# What do you think of atonal music?



## ethanjamesescano (Aug 29, 2012)

I think atonal music is less flexible in expressing than tonal music, but atonal music is good for expressing tension, stress, suspense, etc...

the dissonances satisfies me in some ways I can't explain.

what's your opinion to it?


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

I think there are atonal people who impart their dissonance wherever they can find harmony.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

There are now about as many styles and approaches to atonal writing as there are in tonal writing, past to present.

I think whatever the M.O. or harmonic language, the most expressive music comes from the most skilled of the composers who wish their music to sound overtly 'expressive,' whatever that is 

All that also means I personally find all such questions re: tonal / atonal pretty irrelevant, -- beside the point -- as far as having anything to do with what is or is not 'good music.'


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

We've had a lot of threads about this in recent months, but I will pipe in to answer the question in the title of your thread, ethanjamesescano.

In short, I do like atonal/serial types of music. I think "types" is the key word, because there is so much of it and composers' use of techniques that go way back - not only to Schoenberg and his crew, but also to Liszt and even those vague beginnings of pieces by Haydn and Mozart.

Today you have composers who we don't label as "atonal" or "serial" who still use those techniques, or have used them to some extent. One I can think of is John Corigliano, who has been very eclectic in terms of technique, ranging from atonal/serial to microtonal to tonal and chance-based compositions. But you go back to the neo-Romantics of the previous generation like Samuel Barber and William Walton, and they used serialism as well. They also incorporated jazz, as does Corigliano rhythms of rock. These things are like a toolbox that composers have access to, they are part of the armoury they have to express meanings in their music.

I think a lot has been said about this on this forum already. There's limits to these kinds of discussions, and it can get heated. However I see atonality and serialism as just part of the mix of things that happened in the 20th century, and they had precursors like other things that happened. I basically look at atonality/serialism as part of the mix, not "the" thing, so I don't mind what something is in terms of technique so much, moreso what I can get out of it as a listener. Composers know what they are doing with any technique, atonality is no different. Same applies to the general aesthetic directions they want to or are aiming to take. 

But I really like the variety of music we got in the 20th century, it was a very diverse time for music, and not only classical for that matter.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

While I'm preparing for the usual onslaught of "define tonality" erudition, I think abandoning common practice does lose some of the wonders of tension and release, dissonance and resolution that moves much of the music from the 1600s to the 1900s, but it may also gain something that can't be expressed with common practice conventions. Microtonal music or spectralism comes to mind. But this is why I enjoy the more recent trend of everything-including-the-kitchen-sink composing. It can embrace both common practice and more modern approaches. It can be the best of several worlds -- or an unfocussed mess (not unlike this pre-caffeine post) if someone unskilled tries to handle it.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Awful music!... only people in a madhouse could listen to that!...

Now, if you'll excuse me, it's time of my medicine  :


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

There was a time when my answer would have been some combination of "I don't get it", "I don't enjoy it", and "It sounds like random noise". Now the question is closer to "What do you think of Baroque music?" Atonal or pan-tonal has a different sound than most music I'm familiar with, but that's all - it sounds different just like Baroque sounds different.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

aleazk said:


>


Lovely work. I'd make some recommendations myself, but thanks to the intelligent and patient explanations of my forum colleagues I no longer have any idea what atonal music is :lol:

*p.s.* Or even "music," for that matter.


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

Well-crafted atonal music is like a good cup of coffee. All of the flavors blend together to create a satisfying whole.
And there is always a nice aftertaste.


----------



## Brad (Mar 27, 2014)

aleazk said:


> Awful music!... only people in a madhouse could listen to that!...
> 
> Now, if you'll excuse me, it's time of my medicine  :


Oh it's funny because Webern is atonal so hah


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Brad said:


> Oh it's funny because Webern is atonal so hah


I'm afraid you didn't get the joke 

The guy who killed Webern went crazy (like people in a madhouse) and eventually killed himself. So, when Boulez conducted Webern for the first time with the _Ensemble InterContemporain_, they played that piece I posted.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

Celloman said:


> Well-crafted atonal music is like a good cup of coffee. All of the flavors blend together to create a satisfying whole.
> And there is always a nice aftertaste.


I would have said that of wine...


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

I was listening to Schoenberg's Third String Quartet last night. I was struck by how beautiful it was, how lucid the developments, how rich in melody and harmony. I didn't once, not a single time, think in terms of tone rows or counting to 12. True, I didn't always hear all of these things. Schoenberg's music is difficult more for its sheer density and because the focus keeps shifting (it can change in the middle of a line, and the periods are persistently irregular) than for its harmony.

And then we can listen to a crystalline work like the Webern linked above, or a Takemitsu piece like the following:





I can't say "atonal" music is any one single thing. It is more flexible for the composer than traditional tonality, which is why nobody, not even the staunchest conservative of retrogressives, wants to return to 19th century Romanticism.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

ethanjamesescano said:


> what's your opinion to it?


exactly this one



ethanjamesescano said:


> I think atonal music is less flexible in expressing than tonal music, but atonal music is good for expressing tension, stress, suspense, etc...


----------



## cjvinthechair (Aug 6, 2012)

PetrB said:


> There are now about as many styles and approaches to atonal writing as there are in tonal writing, past to present.
> 
> I think whatever the M.O. or harmonic language, the most expressive music comes from the most skilled of the composers who wish their music to sound overtly 'expressive,' whatever that is
> 
> All that also means I personally find all such questions re: tonal / atonal pretty irrelevant, -- beside the point -- as far as having anything to do with what is or is not 'good music.'


Excellently expressed, Sir !


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

This ongoing atonality debate is beginning to make less and less sense. What does it even mean? Is the music 100% a collage of random noises? I've begun to hear many points of harmony and rhythm. It's simply not as linear as most peoples' standard definition of what tonality is. That's all.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

ethanjamesescano said:


> I think atonal music is less flexible in expressing than tonal music, but atonal music is good for expressing tension, stress, suspense, etc...
> 
> the dissonances satisfies me in some ways I can't explain.
> 
> what's your opinion to it?


My first serious exposure to classical music was atonal (and other 20th century music). It just made sense to me, but I was already listening to other avant-garde forms of non-classical music, so it didn't sound out of place to me.

As far as its ability to express wider emotions than tension, stress, suspense, etc, while that may be true (although it may be arguable), it doesn't bother me.

My problem is, that when I listen to pre-20th century, tonal music, I can't help but perceive the emotional content as being kind of contrived and naive. I understand that the composer was being sincere when they wrote their music, but my perspective has been skewed from my experiences.

I cant help but think things like, "Oh, this movement of symphony that is supposed to make me feel elated, sad, melancholy, awe etc", but I don't actually feel the emotions.

It's not unlike when I see an old silent movie and watch the actors, with their exaggerated, and contrived hand gestures, expressions, movements, etc. It's easy to understand the emotions they were portraying, but I don't feel them.


----------



## Brad (Mar 27, 2014)

aleazk said:


> I'm afraid you didn't get the joke
> 
> The guy who killed Webern went crazy (like people in a madhouse) and eventually killed himself. So, when Boulez conducted Webern for the first time with the _Ensemble InterContemporain_, they played that piece I posted.


Well that's even funnier, I apologize for underestimating the depth of your joke!


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Simon Moon said:


> My problem is, that when I listen to pre-20th century, tonal music, I can't help but perceive the emotional content as being kind of contrived and naive. I understand that the composer was being sincere when they wrote their music, but my perspective has been skewed from my experiences.


And what about all the tonal music in the 20th century? I mean, certainly in the twentieth century there's a lot of modern music that isn't atonal and that is very far from the music of romantic/classical/baroque composers.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

ethanjamesescano said:


> I think atonal music is less flexible in expressing than tonal music, but atonal music is good for expressing tension, stress, suspense, etc...
> 
> the dissonances satisfies me in some ways I can't explain.
> 
> what's your opinion to it?


The opening post reveals many things about the listener. This listener thinks that music should be 'expressive' and should express or induce emotional states of being, such as the negative, fear-based ones of tension, stress, or suspense, which most people pick up from cinema soundtracks, or, the implied positive love-based emotions of love, tenderness, sentimentality, etc.

The fact is, things are more complicated than that.

There is no requirement for music to be expressive of emotion or states of being. To take matters even further into the fog, when we get into more modern music, I think "emotion" as a descriptive term begins to fail us. For example, in Schoenberg's Five Pieces for Orchestra, the "emotional gestures" expressed are so complex that we begin to experience them as "states of being," like anxiety, foreboding, fear, tension, awe, etc., creating in our minds, empathetically, a reflection of our own, and the artist's, "inner state of being."

