# What did Schoenberg have in mind when he invented the 12-tone method?



## millionrainbows

Why did he develop this method? What was his goal? Was it musical, artistic? What was he hoping to achieve? Was he trying to destroy tonality, or create a new kind of music? Did this need to be done? You tell me, I'm here to listen for a while.


----------



## Petwhac

Coherence is what he had in mind.


----------



## Mahlerian

Unity.

Ever since the early 1900s, from around op. 6 or so, he had been focusing more and more intently on motivic and harmonic development out of small cells that generate whole pieces. This meant that the vertical and horizontal directions of music became closer and closer until they were eventually fused nearly completely with the Chamber Symphony.

With the move into music that is not written in the traditional tonal system that began with op. 10 and The Book of the Hanging Gardens, this motivic/harmonic development was freed of its need to fit into standard molds; the pieces that followed in this new style were brief and intensely focused. Often, their structure was tied to ostinati or a reference harmony which could provide stability and form. Just as frequently, they were tied to a text. It was found difficult to create longer movements.

The years of experiment that followed paralleled WWI in Europe and the move away from post-Romanticism in the arts which led to Neoclassicism and "New Objectivity" (Neue Sachlichkeit). Schoenberg's own experiments led him towards a more consistent use of procedures that he had already been using in his earlier works, and he called it "composing with the tones of the motive." These works, including the Serenade and the Five Piano Pieces op. 23, used a proto-serial technique which became the basis for his introduction of the row, or "basic set," as was Schoenberg's term.

This had several advantages:

- It facilitated motivic and harmonic unity, the kind of vertical/horizontal integration which had already been part of Schoenberg's style for two decades
- It allowed one to manipulate the material freely and maintain coherence over longer spans, in contrast to the freer treatment in the previous decade which had been difficult to organize
- This unity is audible to the listener (who is accustomed to a fully chromatic language)

It must be noted that for Schoenberg, this unifying element had an almost religious connotation.

As for whether it needed to be done, I am not sure. It seems unlikely that the method as such is to be consistently employed again by composers in the future. I do believe that serial thinking in terms of the operations and processes of serialism and the integration of vertical and horizontal dimensions of music is here to stay for quite a long time. We should be aware, for example, that even the "tonal" works Schoenberg wrote after the introduction of 12-tone technique (Suite for Strings, Theme and Variations for Band, parts of the Chamber Symphony No. 2, Kol Nidre, etc.) employ serial treatment of non-row materials.


----------



## Guest

Schoenberg, I think, was trying to do away with the concept of a key. I may be completely wrong here but the smallest scale you can have would be the interval of a fifth (or fourth depending on how you look at it). It would be pretty monotonous. To allow those two notes to modulate through keys, we would five more notes--the pentatonic scale. Chinese music is structured something like this--five notes with two more added that allow key change, those two modulators are played like grace notes. Now if you add those two scales together--2+5--you get a seven-note scale or diatonic scale. Now you can modulate the pentatonic scale through seven keys. Add the pentatonic and the diatonic and you get--5+7=12 notes or the chromatic scale. Now you can modulate the diatonic scale through 12 keys. The next in line would be the 7+12 or 19-tone scale. 

I think they have made 19-tone instruments but they don't work well. They are cumbersome and some of the intervals are really off but could theoretically play the chromatic scale through 19 keys. So I think Schoenberg may have gotten the idea of 12-tone technique by hitting this brick wall of 12 tones which cannot modulate through key changes because it must have a larger scale to move around in. So the normal interval relationships are changed to get rid of the idea of being in a key. Does that make sense? It's music right at the edge of everything we know about music, as it were.

But don't take that as gospel. I'm not a Schoenberg scholar (or any other kind of scholar) by any stretch and I'm sure someone here will tell I have no idea what I'm talking and unfortunately they could be right.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> I do believe that serial thinking in terms of the operations and processes of serialism and the integration of vertical and horizontal dimensions of music is here to stay for quite a long time. We should be aware, for example, that even the "tonal" works Schoenberg wrote after the introduction of 12-tone technique (Suite for Strings, Theme and Variations for Band, parts of the Chamber Symphony No. 2, Kol Nidre, etc.) employ serial treatment of non-row materials.


I call this 'modernist thinking,' since it is based on the fact of the 12-note division of the octave. This is its kinship with serialism, not ordered rows or non-repetition. In this sense, Serialism is a subset of more general modern approaches.


----------



## millionrainbows

Forte uses the term 'atonal' because that's what it means: music *structured* without using a tonal hierarchy, and *heard *without a sense of 'tonality' or key center, but heard only in terms of *sonorities.*

As far as actually hearing the effects of 'atonal' music, we can hear it as_* sonorities,*_ but *not *as being tone-centric. In atonal theory, unordered pitch class intervals are described and defined as if they were simultaneities. From _*Ear Training for Twentieth Century Music (Friedman),*_ we see:

_"...the same unordered pitch class interval includes the motion from pitch class 1 to pitch class 2, the motion from pitch class 2 to pitch class 1, and the sonority of pitch classes 1 and 2 sounding simultaneously.

Instead of thinking of an unordered pitch class interval as a measurable distance between two notes,* it may be more helpful to think of it as a type of sonority, analogous to its "color," or timbre."*_

We can hear it as a *sonority,* but* NOT* as being *tonal *or tone-centric.

My main point is that in most modern and 'post-tonal' music, music can still be heard as having _sonority _and having a _harmonic dimension,_ without being structured as, or being heard as, 'tonal' or 'tone-centric.'

Unordered sets are similar to scales and modes, in that they allow free* un*ordered use of the notes as an 'index' of relations, in which every note related to the others. This is similar to tonality, in which every note is related to the key note, except in this case, there is no 'key' note, and therefore no set of 'functions' as in tonality. Every sonority has an equal value, and can be used as the overall basis for a composition.

You could use a 'diatonic set" such as C-D-E-F-G-A-B as the set, but emphasize B-C-G as the main sonority. This is quite dissonant, and in tonality would be considered unusable, too dissonant, or inferior to C-E-G. Nonetheless, this triad has a sonority, and could be the basis of an entire composition, with the use of transposition, inversion, and retrograde procedures.

Additionally, unordered sets can have an *'interval vector,'* which is a six-number list of all possible intervals in the set. This is basically a list of what *sonorities* will be present in using the set.

Ordered sets do not have interval vectors, because they are ordered, and there is no relation among all notes of the set. The ordered row is strictly melodic, and has no sonorous vertical dimension.


----------



## millionrainbows

At this point, I'm not sure how original or innovative Schoenberg's 12-tone method was, if all it did was 'order' the notes. Other 'atonal' ideas were in the air at the time. By 'atonal ideas,' I mean ideas which create musical structure without using the tonal hierarchy. *

Josef Matthias Hauer* (March 19, 1883 - September 22, 1959) developed a system of 'tropes' which used the entire chromatic scale for composing, before Schoenberg came up with his 12-tone system.

*From WIK:*

_In certain types of atonal and serial music, a trope is an unordered collection of different pitches, most often of cardinality six (now usually called an unordered hexachord, of which there are two complementary ones in twelve-tone equal temperament). Tropes in this sense were devised and named by Josef Matthias Hauer in connection with his own twelve-tone technique, developed simultaneously with but overshadowed by Arnold Schoenberg's.

Hauer discovered the 44 tropes, pairs of complementary hexachords, in 1921 allowing him to classify any of the 479,001,600 twelve-tone melodies into one of forty-four types.

The primary purpose of the tropes is not analysis (although it can be used for it) but composition. A trope is neither a hexatonic scale nor a chord. Likewise, it is neither a pitch-class set nor an interval-class set. A trope is a framework of contextual interval relations. Therefore, the key information a trope contains is not the set of intervals it consists of (and by no means any set of pitch-classes), it is the relational structure of its intervals. __
Each trope contains different types of symmetries and significant structural intervallic relations on varying levels, namely within its hexachords, between the two halves of an hexachord and with relation to whole other tropes.
_
_Based on the knowledge one has about the intervallic properties of a trope, one can make precise statements about any twelve-tone row that can be created from it. A composer can utilize this knowledge in many ways in order to gain full control over the musical material in terms of form, harmony and melody._
_ 
The depicted example trope (no. 3) indicates that one hexachord of this trope is an inversion of the other. Trope 3 is therefore suitable for the creation of inversional and retrograde inversional structures. Moreover, its primary formative intervals are the minor second and the major third/minor sixth. This trope contains [0,2,6] twice inside its first hexachord (e.g. F-G-B and G♭-A♭-C and [0,4,6] in the second one (e.g. A-C♯-D♯ and B♭-D-E).

Its multiplications M[SUB]5[/SUB] and M[SUB]7[/SUB] will result in trope 30 (and vice versa). Trope 3 also allows the creation of an intertwined retrograde transposition by a major second and therefore of trope 17 (e.g., *G-A♭-C-B*-F-F♯-|-*E-E♭*-C♯-D-B♭-A → Bold pitches represent a hexachord of trope 17)
_
(end of quote)

So you can see, this type of 'atonal' thinking was already in the air. Yes, it is 'atonal thinking' because it sees notes in terms of their internal symmetries, not according to the 'tonal hierarchy.' It is non-tonal thinking and structuring.


----------



## arpeggio

I remember studying this in music history class forty years ago. I can not remember why?


----------



## millionrainbows

arpeggio said:


> I remember studying this in music history class forty years ago. I can not remember why?


So you could analyze or structure music that is not tonal (atonal). It might even help your listening.


----------



## millionrainbows

I think Schoenberg 'ordered' the rows so he could make horizontal *melodic *constructs: themes, and motives, and contrapuntal lines which are melodic in nature. Since Debussy and Bartok were already expanding the harmonic aspects, there was really nothing left to do.

Schoenberg's ordered 12-tone system is limited in this respect; he makes no consideration for harmony, or vertical chordal aspects. He didn't have to, either; harmonically, Debussy, Stravinsky, and Bartok (and Hauer) were already using unordered sets, which were not tonally derived, to create new harmonic, vertical sonorities.

So, big deal. Schoenberg's 12-tone method is only a half-solution. It's only melodic. The unordered, harmonic set thinking was already taking place.

I think Schoenberg was to a degree, grandstanding, and trying to ensure his place in history. His method, and the way he used it, was never codified very strictly, and he seems to have bent an awful lot of rules in creating any kind of "harmony' out of the system itself, since it is inherently melodic and un-harmonic.

I think he used it to create themes and motives, like Brahms, but the rest of it was using unordered rows. Even within each composition, I think he was 'winging it' and fudging on the strict adherence to ordered rows.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

I think Schoenberg was much more worried about harmony. After all he wrote a harmony book that's richer in thought than his 'contrapuntal exercises' and his melodies tend to fit together in fixed harmonies that drive on the music, often compressing the rhythms in the line for the sake of it. Berg on the other hand wrote much more fluid polyphony.


----------



## millionrainbows

Richannes Wrahms said:


> I think Schoenberg was much more worried about harmony.


Yeah, he was worried about harmony! He was worried about how to get it by using those rows! And I'm doing you a favor by calling it 'harmony!'


----------



## millionrainbows

But the more I think about it, the more possibilities arise from using _different forms_ of the row, and also by breaking it down into smaller groups of 6, 4, 3, and 2 notes. Three notes can become almost as flexible as an unordered scale! 1-2-3/3-2-1. You can't get 2-1-3. though. And it gets less flexible as you add notes.

Still, though, what a system! It's like being in the Marines! :lol:


----------



## dwindladwayne

I think that he tried to create a new language by using and old structure. New words but same syntax.


----------



## millionrainbows

Schoenberg, Elliott Carter, Milton Babbitt, and George Perle were all interested in certain rows which had symmetry under transformation; in other words, rows which gave the same intervals when inverted or reversed. 

Why was this? It was because they were searching for some form of consistency in the row, so that when combined with other forms, they at least had some control over the materials, and could predict what the results might be.


----------



## millionrainbows

Theory comes after the practice, and this seems to be true with serial music. The Second Viennese School were experimenting with new ways of organizing music, and there wasn't yet a generalized way of using tone rows, especially in the vertical area of 'harmony.' Progress is being made, and now a pre-compositional conception of general principles is developing.
Some of the techniques and strategies Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern were using, plus some conceptual ideas of Hauer's tropes, are finally giving way to some very valid and justifiable ways of combining rows, and ways of using those to actually compose music in a more controlled and predictable way, rather than groping in the wilderness.


----------



## EDaddy

What does Schoenberg's music and the Hindenburg have in common? 

Both had a lot of hot air and killed a lot of people. :lol:

(Sorry, I couldn't help myself!)


----------



## millionrainbows

EDaddy said:


> What does Schoenberg's music and the Hindenburg have in common?


Both were structurally unstable. :lol:


----------



## Sappho

Not to forget the existence of a fellow named Josef Hauer, who did it all before Schönberg. Though frankly I wonder why anyone would want to be credited with the "invention" of such an un-musical abomination...


----------



## Mahlerian

Sappho said:


> Not to forget the existence of a fellow named Josef Hauer, who did it all before Schönberg. Though frankly I wonder why anyone would want to be credited with the "invention" of such an un-musical abomination...


The only unmusical thing involved is the critics who have lambasted all of the wonderful 12-tone music that's been written over the years on the basis of nonsense and simplifications.


----------



## millionrainbows

Sappho said:


> Not to forget the existence of a fellow named Josef Hauer, who did it all before Schönberg. Though frankly I wonder why anyone would want to be credited with the "invention" of such an un-musical abomination...












Well, although that seems like a criticism, I will take it with a grain of salt. My example is *Schoenberg's String Trio op. 46, *which was written in his later period after WWII had ended.

It's certainly not 'tonal,' so I will assume that's what is meant by 'unmusical'.

In this work, and in others, Schoenberg seems to have adopted his 'method' and to have completely forgotten about tonality. After all, it is an atonal piece; i.e., it has no tonal center, and is not constructed with a tonal hierarchy.

In fact, simultaneous soundings of vertical 'chords,' as in discrete homophonic triad-entities, does not seem to be a major concern here. There is *as much *independent voice movement, and totally independent lines, as there are 'harmonic' entities, like chords.

Verticality *does *happen, however, and the rows are planned so that verticalities will occur as 'chords' consisting of 3 different notes; each of the 3 rows is divided into 2 hexads; the first and last notes of each hexad are all different, creating a new row (that's 2 notes per hexad, totaling 12 notes, all different.

That aside, creating a 'harmonic' effect does not seem to be at the top of Schoenberg's agenda. There are other ways in which he creates meaning and 'musicality.'

