and attempts to wall off a significant portion of 20th century music as not part of the tradition.


----------



## Dim7

Mahlerian said:


> Well, those people should be made aware that their understanding of tonality is not in line with the musical mainstream, shouldn't they?


Well, to me it's not quite obvious how "musical mainstream" understands tonality. Pointing out how a lot of diatonic and triadic music is different from CP tonal music is fine though.



Mahlerian said:


> But I don't think I am intolerant of those things, except when they are used as an argument to posit anything non-tonal as unnatural, as breaking with tradition, etc. etc.
> 
> It is also misleading because it gives people the wrong idea that the difficulties people have with Schoenberg, Boulez, etc. are a function of their music not being tonal, when this is certainly not the case (because by the definitions used to exclude them, they are tonal, and because by any other definition, there is other music which is not difficult and is also not tonal). This perpetuates lazy thinking and attempts to wall off a significant portion of 20th century music as not part of the tradition


I agree that the degree which "atonality" makes music "inaccessible" is overrated. However I'm not convinced that the word itself is necessary to fault. But rather than arguing about the term itself and showing "Here's how the lines are drawn!" I think it is wiser simply to point out that 1) the lines can be very blurry and subjective 2) the inaccessibility of a lot of so called atonal music has much to do not only with dissonance and lack of keys but also with dense counterpoint, asymmetric phrasing, leapy melodic lines, avoidance of literal repetition 3) many people may be confusing those aspects with atonality, or draw the lines simply according to their own comprehension and comfort zone.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

The very fact that Debussy uses as a basic building of his music block parallel, nonfunctional chords is a huge departure from Mozart-Wager/Chopin-Mahler. Planed/parallel chords is an extreme antithesis to tonality in the common practice era, and while Debussy may put much more focus on diatonic seventh/ninth chords than Schoenberg, he isn't tonal in the least. Traditional tonality = elaboration of primary chords (i.e. tonic and dominant plus a few types of subdominants and mediants) through voice leading of individual neighboring tones. Parallel and/or nonfunctional chords is a huge, huge departure from common practice tonality irrespective of diatonicism because the "gravitation" of a given tonic or dominant gets completely lost once one is free to "drag" chords.


----------



## Mahlerian

Dim7 said:


> I agree that the degree which "atonality" makes music "inaccessible" is overrated. However I'm not convinced that the word itself is necessary to fault. But rather than arguing about the term itself and showing "Here's how the lines are drawn!" I think it is wiser simply to point out that 1) the lines can be very blurry and subjective 2) the inaccessibility of a lot of so called atonal music has much to do not only with dissonance and lack of keys but also with dense counterpoint, asymmetric phrasing, leapy melodic lines, avoidance of literal repetition 3) many people may be confusing those aspects with atonality, or draw the lines simply according to their own comprehension and comfort zone.


Here's why I think it's important:

If someone encounters a piece by Bach or Beethoven or Wagner that they find difficult, they'll often persevere, because they trust the composer to be doing something worthwhile that they can come to understand if they want.

If someone encounters a piece by Webern or Carter that they find difficult, on the other hand, they'll be given all kinds of explanations about how those difficulties are only a reflection of how the music itself is unnatural, because of *atonality*. This is then, potentially, taken up an argument for how atonality is a mistake or wrong because it creates incomprehensible music. In actuality, one listens to an "atonal" piece using the same ears and the same kinds of expectations that one would any other music, just not those designed for common practice alone.

In other words, the term atonal is not inherently a barrier, but it becomes a barrier through a combination of prejudice and incomplete/biased experience.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Oh yes, and thus breeds a suspicion of "academicism" for their unnatural, awful, unmusical atonality.

When believe it or not, to some extent, Schoenberg is less of a departure from common practice tonality than Debussy is a departure! Just go ask Mitsuko Uchida!


----------



## Vasks

I don't have to ask her. I have always said that Schoenberg was evolutionary while Debussy was revolutionary.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Right. Schoenberg is a voice-leading of tones whereas Debussy is a voice-leading of entire chordal sonorities.


----------