Concerning modernism, it's true that in many instances the "evoking" of dramatic emotion, and dramatic gesture is absent (but certainly not always). Stockhausen evokes, for me, a sort of "Platonic classicism" in his Klavierstücke; with modernism, we must put aside our need for drama and overt emotion, and listen on the level of "pure abstraction," an enjoyment of color, sound, and timbre itself. In this sense, modern music is not "modern" at all; music has always been "abstract expressionism" when divorced from drama and opera.

So, in a sense, this is an "internal narrative" we share with the composer, but indefinable in literal narrative terms, because these are transitory, fleeting states by nature; simply "gestures of meanings."


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Stockhausen evokes, for me, a sort of "Platonic classicism" in his Klavierstücke; with modernism, we must put aside our need for drama and overt emotion, and listen on the level of "pure abstraction," an enjoyment of color, sound, and timbre itself.


I'm not sure that Pollini's relationship with him is quite so platonic :






Whew, I need a cigarette.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> The opening post reveals many things about the listener.


like, that he is human?
Anyway, to state that the "emotional possibilities" of atonal music are narrow doesn't mean that he's implying that music should be used only in a way, but only that atonal music could not be used to evoke certain emotions, a thing that is certainly true in my opinion.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

norman bates said:


> like, that he is human?


No, that he has certain assumptions built-in to his post.



norman bates said:


> ...Anyway, to state that the "emotional possibilities" of atonal music are narrow doesn't mean that he's implying that music should be used only in a way, but only that atonal music could not be used to evoke certain emotions, a thing that is certainly true in my opinion.


And as I said, things are more complicated than that. I prefer "states of being" as a term.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> No, that he has certain assumptions built-in to his post.
> 
> And as I said, things are more complicated than that. I prefer "states of being" as a term.


I don't see any wrong assumptions. The fact that as you say music can also evoke different things than just definite emotions like happiness, nostalgia, sadness, fear etc (and I agree with you)
does not means that he's wrong when he says that considering that aspect atonality can convey only a certain kind of those emotions.


----------



## Guest (May 10, 2014)

I don't know anything about music, but I like a good 12-tone row when I hear one.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

TalkingHead said:


> I don't know anything about music, but I like a good 12-tone row when I hear one.


I like a good 12-pitch tune, myself. Hummable, that's what they are... hummable.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

TalkingHead said:


> I don't know anything about music, but I like a good 12-tone row when I hear one.





PetrB said:


> I like a good 12-pitch tune, myself. Hummable, that's what they are... hummable.


That's like saying that you hear a C major scale when you hear Mozart. You don't, you hear the phrases, themes, and melodies that Mozart shaped out of the scale. Likewise, in 12-tone music, you should hear themes derived from the row, not the row itself in its entirety.


----------



## Guest (May 11, 2014)

Well, Million, I did say I don't know anything about music.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Mahlerian said:


> I was listening to Schoenberg's Third String Quartet last night. I was struck by how beautiful it was, how lucid the developments, how rich in melody and harmony. I didn't once, not a single time, think in terms of tone rows or counting to 12. True, I didn't always hear all of these things. Schoenberg's music is difficult more for its sheer density and because the focus keeps shifting (it can change in the middle of a line, and the periods are persistently irregular) than for its harmony....


What you're saying brings to my mind another point about all this, that even though not many people would think it, Schoenberg had an aesthetic viewpoint that wasn't far from people like Rachmaninov. He was a Romantic. He saw expression of emotion as being quite important. So, atonality or serialism or whatever is a means to an end for him, not an end in itself.

I've also seen what you're suggesting about tone rows - usually they are not meant to be heard. There are works that I can think of when the tone row is stated at the start, quite emphatically. One is Schoenberg's piano concerto, I'm correct about that, aren't I? I had a LP with the tone row's notes on the back cover, with a detailed explanation of what Schoenberg did with it in that work. But the point is that even that is not strictly speaking a tone row - its also a theme, as with any type of theme, serial or not.

I think a lot of people don't give Schoenberg a chance. Or many other types of music for that matter (doesn't have to be atonal, serial or modern era music of course). What I think is useful is to look at the aesthetic as well as the technical issues. Its not just about the one or the other, but both, and also other things like the reasons why they changed their style or adopt various techniques, that's also something that can inform listeners about what a composer does, and why.

Of course if a person's gut reaction to a composer is negative, that can be a big factor. There is nothing wrong with disliking something. I think that there is a dividing line between things like knowing something, understanding it and liking it or not. But the line, or lines, are blurry at best. Its also an issue of personal taste. This is interesting issue, and I have found reading various opinions on this forum confirms how different people will ultimately develop their knowledge and understanding of music in unique ways.



Mahlerian said:


> ...
> 
> I can't say "atonal" music is any one single thing. It is more flexible for the composer than traditional tonality, which is why nobody, not even the staunchest conservative of retrogressives, wants to return to 19th century Romanticism.


Well we can't turn back the clock, and its obvious that some knowledge of or understanding of atonal and serial music is desirable. Its a part of Western classical music like anything else, its actually history now, so knowing it is a part of knowing classical or modern music as a whole.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

ethanjamesescano said:


> I think atonal music is less flexible in expressing than tonal music, but atonal music is good for expressing tension, stress, suspense, etc...
> 
> the dissonances satisfies me in some ways I can't explain.
> 
> what's your opinion to it?


I tend to agree broadly speaking. The harmonic expression in tonal pieces (or largely so) fars exceeds that of atonal - it is inherent to the ear for the majority, which is why tonal works better. Music is a "pragmatic" art. It needs to work for it to survive - small pockets of developments usually "die off" in the long run, unfortunately.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> That's like saying that you hear a C major scale when you hear Mozart. You don't, you hear the phrases, themes, and melodies that Mozart shaped out of the scale. Likewise, in 12-tone music, you should hear themes derived from the row, not the row itself in its entirety.


Whether it is _expressive_ or _a state of being_, evidently there is not an atom's worth of room for humor in either C major or dodecaphonic music.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> I tend to agree broadly speaking. The harmonic expression in tonal pieces (or largely so) fars exceeds that of atonal - it is inherent to the ear for the majority, which is why tonal works better. Music is a "pragmatic" art. It needs to work for it to survive - small pockets of developments usually "die off" in the long run, unfortunately.


The majority are most used to the tonal music and associate that as being expressive. Atonal music is not "inherently" less expressive simply because the listener is not more familiar with the atonal vocabulary any more than the work of a writer is inherently less expressive because the reader has not or is not familiar with the vocabulary.


----------



## Matsps (Jan 13, 2014)

I thought, atonal music is just awful and then one day I hear Prokofiev - Toccata op.11. So wonderful! 

Now I think, atonal music is a difficult category to find good music in, but in no way better or worse than tonal music.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> The majority are most used to the tonal music and associate that as being expressive. Tonal music is not "inherently" less expressive simply because the listener is not more familiar with the atonal vocabulary any more than the work of a writer is inherently less expressive because the reader has not or is not familiar with the vocabulary.


This is puzzling. "Expressive" has entirely to do with the effect of music on the listener. If most find that tonal music is more "expressive" than atonal, then by definition it is. Blaming the deficiencies of the listener for this state of affairs doesn't change that.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Matsps said:


> I thought, atonal music is just awful and then one day I hear Prokofiev - Toccata op.11. So wonderful!


If you like the Op. 11 Toccata (and who doesn't?) you should give a listen to the last movement of Prokofiev's Piano Sonata #7 -- a rip-roaring toccata in 7/8 time. Though I'm not sure either of these works are "atonal."


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

KenOC said:


> This is puzzling. "Expressive" has entirely to do with the effect of music on the listener. If most find that tonal music is more "expressive" than atonal, then by definition it is. Blaming the deficiencies of the listener for this state of affairs doesn't change that.


Claiming that listeners are all of one mind or another also does them little justice. Many of them like atonal music just fine and find it quite expressive, given a good performance. It's the people who are dogmatic-minded who tend to be against the very idea of it, while the average person probably tends to listen to things that they enjoy.



ArtMusic said:


> Music is a "pragmatic" art. It needs to work for it to survive - small pockets of developments usually "die off" in the long run, unfortunately.


Yep, which is why performances and audience interest in Stockhausen, Boulez, Webern, Berio, Takemitsu, and Schoenberg far exceeds that for Pfitzner, Raff, and Rubinstein. I'm glad that we're agreeing here.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> Claiming that listeners are all of one mind or another also does them little justice.


You are entirely right IMO. And in fact, I made no such claim.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

KenOC said:


> "Expressive" has entirely to do with the effect of music on the listener


Ok, I will stick to your definition in the following.



KenOC said:


> If most find that tonal music is more "expressive" than atonal, then by definition it is.