This seems to me to be a work of 'gestures,' and this puts Schoenberg directly in line with traditional uses of music, evolving from 'gestural' music which accompanied drama, as in Wagnerian opera, which eventually existed as pure gestural music without the actual dramatic trappings. This became concert music; music divorced from any specific ceremonial or social occasion or dramatic function, existing as* 'pure gesture' expressive of some introspective vision of the artist* (Beethoven comes to mind), designed to evoke those same feelings, moods, and emotions in the audience, even though there is no explicit meaning. Music becomes a language of pure gesture and feeling.

Thus, Schoenberg's music is very 'musical' in this sense.

Tonally, the work has no meaning. It is atonal, and this fact must be accepted and 'transcended' before one can proceed to accept it as music. There are plenty of brusk, jabbing 'gestures' which are articulated rhythmically. Pitch is often indeterminate or inaudible, as plucked pizzicatos and impossibly high-pitched harmonics, or as muddy lower-register 'clusters' of notes. This is a clear indication that even pitch itself had taken on less importance to Schoenberg, and he was more interested in exploiting other methods of conveying musical meaning.

So, you see, this is what I would call very 'abstract' music, in the sense that is is primarily gestural, and seeks to create 'events' that do not depend on any overall context, and certainly is not concerned with pitch or 'harmonic entities' being the primary element, focus, or importance.

Yes, there are areas in which voice-leading structure occurs, which to some might evoke some semblance of tonality, but these areas exist unto themselves, as harmonic 'entities' with no tonal meaning as we have ever known it. To grasp at such vestiges of tonal memory is a futile, and ultimately unrewarding activity; I don't think this is what Schoenberg had in mind, as he seemed to be more interested in other aspects of musicality in this piece.

This work, the String Trio op. 46, is a compendium of 'gestures,' which are evocative, convey emotion and states of being, and could be connected with some inner narrative of the artist. In fact, this is explained in the liner notes, as a narrative of Schoenberg's near-death in the hospital, when he was revived with a direct-to-the-heart injection.

So, Schoenberg is an Expressionist; he is after the bizarre, the unsettling, the garish colors, and the evocation of near-death experiences. Not exactly a walk in the park, and I admit that the work is challenging; but not "unmusical." This is art of the highest order, regardless of how I may view it.


----------



## Mahlerian

But the String Trio contains explicit references to traditional tonality. Even apart from those sections, it has plenty of tonal meaning, as any collection of notes does, especially one so clearly and cogently formed and related to each other as a piece by Schoenberg.

It is expressive music, extreme at times, but beautiful at others, and powerfully emotional.

To say that it does not carry musical meaning is false, as all of this comes directly from the notes, the pitches, and the rhythms employed. Not only was Schoenberg concerned with harmony and harmonic effect, it was second in importance only to motivic and thematic development to him.


----------



## millionrainbows

The String Trio op. 46 does contain passages which have_ oblique references_ to tonality, but these are _not tonal_, they only _refer_ to it. These passages are placed alongside passages which have no reference to tonality whatsoever.

The String Trio op. 46 is Expressionist; Schoenberg had abandoned classical phrase-construction in this work, and replaced it with a kind of "musical prose" reminiscent of the Expressionist period of Erwartung, with fragmentary texture. It is jagged, and the work is one of his most 'abstract' compositions. It's generally regarded as exhibiting rather attenuated tonal motivation, as with the Wind Quintet.

There is _"tonal thought"_ in this Trio, as in the row-forms and their emphasis on the vertical (harmonic) dimension, instead of his earlier view of the row as a horizontal ordering. The vertical dimension is given priority in this work. Using combinatorial pairs (which I described earlier), these dyads determine both dimensions, and these combinatorial elements are almost as pervasive as the row itself, which in this case is 18 notes, or 3 hexads. This again is a departure from his earlier thinking, creating a sort of 'harmonic source-set' which functions independently of the source-row.

There are other vestiges of tonal _thinking _which are always present in Schoenberg's thinking, such as using the T5 or T7 form of the row, to create the IV/V relation.

There are antecendent and consequent phrases. There are 'cadential' phrases. There is 'developing variation.' There are 'formal prototypes.' _*However,*_ bear in mind that these are just _*thought processes,*_ which are _idiosyncratic abstractions of late-nineteenth-century musical thought. _The presence of "tonal sonorities" is simply a remnant.

Triads do not imply functional tonality; they only have harmonic color and sonority.

Is it legitimate to read tonal hierarchies in the String Trio op. 46, where not all elements comply with such hierarchical structuring? Can we say this work is 'tonal' when looking at triadic material which does not have tonal function? I say no. This is modernism.

The power of Schoenberg's music is in its *"classicism,"* which is _not_ a matter of 'style' or compositional technique, but in its adherence to a particular type of _musical logic._ I don't think this* hidden *musical logic translates into the aural content of the work, but is apparent only through analysis. The aural 'content' is modern.


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> The String Trio op. 46 is Expressionist; Schoenberg had abandoned classical phrase-construction in this work, and replaced it with a kind of "musical prose" reminiscent of the Expressionist period of Erwartung, with fragmentary texture. It is jagged, and the work is one of his most 'abstract' compositions. It's generally regarded as exhibiting rather attenuated tonal motivation, as with the Wind Quintet.


Incidentally, here is an essay pointing out features in the Wind Quintet that link it to traditional tonality.

http://symposium.music.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=1962


----------



## millionrainbows

Never mind the word 'atonal.' It's getting to where I don't even know what the word "tonal" means anymore, the way it's used so loosely.

The T5 or T7 form of the row, to create the IV/V relation; the antecendent and consequent phrases; the 'cadential' phrases; 'developing variation;' 'formal prototypes.' It's all there in the String Trio except for one minor detail: a tonal center.


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> The T5 or T7 form of the row, to create the IV/V relation; the antecendent and consequent phrases; the 'cadential' phrases; 'developing variation;' 'formal prototypes.' It's all there in the String Trio except for one minor detail: a tonal center.


But I don't understand what you mean by tonal center. I hear centers in Schoenberg, including the String Trio, like I do in Debussy and Bartok and Stravinsky. I hear him moving from center to center, weighting this one at one point and that one at another.

I don't hear in terms of rows, and Schoenberg doesn't expect us to. He just wants us to listen to his music _as music_.


----------



## millionrainbows

Tone centricity is a feature of chromatic tonality, as it begins to use all twelve notes and geometric divisions of the octave.

Localized tone-centricities do not qualify as *tone centers,* which is a more pervasive and far-reaching term.

Tonality governs an entire octave, and the scale functions built on those scale steps.

Tone-centricities are not octave-based in the same sense; they divide the octave into smaller autonomous segments, and this may create several points of centricity. This is a fragmented form by comparison.

I hear Schoenberg largely in terms of _musical gestures, _not as tone rows. I think _musical gesture _is a form largely derived from traditional tonality (as in antecedent and subsequent phrases, cadences, etc).

I also hear The String Trio in more modern terms, in the form of sound "events" which are not meant to be heard as definite 'musical' pitch or harmonic events, but as gestures of pure sound. Thus, the super-high harmonics, low bass clusters, plucked notes. This is the "abstract" Schoenberg.

When, in the *String Trio,* Schoenberg creates a sustained verticality or 'chord,' _my ears hear it harmonically as a 'chord,'_, as is their nature, with low notes seeming to be a 'root' or 'center' and higher notes as being component parts which create _color,_ just like harmonics. I don't call this 'tonality' or even a tone-centricity; it's just a passing harmonic moment.


----------



## Mahlerian

What is the difference between a tone centricity and a tonal center? How long is long enough for a tonal center to have significant definition?

It is true that I do not hear Schoenberg's music in terms of functional tonality, but this is also true of the composers I mentioned, as well as music before 1600 and the music of other non-European countries.

I hear Schoenberg as music, working with themes, motifs, harmonies, and timbres to create coherence. The separation of one of these elements from the others makes no more sense here than in any other piece of music. I don't hear Schoenberg's musical gestures as essentially different in any way than those in music by Beethoven or Mahler.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> What is the difference between a tone centricity and a tonal center? How long is long enough for a tonal center to have significant definition?


I explained that difference above. If you mean in terms of your perception of it in time, I can't define that.

I can only say that serial and 12-tone music uses all 12 notes, rather than tonality's 7, so this makes it automatically 'less tonal.' Tonality is a matter of degree, not an absolute.

Tonality becomes less defined as more notes are added to a scale. This can be demonstrated mathematically; the more notes, the less variety of intervals, therefore it becomes 'harmonically less defined' as we approach 12 notes. In the following post is an excerpt from another thread on another site that I made which shows this.



Mahlerian said:


> It is true that I do not hear Schoenberg's music in terms of functional tonality, but this is also true of the composers I mentioned, as well as music before 1600 and the music of other non-European countries.
> 
> I hear Schoenberg as music, working with themes, motifs, harmonies, and timbres to create coherence. *The separation of one of these elements from the others makes no more sense here than in any other piece of music.* I don't hear Schoenberg's musical gestures as essentially different in any way than those in music by Beethoven or Mahler.


If that were the case, there would be no need for the 12-tone method, which is basically what that article you linked to is stating. I'll have to print that out in order to fully understand, assess, and comment on it, which may take a week or longer.


----------



## millionrainbows

The material being discussed here is from Howard Hanson's "Harmonic Materials of Modern Music".

The Projection of the Fifth

As we all know, going around the circle of fifths yields all twelve notes before repeating. Therefore, there is a progression into chromaticism that is visible in this process.

First, some nomenclature: 
p=perfect fifth (or fourth) 
m=major third (minor sixth)
n=minor third (major sixth)
s=major second (minor seventh)
d=minor second (major seventh)
t=augmented fourth, diminished fifth

"Projection": the building of sonorities or scales by superimposing a series of similar intervals one above the other.

Beginning with C, we add G, then D, to produce the triad C-G-D, or reduced to an octave, or its "melodic projection", C-D-G. Numerically, in terms of 1/2 steps, 2-5. In terms of total interval content, using the nomenclature above: p2 s.

Next, we add A to the stack, forming the tetrad C-G-D-A, reduced melodically to C-D-G-A. Numerically, 2-5-2. Interval content: p3 n s2. 
The minor third appears for the first time.

Next, pentad C-G-D-A-E, reduced to C-D-E-G-A, recognizable as the pentatonic scale. The major third appears for the first time. Numerically, 2-2-3-2. Interval analysis: p4 m n2 s3.

The hexad adds B, forming C-G-D-A-E-B, reduced to C-D-E-G-A-B. Numerically: 2-2-3-2-2. Interval content: p5 m2 n3 s4 d. 
For the first time, the dissonant minor second (or major seventh) appears.

Continuing, we add F# to get the heptad C-G-D-A-E-B-F#, reduced as C-D-E-F#-G-A-B. Here the tritone appears; also, this is the first scale which in its melodic projection contains no interval larger than a major second; i.e., look, ma, no gaps. It contains all six basic intervals for the first time in our series. 
Numerically: 1-1-2-2-1-2-2. Intervals: p6 m3 n4 s5 d2 t.

Octad: Add C#, yielding C-C#-D-E-F#-G-A-B. Numerically, 1-1-2-2-1-2-2. Intervals: p7 m4 n5 s6 d4 t2.

Nonad: Add G#: C-C#-D-E-F#-G-G#-A-B. Numerically, 1-1-2-2-1-1-1-2. Intervals: p8 m6 n6 s7 d6 t3.

The Decad adds D#, yielding C-C#-D-D#-E-F#-G-G#-A-B. 
Numerically, 1-1-1-1-2-1-1-1-2. Intervals: p9 m8 n8 s8 d8 t4.

Undecad: Add A#. C-C#-D-D#-E-F#-G-G#-A-A#-B. In 1/2 steps, numerically, it is 1-1-1-1-2-1-1-1-1-1. Interval content: p10 m10 n10 s10 d10 t5.

The last one, the duodecad, adds the last note, E#. C-C#-D-D#-E-E#-F#-G-G#-A-A#-B. 
Numerically: 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1. 
Interval content: p12 m12 n12 s12 d12 t6.

Note the overall progression:
doad: p
triad: p2 s
tetrad: p3 n s2
pentad: p4 m n2 s3
hexad: p5 m2 n3 s4 d
heptad: p6 m3 n4 s5 d2 t 
octad: p7 m4 n5 s6 d4 t2
nonad: p8 m6 n6 s7 d6 t3
decad: p9 m8 n8 s8 d8 t4
undecad: p10 m10 n10 s10 d10 t5
duodecad: p12 m12 n12 s12 d12 t6

What can be noted is the affinity of the perfect fifth and the major second, since the projection of one fifth upon another always produces the concomitant interval of a major second; 
The relatively greater importance of the minor third over the major third; the late arrival of the minor second, and lastly, the tritone.

Each new progression adds one new interval, plus adding one more to those already present;* but beyond seven tones, no new intervals can be added. In addition to this loss of new material, there is also a gradual decrease in the difference of the quantitative formation. *
In the octad, the same number of major thirds & minor seconds; In the nonad, same number of maj thirds, min thirds, and min seconds. In the decad, an equal number of maj/min thirds and seconds.
When 11 and 12 are reached, the only difference is the number of tritones.

*So the sound of a sonority, whether it be harmony or melody, depends on what is present, but also on what is not present. *
The pentatonic sounds as it does because it contains mainly perfect fifths, and also maj seconds, minor thirds, and one major third, but also because it does not contain the minor second or tritone.

*As sonorities get projected beyond the six-range, they tend to lose their individuality. *

Mahlerian will love this next paraphrase/quote from Hanson:

*This is probably the greatest argument against the rigorous use of atonal theory in which all 12 notes are used in a single melodic or harmonic pattern. These constructs begin to lose contrast, and a monochromatic effect emerges.*

Each scale discussed here can have as many versions as there are notes in the scale. The seven-tone scale has seven versions, beginning on C, D, E, and so forth. These "versions" should not be confused with involutions of the same scale.

What has the projection of a fifth revealed to us?

Quoting Hanson: *"Since, as has been previously stated, all seven-tone scales contain all of the six basic intervals, and since, as additional tones are added, the resulting scales become increasingly similar in their component parts, the student's best opportunity for the study of different types of tone relationship lies in the six-tone combinations, which offer the greatest number of scale types."*

*-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, this could be used to defend 12-tone theory, by the use of hexads (six-note sets), but note this crucial difference, seen by examining the interval content:

hexad: p5 m2 n3 s4 d

These intervals are based on the cross-relations of unordered scale-sets; NOT ordered tone rows.

Maybe Mahlerian, and that article he posted, are correct: maybe the 12-tone method is not really any different from tonality, since Schoenberg hardly ever used the row in its ordered form except as thematic, melodic material. He always "cheated" and used hexads in their unordered forms!

