# Favourite 3 Atonal Composers



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Who are your favourite 3 atonal composers (ok to give less than 3, but not interested in hearing from those who don't like it). I'll have to give the nod to Schoenberg and Carter (yes, I'm a convert of Carter since I joined the forum) as my go-to's now. The 3rd spot is not so clear.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

The Second Viennese School of course! There are others of course, but I find Schoenberg, Berg and Webern a constant source of inspiration.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Phil loves classical said:


> The 3rd spot is not so clear.


Phil loves Glassical


----------



## Nawdry (Dec 27, 2020)

Phil loves classical said:


> Who are your favourite 3 atonal composers ...


I like some of the compositions by Schoenberg using the 12-tone serial method.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Carter and Ferneyhough for sure, with Wolpe currently in a rotating third spot


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> Who are your favourite 3 atonal composers (ok to give less than 3, but not interested in hearing from those who don't like it). I'll have to give the nod to Schoenberg and Carter (yes, I'm a convert of Carter since I joined the forum) as my go-to's now. The 3rd spot is not so clear.


Sylvano Bussotti, Luigi Dallapiccola.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Schoenberg
Berg
Stravinsky


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

Meyer Kupferman
Luigi Dallapiccola
Humphrey Searle

[plenty of others - could easily list 3 British, 3 Americans, etc.]


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

Schoenberg
Searle
Varese

Was tempted to list Harrison Birtwistle but I'm never quite sure if he is regarded as atonal.


----------



## SuperTonic (Jun 3, 2010)

Berg
Schoenberg
Maderna

It's painful just to limit myself to 3. I hate leaving out Webern and Boulez.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Carter
Boulez
Webern


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> Phil loves Glassical


When was Glass ever atonal? I always thought of him as pop classical!


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

György Ligeti
Joonas Kokkonen
Esa-Pekka Salonen
Kaija Saariaho
Erik Bergman
Harri Vuori
Kalevi Aho
Witold Lutoslawski
Krzysztof Penderecki
Igor Stravinsky

To name a few.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Schoenberg
Berg
Stravinsky, tho I like Webern a lot, too.


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast (Jun 3, 2020)

I'll take this question as "non-tonal"

Ligeti
Messiaen
Schönberg


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

Scriabin 
Messiaen
Takemitsu


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Carter
Berg
Corigliano (He composes a mixture of tonal and atonal music. Sometimes, like if the last movement of his Clarinet Concerto, he employ a tone row.)


----------



## Andante Largo (Apr 23, 2020)

1. none
2. none
3. none


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Waehnen said:


> Kalevi Aho


Which pieces of Aho fall into the non-tonal area? I bought a couple of his CDs but found his music kinda bland.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Schoenberg
Kurtág
Ligeti


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Since that is almost all I listen to, with a few exceptions, it is impossible for me to only list 3. There are many composers that I place at pretty much equal status.

Elliott Carter
Arnold Schoenberg
Alban Berg
Charles Wuorinen
Krzysztof Penderecki
Magnus Lindberg
Bruno Maderna
Harrison Birtwistle


----------



## JanacekTheGreat (Feb 26, 2021)

Not "favorite" but the ones I can tolerate the most:

1. Josef Matthias Hauer
2. Berg
3. Webern


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Andante Largo said:


> 1. none
> 2. none
> 3. none


I'm probably better off just ignoring this post...

I will never understand posts like this.

Yes, it has long been made clear that the majority on TC, do not enjoy atonal classical music. But what fuels someone to go out of their way to post this on a thread specifically about atonal classical music?

Especially when the OP makes the following request, *"ok to give less than 3, but not interested in hearing from those who don't like it"*.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Andante Largo said:


> 1. none
> 2. none
> 3. none


And we are not suppose to complain when they try to provoke an argument.


----------



## Azol (Jan 25, 2015)

I'm really into some music closer to ambient than "pure" atonal classical. Some names could appear in both categories and rightfully so.

1) Stuart Dempster.
Love his solo works and of course his collaborations as Deep Listening Band.

2) Morton Feldman.
Love his minimalistic approach.