That would be true if all listeners were equally familiar with both tonal and atonal music, and in that case all would be indeed as straightforward as you claim. But the truth is that most listeners are only familiar with the vocabulary of tonal music (they may know some atonal pieces, but I don't think they 'get' the ideas at all). So, with that basis, it is quite more difficult and ambiguous 

And I do think that one can be in a state of 'not getting' the ideas. I was in that state some years ago and atonal music was completely unintelligible to me. I wouldn't say I disliked it because the actual thing is that I simply didn't understood it, which is a different thing. And one day a 'click', and I started to 'get' the ideas and to enjoy the music very much.

Possibly, you will say that the fact that everybody seems to get tonal immediatly and that with atonal is not that easy is precisely evidence that tonal is more expressive. But, given what I said above, I think the most obvious answer to that is cultural conditioning for tonal.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> This is puzzling. "Expressive" has entirely to do with the effect of music on the listener. If most find that tonal music is more "expressive" than atonal, then by definition it is. Blaming the deficiencies of the listener for this state of affairs doesn't change that.


Blaming one vocabulary over another when both have as many letters and words is to either blame _all the writers,_ or maybe, just maybe, what one is most used to in the way of 'expressive' gets transferred as an expectation blocking ones understanding of another sort of expression which is just as expressive as the one to which you are accustomed. The exact sentiment from one will not be in another, and I am more than convinced these 'atonal music is not as expressive' statements come because people are expecting the like sentiments from modern and contemporary music as are found in romantic music, for example.

That is not a cause to blame, but it names a sort of dam / blockage toward finding the more contemporary expressive just because it does not sound like, say, Brahms.

One can "blame" conditioning, a conditioning so deep that those so conditioned have no idea it is merely conditioning, habit, and the expectations which accompany those which prevents them from finding later than romantic era music 'less expressive.'


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Matsps said:


> I thought, atonal music is just awful and then one day I hear Prokofiev - Toccata op.11. So wonderful!
> 
> Now I think, atonal music is a difficult category to find good music in, but in no way better or worse than tonal music.


Now, Matsps, I'm not picking on you, but this is cute, i.e. relative to what one is used to, "dissonance" is equated with atonality (a lot of listeners do that often.)

Prokofiev did not write "atonal" music


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Also, if you check the comments in, e.g., this, Ligeti's Requiem ("I'm actually afraid﻿"; "This is the sound of billions of souls begging, wretching, and screaming for mercy on the day of judgement"; "This makes me shiver!"; "That's ******* terrifying"; "I suddenly see...dante's inferno"), the music seems to be extremely expressive. In fact, I have rarely seen such strong reactions to any music (tonal included).

So, "less expressive" is certainly not the correct term... and the fact that it has been used in this thread only exemplifies how people will call something "less expressive" when doesn't fulfill their expectations for something tonal...

The argument about tonal being more "diverse" in terms of expression is equally bland, since I could easily say that atonal is equally diverse in emotions not covered by tonal. So, it all goes to "that's atonal and I was expecting tonal!".


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

KenOC said:


> You are entirely right IMO. And in fact, I made no such claim.


You're still claiming that there is a majority of listeners that thinks in a certain way.

Perhaps you are right. If such a majority exists, I declare (without injecting any bias from myself at all) that this is what they like to listen to:


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> You're still claiming that there is a majority of listeners that thinks in a certain way.
> 
> Perhaps you are right. If such a majority exists, I declare (without injecting any bias from myself at all) that this is what they like to listen to:


Thanks for that. I actually clicked the link and started listening while reading here. It didn't sound half bad until I realized I was listening to a Google Chrome advertisement. Then the actual song started  and I broke the world record for fastest closing of an internet window.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

scratchgolf said:


> Thanks for that. I actually clicked the link and started listening while reading here. It didn't sound half bad until I realized I was listening to a Google Chrome advertisement. Then the actual song started  and I broke the world record for fastest closing of an internet window.


Don't blame me. I decided before I even knew what it was that I would post the top selling download on iTunes. 438,000 people payed $1.29 for this song within a few days of its release.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Interesting comments so far. 

I remember the first time I heard Farben from Schoenberg's Five Pieces, it was in a college music history class. I was blown away. And it has no real themes, no real tension, just sound. So that type of thing can be done and still be interesting.

I'm reminded of Rogers Sessions' quote: Just remember, the music is God, and the 12-tone technique is just a parish priest.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Matsps said:


> I thought, atonal music is just awful and then one day I hear Prokofiev - Toccata op.11. So wonderful!
> 
> Now I think, atonal music is a difficult category to find good music in, but in no way better or worse than tonal music.


Here is a link to that excellent suggestion given you by KenOC.

Prokofiev, Piano Sonata No.7, final movement, "Precipitato."(not atonal


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

scratchgolf said:


> Thanks for that. I actually clicked the link and started listening while reading here. It didn't sound half bad until I realized I was listening to a Google Chrome advertisement. Then the actual song started  and I broke the world record for fastest closing of an internet window.


Elitist snobs, the buncha ya :lol: _(After all, I recognize my own kind!)_


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

None of atonal is atonal, really. The use of this term is dependent on the intellect of the listener. All the tones are willfully arranged.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> You're still claiming that there is a majority of listeners that thinks in a certain way.
> 
> Perhaps you are right. If such a majority exists, I declare (without injecting any bias from myself at all) that this is what they like to listen to:


Uh...that hurt. I think I like it better when you show bias. :lol:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Vesuvius said:


> None of atonal is atonal, really. The use of this term is dependent on the intellect of the listener. All the tones are willfully arranged.


Getting technical, the term Atonal is badly chosen, and was not at all liked by Schoenberg and the others of the second Viennese school.

*A = without*:: *Tonal *in the usage of making the new word* is meant as Tonic.* 
*It is then music which does not rely upon a Tonic center or home-note*, ergo also avoiding the IV and V which so sets listeners up to expect a Tonic.

Atonal music is still then, "Tonal," in a very real sense of the word, but not reliant upon a Tonic or home key, which is quite different from an arbitrary or 'senseless' use or assignment of pitches. The music still deals with themes, counter-themes, old and new forms, bass-lines, melodies, etc.

The big difference for many listeners, and it is not the lack of a Tonic, is that it is highly chromatic music. The earlier "second Viennese School," Schoenberg, Webern, Berg, is some of the most highly organized music written up until that time.

Many people have as much 'trouble' with Atonal Music as they do with the more highly chromatic _still Tonal_ music of Prokofiev or Richard Strauss. Ergo, it is not the atonality which is 'the problem' for those listeners who have 'difficulty' with it, but a greatly expanded chromaticism which includes a more chromatic use of harmony and chord function outside the limits of earlier common practice harmony.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Blaming one vocabulary over another when both have as many letters and words is to either blame _all the writers,_ or maybe, just maybe, what one is most used to in the way of 'expressive' gets transferred as an expectation blocking ones understanding of another sort of expression which is just as expressive as the one to which you are accustomed. The exact sentiment from one will not be in another, and I am more than convinced these 'atonal music is not as expressive' statements come because people are expecting the like sentiments from modern and contemporary music as are found in romantic music, for example.


I don't know about ethanjamesescano, but for me the fact is that with atonal music you can't express joy, or nostalgia or other emotions. I opened a thread on this, asking for counterexamples, no one was able to mention even a piace of music used for instance in movies to evoke that kind of emotions. Even if it's easy to find every kind of experimental music, and also the music of great composers nobody ever used a piece of Boulez, Webern, Babbitt in a love scene. 
That doesn't means that atonality is not expressive (and by the way ethanjamesescano didn't say that), but that that expressivity has a narrow scope, while tonality can be used not only in a romantic way but in a lot of different ways. 
I mean, Andrew Hill's music is not atonal at all but a lot of times it's very difficult to call it "romantic".


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

norman bates said:


> I don't know about ethanjamesescano, but for me the fact is that with atonal music you can't express joy, or nostalgia or other emotions. I opened a thread on this, asking for counterexamples, no one was able to mention even a piace of music used for instance in movies to evoke that kind of emotions. Even if it's easy to find every kind of experimental music, and also the music of great composers nobody ever used a piece of Boulez, Webern, Babbitt in a love scene.
> That doesn't means that atonality is not expressive (and by the way ethanjamesescano didn't say that), but that that expressivity has a narrow scope, while tonality can be used not only in a romantic way but in a lot of different ways.
> I mean, Andrew Hill's music is not atonal at all but a lot of times it's very difficult to call it "romantic".