So really, what's the big deal? What did he invent? Is the 12-tone method just a sham?*


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> I explained that difference above. If you mean in terms of your perception of it in time, I can't define that.


No, you didn't explain it. You said that it was "a more far-reaching and pervasive term" and made a distinction between how the octave is treated that I don't agree with.

It is true that in pitch class theory the octave is divided rather than taken as a single unit, but this is also true of medieval hexichord theory, is it not?

Why do segments of an octave count as "autonomous"? We are talking about music that treats the octave as a unified space divided into 12 pitches, and in which each octave is considered equivalent to the others. There is no crossing over from one space to another, only a shift in emphasis.



millionrainbows said:


> I can only say that serial and 12-tone music uses all 12 notes, rather than tonality's 7, so this makes it automatically 'less tonal.' Tonality is a matter of degree, not an absolute.


Traditional tonality also uses 12 notes, just not as consistently. The number of notes has nothing whatsoever to do with the degree of tonal centricity.

Serial music doesn't have to be 12-tone, either. You keep ignoring that.

To say that tonality is a matter of degree is to make nonsense out of the term. Is Beethoven "less tonal" than Bach? Is Wagner "less tonal" than Beethoven? The answer is no, all of them are equally tonal. There are, to be sure, degrees of closeness to and distance from methods associated with traditional tonality, but to say that this makes them "less tonal" is ridiculous. At any rate, Schoenberg's music is extremely close in every way to the methods associated with traditional tonality.



millionrainbows said:


> If that were the case, there would be no need for the 12-tone method, which is basically what that article you linked to is stating. I'll have to print that out in order to fully understand, assess, and comment on it, which may take a week or longer.


Why would there be no need for the 12-tone method? It was only ever intended to deal with the pitch content of music. It does not generate form, it does not generate content, it only guides the organization of the vertical and horizontal content of the music. It is not a theory for explaining how the music works.

What the paper is saying is that there is no need for a separate theory of how modern music works, and that it simply requires an expansion of the older tonal theory in order to be understood.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> No, you didn't explain it. You said that it was "a more far-reaching and pervasive term" and made a distinction between how the octave is treated that I don't agree with.


I can only explain so much...



Mahlerian said:


> It is true that in pitch class theory the octave is divided rather than taken as a single unit, but this is also true of medieval hexichord theory, is it not?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Mahlerian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do segments of an octave count as "autonomous"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Mahlerian said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking about music that treats the octave as a unified space divided into 12 pitches, and in which each octave is considered equivalent to the others. There is no crossing over from one space to another, only a shift in emphasis.
> 
> 
> 
> Because all 12 pitches do not refer to one note in the 12-note set. A whole tone scale can have 6 possible roots or centers.
> 
> 
> 
> Mahlerian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Traditional tonality also uses 12 notes, just not as consistently. The number of notes has nothing whatsoever to do with the degree of tonal centricity.
> 
> Serial music doesn't have to be 12-tone, either. You keep ignoring that.
> 
> To say that tonality is a matter of degree is to make nonsense out of the term. Is Beethoven "less tonal" than Bach? Is Wagner "less tonal" than Beethoven? The answer is no, all of them are equally tonal. There are, to be sure, degrees of closeness to and distance from methods associated with traditional tonality, but to say that this makes them "less tonal" is ridiculous. At any rate, Schoenberg's music is extremely close in every way to the methods associated with traditional tonality.
> 
> Why would there be no need for the 12-tone method? It was only ever intended to deal with the pitch content of music. It does not generate form, it does not generate content, it only guides the organization of the vertical and horizontal content of the music.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, there you go. That seems correct.
> 
> 
> 
> Mahlerian said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the paper is saying is that there is no need for a separate theory of how modern music works, and that it simply requires an expansion of the older tonal theory in order to be understood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's true, esp. the way schoenberg used it.
Click to expand...


----------



## ArtMusic

millionrainbows said:


> Why did he develop this method? What was his goal? Was it musical, artistic? What was he hoping to achieve? Was he trying to destroy tonality, or create a new kind of music? Did this need to be done? You tell me, I'm here to listen for a while.


Sorry for my late reply, I only just noticed this thread. I have not read any of it before.

In my opinion, Schoenberg was pushing the boundary of the tonality with atonal music. He saw it as the theoretical means to push the evolution of dissonance. He also wanted to make a name for himself in music and the arts in general.


----------



## Mahlerian

ArtMusic said:


> Sorry for my late reply, I only just noticed this thread. I have not read any of it before.
> 
> In my opinion, Schoenberg was pushing the boundary of the tonality with atonal music. He saw it as the theoretical means to push the evolution of dissonance. He also wanted to make a name for himself in music and the arts in general.


Your opinion has a basis that is factually incorrect in that Schoenberg disavowed the term atonal as nonsense. He saw his music as an evolutionary step based on what had come before.


----------



## ArtMusic

Mahlerian said:


> Your opinion has a basis that is factually incorrect in that Schoenberg disavowed the term atonal as nonsense. He saw his music as an evolutionary step based on what had come before.


Atonal is a term now widely used, which is a fact. What I meant to say was Schoenber saw it as a means to push *dissonance to a new evolutionary path* (plus accrediting artistic place in history). Call it twelve-tone or whatever you please, words do not bother me.


----------



## Mahlerian

ArtMusic said:


> *Atonal is a term now widely used, which is a fact.* What I meant to say was Schoenber saw it as a means to push *dissonance to a new evolutionary path* (plus accrediting artistic place in history). Call it twelve-tone or whatever you please, words do not bother me.


Whether or not it is widely used has nothing to do with whether or not it is a useful or meaningful term, which is incontrovertible.

Schoenberg was not using any techniques in his works after 1908 that he had not been using before then. He simply made use of non-triadic harmony more consistently and in a more fundamental way.

Also, he did not see his techniques as the important part of his music, the part that would be of historical significance. It was the music itself, _and only the music itself_, that was important.

Twelve-tone is in fact a specific term that is not at all equivalent to what is normally meant by "atonal."


----------



## ArtMusic

Mahlerian said:


> Whether or not it is widely used has nothing to do with whether or not it is a useful or meaningful term, which is incontrovertible.
> 
> Schoenberg was not using any techniques in his works after 1908 that he had not been using before then. He simply made use of non-triadic harmony more consistently and in a more fundamental way.
> 
> Also, he did not see his techniques as the important part of his music, the part that would be of historical significance. It was the music itself, _and only the music itself_, that was important.
> 
> Twelve-tone is in fact a specific term that is not at all equivalent to what is normally meant by "atonal."


I think Schoenberg knew very well indeed that twelve-tone/atonal development was going to be the way forward for the new school of composers.


----------



## Mahlerian

ArtMusic said:


> I think Schoenberg knew very well indeed that twelve-tone/atonal development was going to be the way forward for the new school of composers.


Yes, but it's still the music that's produced that counts, not the technique used to produce it.


----------



## Dim7

Schoenberg called his music "pantonal", which could mean "all tones are tone-centres", which is basically the same thing as none of them being a tone-centre - atonality, in other words. It's like everyone being the leader. And he did consider the technique historically important:

From Wikipedia

Schoenberg announced it characteristically, during a walk with his friend Josef Rufer, when he said, "I have made a discovery which will ensure the supremacy of German music for the next hundred years" (Stuckenschmidt 1977, 277)


----------



## Mahlerian

Dim7 said:


> Schoenberg called his music "pantonal", which could mean "all tones are tone-centres", which is basically the same thing as none of them being a tone-centre - atonality, in other words. It's like everyone being the leader. And he did consider the technique historically important:
> 
> From Wikipedia
> 
> Schoenberg announced it characteristically, during a walk with his friend Josef Rufer, when he said, "I have made a discovery which will ensure the supremacy of German music for the next hundred years" (Stuckenschmidt 1977, 277)


Tonality to Schoenberg meant "the system of major and minor keys." That's all. He did not mean tonal center in the sense that the term is used today, meaning a single point (which can be established by such means as ostinato or pedal point alone), but rather as earlier theorists would have meant it, as a central harmonic triad to which all triads and progressions are related.

To Schoenberg, what pantonality meant was that the music partakes in elements of all keys.

Atonality would mean that it has no relation to keys whatsoever, which is simply not true of much, if not all, of the music called atonal, and certainly not true of Schoenberg's.

As for Schoenberg's sense of his place in history, you are correct that he considered the technique significant, but it was not the technique alone that was important: when he was told late in life that many younger composers were taking up his method, he asked, "Yes, but are they using it to create music?"


----------



## ArtMusic

Mahlerian said:


> Yes, but it's still the music that's produced that counts, not the technique used to produce it.


I agree. In my opinion, atonal technique is more interesting than the music itself. Atonal score can make interesting reading (if and when I manage to understand it) contrary to my listening experience of the same piece, starkly so.


----------



## Mahlerian

ArtMusic said:


> I agree. In my opinion, atonal technique is more interesting than the music itself. Atonal score can make interesting reading (if and when I manage to understand it) contrary to my listening experience of the same piece, starkly so.


Oh really? Can you explain in detail an experience you had where you read a score and found it fascinating, what you got out of it, and your subsequent experience of listening to the piece in which you did not find nearly as much enjoyment?

I've never been nearly so fascinated by score-reading and theory as music, myself.


----------



## ArtMusic

Mahlerian said:


> Oh really? Can you explain in detail an experience you had where you read a score and found it fascinating, what you got out of it, and your subsequent experience of listening to the piece in which you did not find nearly as much enjoyment?
> 
> I've never been nearly so fascinated by score-reading and theory as music, myself.


Yes, really indeed, you just have to take my word for it. Schoenberg's piano pieces for example, The Six Short Pieces. Score reading of it to me was more interesting than listening to these short pieces.


----------



## Mahlerian

ArtMusic said:


> Yes, really indeed, you just have to take my word for it. Schoenberg's piano pieces for example, The Six Short Pieces.


Okay, I love these pieces. They're compact and beautiful and expressive. What did you find in reading them that you didn't find in listening to them?


----------



## isorhythm

ArtMusic said:


> Yes, really indeed, you just have to take my word for it. Schoenberg's piano pieces for example, The Six Short Pieces. Score reading of it to me was more interesting than listening to these short pieces.


I actually don't think there's anything interesting about these "on paper." They're purely expressionistic. You have to hear them.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I actually find the scores very interesting! Just as interesting as how it sounds. Understanding a Schoenberg score, for me, is like understanding a Schumann score. There are fascinating ideas on the paper; they are the closest we can really get to the thought process of any composer and that's what makes score analysis really invigorating. One thing which I find exciting is reading a score and looking at the fine details, how they fit together and imagining everything being played in my head. Most often, there is no interpretation quite like it when I try to find one closest to how I would play it!


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Berg's and early Webern scores, full of variety and detail of all kinds, parallel the beauty of the sound they code. In contrast, most of Messiaen's scores are the most boring great things I've looked at.


----------



## ArtMusic

Mahlerian said:


> Okay, I love these pieces. They're compact and beautiful and expressive. What did you find in reading them that you didn't find in listening to them?


By reading it I can study how Schoenberg handled the score but the sound is not what I am looking for when it comes to aural enjoyment. Just the same, I can study a Shakespeare piece and see the characters relate dramatically but a live play of the same piece is unlikely what I would be willing to pay money to see for enjoyment. Learning and enjoyment are separate in these examples.


----------



## Mahlerian

ArtMusic said:


> By reading it I can study how Schoenberg handled the score but the sound is not what I am looking for when it comes to aural enjoyment.


That's just rewording what you said before. What specifically did you find enjoyable about reading this score? What did you note and take pleasure in? Why do you think that these pleasures didn't translate into aural pleasure when listening to these pieces?


----------



## millionrainbows

I'm still more interested in defining the _difference_s between 12-tone and tonality. There is a grey area in which both approaches share characteristics, such as division of the octave geometrically rather than harmonically. I hope I don't have to explain that.

But some of the differences emerge when we look at how post-tonal atonality and serialism integrated the vertical and the horizontal; in tonal music, major and minor triads are 'superior' in terms of how they are handled; a C-F-G would be considered an unstable entity, needing to be resolved to the 'structurally superior' C-E-G. In atonality, or free tonality, C-F-G can stand alone as a sonority in itself. Atonality includes every possible triad, as well as the ones tonality uses. These other triads can be used as a central sonority in themselves.

If there is no tonal hierarchy, things immediately change, and this is audible. There may be a degree of similarity and method overlap when we get to total chromaticism, but with 12-tone, this hierarchy is gone, and the ordered row is the only way to create a new hierarchy to replace it.

I agree with Artmusic's assessment:


ArtMusic said:


> I think Schoenberg knew very well indeed that twelve-tone/atonal development was going to be the way forward for the new school of composers.


Yes, he just hadn't quite worked out all the details, especially the problem of how to create a vertical harmonic dimension beyond just simplistically stacking the rows.

In this sense, the 12-tone method _was _an extension of Schoenberg's tonal methods and thinking; in this regard, it was a half-baked solution. It had to be developed, and some general principles had to be formed in order to make it into the serialism we know and love today.


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> I'm still more interested in defining the _difference_s between 12-tone and tonality. There is a grey area in which both approaches share characteristics, such as division of the octave geometrically rather than harmonically. I hope I don't have to explain that.
> 
> But some of the differences emerge when we look at how post-tonal atonality and serialism integrated the vertical and the horizontal; in tonal music, major and minor triads are 'superior' in terms of how they are handled; a C-F-G would be considered an unstable entity, needing to be resolved to the 'structurally superior' C-E-G. In atonality, or free tonality, C-F-G can stand alone as a sonority in itself. Atonality includes every possible triad, as well as the ones tonality uses. These other triads can be used as a central sonority in themselves.
> 
> If there is no tonal hierarchy, things immediately change, and this is audible. There may be a degree of similarity and method overlap when we get to total chromaticism, but with 12-tone, this hierarchy is gone, and the ordered row is the only way to create a new hierarchy to replace it.


I can't hear any difference between 12-tone and freely tonal music, other than some characteristic patterns that appear more frequently in the former than the latter. Given how few people seem to be able to distinguish them, I'd say that your clear distinction is at the least not clear to most.

Given your absurd lumping of Elliott Carter with the serialists, your definitions play extremely fast and loose with the facts of the matter.

And I thought that you had defined tonality such that triads were not relevant. What do you do, then, with all of the non-triadic modal and traditional music that you have insisted is tonal?



millionrainbows said:


> Yes, he just hadn't quite worked out all the details, especially the problem of how to create a vertical harmonic dimension beyond just simplistically stacking the rows.


But that's far from the only thing he did harmonically. You could just as easily say common practice composers were unable to find ways to organize music other than simplistically stacking thirds.