Other than that, it will be hard to name any more atonal composers I listen to regularly, being mostly a tonal music believer  Many others could apply atonal techniques to their compositions as a "sauce" but not the main course and I'm more than fine with that.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

arpeggio said:


> And we are not suppose to complain when they try to provoke an argument.


No, you just don't let yourself be provoked.

Mine would be (in this order) Webern, Schoenberg and Messiaen. I'm going to have to look more into the music of Boulez instead of always being put off by the dogmatic statements he made in his earlier years.


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

Schoenberg believed his atonal idiom would become the popular music of the future, and street urchins would whistle his twelve-tone rows.
I don't think anyone has ever been more wrong in the history of music. Atonal music, in the sense of music without a clear tonal center, will NEVER be popular for the simple reason that it goes against human nature, and it ignores centuries of musical development. Something fundamentally unnatural will never leave the realm of elitist specialists.
Schoenberg's theories are exemplary of the many cultural and political experiments that the 20th century suffered from, a prevailing "out with the old, in with the new" attitude that often did more wrong than right. That said, I don't hate Schoenberg's 12-tone music at all, I think the piano and violin concertos and the Variations for Orchestra - and above all Moses und Aaron - are masterpieces. But composing atonal music seems like a self-imposed handicap, a self-inflicted blindness for what's in the core of every human being, musical or non-musical - the appreciation of tonality based on the major triad, which in turn is the basis of all pitched sound (because tonal harmony is based on the series of natural overtones).


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

RobertJTh said:


> Schoenberg believed his atonal idiom would become the popular music of the future, and street urchins would whistle his twelve-tone rows.
> I don't think anyone has ever been more wrong in the history of music. Atonal music, in the sense of music without a clear tonal center, will NEVER be popular for the simple reason that it goes against human nature, and it ignores centuries of musical development. Something fundamentally unnatural will never leave the realm of elitist specialists.
> Schoenberg's theories are exemplary of the many cultural and political experiments that the 20th century suffered from, a prevailing "out with the old, in with the new" attitude that often did more wrong than right. That said, I don't hate Schoenberg's 12-tone music at all, I think the piano and violin concertos and the Variations for Orchestra - and above all Moses und Aaron - are masterpieces. But composing atonal music seems like a self-imposed handicap, a self-inflicted blindness for what's in the core of every human being, musical or non-musical - the appreciation of tonality based on the major triad, which in turn is the basis of all pitched sound (because tonal harmony is based on the series of natural overtones).


Apart from that, Mrs. Lincoln, who are your three favorite atonal composers?

Mine are Webern, Feldman and Xenakis. Discounting composers who wrote in polystylistic idioms which included atonality.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

On the contrary, tonality is the real handicap.

Boulez, Webern, Messiaen.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

RobertJTh said:


> Schoenberg believed his atonal idiom would become the popular music of the future, and street urchins would whistle his twelve-tone rows. I don't think anyone has ever been more wrong in the history of music. Atonal music, in the sense of music without a clear tonal center, will NEVER be popular for the simple reason that it goes against human nature, and it ignores centuries of musical development. Something fundamentally unnatural will never leave the realm of elitist specialists.


What Schoenberg thought 100 years ago has nothing to do with the value of atonal music. Dozens of composers have chosen and continue to choose to write in that style and they have audiences who enjoy their music.

The fact that you don't like atonal music is your individual taste and has nothing to do with the validity or value of atonal music. And your opinion about what "goes against human nature" is laughable.

I suppose I am not human since I enjoy atonal music.


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> I suppose I am not human since I enjoy atonal music.


You seem to enjoy strawman arguments too.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

RobertJTh said:


> You seem to enjoy strawman arguments too.


Like atonal music goes against human nature?


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

1) Lutoslawski
2) Boulez
3) Sir Michael Tippet's later works


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

RobertJTh said:


> Schoenberg believed his atonal idiom would become the popular music of the future, and street urchins would whistle his twelve-tone rows.
> I don't think anyone has ever been more wrong in the history of music. Atonal music, in the sense of music without a clear tonal center, will NEVER be popular for the simple reason that it goes against human nature, and it ignores centuries of musical development. Something fundamentally unnatural will never leave the realm of elitist specialists.
> Schoenberg's theories are exemplary of the many cultural and political experiments that the 20th century suffered from, a prevailing "out with the old, in with the new" attitude that often did more wrong than right. That said, I don't hate Schoenberg's 12-tone music at all, I think the piano and violin concertos and the Variations for Orchestra - and above all Moses und Aaron - are masterpieces. But composing atonal music seems like a self-imposed handicap, a self-inflicted blindness for what's in the core of every human being, musical or non-musical - the appreciation of tonality based on the major triad, which in turn is the basis of all pitched sound (because tonal harmony is based on the series of natural overtones).