Romantic as in "romantic" as in everyone is conditioned, especially by use of a generic style in films, to think of one sort of music as being 'romantic' and _all the rest_ not!? We're solidly back to "conditioning" vs. any real argument as to what is or is not 'romantic.' :lol:

...for some, 'romantic' is easy jazz, medium to soft dynamic, and tenor sax.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

norman bates said:


> I don't know about ethanjamesescano, but for me the fact is that with atonal music you can't express joy, or nostalgia or other emotions. I opened a thread on this, asking for counterexamples, no one was able to mention even a piace of music used for instance in movies to evoke that kind of emotions. Even if it's easy to find every kind of experimental music, and also the music of great composers nobody ever used a piece of Boulez, Webern, Babbitt in a love scene.
> That doesn't means that atonality is not expressive (and by the way ethanjamesescano didn't say that), but that that expressivity has a narrow scope, while tonality can be used not only in a romantic way but in a lot of different ways.
> I mean, Andrew Hill's music is not atonal at all but a lot of times it's very difficult to call it "romantic".


In the same sense in which tonal is useful for romantic movies, atonal is useful for suspense movies. But that doesn't mean that tonal or atonal should be narrowed to that... both systems are diverse. There's an ocean of difference between Webern and Ligeti's Requiem, in the same sense in which there's an ocean of difference between Mozart and Tchaikovsky... Also, you can't really say that atonal is narrow because it's incapable of reproducing some aspect of tonal music... after all, in atonal some aspects of tonal are being deliberately neglected, to point out they are different is tautological... I think the two systems complement each other in certain realms... atonal may not be romantic... but try to use a tonal Requiem in the film 2001 and get the same effect... I don't think so... so, you lose some things, but you gain others...


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

aleazk said:


> The argument about tonal being more "diverse" in terms of expression is equally bland, since I could easily say that atonal is equally diverse in emotions not covered by tonal. So, it all goes to "that's atonal and I was expecting tonal!".


You could say so, but that would be simply wrong! 
Seriously, even considering that I agree with the argument that musical emotion is a more complex affair than just "happy" "sad" "despair" "nostalgic" etc, in my esperience atonality exactly for his limits (a suspension of tonality) has a narrower scope.
It's like the black among a lot of colors. That is not to say that a painting made using just black and white is less expressive, but only that it could not express the other possibilities offered by the yellow, red, blue, green, brown etc


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

norman bates said:


> You could say so, but that would be simply wrong!
> Seriously, even considering that I agree with the argument that musical emotion is a more complex affair than just "happy" "sad" "despair" "nostalgic" etc, in my esperience atonality exactly for his limits (a suspension of tonality) has a narrower scope.
> It's like the black among a lot of colors. That is not to say that a painting made using just black and white is less expressive, but only that it could not express the other possibilities offered by the yellow, red, blue, green, brown etc


Well, if your basis is that tonal represents the maximum and everything that is not tonal is then a limitation, we cannot have a discussion. I disagree with your basis, of course.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Romantic as in "romantic" as in everyone is conditioned, especially by use of a generic style in films, to think of one sort of music as being 'romantic' and _all the rest_ not!? We're solidly back to "conditioning" vs. any real argument as to what is or is not 'romantic.' :lol:
> 
> ...for some, 'romantic' is easy jazz, medium to soft dynamic, and tenor sax.


Actually I was thinking of romantic composers, and I don't know why the discussion excluded classical and baroque music, considering that we were talking of tonality, but listein to this, that it's not atonal at all (you could listen even only the first minute):






Do you think that it's romantic music, or that it sounds even remotely as the music made before Schoenberg? I ask this because usually those discussions start beucase there's this strange idea that tonality is just the music of the past, every possibility offered by the language was exhausted before the second viennese school (and so the association of "tonality" with "romantic music" or "music before the twentieth century") while atonality is the only language of the present.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

aleazk said:


> Well, if your basis is that tonal represents the maximum and everything that is not tonal is then a limitation, we cannot have a discussion. I disagree with your basis, of course.


limits in the sense that I consider atonality like a "subset" of the possibilities offered by music made with twelve tones.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

norman bates said:


> limits in the sense that I consider atonality like a "subset" of the possibilities offered by music made with twelve tones.


All harmonic systems are a "subset" of the possibilities offered by music made with twelve tones. And generally they complement each other. I don't think nobody claimed that atonality is the maximun peak either. Nobody believes this.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

aleazk said:


> In the same sense in which tonal is useful for romantic movies, atonal is useful for suspense movies. But that doesn't mean that tonal or atonal should be narrowed to that... both systems are diverse. There's an ocean of difference between Webern and Ligeti's Requiem, in the same sense in which there's an ocean of difference between Mozart and Tchaikovsky... Also, you can't really say that atonal is narrow because it's incapable of reproducing some aspect of tonal music... after all, in atonal some aspects of tonal are being deliberately neglected, to point out they are different is tautological... I think the two systems complement each other in certain realms... atonal may not be romantic... but try to use a tonal Requiem in the film 2001 and get the same effect... I don't think so... so, you lose some things, but you gain others...


Even the 'atonal as used in films for horror or suspense' is a matter of wholesale conditioning. _Nothing works better for musically underscoring horror and suspense than music which is quite unfamiliar to the average listener_, ergo the newer music has been used in movies with that purpose for decades now -- because in that context it disorients the viewer, ergo, keeps them "on edge" to the point that people now unconsciously associate much modern / contemporary atonal as 'spooky.'

Try underscoring that horror / supspense movie with the darker and 'creepier' passages from early era music, say something of Beethoven or Verdi, which is so familiar a generic sound by habituation if not direct familiarity that it would more than likely evoke laughs from the audience if used with horror or suspense.

Conditioning, all of it.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

norman bates said:


> I don't know about ethanjamesescano, but for me the fact is that with atonal music you can't express joy, or nostalgia or other emotions. I opened a thread on this, asking for counterexamples, no one was able to mention even a piace of music used for instance in movies to evoke that kind of emotions. Even if it's easy to find every kind of experimental music, and also the music of great composers nobody ever used a piece of Boulez, Webern, Babbitt in a love scene.
> That doesn't means that atonality is not expressive (and by the way ethanjamesescano didn't say that), but that that expressivity has a narrow scope, while tonality can be used not only in a romantic way but in a lot of different ways.
> I mean, Andrew Hill's music is not atonal at all but a lot of times it's very difficult to call it "romantic".


If for you "joy" is the finale of Beethoven 9 or that the Romeo and Juliet fantasy overture is "ecstatic love" or that nostalgia is Strauss 4 last songs then you're setting yourself up for a narrow view of other types of music. Can gagaku or gamelan express joy, nostalgia etc? Given your position, would you say no? And yet a bunch of people over time have thought so - maybe its the same with "atonal music"

Look - I don't generally think of music as expressing emotion. I get thrills from finding it really super and actually these thrills are very similar whether it's a good bit of Bach, Mozart, Berg or Xenakis. I don't get the happy, sad, mad, bad thing that others seem to - although I certainly get that there are very powerful signifiers of emotion at play in classical music and when they're done well it's impressive.

So maybe I'm not the best person to say what "atonal" could make good emotions in others' special places but just flickin through the ipod here:

Berio - the violin duos - so much joy
Sciarrino - Caprices for Violin and Notturni Brilliante for Viola
Harvey - Mortuos Plango Vivo Vocos is nostalgic and beautiful
Murail - Le Lac painfully nostalgic
Lachenmann - a great deal of joyous virtuosity in the duo for guitars Salut fur Caudwell
Rihm - Jagden und Formen - if you don't any joy in this 50 min rollercoaster check your pulse
Enno Poppe - Rad - so much fun - is this joy? hopefully - and it's microtonal!

So - some specifics.

But if you want to step back a bit to pre-war "atonal" there's plenty of joy and "other emotions" in Berg and Dallapicolla and, say, Requiem Canticles - this might be a good entry point for those you struggle with atonal or think it's all "Shower scene from Psycho" ;-)


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Even the 'atonal as used in films for horror or suspense' is a matter of wholesale conditioning. _Nothing works better for musically underscoring horror and suspense than music which is quite unfamiliar to the average listener_, ergo the newer music has been used in movies with that purpose for decades now -- because in that context it disorients the viewer, ergo, keeps them "on edge" to the point that people now unconsciously associate much modern / contemporary atonal as 'spooky.'
> 
> Try underscoring that horror / supspense movie with the darker and 'creepier' passages from early era music, say something of Beethoven or Verdi, which is so familiar a generic sound by habituation if not direct familiarity that it would more than likely evoke laughs from the audience if used with horror or suspense.
> 
> Conditioning, all of it.