----------



## ArtMusic

Mahlerian said:


> That's just rewording what you said before. What specifically did you find enjoyable about reading this score? What did you note and take pleasure in? Why do you think that these pleasures didn't translate into aural pleasure when listening to these pieces?


The whole score. Atonal music makes good study but not good listening for me. I can't be more specific than that. Again, there is a very clear separation between didactic scores and listening ones. Johann Sebastian Bach was a grand master with that, so I would say his Art of Fugue is another example - the whole score is formidable but listening enjoyment is less so for me. I hope this is clear.


----------



## Albert7

ArtMusic said:


> The whole score. Atonal music makes good study but not good listening for me. I can't be more specific than that. Again, there is a very clear separation between didactic scores and listening ones. Johann Sebastian Bach was a grand master with that, so I would say his Art of Fugue is another example - the whole score is formidable but listening enjoyment is less so for me. I hope this is clear.


What is it specifically that you don't listening about "atonal" music? I am just curious.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> I can't hear any difference between 12-tone and freely tonal music, other than some characteristic patterns that appear more frequently in the former than the latter.


You can't? I was comparing 12-tone and tonality. That's a grey area you are talking about.

The 12-tone method was an extension of Schoenberg's tonal methods and thinking; in this regard, it was an idiosyncratic tool, not fully developed or having general characteristics.



Mahlerian said:


> ...And I thought that you had defined tonality such that triads were not relevant. What do you do, then, with all of the non-triadic modal and traditional music that you have insisted is tonal?


That's the *narrowest* possible definition you are using of tonality. In the *general, broad definition*, which is the only one I will use, "tonal" means having a tone center which more often than not governs the entire composition.

I would also look at the definition of *atonality* in WIK:

Quote: "...as a categorical label,* 'atonal' *generally means only that the piece is in the Western tradition and is not 'tonal'" (Rahn 1980), *although there are longer periods, e.g., medieval, renaissance, and modern modal musics to which this definition does not apply."*(End quote) In other words, they are *tonal.

*You are too hung-up on definitions. I think you should strive for some sort of clarity.



Mahlerian said:


> But that's far from the only thing he did harmonically. You could just as easily say common practice composers were unable to find ways to organize music other than simplistically stacking thirds.


My point is that tonality is a complete, integrated system, with a clear hierarchy and general structural principles. The 12-tone method was only an extension of Schoenberg's tonal methods and thinking; in this regard, it was a half-baked solution. It had to be developed, and some general principles had to be formed in order to make it into the serialism we know and love today.


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> I would also look at the definition of *atonality* in WIK:
> 
> Quote: "...as a categorical label,* 'atonal' *generally means only that the piece is in the Western tradition and is not 'tonal'" (Rahn 1980), *although there are longer periods, e.g., medieval, renaissance, and modern modal musics to which this definition does not apply."*(End quote) In other words, they are *tonal*.


No, that says the exact opposite, that medieval, renaissance, and modern modal musics are _not_ tonal.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> No, that says the exact opposite, that medieval, renaissance, and modern modal musics are _not_ tonal.


No it doesn't. Medieval, renaissance, and modern modal musics are tonal in the general sense of having a tonal center.

'Atonality' is a term to be used to oppose the _general _definition of tonality, a tonality which includes medieval, renaissance, and modern modal musics .

The term 'atonality' is not applicable to medieval, renaissance, and modern modal musics (because they are _generally_ tonal).

The distinctions in the definitions of tonality range from narrow to general.

"Atonality" in modern usage refers *only* to "not generally tonal." Forget about the old Nazi definition.

*WIK:* Quote: "...as a categorical label,* 'atonal' *generally means only that the piece is in the Western tradition and is not "tonal"....although there are longer periods, e.g., medieval, renaissance, and modern modal musics to which this definition does not apply." (Rahn 1980)(End quote)

In other words, medieval, renaissance, and modern modal musics *are tonal* in the general sense, but not in the narrow sense. Therefore, the general term "atonality" does not apply to those forms. It means* "music without a *(general)* tonal center."*

*Atonality has to be paired as term opposing the general definition of tonality, always.*


----------



## Mahlerian

Yes, the quote means that those musics are not tonal.

It says that the definition of atonality "being in the Western tradition and not being tonal" does not apply to those kinds of music in spite the fact that, like the music called atonal, they are within the Western tradition and they are not tonal. There is no other way in which this sentence can be understood.

Atonality never has been opposed to tonality. Any attempt to define it as such runs into contradictions.


----------



## ArtMusic

Mahlerian said:


> No, that says the exact opposite, that medieval, renaissance, and modern modal musics are _not_ tonal.


I disagree. I have read extensively on this and pre-Baroque music generally do have a tonal center. Monteverdi operas for example, that we all know and love.


----------



## Mahlerian

ArtMusic said:


> I disagree. I have read extensively on this and pre-Baroque music generally do have a tonal center. Monteverdi operas for example, that we all know and love.


You can disagree, but you're still misreading what that sentence says.

Secondly, Monteverdi is commonly thought of as the beginning of the Baroque era, not pre-Baroque.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> You can disagree, but you're still misreading what that sentence says.
> 
> Secondly, Monteverdi is commonly thought of as the beginning of the Baroque era, not pre-Baroque.


That's fine, Mahlerian; I recognize now that you are overly-sensitive to the use of the term 'atonality' because of its past resonances, and I now understand that.

But the term 'atonality' is now commonly used in many textbooks, with the newer, more general, and more neutral definition.

I also now see that you are putting us through a wringer of definitions, explanations, and proofs, so I will henceforth ignore all future questionings of my use of the term, which I have no problem with.

That is, unless you'd like to put in a forum dictate/request to all modern music lovers/haters who post here that this term no longer be used because of its offensive nature.

I would comply, since I would be more or less powerless to do otherwise.


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> That's fine, Mahlerian; I mrecognize now that you are overly-sensitive to the use of the term 'atonality' because of its past resonances, and I now understand that.
> 
> But the term 'atonality' is now commonly used in many textbooks, with the newer, more general, and more neutral definition.
> 
> I also now see that you are putting us through a wringer of definitions, explanations, and proofs, so I will henceforth ignore all future questionings of my use of the term, which I have no problem with.
> 
> That is, unless you'd like to put in a forum dictate/request to all modern music lovers/haters who post here that this term no longer be used because of its offensive nature.
> 
> I would comply, since I would be more or less powerless to do otherwise.


At the moment, this has nothing to do with me. You're misreading that sentence you pulled from a Wikipedia article, making it say the opposite of what it says.

It says unequivocally that medieval, renaissance, and modern modal music are not tonal. I have no idea how you can read the contrary into it. Disagree with it all you like, call it a "Nazi definition" all you like, but you can't change its meaning.

Atonality continues to be a pejorative term. It continues to be defined as a category contrary to tonality, rather than complementary to it. It continues to lump together music that has nothing whatsoever in common. It continues to be a term of abuse which can act as a thought-terminating cliche in any discussion of the merits of this or that music.

As long as atonality is viewed as something separate from other music, the term itself and the concept it represents will be a barrier to understanding.


----------



## ArtMusic

No it does not, I use it synonymously as do many other students, friends of mine. There was a brief mention about how the German Nazi used the word as degenerate or something once in class but today there is no clear degenerate implications in day to day conversation. This is the real world I'm in.


----------



## millionrainbows

Consult the Harvard Dictionary of Music for the definition of atonality, unless you have something against Harvard.


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> Consult the Harvard Dictionary of Music for the definition of atonality, unless you have something against Harvard.


I don't, especially since they define tonality as dominating "a period of about two centuries, from the end of the 17th to the end of the 19th century," which, as you can see, agrees with my definition rather than yours.


----------



## Albert7

ArtMusic said:


> I disagree. I have read extensively on this and pre-Baroque music generally do have a tonal center. Monteverdi operas for example, that we all know and love.


Nope... Tonality in the Western sense did not get formalized until the Baroque period. Those guys were pretty free form until the 17th century when music theory was more codified.


----------



## millionrainbows

Plus, Mahlerian is using the narrowest definition. There is a general sense of the term as well. It even includes modality.


----------



## KenOC

Mahlerian said:


> I don't, especially since they define tonality as dominating "a period of about two centuries, from the end of the 17th to the end of the 19th century," which, as you can see, agrees with my definition rather than yours.


Curious what the Harvard people are thinking about. It's seems clear that tonality continues to dominate music today, and overwhelmingly. Turn on the radio or the TV, listen to what's playing in elevators and supermarkets or restaurants, go to the movies. Tonality is dying for listeners to a slice of the small slice of music we call "classical," but most people neither notice nor care. They just go on making and listening to tonal music.


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> Plus, Mahlerian is using the narrowest definition. There is a general sense of the term as well. It even includes modality.


No, it's not just me, it's these sources which *you* keep quoting that are using this definition. The Harvard dictionary uses a narrower definition than I do.

Your general sense of tonality would include all of this music you keep insisting is atonal as well, if you stopped excluding it ad hoc.



KenOC said:


> Curious what the Harvard people are thinking about. It's seems clear that tonality continues to dominate music today, and overwhelmingly. Turn on the radio or the TV, listen to what's playing in elevators and supermarkets or restaurants, go to the movies. Tonality is dying for listeners to a slice of the small slice of music we call "classical," but most people neither notice nor care. They just go on making and listening to tonal music.


They don't compose tonally in the sense that the Harvard dictionary intends. It's a lot more than just using a few triads.


----------



## Albert7

KenOC said:


> Curious what the Harvard people are thinking about. It's seems clear that tonality continues to dominate music today, and overwhelmingly. Turn on the radio or the TV, listen to what's playing in elevators and supermarkets or restaurants, go to the movies. Tonality is dying for listeners to a slice of the small slice of music we call "classical," but most people neither notice nor care. They just go on making and listening to tonal music.


Pop stars compose their music mostly by chord changes and not whether they are tonal or not. A lot of them don't know music theory to ascertain tonality or not.


----------



## KenOC

Mahlerian said:


> They don't compose tonally in the sense that the Harvard dictionary intends. It's a lot more than just using a few triads.


Is that your definition of music being written today that's enjoyed by a very large majority of people? "Just a few triads"? Really, I don't think I have to start listing counter-examples. But you might start yourself by listening to some film scores by Poledouris, Morricone, Williams, Elfman, et al.


----------



## Mahlerian

KenOC said:


> Is that your definition of music being written today that's enjoyed by a very large majority of people? "Just a few triads"? Really, I don't think I have to start listing counter-examples. But you might start yourself by listening to some film scores by Poledouris, Morricone, Williams, Elfman, et al.


That's not my definition at all.

I was simply saying that the only criteria you seem to have for whether something is tonal or not is whether it uses triads.

I've heard film scores by all of the composers you mention, and they tend to mix tonal, modal, and post-tonal elements in a way that certainly wouldn't be recognized as legitimately a part of the style the Harvard dictionary is talking about.


----------



## ArtMusic

Wikipedia's opening paragraph gives the best definition, clear and succinct and it *doesn't* even describe that it is derogatory in any way.

_Atonality in its broadest sense is music that lacks a tonal center, or key. Atonality, in this sense, usually describes compositions written from about 1908 to the present day where a hierarchy of pitches focusing on a single, central tone is not used, and the notes of the chromatic scale function independently of one another (Kennedy 1994). More narrowly, the term atonality describes music that does not conform to the system of tonal hierarchies that characterized classical European music between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries (Lansky, Perle, and Headlam 2001). "The repertory of atonal music is characterized by the occurrence of pitches in novel combinations, as well as by the occurrence of familiar pitch combinations in unfamiliar environments" (Forte 1977, 1). _

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonality


----------



## Albert7

ArtMusic said:


> Wikipedia's opening paragraph gives the best definition, clear and succinct and it *doesn't* even describe that it is derogatory in any way.
> 
> _Atonality in its broadest sense is music that lacks a tonal center, or key. Atonality, in this sense, usually describes compositions written from about 1908 to the present day where a hierarchy of pitches focusing on a single, central tone is not used, and the notes of the chromatic scale function independently of one another (Kennedy 1994). More narrowly, the term atonality describes music that does not conform to the system of tonal hierarchies that characterized classical European music between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries (Lansky, Perle, and Headlam 2001). "The repertory of atonal music is characterized by the occurrence of pitches in novel combinations, as well as by the occurrence of familiar pitch combinations in unfamiliar environments" (Forte 1977, 1). _
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonality


Still what do you find to be un-listenable about Schoenberg's music? I still didn't get an answer regarding that topic.


----------



## KenOC

Mahlerian said:


> That's not my definition at all.
> 
> I was simply saying that the only criteria you seem to have for whether something is tonal or not is whether it uses triads.


Where's that coming from? Care to offer a quote? I'm sure you're not just trying to be insulting.


----------



## Woodduck

This perennial conversation can never lead to agreement so long as people keep saying "my definition is true and yours is false." It can't, because definitions are neither true nor false. They are merely useful - and some definitions are more useful in certain contexts and for certain purposes. It's only when contexts and purposes are agreed upon that we can have actual discussion.

What seems odd to me about the fights over defining "tonality" is that the contexts and purposes for accepting a broad definition seem much more compelling than those for accepting the term as synonymous with Western harmonic practice between the 17th and 19th centuries. I learned right here on TC that that particular sort of tonality is referred to as "common practice tonality," and I was pleased to know that here was a handy way to distinguish it from tonality as a broader phenomenon. In light of this, I just can't see why it isn't obvious that this is the most useful terminological distinction to make, and why anyone should go on using the term "tonality" to mean only "common practice tonality."

It isn't unreasonable to argue over definitions, but it is certainly unreasonable to hold on to a definition when the reasons to accept a different one are so clear and compelling.

But I think there are other reasons for accepting a general definition, a definition which would embrace the hierarchical melodic and/or harmonic systems (including modal systems) exhibited by the majority of musics around the world. One reason is simply that we have no other generally known term for referring to them. But a deeper reason has to do with the _functions_ of tone-centeredness: not its technical-musical functions, but the ways it functions in the perceptual and affective responses of listeners - that is, its _meaning-function_. This is the area explored by any number of disciplines which take an interest in music as an expression of human nature: disciplines such as psychology, neuroscience, cultural anthropology, evolutionary studies, etc. I think it's notable that when investigators outside the field of music theory look at music and at the specifics of musical structure and speculate on its significance, they isolate "tonality" as a highly significant and nearly universal phenomenon which they define precisely by its general definition.

Is any necessary purpose served by doing otherwise, when we can easily specify "common practice" if that is what we mean?


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck, well said (or well written if you like). I have offered no definitions nor insisted that others agree with anything I say. But some insist that their definitions are the only correct ones, even going so far as to accuse others of slandering composers and their music by using terms they (and probably they alone) consider pejorative.