Yes, I know that. My point was that even accepting nb's premises, things are not that easy as he says.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Even the 'atonal as used in films for horror or suspense' is a matter of wholesale conditioning. _Nothing works better for musically underscoring horror and suspense than music which is quite unfamiliar to the average listener_, ergo the newer music has been used in movies with that purpose for decades now -- because in that context it disorients the viewer, ergo, keeps them "on edge" to the point that people now unconsciously associate much modern / contemporary atonal as 'spooky.'
> 
> Try underscoring that horror / supspense movie with the darker and 'creepier' passages from early era music, say something of Beethoven or Verdi, which is so familiar a generic sound by habituation if not direct familiarity that it would more than likely evoke laughs from the audience if used with horror or suspense.
> 
> Conditioning, all of it.


To me this is a simplistic explaination. I can think a lot of modern music that sounds unfamiliar and that I've never heard in a horror movie, and for a good reason. Never heard a piece of Harry Partch or Thelonious Monk, weird as they could sound in a horror scene.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

dgee said:


> If for you "joy" is the finale of Beethoven 9 or that the Romeo and Juliet fantasy overture is "ecstatic love" or that nostalgia is Strauss 4 last songs then you're setting yourself up for a narrow view of other types of music. Can gagaku or gamelan express joy, nostalgia etc? Given your position, would you say no?


I'm not an expert of those genres (even if I love the music of Teiji Ito) so I don't know.

And yet a bunch of people over time have thought so - maybe its the same with "atonal music"



dgee said:


> Look - I don't generally think of music as expressing emotion. I get thrills from finding it really super and actually these thrills are very similar whether it's a good bit of Bach, Mozart, Berg or Xenakis. I don't get the happy, sad, mad, bad thing that others seem to - although I certainly get that there are very powerful signifiers of emotion at play in classical music and when they're done well it's impressive.


I'm a bit confused, how can you say it's impressive if you don't get those emotions? And at the same time making the other examples you made?


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

norman bates said:


> I'm a bit confused, how can you say it's impressive if you don't get those emotions? And at the same time making the other examples you made?


With lots of exposure to music you will understand the signifiers - the last moveemtn of Tchaik 6 does a great job of misery but it doesn't make me feel miserable, it makes me feel interested, excited and satisfied. The Murail I mentioned definitely sounds like nostalgic music but it doesn't make me feel nostalgic, only interested, excited etc


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

One should listen to more contemporary/modern works. Let's leave Baroque and Romantic music alone for the next hundred years.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

aleazk said:


> ... I think the two systems complement each other in certain realms... atonal may not be romantic... but try to use a tonal Requiem in the film 2001 and get the same effect... I don't think so... so, you lose some things, but you gain others...


Just adding to this that I remember years back on this forum, I was arguing that Berg is the most accessible of the Viennese bunch, and people disagreed because all of his works from Op. 1 are atonal or serial. With Schoenberg and Webern you've got tonal works from earlier, with Berg none (in terms of published works, apart from juvinelia, as far as I know). Yet Berg's aesthetic is very Romantic, maybe even more than Schoenberg's. The most popular serial piece is his Violin Concerto, and I think for good reason.

Wozzeck was my intro to both him and this whole new world (at the time I was a teenager) of atonality, and it is emotional, but to answer norman bates there is nostalgia in there, or emotions like that, but they are part of a world that's falling apart. And its no longer fantasy or going back to the past, such as most of Verdi and Wagner is, its "today" with all its contradictions and horrors.

Speaking to that, I read an interview with Steve Reich, who said that for him atonal and serial music was less relevant than say jazz or rock, because its kind of rooted in Central Europe between the two world wars. That was its difficult birth, and this is despite the fact that he was influenced to some extent by Webern (which comes back to what aleazk said, about that 'trade off' of some things for others, when composers move from using a particular technique to another). Reich was more interested in Webern's pared down 'less is more' approach than anything to do with tone rows and such.

But the point is they intermingled in music of Reich's generation, same as in Berg's and right until today. Its a legacy that's there, and composers continue to engage with it in their own unique ways. Things are less dogmatic than they used to be, same with listeners, there is no issue with one or the other, we can listen to and choose what we want from all the options.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

norman bates said:


> Do you think that it's romantic music, or that it sounds even remotely as the music made before Schoenberg? I ask this because usually those discussions start beucase there's this strange idea that tonality is just the music of the past, every possibility offered by the language was exhausted before the second viennese school (and so the association of "tonality" with "romantic music" or "music before the twentieth century") while atonality is the only language of the present.


In my experience, usually these discussions start because someone wants to declare "atonal" music (whether this includes Shostakovich's Fifth or Messiaen's Turangalila or Varese's Ionisation or whatever) completely aesthetically invalid and _wrong_, possibly morally suspect.

And the truth is that traditional functional tonality _was_ more or less played out by the beginning of the 20th century. There have been a number of solutions that stuck to a more or less diatonic basis, but they don't turn back and act as if modernism never happened.

Stravinsky's Neoclassicism and Bartok's folk music inspired idiom sound infinitely more fresh today than Pfitzner's works of the 30s and 40s, which sounded dated even when they were written. The Four Last Songs are one of the few pieces of Late Romantic, purely functionally tonal music written after the 1920s to still have more than niche interest (as much as I do have affection for Schmidt's Fourth).


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> One should listen to more contemporary/modern works. Let's leave Baroque and Romantic music alone for the next hundred years.


If this bill becomes a law, I'll seek grandfather status for my sons and I. I don't want to have to explain to my youngest son that he can't listen to Schubert's 9th until he turns 104 :lol:


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Conditioning, all of it.


Which is what music has always been about -- writing new music for listeners conditioned to a certain style or range of styles. I have just heard Kronos Quartet's "A Thousand Thoughts," a very nice survey of music from traditions worldwide. Lots of different ways of coming at music, different tonal systems, etc. But all very fine.

I heard nothing of any music written in a way that someone felt they had to "invent" wholesale and that listeners "ought to like" regardless of what they had been conditioned to. I know of only one music tradition where that is true, at least in a significant sense, and it's not a compliment to that tradition -- or, it seems, helpful to its continuance.


----------



## ethanjamesescano (Aug 29, 2012)

I agree with Norman Bates. We're not saying it's less expressive, but we're just saying that atonal music is less flexible in terms of expressing themes. You may say that you don't consider music as a tool for expressing emotion, but at least music is a tool for showing you pictures in your mind. 

Schoenberg may give me a picture of a psychopathic clown raping a minotaur, he may give me a picture of a flying leg-less cow eating clouds as if those were cotton candies, or a non-surreal situation like a man simply killing someone. But he can't give us a picture of a man loving his family, appreciating his life, or a picture of a soldier missing his family.

You may say that I'm still into romantic music, but I'm not romantic in this situation. I mean, a piece doesn't need to be romantic to express love, joy, nostalgia, etc..., there are Medieval, Renaissance, Baroque, Classical pieces that express those pictures, but they are not romantic (although some pieces show some early signs of romanticism).

and by the way, tension, suspense, etc... are also romantic materials right?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I heard nothing of any music written in a way that someone felt they had to "invent" wholesale and that listeners "ought to like" regardless of what they had been conditioned to. I know of only one music tradition where that is true, at least in a significant sense, and it's not a compliment to that tradition -- or, it seems, helpful to its continuance.
> [/SIZE]


This, of course, has never happened. Unless you have more specifics with this unknown tradition of which I am not aware?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> This, of course, has never happened. Unless you have more specifics with this unknown tradition of which I am not aware?


"Later, Schoenberg developed an own tradition of the "dodecaphonic method of composition", also called "twelve-tone method" in which subsequently gave rise to serialism. Here he employed tone-rows in which the twelve pitches of the octave are considered equal and neither note nor tonality are given a role similar to the one they have in classical harmony."

Aside from the fact that no single person can develop a "tradition," this seems to fit my description pretty closely. A very academic sort of thing that excited Arnold greatly: ""I have today made a discovery that will ensure the supremacy of German music for the next hundred years." Well...

Three percent and counting -- down. Feel drafty in here to you?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

norman bates said:


> To me this is a simplistic explaination. I can think a lot of modern music that sounds unfamiliar and that I've never heard in a horror movie, and for a good reason. Never heard a piece of Harry Partch or Thelonious Monk, weird as they could sound in a horror scene.


And now you've hit on that median where the modern / contemporary music used in films has enough of a commonality it still sounds within some spectrum of 'concert music' as most generally and widely understood. Harry Partch or Thelonious Monk are too outstanding from that well-known expectation and tradition, and film scores are not chosen to distract from the scene they underscore.