This is a sad thing to see, doubly so since they have so much else to offer.


----------



## ArtMusic

Albert7 said:


> Still what do you find to be un-listenable about Schoenberg's music? I still didn't get an answer regarding that topic.


I don't enjoy listening to it, as much as someone else might not enjoy Beethoven or Prokofiev or Wagner. Just a preference. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Albert7

ArtMusic said:


> I don't enjoy listening to it, as much as someone else might not enjoy Beethoven or Prokofiev or Wagner. Just a preference. Nothing more, nothing less.


True but what elements in the pieces (or examples) can you point out that indicate that you dislike it? I am curious.


----------



## ArtMusic

Albert7 said:


> True but what elements in the pieces (or examples) can you point out that indicate that you dislike it? I am curious.


I prefer music with tonal centers.


----------



## Mahlerian

Woodduck said:


> This perennial conversation can never lead to agreement so long as people keep saying "my definition is true and yours is false." It can't, because definitions are neither true nor false. They are merely useful - and some definitions are more useful in certain contexts and for certain purposes. It's only when contexts and purposes are agreed upon that we can have actual discussion.
> 
> What seems odd to me about the fights over defining "tonality" is that the contexts and purposes for accepting a broad definition seem much more compelling than those for accepting the term as synonymous with Western harmonic practice between the 17th and 19th centuries. I learned right here on TC that that particular sort of tonality is referred to as "common practice tonality," and I was pleased to know that here was a handy way to distinguish it from tonality as a broader phenomenon. In light of this, I just can't see why it isn't obvious that this is the most useful terminological distinction to make, and why anyone should go on using the term "tonality" to mean only "common practice tonality."
> 
> It isn't unreasonable to argue over definitions, but it is certainly unreasonable to hold on to a definition when the reasons to accept a different one are so clear and compelling.
> 
> But I think there are other reasons for accepting a general definition, a definition which would embrace the hierarchical melodic and/or harmonic systems (including modal systems) exhibited by the majority of musics around the world. One reason is simply that we have no other generally known term for referring to them. But a deeper reason has to do with the _functions_ of tone-centeredness: not its technical-musical functions, but the ways it functions in the perceptual and affective responses of listeners - that is, its _meaning-function_. This is the area explored by any number of disciplines which take an interest in music as an expression of human nature: disciplines such as psychology, neuroscience, cultural anthropology, evolutionary studies, etc. I think it's notable that when investigators outside the field of music theory look at music and at the specifics of musical structure and speculate on its significance, they isolate "tonality" as a highly significant and nearly universal phenomenon which they define precisely by its general definition.
> 
> Is any necessary purpose served by doing otherwise, when we can easily specify "common practice" if that is what we mean?


But the phenomenon of tone centeredness to which you refer is present in so-called atonal music as well.

If you want tonality to mean something separate from atonality, it will end up being a limited phenomenon of Western music.

If you want it to encompass all of the traditions of all countries, it will encompass atonal music as well.

The term atonality is not useful precisely because it does not denote anything about the harmonic practice of music so described.


----------



## KenOC

ArtMusic said:


> I prefer music with tonal centers.


Me too. Crispy on the outside, sweet and chewy on the inside!


----------



## Albert7

ArtMusic said:


> I prefer music with tonal centers.


Ah... so your opinion on this then?


----------



## Woodduck

Mahlerian said:


> But the phenomenon of tone centeredness to which you refer is present in so-called atonal music as well.
> 
> If you want tonality to mean something separate from atonality, it will end up being a limited phenomenon of Western music.
> 
> If you want it to encompass all of the traditions of all countries, it will encompass atonal music as well.
> 
> The term atonality is not useful precisely because it does not denote anything about the harmonic practice of music so described.


I do understand the sense in which it would be difficult to find any music constructed of tones (pitched sounds) which would not be suggestive of any tone-centeredness - that is, in which some tones would not be perceived as dominating the melody or harmony, and as generating some influence on surrounding tones. I perceive the 12-tone row as constructed in such a way (nonrepetitively) as to avoid or minimize the dominance of one tone over another. It clearly embodies an attempt to avoid systemic tonality.

I agree with millionrainbows in seeing different musical styles in the Western harmonic tradition as lying along a continuum with respect to tonality, and I hear the music most commonly referred to as "atonal" as occupying a place at or near the far end of that continuum. In an absolute sense, music can't be "more tonal" or "less tonal" - it's either tonal or it isn't - but if tonality is seen as an attribute embodying varying degrees of systemic pervasiveness, force, directness, and clarity in the relationship of tones to a center, then music can certainly exhibit varying degrees of those things, and can be spoken of as exhibiting "degrees of tonality." I think it makes more sense to look at tonality in this way than to see it as a "thing" which, like atonality, does not describe any style of music precisely. In this sense, then, Mozart can be described as "more tonal" than Wagner, and Wagner as "more tonal" than Debussy.

Music which does not exhibit perceptible tonal organization on an overall structural basis, or as a fundamental systemic principle, is "less tonal" than music which does. Whether or not a given style or work is far enough from doing so to warrant the term "atonal," will be partly a matter of individual perception. If someone wants to talk about short-term "tonal centers" in the course of a work whose overall structure lacks a unifying tonality, they may reject the term "atonal" as applied to that work. Others, not satisfied with that sort of "tonality," may require some functional hierarchical premise in the music's fundamental vocabulary to feel that the term "tonal" is properly applied to it.


----------



## arpeggio

ArtMusic said:


> I prefer music with tonal centers.


I am going to come down on ArtMusic's side with this debate.

I dislike Verdi and I can not tell you why. He composed some great music.

Art I am going to repeat a story that I have stated before. Throughout my life I searched for objective criteria that one can use to determine whether or not a piece of music is great. The problem was that I kept running into great works did not meet the criteria that I was using at the time.

Most of the time many of the broad generalizations we make do not work. I know I try avoid making them myself.

As far as tonality I know of a work by Wagner that has no tonal center until the final chord.


----------



## Mahlerian

Woodduck said:


> I do understand the sense in which it would be difficult to find any music constructed of tones (pitched sounds) which would not be suggestive of any tone-centeredness - that is, in which some tones would not be perceived as dominating the melody or harmony, and as generating some influence on surrounding tones. I perceive the 12-tone row as constructed in such a way (nonrepetitively) as to avoid or minimize the dominance of one tone over another. It clearly embodies an attempt to avoid systemic tonality.


To avoid keys, yes. To avoid centers in the weakened sense you intend? Not at all. The consistent use of all of the notes doesn't suddenly nullify a sense of importance provided by the very factors which work in common practice tonality.

You seem to be describing music in which there is no relationship between the notes, which can hardly be the case in any of the music we're discussing, where the relationships between the notes are the most important element.



Woodduck said:


> I agree with millionrainbows in seeing different musical styles in the Western harmonic tradition as lying along a continuum with respect to tonality, and I hear the music most commonly referred to as "atonal" as occupying a place at or near the far end of that continuum. In an absolute sense, music can't be "more tonal"or "less tonal" - it's either tonal or it isn't - but if tonality is seen as an attribute embodying varying degrees of systemic pervasiveness, force, directness, and clarity in the relationship of tones to a center, then music can certainly exhibit varying degrees of those things, and can be spoken of as exhibiting "degrees of tonality." I think it makes more sense to look at to look at tonality in this way than to see it as a "thing


Why would atonality as a whole dominate one end of the spectrum? It's not in any sense opposed to tonality.


----------



## Woodduck

arpeggio said:


> As far as tonality I know of a work by Wagner that has no tonal center until the final chord.


No you don't.


----------



## Woodduck

Mahlerian said:


> To avoid keys, yes. To avoid centers in the weakened sense you intend? Not at all. The consistent use of all of the notes doesn't suddenly nullify a sense of importance provided by the very factors which work in common practice tonality.
> 
> You seem to be describing music in which there is no relationship between the notes, which can hardly be the case in any of the music we're discussing, where the relationships between the notes are the most important element.
> 
> Why would atonality as a whole dominate one end of the spectrum? It's not in any sense opposed to tonality.


My computer malfunctioned and posted me before I was finished. See the finished post. I honestly don't quite understand your points so far in terms of how they answer what I wrote.


----------



## arpeggio

Woodduck said:


> No you don't.


Please. You know exactly the piece I am talking about. I refuse to believe that a person with your knowledge of classical music does not know what it is.


----------



## Woodduck

arpeggio said:


> Please. You know exactly the piece I am talking about. I refuse to believe that a person with your knowledge of classical music does not know what it is.


Of course I know what piece you mean. It is three and a half hours of the most thorough exploration of the power and possibilities of tonality - of testing the tensile strength of tonality - anyone had ever conceived, and it's still, and probably forever, unsurpassed in that respect. It contains, but even more importantly revolves around, alludes to, and modulates among, tonal centers. Sometimes the strongest way to affirm a tonic is to avoid it; _Tristan_ is a virtuoso exercise in postponing the tonic. Nonetheless, there are lots of explicit tonics all through it. Wagner is just a wiz at turning a landing into a launch.


----------



## Mahlerian

Woodduck said:


> I agree with millionrainbows in seeing different musical styles in the Western harmonic tradition as lying along a continuum with respect to tonality, and I hear the music most commonly referred to as "atonal" as occupying a place at or near the far end of that continuum. In an absolute sense, music can't be "more tonal" or "less tonal" - it's either tonal or it isn't - but if tonality is seen as an attribute embodying varying degrees of systemic pervasiveness, force, directness, and clarity in the relationship of tones to a center, then music can certainly exhibit varying degrees of those things, and can be spoken of as exhibiting "degrees of tonality." I think it makes more sense to look at tonality in this way than to see it as a "thing" which, like atonality, does not describe any style of music precisely. In this sense, then, Mozart can be described as "more tonal" than Wagner, and Wagner as "more tonal" than Debussy.
> 
> Music which does not exhibit perceptible tonal organization on an overall structural basis, or as a fundamental systemic principle, is "less tonal" than music which does. Whether or not a given style or work is far enough from doing so to warrant the term "atonal," will be partly a matter of individual perception. If someone wants to talk about short-term "tonal centers" in the course of a work whose overall structure lacks a unifying tonality, they may reject the term "atonal" as applied to that work. Others, not satisfied with that sort of "tonality," may require some functional hierarchical premise in the music's fundamental vocabulary to feel that the term "tonal" is properly applied to it.


How can tonality as a "structural basis" be distinguished from a lack thereof? For what duration does a unifying tonality have to be felt?

Does a piece have to be in a specific key to which it returns and around which every one of its relationships is organized (this was Schoenberg's definition of the term tonal center)? If so, what do we make of works such as many of the Mahler symphonies, which begin in one key and end in another (such as the C minor to E-flat major of the Second)?

If you allow that a piece does not have to revolve around a single tonal center from start to end, what justification is there for denying the tonality of pieces which exhibit a succession of tonal centers, however brief?

You mention functional hierarchy, but continue to define this term in a way which is not the way it is normally used. In traditional music theory, functional hierarchy is a property specific to common practice tonality, which was not a part of music before the 17th century and has so greatly diminished in value in the 20th century as to render it certainly unimportant in discussing the fundamental workings of a Neoclassical piece by Stravinsky, for example. So if you say that modal music and Impressionist or other 20th century music is functional (but not serial or expressionist music), then I honestly have no understanding of what you mean by functional in this instance.

If you think that early music exhibits perceptible tonal organization on a structural basis, I can't see how you can't say the same about Schoenberg. The harmonies and melodies are related one moment to the next and across great spans of musical time, such that one can hear relationships, pitch relationships, between movements or within movements. If that's not tonal organization, what would you call it?


----------



## isorhythm

I've probably said all I've had to say about this in the past, but I'm going to recommend once again a review of Schoenberg's own _Harmonielehre_, in which he says, repeatedly and emphatically, that none of the principles used to analyze tonal music can be applied to the music he and Berg had been writing since 1908.

I'm frankly astonished by the claim that that there was no functional hierarchy before the 17th century. What are all those V-I cadences doing in Josquin and earlier music? What was the whole medieval church mode system with its finals and reciting tones?

I would go as far as to say that common practice tonality is _a special case_ of modal music - not something separate at all.

Finally, I think Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Britten, and all the rest of the 20th century composers who wrote pieces with key signatures and, indeed, with keys in the titles would object to being told that they were not writing tonal music.


----------



## Mahlerian

isorhythm said:


> I've probably said all I've had to say about this in the past, but I'm going to recommend once again a review of Schoenberg's own _Harmonielehre_, in which he says, repeatedly and emphatically, that none of the principles used to analyze tonal music can be applied to the music he and Berg had been writing since 1908.
> 
> I'm frankly astonished by the claim that that there was no functional hierarchy before the 17th century. What are all those V-I cadences doing in Josquin and earlier music? What was the whole medieval church mode system with its finals and reciting tones?
> 
> I would go as far as to say that common practice tonality is _a special case_ of modal music - not something separate at all.


Yes, it uses triads based on what would be considered the I and V degrees of the scale in later music. But the usage is not the same. The organization is not the same. What would be considered the tonal implications of the harmonies used are not followed through on in any consistent way. There's far more difference between tonal and modal music to my ear than between late romanticism and Schoenberg.



isorhythm said:


> Finally, I think Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Britten, and all the rest of the 20th century composers who wrote pieces with key signatures and, indeed, with keys in the titles would object to being told that they were not writing tonal music.


Given that you and others here don't seem to care that Schoenberg, Webern, and Berg (and Carter and Babbitt) objected to the idea that they were writing atonal music, the word of the composer shouldn't seem to matter in this instance.

I didn't say it wasn't tonal in some sense (indeed, I think that all music is tonal in some sense), I said that their music is not based on functional tonality. That much should be clear. You can't use the principles of common practice tonal harmony to analyze it in any meaningful way either.


----------



## isorhythm

Mahlerian said:


> Yes, it uses triads based on what would be considered the I and V degrees of the scale in later music. But the usage is not the same. The organization is not the same. What would be considered the tonal implications of the harmonies used are not followed through on in any consistent way. There's far more difference between tonal and modal music to my ear than between late romanticism and Schoenberg.


The usage and organization are not the same in Bach, Mozart and Brahms either. Nor did any of those composers follow through the tonal implications of their harmonies in a way that was consistent from one work to another, let alone from one composer to another.

The tonal system was not a sudden sharp break from the older modal system. Even talking about two different "systems" probably says more about musical theory than practice. The common practice tonal system grew organically from the older modal system and many of its features - like the V-I cadence - remained the same and worked in exactly the same way.



Mahlerian said:


> Given that you and others here don't seem to care that Schoenberg, Webern, and Berg (and Carter and Babbitt) objected to the idea that they were writing atonal music, the word of the composer shouldn't seem to matter in this instance.


The word "atonal" has no universally accepted definition, and even if we define it carefully I think it's rarely if ever useful for describing music. No disagreement there. I also think it's a red herring in this discussion.

The substantive disagreement here is not about the word "atonal" but about whether there is a phenomenon, which some of us call "tonality," that can, with varying degrees of usefulness, describe Gregorian chant, Bach, Wagner, and virtually all folk music, but cannot usefully describe later Schoenberg. It's self-evident to me that there is such a phenomenon, and I think I and others have explained pretty clearly what it is.

I'm getting the feeling that you take this position as a criticism of Schoenberg's music, and that's getting in the way of the discussion. It's not a criticism. It's just a description that I believe to be true. (Similarly, I don't agree that "atonal" is often meant as a pejorative.)



Mahlerian said:


> I didn't say it wasn't tonal in some sense (indeed, I think that all music is tonal in some sense), I said that their music is not based on functional tonality. That much should be clear. You can't use the principles of common practice tonal harmony to analyze it in any meaningful way either.


Sometimes you can and usually you can't, but they're all nonetheless tonal in the broader sense I describe above.


----------



## millionrainbows

It's all semantics...which sense of the terms 'atonal' and 'tonal' you wish to use. Perhaps the name of this thread should be changed to "Guantanamo Bay." I'm not sure what the agenda is, but until we comply, we're going nowhere.

For the record: I love Schoenberg, once did a painting of him, and I have more Schoenberg in my collection than any other composer except Mahler.

The term 'atonal' is used in many 20th century theory texts, and its meaning is the modern one which I agree with.


----------



## Mahlerian

isorhythm said:


> The usage and organization are not the same in Bach, Mozart and Brahms either. Nor did any of those composers follow through the tonal implications of their harmonies in a way that was consistent from one work to another, let alone from one composer to another.


True, but there is a strong degree to which their music exhibits the same characteristics of voice leading and harmonic progression in ways that music before the 17th century does not. We can speak of a common practice not because everyone wrote using the same formulas or always followed the "rules" but because there were conventions that dictated what was considered normal.



isorhythm said:


> The tonal system was not a sudden sharp break from the older modal system. Even talking about two different "systems" probably says more about musical theory than practice. The common practice tonal system grew organically from the older modal system and many of its features - like the V-I cadence - remained the same and worked in exactly the same way.


Monteverdi spoke of a "first practice" and a "second practice," making use of both (his contemporaries responded violently to the boldness of his music, claiming it was anarchic). It is true that there are many examples of tonal/modal hybrids in the 17th century, and it was not until the latter part of the century that we can speak of common practice tonal music appearing.

I don't see a reason to regard the music of the 20th century, including but not limited to that called atonal by some, as any more of a jump away from common practice tonality than the tonal system was from the modal one.



isorhythm said:


> The word "atonal" has no universally accepted definition, and even if we define it carefully I think it's rarely if ever useful for describing music. No disagreement there. I also think it's a red herring in this discussion.


Then why do you and others keep acting as if it did have a universally accepted definition? Why do you insist that Schoenberg's music is outside of tonality in your broad sense?



isorhythm said:


> The substantive disagreement here is not about the word "atonal" but about whether there is a phenomenon, which some of us call "tonality," that can, with varying degrees of usefulness, describe Gregorian chant, Bach, Wagner, and virtually all folk music, but cannot usefully describe later Schoenberg. It's self-evident to me that there is such a phenomenon, and I think I and others have explained pretty clearly what it is.


No, you haven't.

You've said it's functional, but use this in a completely different sense than the traditional one.

You've said it has centers, but don't accept the centers that are obvious to me in so-called atonal music as legitimate. You haven't provided a definition for what constitutes a center that makes clear the difference between the centers I perceive in Schoenberg and those I perceive in Wagner, other than to continue insisting that there is one.

The workings Schoenberg's later music may not be covered adequately by theory, but just listening to it is enough to recognize its closeness, not only to the other music of its time, but also to the music of the past. I disagree that the word tonality does meaningfully describe Palestrina, folk music, and Bach in a way that it doesn't describe Schoenberg and Boulez equally as well. Brahms and Schoenberg are closer than Brahms and Palestrina. That is self-evident to me.



isorhythm said:


> I'm getting the feeling that you take this position as a criticism of Schoenberg's music, and that's getting in the way of the discussion. It's not a criticism. It's just a description that I believe to be true. (Similarly, I don't agree that "atonal" is often meant as a pejorative.)


As long as there exists the idea that atonal music was a break from a tonal tradition that stretched back thousands, rather than hundreds, of years, there will be the idiotic idea that Schoenberg destroyed music and created something unnatural. This idea prevents people from actually listening to and enjoying the music for itself.

Atonal was created to be a pejorative. That it remains pejorative today is obvious from the conventional popular use of the term. It prevents us from actually talking about any of the music it purports to describe.

If it is a description, can you create a minimum set of conditions necessary for a piece to be atonal?



isorhythm said:


> Sometimes you can and usually can't, but they're all nonetheless tonal in the broader sense I describe above.


But the fact that many things that are tonal cannot be analyzed in that way means that not being able to analyze something in that way implies absolutely nothing about its tonality.

To turn all of this on its head, what is your reason for wanting to preserve the term atonality? If it is neither a descriptive nor a particularly meaningful technical term, what purpose does it serve?


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Mahlerian said:


> Monteverdi spoke of a "first practice" and a "second practice," making use of both (his contemporaries responded violently to the boldness of his music, claiming it was anarchic). It is true that there are many examples of tonal/modal hybrids in the 17th century, and it was not until the latter part of the century that we can speak of common practice tonal music appearing.


Hey Mahlerian, do you have any examples of a few pieces of Monteverdi's that are modal, and a few that are tonal? Not only do I know very little of his music, but it would be nice to contrast the two for my own knowledge.


----------



## Mahlerian

SeptimalTritone said:


> Hey Mahlerian, do you have any examples of a few pieces of Monteverdi's that are modal, and a few that are tonal? Not only do I know very little of his music, but it would be nice to contrast the two for my own knowledge.


I can't profess to be an expert myself, so the examples below may not be the most apt for showing the progression, but I hope they give a pretty good idea.

For Monteverdi, the differences between the Prima Practica and Seconda Practica were an increased reliance on homophony rather than polyphony and a freer treatment of dissonances. His music is outside of common practice, but it doesn't fit fully in either category of modal or tonal.

Going in chronological order:


----------



## isorhythm

Mahlerian said:


> I don't see a reason to regard the music of the 20th century, including but not limited to that called atonal by some, as any more of a jump away from common practice tonality than the tonal system was from the modal one.


Again, this is not Schoenberg's own opinion. This weekend I'll get his harmony book from the library and find the relevant passages. Of course Schoenberg is not an absolute authority on his own music, but we can agree that a composer's view of his own music is at the very least _a view that a reasonable person can hold_, right?



Mahlerian said:


> Then why do you and others keep acting as if it did have a universally accepted definition? Why do you insist that Schoenberg's music is outside of tonality in your broad sense?


I've never acted like it has a universally accepted definition. In fact I've never taken a side in these debates about the word "atonality" because I don't believe they're substantive.

I insist that Schoenberg's music is not tonal in the sense I described above because that is the sincere conclusion I've reached from listening to it, and playing a little bit of it.



Mahlerian said:


> No, you haven't.
> 
> You've said it's functional, but use this in a completely different sense than the traditional one.


You introduced the word "functional." I may have misunderstood. I thought you were saying that before the common practice, harmony was being used in some kind of purely coloristic or even haphazard way. That is not the case, not even in the oldest known harmony (early medieval organum). But what we call "functional harmony" evolved smoothly from what came before. There are clearly perceptible dominant and subdominant functions in 16th century music.



Mahlerian said:


> You've said it has centers, but don't accept the centers that are obvious to me in so-called atonal music as legitimate. You haven't provided a definition for what constitutes a center that makes clear the difference between the centers I perceive in Schoenberg and those I perceive in Wagner, other than to continue insisting that there is one.


I do accept them as legitimate, but I don't think they add up to tonality.

When we say a passage is "in C," we mean that a C major triad is exerting some kind of governing effect on what you're hearing even when there's no actual C major triad in sight. I don't believe this is the case in Schoenberg. Pitches exert their influence only on the pitches immediately around them. In fact, isn't that what Schoenberg was going for - "a method of composing with twelve tones which are related only to one another"? They _are_ related to one another - otherwise the music would be nonsense - but there's no tonal center "in the background," so to speak, governing them all.



Mahlerian said:


> The workings Schoenberg's later music may not be covered adequately by theory, but just listening to it is enough to recognize its closeness, not only to the other music of its time, but also to the music of the past. I disagree that the word tonality does meaningfully describe Palestrina, folk music, and Bach in a way that it doesn't describe Schoenberg and Boulez equally as well. Brahms and Schoenberg are closer than Brahms and Palestrina. That is self-evident to me.


In many ways, they are closer, but in the particular way I'm talking about here, they are not.



Mahlerian said:


> As long as there exists the idea that atonal music was a break from a tonal tradition that stretched back thousands, rather than hundreds, of years, there will be the idiotic idea that Schoenberg destroyed music and created something unnatural. This idea prevents people from actually listening to and enjoying the music for itself.


That some people have an idiotic reaction to the idea has no bearing on whether or not the idea is true.



Mahlerian said:


> Atonal was created to be a pejorative. That it remains pejorative today is obvious from the conventional popular use of the term. It prevents us from actually talking about any of the music it purports to describe.


It is equally obvious that many people use it in a non-pejorative way, e.g., Allan Forte's 1977 book.



Mahlerian said:


> If it is a description, can you create a minimum set of conditions necessary for a piece to be atonal?


I could come up with any number of sets of conditions, none of which would be very useful to me. It's just a word. We can define it however we want. I'm not interested in the word.



Mahlerian said:


> But the fact that many things that are tonal cannot be analyzed in that way means that not being able to analyze something in that way implies absolutely nothing about its tonality.


I agree - that was my point. I think it's reasonable to describe music as "tonal" even if it's not common practice.



Mahlerian said:


> To turn all of this on its head, what is your reason for wanting to preserve the term atonality? If it is neither a descriptive nor a particularly meaningful technical term, what purpose does it serve?


Again, I don't care about that word. I've never used it on this forum outside of discussions specifically about the word and I'm sure I never will.


----------



## Mahlerian

isorhythm said:


> Again, this is not Schoenberg's own opinion. This weekend I'll get his harmony book from the library and find the relevant passages. Of course Schoenberg is not an absolute authority on his own music, but we can agree that a composer's view of his own music is at the very least _a view that a reasonable person can hold_, right?


Last time you said this, I brought up this quote from Schoenberg, but I think you had already decided to duck out of the discussion by that point:



Arnold Schoenberg said:


> This first step occurred in the Two Songs Op. 14, and thereafter in the Fifteen Songs of the Hanging Gardens and in the Three Piano Pieces Op. 11. Most critics of this new style failed to investigate how far the ancient 'eternal' laws of musical aesthetics were observed, spurned, or merely adjusted to changed circumstances. Such superficiality brought accusations of anarchy and revolution, whereas, on the contrary, *this music was distinctly a product of evolution, and no more revolutionary than any other development in the history of music.*


Perhaps it is true that at the time of Harmonielehre he looked at the situation differently, and only a year or so earlier, he had said the following regarding his Hanging Gardens cycle:



Arnold Schoenberg said:


> With the George Lieder I have for the first time succeeded in approaching an ideal of expression and form which has been in my mind for years. Until now, I lacked the strength and confidence to make it a reality. But now that I have set out along this path once and for all, I am conscious of having broken through every restriction of a bygone aesthetic. … I am being forced in this direction not because my invention or technique is inadequate, nor because I am uninformed about all the other things the prevailing aesthetics demand, but that I am obeying an inner compulsion, which is stronger than any up-bringing: that I am obeying the formative process which, being the one natural to me, is stronger than my artistic education.


Are these contradictory? Perhaps. Depends on how you look at it, I suppose. Schoenberg also said that he looked at his earlier works (in specific reference to the works of the "freely tonal" period) as if they were from a different composer.



isorhythm said:


> I've never acted like it has a universally accepted definition. In fact I've never taken a side in these debates about the word "atonality" because I don't believe they're substantive.
> 
> I insist that Schoenberg's music is not tonal in the sense I described above because that is the sincere conclusion I've reached from listening to it, and playing a little bit of it.


Mine is a conclusion reached from study, listening, and composition, including composition using tone rows. I once believed that there was such a thing as atonality, but the concept made less sense the more I understood the music and the more of the music called atonal I knew.



isorhythm said:


> You introduced the word "functional." I may have misunderstood. I thought you were saying that before the common practice, harmony was being used in some kind of purely coloristic or even haphazard way. That is not the case, not even in the oldest known harmony (early medieval organum). But what we call "functional harmony" evolved smoothly from what came before. There are clearly perceptible dominant and subdominant functions in 16th century music.


Purely coloristic or haphazard? No.

A product of different voice leading rules in which the roots are not necessarily arranged in order to form harmonic progressions based on the functions of those chords? Yes.

The progressions in 16th century music aren't formed in the sense of functional tonality, though. There are cadences, of course, and the harmonies at these cadences are usually V-I or some substitute, but a cadence alone doesn't make for functional tonality. One still gets the sense of "floating" without the solidity of the bass line of a continuo, for example.



isorhythm said:


> I do accept them as legitimate, but I don't think they add up to tonality.
> 
> When we say a passage is "in C," we mean that a C major triad is exerting some kind of governing effect on what you're hearing even when there's no actual C major triad in sight. I don't believe this is the case in Schoenberg. Pitches exert their influence only on the pitches immediately around them. In fact, isn't that what Schoenberg was going for - "a method of composing with twelve tones which are related only to one another"? They _are_ related to one another - otherwise the music would be nonsense - but there's no tonal center "in the background," so to speak, governing them all.


I was under the impression that modal music was governed by a central pitch, rather than a central triad. This would seem to be backed up by the fact that in earlier modal music the final harmony is rarely a triad. Fux's book based on Palestrina instructs learners to end on the perfect fifth rather than end on a minor triad, because the latter is not stable enough for a sense of resolution.

In Schoenberg, the use of the 12-tones is to act as a focal point, to help in generating material that will be related to one's initial motifs, and so forth. The pitches and harmonies can in fact take on very important significance far beyond the local, as one realizes by hearing some of the recapitulations of his later sonata forms, such as the first movements of the latter two string quartets.



isorhythm said:


> That some people have an idiotic reaction to the idea has no bearing on whether or not the idea is true.