Calculating sons o' b's, those film score composers, toeing that line where it is unfamiliar but not too, still playing on the general conditioning and expectations. Sorry, you could go on for days and it all points back to conditioning, just like the East Indian explanation that the world / universe sits on the back of a Tortoise, sitting on the back of another Tortoise, any argument to the contrary rebutted with, "No, it is Tortoises, all the way down"


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

KenOC said:


> "Later, Schoenberg developed an own tradition of the "dodecaphonic method of composition", also called "twelve-tone method" in which subsequently gave rise to serialism. Here he employed tone-rows in which the twelve pitches of the octave are considered equal and neither note nor tonality are given a role similar to the one they have in classical harmony."
> 
> Aside from the fact that no single person can develop a "tradition," this seems to fit my description pretty closely. You may not want it to, but as they say, "the wish is father to the thought."


But the dodecaphonic method was not "invented wholesale". It was simply a development out of his previous working methods. Note that the average person refers to _all_ of Schoenberg's post String Quartet 2 works as "12-tone".

Classical harmony was already destabilized, as we have discussed earlier in this thread. This was by no means any one person's doing.

And Schoenberg never said that people "ought to" like anything. He didn't even say that his was the only way forward, and refused to teach the method to his students, instead teaching them traditional harmony and counterpoint, because _the new music must have a basis in the old._ He was just convinced enough of the value of his art to believe that it would be accepted in the future. Increased performances and recordings seem to indicate that he was right.

So, you were wrong on every count.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> This, of course, has never happened. Unless you have more specifics with this unknown tradition of which I am not aware?


Ever tactful, Mahlerian, I was going to say "Codswallop," or "Just making stuff up."


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

ethanjamesescano said:


> I agree with Norman Bates. We're not saying it's less expressive, but we're just saying that atonal music is less flexible in terms of expressing themes.


If you fellas had it your way, classical music would be trapped in the 1800s. What's so terrible about artistic progress and innovation? Art cannot / will not be contained--it's in opposition to its very nature. The Bolsheviks and Fascists attempted to smother it and did they succeed? Only in creating empty, superficial trash. This so called 'inflexibility' of atonality is mere fiction.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> So, you were wrong on every count.


I disagree. Schoenberg's system (yes, it is a "system" pure and simple) was an invention, not simply a development from prior art. Sterile, academic stuff. I see this again and again and it is, sorry, false.

As for PetrB, let the insults begin. Nothing new here.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I disagree. Schoenberg's system (yes, it is a "system" pure and simple) was an invention, not simply a development from prior art. Sterile, academic stuff. I see this again and again and it is, sorry, false.
> 
> As for PetrB, let the insults begin. Nothing new here.


As if tonality was not a development which became a de facto accepted 'system.' Really.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I disagree. Schoenberg's system (yes, it is a "system" pure and simple) was an invention, not simply a development from prior art. Sterile, academic stuff. I see this again and again and it is, sorry, false.
> 
> As for PetrB, let the insults begin. Nothing new here.


Your disagreement doesn't change the fact of the matter.

Why is it a system?

What distinguishes an invented method from an organically developed one?

Why is it sterile and academic?

You haven't given a single argument on any of these points. You have simply restated them in the face of argument, without any further evidence or indeed, any evidence to begin with.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> In my experience, usually these discussions start because someone wants to declare "atonal" music (whether this includes Shostakovich's Fifth or Messiaen's Turangalila or Varese's Ionisation or whatever) completely aesthetically invalid and _wrong_, possibly morally suspect.
> 
> And the truth is that traditional functional tonality _was_ more or less played out by the beginning of the 20th century. There have been a number of solutions that stuck to a more or less diatonic basis, but they don't turn back and act as if modernism never happened.


this is simply f-a-l-s-e (considering tonality, not just functional tonality: I guess that Maurice Ohana would not be exactly happy to be considered an atonal composer). Ask to Allen Forte (who certainly wasn't against atonality for sure, considering that he wrote also a book called "the structure of atonal music") who analyzed the songs of the great american songbook if the harmony used by those songwriters is the same used by Schubert. Try to find something that sounds like Thelonious Monk, Andrew Hill, George Russell or Wayne Shorter in the music before the twentieth century. You can't find anything like that, because it didn't existed anything like that before. Try to find a lieder that sounds like a song made by Harold Arlen, Cole Porter or Richard Rodgers. The fact that every possibility of tonal music was investigated before atonality is pure b.....t and those examples are a proof of this.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

PetrB said:


> And now you've hit on that median where the modern / contemporary music used in films has enough of a commonality it still sounds within some spectrum of 'concert music' as most generally and widely understood. Harry Partch or Thelonious Monk are too outstanding from that well-known expectation and tradition, and film scores are not chosen to distract from the scene they underscore.


are you basically saying that in a horror movie the music should be unexpected but not too much?
By the way, "those movies composers" has no sense, because a lot of music used in movies is the one made by classical composers.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

norman bates said:


> this is simply f-a-l-s-e (considering tonality, not just functional tonality: I guess that Maurice Ohana would not be exactly happy to be considered an atonal composer). Ask to Allen Forte (who certainly wasn't against atonality for sure, considering that he wrote also a book called "the structure of atonal music") who analyzed the songs of the great american songbook if the harmony used by those songwriters is the same used by Schubert. Try to find something that sounds like Thelonious Monk, Andrew Hill, George Russell or Wayne Shorter in the music before the twentieth century. You can't find anything like that, because it didn't existed anything like that before. The fact that every possibility of tonal music was investigated before atonality is pure b.....t and those examples are a proof of this.


I'm not sure you've understood Mahlerian's point - the people in your list certainly have not behaved as if modernism didn't happen, in fact quite the opposite it would seem to me. Check Maurice Ohana (the one I know best here) as well - he may not have wanted to be labelled an atonal composer but Mahlerian was talking about functional tonality - and I don't think you can say Ohana operates on a functional tonality basis as if modernism never happened (microtones being one of your first hurdles!). Completely confused about your point re Allen Forte

But if you want to say the quoted statement is completely false after you redefine the terms, then go for it


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

dgee said:


> I'm not sure you've understood Mahlerian's point - the people in your list certainly have not behaved as if modernism didn't happen, in fact quite the opposite it would seem to me. Check Maurice Ohana (the one I know best here) as well - he may not have wanted to be labelled an atonal composer but Mahlerian was talking about functional tonality - and I don't think you can say Ohana operates on a functional tonality basis as if modernism never happened (microtones being one of your first hurdles!). Completely confused about your point re Allen Forte


Allen Forte, who as you probably know was a musicologist known for his studies on atonal music, wrote also a book where he analyzed the music of the composers of the great american songbook. And those songs, rooted in tonality sound completely different compared with the european lieder. Thousand and thousand of tonal songs that sound like nothing made before. Is this not a proof that tonality was not exhausted before the second viennese school?
By the way atonality (that was the argument of the discussion: the music of Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Boulez, Wuorinen, Skalkottas etc, not "modernism") and "non functional tonality" are clearly different things. Messiaen or Ohana are not atonal composers.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

I'm really not sure what you are arguing about here given your original comment rages against "traditional functional tonality being played out" - and I think you're actually agreeing with Mahlerian's point about the diatonic schools that came through being informed by/cognisant of modernism. While the thread is atonality (although of course never defined to specifically mean "no tonal centres" - a definition problematic in itself!) your comment was about something different

Extensions to functional tonality and non-functional tonality in the C20 - it's all go, bub! But, y'know, just to keep disagreeing I'll say I find your reading of the Allen Forte situation - tonal songs that sound like never before! - a bit dubious. Wouldn't they be pretty strongly rooted in functional tonality - circles of fifths, piling up 7s, 9s, 11s and more, dominant substitutes etc? I dunno - I know next to nothing about tin pan alley


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

dgee said:


> I'm really not sure what you are arguing about here given your original comment rages against "traditional functional tonality being played out" - and I think you're actually agreeing with Mahlerian's point about the diatonic schools that came through being informed by/cognisant of modernism.
> While the thread is atonality (although of course never defined to specifically mean "no tonal centres" - a definition problematic in itself!) your comment was about something different
> 
> Extensions to functional tonality and non-functional tonality in the C20 - it's all go, bub! But, y'know, just to keep disagreeing I'll say I find your reading of the Allen Forte situation - tonal songs that sound like never before! - a bit dubious.


The harmony of the american song was influenced by the blues, and this is one of the reasons that made those songs usually so different compared to the european lieder. Now, I don't know much about theory so I don't know if it's functional harmony, but I would not call it necessarily modernism. And by the way we should also define what modernism is, because it seems that here atonality and modernism are used as synonims. Sure, tonality in the twentieth century was influenced by modernism as Mahlerian said, but what modernism? Atonality? Bitonality? Microtonality? Modality? Debussy was a big influence on the twentieth century music, is his non functional tonality considered as atonality too?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

norman bates said:


> The harmony of the american song was influenced by the blues, and this is one of the reasons that made those songs usually so different compared to the european lieder. Now, I don't know much about theory so I don't know if it's functional harmony, but I would not call it necessarily modernism.