Correct. However, the idea of atonality is already an empty concept. The fact that it's damaging as well as useless is the reason why I think it should be abolished from discourse about music.



isorhythm said:


> It is equally obvious that many people use it in a non-pejorative way, e.g., Allan Forte's 1977 book.


Forte also defines it very differently from many here, including music such as The Rite of Spring and works by Bartok as atonal. Are you willing to accept that definition?

Also, the fact that people use something without pejorative intent doesn't itself force a word to lose its negative connotations, unless an understanding based on a non-pejorative sense becomes the norm (e.g. the term Baroque music), and the previous connotations are no longer felt.

From the way people still think that atonality connotes tunelessness, a lack of form, and chaotic harmony, I'd say it's nowhere even close to that.



isorhythm said:


> I could come up with any number of sets of conditions, none of which would be very useful to me. It's just a word. We can define it however we want. I'm not interested in the word.


Then why keep defending it?


----------



## isorhythm

Mahlerian said:


> Then why keep defending it?


I'll respond to the rest later, but I can answer this right now because it's easy. I'm not defending it and never have. I don't understand why it keeps getting brought up and consider it irrelevant to the subject.


----------



## mmsbls

Mahlerian said:


> Correct. However, the idea of atonality is already an empty concept. The fact that it's damaging as well as useless is the reason why I think it should be abolished from discourse about music.


I've wanted to ask this question for awhile now, but I always put it off as not so important. I asked my daughter (music student) whether music theory and history teachers use the term atonality. She said they do, and everyone seems clear about the meaning. So I guess I have trouble understanding how atonality could really be a useless or poorly defined concept.

My daughter did say that the term is by no means critical, and when discussing composers and works, teachers will focus on specific details and not the concept of atonality. Still, they do use the term.

I do understand that on TC the majority of members probably don't really understand music theory well enough to properly use the term. I'm not sure most actually view atonality as negative, but obviously many do. So maybe most TC members should be more careful using the term or choose to discuss modern music using different concepts (chromaticism, different harmonies, etc.). Early in my time at TC I thought I understood atonality well enough to use it, but now I do not use the term when describing music. You and some guy convinced me that, at least here on TC, the term is not very useful and can be rather confusing or misleading.

So is atonality truly a useless term or is it useless when discussing music with those without a strong music theory background? If it's useless, why would theory teachers use it?


----------



## Woodduck

*Mahlerian:*

How can tonality as a "structural basis" be distinguished from a lack thereof? 

*Woodduck:*

By "structural" or "systemic" tonality I mean a system of pitch relationships in which the notes of a scale are heard as tending to move in certain ways in relation to one another by virtue of their position in the scale (e.g., dominant, subdominant, leading tone) and particularly in relation to a tonic, the beginning and end point of the scale, which serves as the "bedrock" of the system, the point of resolution and stability. The tonal implications of the scale exist prior to the construction of a given work utilizing it, and give a certain kind of coherence and meaning to that work. Melodic movement or harmonic structure governed by an ad hoc device such as a "row" does not exemplify this.

For what duration does a unifying tonality have to be felt? 

A specific tonal "area" may have any duration; it may even be felt in a single chord where one tone is perceived as a root and the other tones are felt to have a hierarchical relationship to it. If these relationships are strongly felt or are recognized as characterizing the basic idiom of the music, the music will sound strongly tonal even if tonal "areas" shift rapidly (the prelude to _Tristan_ being a good example). If the harmonies do not have such clearly audible "roots" the sense of tonality will be proportionately weaker. This is part of what I mean when I say that music can be "more tonal" or "less tonal."

Does a piece have to be in a specific key to which it returns and around which every one of its relationships is organized (this was Schoenberg's definition of the term tonal center)? If so, what do we make of works such as many of the Mahler symphonies, which begin in one key and end in another (such as the C minor to E-flat major of the Second)?

If you allow that a piece does not have to revolve around a single tonal center from start to end, what justification is there for denying the tonality of pieces which exhibit a succession of tonal centers, however brief?

A piece may modulate constantly, and certainly begin and end in different keys, and still be felt as strongly tonal if its chords and progressions are comprehensible within its stylistic system - that is, if the tonal hierarchy is strongly felt and generates the expectations inherent in that hierarchy. It stands to reason that if chords are tonally weaker (having less clear or absent internal hierarchies) and references to given tonal centers briefer and weaker, the music will sound "less tonal."

You mention functional hierarchy, but continue to define this term in a way which is not the way it is normally used. In traditional music theory, functional hierarchy is a property specific to common practice tonality, which was not a part of music before the 17th century and has so greatly diminished in value in the 20th century as to render it certainly unimportant in discussing the fundamental workings of a Neoclassical piece by Stravinsky, for example. So if you say that modal music and Impressionist or other 20th century music is functional (but not serial or expressionist music), then I honestly have no understanding of what you mean by functional in this instance.


The more tonal the music, the more specific the "functions" each note or chord will have in the overall syntax of the style, and the more specific will be the expectations of the listener, expectations which the composer may satisfy or frustrate. This concept of "function" makes perfect sense to me. Musicologists may have a more limited definition which you haven't given. Perhaps you will do that?

If you think that early music exhibits perceptible tonal organization on a structural basis, I can't see how you can't say the same about Schoenberg. The harmonies and melodies are related one moment to the next and across great spans of musical time, such that one can hear relationships, pitch relationships, between movements or within movements. If that's not tonal organization, what would you call it? 


I suspect the way one would answer this depends on whether one regards a work's chosen group of "pitch relations" as necessarily constituting a true "tonality." The pitch patterns - the succession and combination of tones - in "atonal" music, to the extent that we can call it that, are not inherent in the _scale_ the music utilizes but are "ad hoc," chosen by the composer for the construction of an individual work. This, to me, is not tonality, which entails a particular complex of relationships rooted in a scale with a tonic at the base which an individual work utilizes and which assumes and plays upon a priori expectations in the listener. Perhaps we could call it, at most, "quasi-tonality." A composer can decide to put a "row" - a certain succession of pitches - together and utilize that sequence in a hundred ways throughout the work, but if that succession does not reflect the a priori, felt principles of a functional hierarchy, the transient "tonal" relations which occur along the way will be "ad hoc" and, in a sense, predatory on a tonal system which the work fundamentally eschews. In other words, we will hear constant "hints" of tonal relations because it is natural and inevitable to hear them whenever the twelve notes of the chromatic scale combine in various configurations, not because the composer has written a piece based on a system of tonality.


----------



## Albert7

mmsbls said:


> I've wanted to ask this question for awhile now, but I always put it off as not so important. I asked my daughter (music student) whether music theory and history teachers use the term atonality. She said they do, and everyone seems clear about the meaning. So I guess I have trouble understanding how atonality could really be a useless or poorly defined concept.
> 
> My daughter did say that the term is by no means critical, and when discussing composers and works, teachers will focus on specific details and not the concept of atonality. Still, they do use the term.
> 
> I do understand that on TC the majority of members probably don't really understand music theory well enough to properly use the term. I'm not sure most actually view atonality as negative, but obviously many do. So maybe most TC members should be more careful using the term or choose to discuss modern music using different concepts (chromaticism, different harmonies, etc.). Early in my time at TC I thought I understood atonality well enough to use it, but now I do not use the term when describing music. You and some guy convinced me that, at least here on TC, the term is not very useful and can be rather confusing or misleading.
> 
> So is atonality truly a useless term or is it useless when discussing music with those without a strong music theory background? If it's useless, why would theory teachers use it?


A lot of music "theorists" are beholden to some level of potential misconception.

Before going to TC, I used atonality as a term rather fairly. It was a huge error on my part.

After extensive listening and training, the proper term for me has been non-tonality. This is a more neutral approach.

Atonality implies that there are no tonal framework. Schoenberg never rejected the tonal shifts completely. In fact, they are variegated to quite an extent.

Thus non-tonality. Tonality emphasizes a key emphasis where non-tonality emphasizes a non-key emphasis.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

This is getting boring...


----------



## isorhythm

Mahlerian said:


> Last time you said this, I brought up this quote from Schoenberg, but I think you had already decided to duck out of the discussion by that point:
> 
> Perhaps it is true that at the time of Harmonielehre he looked at the situation differently, and only a year or so earlier, he had said the following regarding his Hanging Gardens cycle:
> 
> Are these contradictory? Perhaps. Depends on how you look at it, I suppose. Schoenberg also said that he looked at his earlier works (in specific reference to the works of the "freely tonal" period) as if they were from a different composer.


OK, but my point was never that Schoenberg's own words are a final authority, as I said. my point was only that something Schoenberg himself said about his music should be presumed to be at least a _reasonable position_, not a hopelessly mistaken one that only an ignorant person could have.



Mahlerian said:


> Purely coloristic or haphazard? No.
> 
> A product of different voice leading rules in which the roots are not necessarily arranged in order to form harmonic progressions based on the functions of those chords? Yes.
> 
> The progressions in 16th century music aren't formed in the sense of functional tonality, though. There are cadences, of course, and the harmonies at these cadences are usually V-I or some substitute, but a cadence alone doesn't make for functional tonality. One still gets the sense of "floating" without the solidity of the bass line of a continuo, for example.


The progressions in tonal music were also originally conceived in terms of voice leading rules, not chords. Even Mozart, in the late 18th century, rejected Rameau's chord-based theory.



Mahlerian said:


> I was under the impression that modal music was governed by a central pitch, rather than a central triad. This would seem to be backed up by the fact that in earlier modal music the final harmony is rarely a triad. Fux's book based on Palestrina instructs learners to end on the perfect fifth rather than end on a minor triad, because the latter is not stable enough for a sense of resolution.


I used C major as an example. The same principle - a pitch or set of pitches governing the rest of the a piece, or part of a piece, even when it's not present - is at work in tonal and modal music. Common practice tonality is a very highly developed application of that principle.



Mahlerian said:


> In Schoenberg, the use of the 12-tones is to act as a focal point, to help in generating material that will be related to one's initial motifs, and so forth. The pitches and harmonies can in fact take on very important significance far beyond the local, as one realizes by hearing some of the recapitulations of his later sonata forms, such as the first movements of the latter two string quartets.


Repeating the same pitches at different places in a piece isn't tonality. By that logic I could write a piece beginning with a set of pitches, compose the bulk of it with a random number generator, and then return to my original pitches and say that it's tonal.

I assume that's not what you're saying - you must be saying that certain pitches govern the whole piece in a way that is perceptible to the listener more or less throughout in a way analogous to tonal music. I would be interested in seeing an actual analysis of a Schoenberg piece along those lines. I think that would generally be considered a very eccentric approach to Schoenberg.



Mahlerian said:


> Correct. However, the idea of atonality is already an empty concept. The fact that it's damaging as well as useless is the reason why I think it should be abolished from discourse about music.


I don't understand what you mean by "abolish." People will use the words they want to use.



Mahlerian said:


> Forte also defines it very differently from many here, including music such as The Rite of Spring and works by Bartok as atonal. Are you willing to accept that definition?


If he defined it clearly for the purpose of his book, then sure.



Mahlerian said:


> Also, the fact that people use something without pejorative intent doesn't itself force a word to lose its negative connotations, unless an understanding based on a non-pejorative sense becomes the norm (e.g. the term Baroque music), and the previous connotations are no longer felt.


I think it has lost its negative connotation among musically educated people, as evidenced by the fact that many of us had never even heard of it having a negative connotation.


----------



## Mahlerian

mmsbls said:


> So is atonality truly a useless term or is it useless when discussing music with those without a strong music theory background? If it's useless, why would theory teachers use it?


I'd say the problem with the term is that it doesn't mean what it purports to mean. Taking it literally, the word seems to mean that such works are without tonality, which is false, and generates a lot of the problems in discussions like these.

Works described as atonal are generally not in a key, and they generally make use of the chromatic scale with consistency.

Some theorists restrict the use of the term to pre-serial works, saying that serialism is better understood on its own terms.


----------



## EdwardBast

Mahlerian said:


> Brahms and Schoenberg are closer than Brahms and Palestrina. That is self-evident to me.


Here are the links between Brahms and Palestrina:
-The standard pedagogical tradition under which nearly every composer of Brahms's time was educated began with learning the Palestrina style as codified by Johann Fux in his Gradus ad Parnassum, using a species counterpoint approach. This book was in Bach's library while Fux was still alive and most modern counterpoint treatises owe a great debt to it.

- The basis of Brahm's style with respect to dissonance treatment is identical in many respects to that used by Palestrina:
-the same intervals above a bass are considered dissonant.
-the same intervals (3rds and 6ths and their compounds), and only these intervals can be used in parallel motion. (Occasional 4ths are the only exception.)
-the resolutions of passing tones, suspensions, anticipations, and so on, are identical.

-The ideal of melodic shape (extended arch patterns) is identical.

-The basic consonant configurations (beyond simple intervals) underlying Palestrina's and Brahms's styles, triads in root position and first inversion (obviously the term inversion was not used by Palestrina or his contemporaries) are the same - any notes added to these basic configurations are dissonances requiring resolution.

These characteristics are a fundamental shared vocabulary, a basic musical physics. None of these features are shared between Brahms's music and the music of Schoenberg's free atonal or serial periods. So, what links between Brahms and Schoenberg do you believe are more fundamental than those uniting the styles of Brahms and Palestrina?


----------



## Mahlerian

Woodduck said:


> By "structural" or "systemic" tonality I mean a system of pitch relationships in which the notes of a scale are heard as tending to move in certain ways in relation to one another by virtue of their position in the scale (e.g., dominant, subdominant, leading tone) and particularly in relation to a tonic, the beginning and end point of the scale, which serves as the "bedrock" of the system, the point of resolution and stability. The tonal implications of the scale exist prior to the construction of a given work utilizing it, and give a certain kind of coherence and meaning to that work. Melodic movement or harmonic structure governed by an ad hoc device such as a "row" does not exemplify this.


Once again, do you intend that there is one specific set of implications in a given scale? If so, then of course you are excluding much modal music, for even when its modes may have the same construction as our modern major and minor scales, the implications as followed through on are different and are employed differently.

How can one recognize when a tonal implication inherent in a scale is followed, and when it is not?



Woodduck said:


> A specific tonal "area" may have any duration; it may even be felt in a single chord where one tone is perceived as a root and the other tones are felt to have a hierarchical relationship to it. If these relationships are strongly felt or are recognized as characterizing the basic idiom of the music, the music will sound strongly tonal even if tonal "areas" shift rapidly (the prelude to _Tristan_ being a good example). If the harmonies do not have such clearly audible "roots" the sense of tonality will be proportionately weaker. This is part of what I mean when I say that music can be "more tonal" or "less tonal."
> 
> A piece may modulate constantly, and certainly begin and end in different keys, and still be felt as strongly tonal if its chords and progressions are comprehensible within its stylistic system - that is, if the tonal hierarchy is strongly felt and generates the expectations inherent in that hierarchy. It stands to reason that if chords are tonally weaker (having less clear or absent internal hierarchies) and references to given tonal centers briefer and weaker, the music will sound "less tonal."


Well, then, you'll understand how I perceive Schoenberg's and other "atonal" composers' music as strongly tonal, then, as the references to tonal centers are constant and, within the stylistic system of the pieces, they follow through on those expectations constantly.



Woodduck said:


> The more tonal the music, the more specific the "functions" each note or chord will have in the overall syntax of the style, and the more specific will be the expectations of the listener, expectations which the composer may satisfy or frustrate. This concept of "function" makes perfect sense to me. Musicologists may have a more limited definition which you haven't given. Perhaps you will do that?


Diatonic function is the method of organizing harmony particular to common practice tonality, in which progressions are guided by their relationships in the functional categories of tonic, subdominant, and dominant. It is distinguished from the modal music of the renaissance, in which harmonic progressions are not necessarily intended to form coherent perceptual sequences apart from the coherence of the individual parts, and from the nonfunctional tonality common to 20th century music. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandiatonicism)



Woodduck said:


> I suspect the way one would answer this depends on whether one regards a work's chosen group of "pitch relations" as necessarily constituting a true "tonality." The pitch patterns - the succession and combination of tones - in "atonal" music, to the extent that we can call it that, are not inherent in the _scale_ the music utilizes but are "ad hoc," chosen by the composer for the construction of an individual work. This, to me, is not tonality, which entails a particular complex of relationships rooted in a scale with a tonic at the base which an individual work utilizes and which assumes and plays upon a priori expectations in the listener. Perhaps we could call it, at most, "quasi-tonality." A composer can decide to put a "row" - a certain succession of pitches - together and utilize that sequence in a hundred ways throughout the work, but if that succession does not reflect the a priori, felt principles of a functional hierarchy, the transient "tonal" relations which occur along the way will be "ad hoc" and, in a sense, predatory on a tonal system which the work fundamentally eschews. In other words, we will hear constant "hints" of tonal relations because it is natural and inevitable to hear them whenever the twelve notes of the chromatic scale combine in various configurations, not because the composer has written a piece based on a system of tonality.


This gets back to the same problem as the first quote. Are we speaking of a single set of implications inherent in individual scales, or are we speaking of a multiplicity of implications, some of which are followed by the composer in a given work, depending on the vagaries of style and era, and some of which are ignored because not felt as significant?

When Schoenberg and his students wrote their first pieces called atonal, they said that they were always following the dictates of their inner and outer ears. That is, they listened to what they had conceived, and heard what it implied musically as continuation, as response, as resolution. The 12-tone row is not intended as a replacement for the ear, and a dodecaphonic work will still require a composer to ensure that the implications of the notes are followed in this manner.

You may rightly argue that the problem with this is that there is no longer a set of differentiated scales which can be said to provide the coherence by structuring a work, because the chromatic scale is symmetrical and indistinguishable from any other similar scale in the pitch classes which comprise it. The same, however, is true of the whole-tone and octatonic scales (each of which has only two unique transpositions), and you seem unwilling to admit that impressionist music, which gains much of its effect from the rootlessness of its harmonies, is related to atonality in any way.


----------



## EdwardBast

Mahlerian said:


> Well, then, you'll understand how I perceive Schoenberg's and other "atonal" composers' music as strongly tonal, then, as the references to tonal centers are constant and, within the stylistic system of the pieces, they follow through on those expectations constantly.


The sense of tonality the term atonal is understood to negate in the standard parlance of modern music history and theory is common practice tonality (CPT). CPT is built on a triadic harmonic basis. The fleeting sense of centeredness you have repeatedly referenced has no connection to the establishment of a tonal center as understood in the world of CPT. The minimum requirements for establishing a tonal center in CPT have been codified in the practice of theory pedagogs teaching modulation for a couple of centuries. The dominant followed by the tonic chord of a given key is not enough because such usage also occurs in unstable sequential progressions. To satisfy the basic requirement of establishing a tonal center, the dominant and tonic functions (at least) must be restated and confirmed.* What you are describing has nothing to do with and is irrelevant to the discussion of tonality and atonality in the central usages of those terms (see above).

*Arguably, it is, in fact, possible to establish a tonal center with less, because certain predominant chords have more specific implications than any mere triad. The opening of the Tristan Prelude is a case in point. The initial augmented 6th chord ("French variety" with an appogiatura on G#) and the subsequent dominant, could only be indigenous to a single minor key. Had a tonic followed, the key would have been established firmly enough. Some find the predominant and dominant enough in and of themselves.


----------



## Mahlerian

EdwardBast said:


> These characteristics are a fundamental shared vocabulary, a basic musical physics. None of these features are shared between Brahms's music and the music of Schoenberg's free atonal or serial periods. So, what links between Brahms and Schoenberg do you believe are more fundamental than those uniting the styles of Brahms and Palestrina?


- Resolution through emphasis on the melodic interval of the semitone

- Thirds as a more basic interval than fifths

- A division between principal and subsidiary parts, founded in a homophonic style (Admittedly Schoenberg's music is often contrapuntal, but it is homophonic at least as often)

- A harmonic language enriched by chromaticism

- A melodic language frequently employing leaps larger than a fifth (Schoenberg's use of leaps of a ninth, major and minor, is often overemphasized; his melodies are very frequently shaped much the same way as those of Brahms or Wagner)

- The introduction of dissonances without preparation, reached even by leap (a wider variety of these with Schoenberg's music, of course)

- The development of motifs as a basic principle of construction

- A fluid rhythmic conception based on phrases of varying lengths


----------



## Mahlerian

EdwardBast said:


> The sense of tonality the term atonal is understood to negate in the standard parlance of modern music history and theory is common practice tonality (CPT). CPT is built on a triadic harmonic basis. The fleeting sense of centeredness you have repeatedly referenced has no connection to the establishment of a tonal center as understood in the world of CPT.


Of course you're right that "atonal" music isn't tonal in the sense of common practice tonality, but this is not what I was arguing. I was arguing for the tonal centricity in atonality as equal to the tonal centricity in other non-common practice music.


----------



## mmsbls

Mahlerian said:


> I'd say the problem with the term is that it doesn't mean what it purports to mean. Taking it literally, the word seems to mean that such works are without tonality, which is false, and generates a lot of the problems in discussions like these.


I agree that the term causes confusion at TC (and perhaps elsewhere). Many technical terms do not mean what the word would mean to someone outside the field. Relativity (special or general) refers to well defined theories that are often misunderstood because people think they know what relative means. 
There are many other such examples.

Anyway, I agree about usage here at TC. Even when used correctly by one person, others may misinterpret, and there are probably better ways to refer to such music.


----------



## EdwardBast

Mahlerian said:


> - Resolution through emphasis on the melodic interval of the semitone


Could be said of anyone in the CP era and probably anyone from the 14thc on - and, yes, of Palestrina. Trivial.



Mahlerian said:


> - Thirds as a more basic interval than fifths


In what context? Every meaning of this term relevant to Brahms's style depends on a triadic, CP tonal context - progression and modulation by third related harmonies, modal mixture using altered mediants and submediants, the use of third related keys - none of which are relevant to the non-triadic contexts of the Schoenberg music under discussion. If, on the other hand, you are talking about melody, I doubt there is any basis, statistical or otherwise to support this.



Mahlerian said:


> - A division between principal and subsidiary parts, founded in a homophonic style (Admittedly Schoenberg's music is often contrapuntal, but it is homophonic at least as often)


Palestrina was a choral composer, so: Trivial.



Mahlerian said:


> - A harmonic language enriched by chromaticism


In discussions of CP harmony (Brahms), the meaning of chromaticism is defined in opposition to a diatonic triadic context. As Schoenberg and Brahms don't share this context, your comparison is thus at best a case of watermelons and grapes, but more likely an out and out nonsequitur.



Mahlerian said:


> - A melodic language frequently employing leaps larger than a fifth (Schoenberg's use of leaps of a ninth, major and minor, is often overemphasized; his melodies are very frequently shaped much the same way as those of Brahms or Wagner)


The ninth leaps and the emphasis on them is the most telling detail here and it undercuts your point rather than supporting it. Larger than a fifth? So what? Palestrina used them too.



Mahlerian said:


> - The introduction of dissonances without preparation, reached even by leap (a wider variety of these with Schoenberg's music, of course)


Always in a triadic context and, otherwise, according to the rules of resolution present in Palestrina. Schoenberg's leaps to dissonances don't resolve by the rules of resolution Palestrina and Brahms share.



Mahlerian said:


> - The development of motifs as a basic principle of construction


Could be said of Bach, Mozart, Haydn, ad infinitum …



Mahlerian said:


> - A fluid rhythmic conception based on phrases of varying lengths


Equally true of Palestrina and thus not dispositive in this discussion.

To sum up: I demonstrated that Brahms followed the most basic laws of counterpoint, dissonance treatment, and consonance in a way directly derived from Palestrina and his contemporaries. The few of your points that withstand cursory scrutiny - they both developed motives, Brahms occasionally using an appogiatura not prepared in register - well, actually, that's it - do not come close to balancing the score.


----------



## EdwardBast

mmsbls said:


> I agree that the term causes confusion at TC (and perhaps elsewhere). Many technical terms do not mean what the word would mean to someone outside the field. Relativity (special or general) refers to well defined theories that are often misunderstood because people think they know what relative means.
> There are many other such examples.
> 
> Anyway, I agree about usage here at TC. Even when used correctly by one person, others may misinterpret, and there are probably better ways to refer to such music.


As the relevant field in this forum is music theory, and in as much as one of the most important theoretical treatises of the 20th century uses the word atonal in its title (Allen Forte's The Structure of Atonal Music), these statements strike me as ill-considered.


----------



## Mahlerian

By an emphasis on thirds, I meant simply the harmonic interval of the third, which seems to me an important difference between Brahms and Palestrina (or between common practice and the rest of the renaissance generally). In Brahms, a harmony can survive without a fifth, but it seems empty without a third. In Palestrina, a harmony may easily survive without a third, but it remains incapable of acting as resolution unless it has a fifth.

In Schoenberg's music, resolution to thirds from more dissonant intervals is such a common practice as to be a consistent feature of his style.

Both Brahms and Schoenberg wrote choral music as well. Their choral music also displays the same characteristic of distinguishing between principal and subsidiary parts.

The fact that people stupidly emphasize a few ninths in Schoenberg's music means that Schoenberg's music is differently constructed melodically than Brahms'? You can find ninths in Brahms and Wagner too, you know (larger intervals as well).

The fact that a chromatically-enriched language is employed is clearly relevant to both Brahms and Schoenberg, but not to Palestrina. The context is, as you say, somewhat different. But the context between Brahms' language and Palestrina's is more different still.

As for rhythm, Palestrina's music is not organized in phrases in the sense that later music is. Surely it is obvious that Brahms' sense of rhythm and Schoenberg's are closer together?


----------



## Albert7

Richannes Wrahms said:


> This is getting boring...


Sorry that you got bored. I am no music scholar and lost track in this thread awhile back. But...


----------



## mmsbls

EdwardBast said:


> As the relevant field in this forum is music theory, and in as much as one of the most important theoretical treatises of the 20th century uses the word atonal in its title (Allen Forte's The Structure of Atonal Music), these statements strike me as ill-considered.


I assume you are refering to my last statement. I think it's fine for people to discuss atonality when they have a good understanding of the term. I believe that happens at music schools fairly regularly. At TC many people (I think most based on their reports) do not have a good music theory background. I believe the term, atonality, is often misused and misunderstood. That's not a terrible thing, but it might help to focus people's concerns on somewhat more specific musical concepts such as dissonance, chromaticism, unusual harmonies rather than a term that people don't really understand.

To me it's not whether the term, atonal, is improper but rather whether the term leads to confusion that could possibly be avoided (at least here at TC).


----------



## Dim7

The average atonality hater doesn't really understand what is "atonality" and instead uses the term to mean music that is too dissonant/chromatic/"tuneless"/formless/incoherent to him. I don't think these people are complaining about lack of tone centres. I'm not really convinced that tone centres are an important feature of Schoenberg's music, but it seems clear to me that the term causes more confusion than clarifies anything.


----------



## Woodduck

Dim7 said:


> The average atonality hater doesn't really understand what is "atonality" and instead uses the term to mean music that is too dissonant/chromatic/"tuneless"/formless/incoherent to him. I don't think these people are complaining about lack of tone centres. I'm not really convinced that tone centres are an important feature of Schoenberg's music, but it seems clear to me that the term causes more confusion than clarifies anything.


"Average atonality hater" sounds like a great caption for a New Yorker cartoon. I'm trying to visualize this sort of person, but can't seem to conjure a mental image. Could you post a picture of one?


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> "Average atonality hater" sounds like a great caption for a New Yorker cartoon. I'm trying to visualize this sort of person, but can't seem to conjure a mental image. Could you post a picture of one?


I'm sure all of us, atonality haters or otherwise, consider ourselves well above average. And I'm sure, on average, that we are!


----------



## millionrainbows

This post by *Wooduck *is spot-on:



Woodduck said:


> "Atonal" has come to apply mainly or entirely to music in the Western classical lineage using the twelve notes of the chromatic scale, but avoiding the traditional grounding of chromaticism in the diatonic hierarchical relations (tonic, dominant, subdominant, etc.) and consonace/dissonance hierarchy inherent in the acoustics-based triadic harmony of Western music, a grounding which remains important even in the highly chromatic music of late 19th-century Romanticism. Whatever "atonal" has implied to various people who have used it, that is the meaning it has carried for the people with whom I've associated during the fifty or so years of my musical lifetime.


That's specific enough for me.


----------



## millionrainbows

In the book _The Mirror, the Window, and the Telescope_, by Samuel Y. Edgerton, he explains how perspective was a religious concern, promoted by the church for religious reasons, because it proved God's immanence.

In the same way, tonality is the same as perspective; the tonic is a reference point to which all other notes are related.

Schoenberg adopted his 12-tone system at about the same time he adopted his root religion, Judaism. One of the tenets of Judaism is that "no graven image" shall be made of God, and even his name is unutterable. In his Four Pieces op. 27 for choir, the second piece, his own words reflect this idea, while at the same time he was using the 12-tone language.

I contend that Schoenberg adopted the 12-tone system for religious reasons, as a way of avoiding the "direct reference" to God exemplified by both perspective and tonality. In this way, he avoids the reference to "1" or God, and God remains mysterious, without reference.


----------