I put popular songs into their own tradition (and Jazz into its own), so the terms of the Western Classical tradition really don't apply. That said, Gershwin was a keen follower of modernist trends. Schoenberg had some kind words to say about Jazz music and popular songs (unlike Messiaen, who had never listened to it anyway).



norman bates said:


> Sure, tonality in the twentieth century was influenced by modernism as Mahlerian said, but what modernism? Atonality? Bitonality? Microtonality? Modality? Debussy was a big influence on the twentieth century music, is his non functional tonality considered as atonality too?


I don't define _anyone_ as atonal. I prefer terms that mean something specific, rather than some nebulous, finger-waving construct that people use to hang all of their personal dislikes on. Schoenberg's music was, in its various phases, Late Romantic, Expressionist, and Serial, but never atonal.



norman bates said:


> this is simply f-a-l-s-e (considering tonality, not just functional tonality: I guess that Maurice Ohana would not be exactly happy to be considered an atonal composer).


Something "not being tonal" does not make it "atonal" under any definition of the latter.

You can't criticize Schoenberg's conception that tonality was reaching a crisis unless you take his terms for what they are. For Schoenberg, "non-functional" tonality was not considered tonality at all. Tonality needed to be music in which every progression and development referred back to the home key. You couldn't, in his conception, simply stick in dissonances just because you wanted to make something sound "modern" and leave it at that.

It's worth noting that while he didn't sympathize with their aesthetics, he recognized composers like Stravinsky and Hindemith (and Shostakovich and Sibelius) as genuine talents.


----------



## Matsps (Jan 13, 2014)

PetrB said:


> Now, Matsps, I'm not picking on you, but this is cute, i.e. relative to what one is used to, "dissonance" is equated with atonality (a lot of listeners do that often.)
> 
> Prokofiev did not write "atonal" music


I'm aware that the Toccata is in Dm, but the atonality of some (most) sections is serious enough in my opinion for the music to be described as atonal casually. Okay it's not an acceptable exam answer, but we're not in a music exam.

Thanks for the link to the Prokofiev though, and for the suggestion KenOC.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> I put popular songs into their own tradition (and Jazz into its own), so the terms of the Western Classical tradition really don't apply.


why not, if what we're talking here is harmony. 
Is Willow weep for me tonal? Yes. Does it sounds as anything made before the twentieth century? No, at least for the music I know. So why insist that tonality in the twentieth century is just conservative music? I have some doubts that any scale in the thesaurus of Nicholas Slonimsky has been used.



Mahlerian said:


> Something "not being tonal" does not make it "atonal" under any definition of the latter.
> 
> You can't criticize Schoenberg's conception that tonality was reaching a crisis unless you take his terms for what they are. For Schoenberg, "non-functional" tonality was not considered tonality at all.


Ok, but do you think that ethanjamesescano with atonal had Debussy or Bill Evans in his mind in his first post? I guess he was thinking of serialism mainly. Maybe free atonality too, I'm not sure. I know that usually nobody discussing atonality have that kind of music in mind, so why continue with unnecessary distinctions when the object of the discussion is clear?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

norman bates said:


> why not, if what we're talking here is harmony.
> Is Willow weep for me tonal? Yes. Does it sounds as anything made before the twentieth century? No, at least for the music I know. So why insist that tonality in the twentieth century is just conservative music? I have some doubts that any scale in the thesaurus of Nicholas Slonimsky has been used.


I did not insist and have never insisted that "tonality in the 20th century is just conservative music". I said that the only composers in the Classical tradition who used functional tonality were of an extremely conservative orientation. Any other "tonal" music in the 20th century was open to the possibilities of modernism.



norman bates said:


> Ok, but do you think that ethanjamesescano with atonal had Debussy or Bill Evans in his mind in his first post? I guess he was thinking of serialism mainly. Maybe free atonality too, I'm not sure. I know that usually nobody discussing atonality have that kind of music in mind, so why continue with unnecessary distinctions when the object of the discussion is clear?


Because A) the topic of discussion is *not* clear (for all of this discussion, no one has defined atonality once) and B) it's important to point out that yes, Debussy and Webern are far closer to each other on a musical level than Debussy and Mozart.

If you're saying that "atonal music is, by its nature, less flexible in expression than tonal music", you have to define these terms consistently, and not ad hoc.

A lot of people hear Schoenberg's Chamber Symphony and think it's "atonal" or even 12-tone, when it is neither. No matter what someone thinks it sounds like, that doesn't make it anything either than tonal.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> I did not insist and have never insisted that "tonality in the 20th century is just conservative music". I said that the only composers in the Classical tradition who used functional tonality were of an extremely conservative orientation. Any other "tonal" music in the 20th century was open to the possibilities of modernism.


I think that a lot of those songs are based on functional harmony and still, as I've said, sound completely different compared to anything made by Schubert, Schumann, Hugo Wolf or whoever you want (I'm comparing songs with songs but obviously it could be said the same for instrumental music). If you disagree with that, I'd be happy to listen something I don't know (and I'm absolutely serious).



Mahlerian said:


> Because A) the topic of discussion is *not* clear (for all of this discussion, no one has defined atonality once) and B) it's important to point out that yes, Debussy and Webern are far closer to each other on a musical level than Debussy and Mozart.


Did Debussy ever use a tone row in his music?



Mahlerian said:


> If you're saying that "atonal music is, by its nature, less flexible in expression than tonal music", you have to define these terms consistently, and not ad hoc.
> 
> A lot of people hear Schoenberg's Chamber Symphony and think it's "atonal" or even 12-tone, when it is neither. No matter what someone thinks it sounds like, that doesn't make it anything either than tonal.


When I think of atonality I think of something like late Webern, or something like Schoenberg's Erwartung if we want to consider free atonality (obviously I'm not thinking of Gurrelieder considering Schoenberg). Not Debussy or Ravel or Szymanowsky. I'm not sure only about bitonality, that is a complex argument I guess.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

I don't get your point, norman... the term atonal is used for highly chromatic music that lacks a global functional structure. That can encompass from late Scriabin, to the second viennese, to Ligeti. You are narrowing atonal to a very specific thing: dodecaphonic -> second viennese. And I would say even more, dodecaphonism only in the way of Webern or Boulez...
After that, you are stretching your definition of tonal to very broad terms and saying that tonal is then more diverse than atonal. Of course, with these criteria, even Mozart pales when you compare him with your broad definition of tonality. I'm not sure what's your point. Webern or Boulez are not as expressive as all the music that existed combined?... of course, they were composing in very personal styles, like all individual composers...


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

norman bates said:


> I think that a lot of those songs are based on functional harmony and still, as I've said, sound completely different compared to anything made by Schubert, Schumann, Hugo Wolf or whoever you want (I'm comparing songs with songs but obviously it could be said the same for instrumental music). If you disagree with that, I'd be happy to listen something I don't know (and I'm absolutely serious).


You're reaching into a different tradition, though, with a different course of development. Classical music developed into chromaticism. Popular songs, such as tin pan alley, did not. Calling the popular song tradition "conservative" because it did not follow the Classical tradition harmonically makes, as you imply here, little sense. If you're wondering what the differences are, to the best of my knowledge: non-functional dissonances such as unresolving dominants, an emphasis on melody as entirely distinct from accompaniment (in classical song traditions, the accompaniment is considered part of the song, while in popular song traditions, it's generally of far lesser importance beyond providing harmonic background), and emphasis on syncopated rhythm against an unaltered background pulse (Romantic lieder tended to purposefully blur pulse to attain a free, spontaneous feel).

I think that these things account for the majority of the difference in sound between the two.



norman bates said:


> Did Debussy ever use a tone row in his music?


Debussy did use chord planing...kind of like this (not Webern, I know):








My point was that "atonality" is not the defining feature of the Second Viennese School's music (Ravel made the same statement). It is in fact defined by many of the same aesthetic factors that were in the air in Late Romanticism, Impressionism, and (later) Neoclassicism (even pseudo-jazz in some of Berg).



norman bates said:


> When I think of atonality I think of something like late Webern, or something like Schoenberg's Erwartung if we want to consider free atonality (obviously I'm not thinking of Gurrelieder considering Schoenberg). Not Debussy or Ravel or Szymanowsky. I'm not sure only about bitonality, that is a complex argument I guess.


But this is not definition, this is association. The definition of atonality is confused to begin with, so _why is it so important to keep it for the sake of argument?_ Why not refer to specific works and say exactly why you believe that they in particular fail to be expressive?

From my perspective, saying "all expressionist music is creepy horror movie stuff" is on the same level of inanity as saying "all Classical era music is light garden party stuff". To be sure, the overriding impression of much of Mozart may be, to one not steeped in the style, very easygoing and happy-sounding, but there are plenty of twists that tend to color Mozart's music (especially the later music) with drama, passion, and yes, darkness. Likewise, one's overall impression of Schoenberg may be darkness and distortion, but there is plenty of playfulness, wit, and humor as well that one can hear when one is familiar enough with the style that the style itself no longer fully controls the overriding impression.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> You're reaching into a different tradition, though, with a different course of development. Classical music developed into chromaticism. Popular songs, such as tin pan alley, did not.


Are you sure?

















or even







Mahlerian said:


> Calling the popular song tradition "conservative" because it did not follow the Classical tradition harmonically makes, as you imply here, little sense. If you're wondering what the differences are, to the best of my knowledge: non-functional dissonances such as unresolving dominants, an emphasis on melody as entirely distinct from accompaniment (in classical song traditions, the accompaniment is considered part of the song, while in popular song traditions, it's generally of far lesser importance beyond providing harmonic background), and emphasis on syncopated rhythm against an unaltered background pulse (Romantic lieder tended to purposefully blur pulse to attain a free, spontaneous feel).
> 
> I think that these things account for the majority of the difference in sound between the two.


I know about the rhythmic difference or that in popular music the arranger often provides the real music, but obviously we were not talking of that. Anyway I have a superficial knowledge of theory so I can't say a lot, but what about the difference made by the blues? I mean, to my ears that determine a huge difference in sonority, is that non functional harmony too?



Mahlerian said:


> Debussy did use chord planing...kind of like this (not Webern, I know):
> View attachment 41905


you must concede that there's a huge difference between chord planing and a twelve tone row.



Mahlerian said:


> My point was that "atonality" is not the defining feature of the Second Viennese School's music (Ravel made the same statement). It is in fact defined by many of the same aesthetic factors that were in the air in Late Romanticism, Impressionism, and (later) Neoclassicism (even pseudo-jazz in some of Berg).
> 
> But this is not definition, this is association. The definition of atonality is confused to begin with, so _why is it so important to keep it for the sake of argument?_ Why not refer to specific works and say exactly why you believe that they in particular fail to be expressive?
> 
> From my perspective, saying "all expressionist music is creepy horror movie stuff" is on the same level of inanity as saying "all Classical era music is light garden party stuff". To be sure, the overriding impression of much of Mozart may be, to one not steeped in the style, very easygoing and happy-sounding, but there are plenty of twists that tend to color Mozart's music (especially the later music) with drama, passion, and yes, darkness. Likewise, one's overall impression of Schoenberg may be darkness and distortion, but there is plenty of playfulness, wit, and humor as well that one can hear when one is familiar enough with the style that the style itself no longer fully controls the overriding impression.


but we have discussed the same thing other times. Ok, if we have to include parallel chords even a lot of mainstream popular jazz is atonal, in that case I would not certainly say what I've said about the "emotional narrowness" of atonal music. But I was referring to what I've said, serialism (and again, this does not means that in the right context is less expressive) and what is usually called free atonality.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

norman bates said:


> Are you sure?


To be sure, these examples are much more complex and sophisticated than the average circle-of-fifths progressions that littered popular songs of the 20s and 30s, but they're not chromatic in the sense that Wagner, Strauss, and Reger are chromatic. Their harmony (and the relationship between melody and harmony) simply works differently.



norman bates said:


> I know about the rhythmic difference or that in popular music the arranger often provides the real music, but obviously we were not talking of that. Anyway I have a superficial knowledge of theory so I can't say a lot, but what about the difference made by the blues? I mean, to my ears that determine a huge difference in sonority, is that non functional harmony too?


Yes. Functional tonality would require the clashes produced by blue notes to be resolved to "pure" intervals. It would also not treat I7 as a tonic chord (as it often is in blues-influenced music) rather than dominant of IV.



norman bates said:


> you must concede that there's a huge difference between chord planing and a twelve tone row.


The piece quoted above _is_ 12-tone. The two are completely compatible. Berg uses chord planing a good deal too. To be honest I don't understand what point you're trying to make here.



norman bates said:


> but we have discussed the same thing other times. Ok, if we have to include parallel chords even a lot of mainstream popular jazz is atonal, in that case I would not certainly say what I've said about the "emotional narrowness" of atonal music. But I was referring to what I've said, serialism (and again, this does not means that in the right context is less expressive) and what is usually called free atonality.


My point was _not_ that chord planing makes music atonal (although it does tend to remove a sense of tonality), but that Debussy's techniques don't somehow exist in a separate universe from those used by the Second Viennese.

I still don't think there is any such "emotional narrowness" as you've described, either in serialism or (especially) in free atonality.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Matsps said:


> I'm aware that the Toccata is in Dm, but the atonality of some (most) sections is serious enough in my opinion for the music to be described as atonal casually. Okay it's not an acceptable exam answer, but we're not in a music exam.


Uuh, sorry but the idea that Prokofiev wrote music that could be considered "atonal", as most people define it, isn't an opinion kind of idea; it's just wrong.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I think the distinction needs to be made for music such as Prokofiev, Bartok, and Debussy which is _*not tonal,*_ and Second Viennese and later serial music which uses ordered rows and is more properly called *atonal.

*My best definition of *tonality* is that it is based on *acoustic *and* harmonic * principles derived from the acoustic properties of small-number ratio "just" intervals, such as 3:2, 4:3, and 5:6, although from its inception, it did this imperfectly, and as music became more chromatic, deviated even further from this acoustic ideal;

...whereas modern music including Prokofiev, Bartok, and Debussy, which is more chromatic, and thus is based on geometric and numerical divisions of 12, is *not tonal,* since it does not use tonal, acoustic principles as its basis, but starts from the 12-note chromatic scale and its numeric, geometric divisions. For a complete explanation of this, see my thread "Complementation."

Second Viennese and later serial music, also using the 12-note scale and its symmetrical divisions as a basis, but goes further by using *ordered sets,* is more properly called _*atonal,*_ since its ordering principle is diametrically opposed to tonality's hierarchy of_ 'all relating to one,' _since each note of the set relates *only *to the preceding and proceeding note, not a central reference note, which creates an* intervallic *rather than a *pitch-identity *hierarchy derived from harmonic considerations.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> I think the distinction needs to be made for music such as Prokofiev, Bartok, and Debussy which is _*not tonal,*_ and Second Viennese and later serial music which uses ordered rows and is more properly called *atonal.
> 
> [*


*

I don't know if lumping Prokofiev, Bartok and Debussy in the same category as non-tonal is quite accurate. Maybe it is, but I think it depends on the piece you are talking about.

For example, this piano sonata by Prokofiev is firmly in c minor and while it's very chromatic, it is still very clearly in the realm of what you would call functional tonality. It even starts with a V-I cadence and refers back to that cadence quite often throughout the piece.





 (Piano Sonata #4 in c minor)

This piece by Debussy on the other hand, is clearly not using functional tonality as its harmonic method. Even though some parts of the piece might be heard as "landing points" (the chord at 1:01 for example) but a large portion of the music is built around stacked parallel 2nds, 4ths and 5ths, which destroys the traditional functionality of the harmony in a way that the chormaticism in the Prokofiev piece does not.





 (Images Book 2 - II. (Et la lune descend sur le temple qui fût)*


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

violadude said:


> I don't know if lumping Prokofiev, Bartok and Debussy in the same category as non-tonal is quite accurate. Maybe it is, but I think it depends on the piece you are talking about.
> 
> For example, this piano sonata by Prokofiev is firmly in c minor and while it's very chromatic, it is still very clearly in the realm of what you would call functional tonality. It even starts with a V-I cadence and refers back to that cadence quite often throughout the piece.
> 
> ...


Those distinctions are just fine, as my definitions are based on general abstract underlying principles. This is art, not science.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Matsps said:


> I'm aware that the Toccata is in Dm, but the atonality of some (most) sections is serious enough in my opinion for the music to *be described as atonal casually.* Okay it's not an acceptable exam answer, but we're not in a music exam..


I'm sure you meant *be casually described as atonal.*

The point is, test or not, it is not 'atonal,' and the casual use of "Red" instead of "Green" in discussing the use of color in a painting makes about as much sense as "Casually describing something which is not atonal as 'atonal.'"

Exam or not, you've signed up to discuss classical music, and no matter how 'casual' the discussion, some terms mean what they mean (without that requiring a formal education for the participant.) If you want to be 'casually sloppy' in your part of the discussion, feel free, while you might without much surprise expect a comment upon that sloppiness from another in the discussion.


----------