I would agree that at the most basic level, the intervals in CP tonal music are more pleasing to humans at least at the beginning. But even with tonal music, there is a degree of 'learning' to appreciate. Notice how Mahler is often mentioned in this forum as a difficult composer? I feel with enough exposure, anything can be appreciated. The thing is with atonal music, it could sound wrong at the beginning, that some would resist and can't accept into getting out of the gate with it in the first place.


----------



## christomacin (Oct 21, 2017)

Messiaen
Takemitsu
Varese (?)


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I'm not the biggest atonal fan, but I've liked some Schoenberg.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

I really enjoy the music of Corigliano and Penderecki - but are they considered 12-tone composers?? Some of their music certainly sounds atonal, but I've not ever thought of them in the same vein as Schoenberg, Berg, etc [??]


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Heck148 said:


> I really enjoy the music of Corigliano and Penderecki - but are they considered 12-tone composers?? Some of their music certainly sounds atonal, but I've not ever thought of them in the same vein as Schoenberg, Berg, etc [??]


There's plenty of atonal music which is not 12-tone. In fact, I think most atonal music is not 12-tone.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> Phil loves Glassical


Atonal music is really old-fashioned. These days it's about untonal.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

"Favorite" is a big word. 

But I like Shostakovichs 2nd symphony. Does this make him an atonal composer?

I sometimes search for music of Brian Ferneyhough. His music sound like a characterization of alien ants. It seems interesting. I keep searching for something in this music, but I am not sure if I will find something.

User Torkelburger insists that Debussy was an atonal composer. Debussy is at least someone I want to discover more in the future.

Bergs violin concert seems to be a good work. But I need some time to discover it more.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

RobertJTh said:


> Schoenberg believed his atonal idiom would become the popular music of the future, and street urchins would whistle his twelve-tone rows. .


Source? 


> I don't think anyone has ever been more wrong in the history of music. Atonal music, in the sense of music without a clear tonal center, will NEVER be popular for the simple reason that it goes against human nature, and it ignores centuries of musical development. Something fundamentally unnatural will never leave the realm of elitist specialists.


Define 'natural' relative to music. Are equal-tempered chromatic scales 'natural'? Are Beethoven symphonies 'natural'?



> Schoenberg's theories are exemplary of the many cultural and political experiments that the 20th century suffered from, a prevailing "out with the old, in with the new" attitude that often did more wrong than right. That said, I don't hate Schoenberg's 12-tone music at all, I think the piano and violin concertos and the Variations for Orchestra - and above all Moses und Aaron - are masterpieces. But composing atonal music seems like a self-imposed handicap, a self-inflicted blindness for what's in the core of every human being, musical or non-musical - the appreciation of tonality based on the major triad, which in turn is the basis of all pitched sound (because tonal harmony is based on the series of natural overtones).


If tonal harmony is based on overtones, why is the the 7th out of tune? Also should it then follow that spectralists like Murail, Grisey or Radelescu wrote more 'natural' music than Mozart? Are major triads more ubiquitous in world music than minor? Would also pentatonics (major or minor) be the real natural music as seven note scales are only found in European, Middle Eastern, and Indian music?


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Elliott Carter is maybe my favorite. I don't listen to that much atonal music. I don't consider some of the composers listed in this thread atonal, for example Messiaen and Takemitsu. 

I think of 12 tone music as being atonal and things like Penderecki's early music. I see Messiaen and Takemitsu as extensions of impressionism.


----------



## Bernamej (Feb 24, 2014)

Nothing comes close to Scriabin. Nothing.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Heck148 said:


> I really enjoy the music of Corigliano and Penderecki - but are they considered 12-tone composers?? Some of their music certainly sounds atonal, but I've not ever thought of them in the same vein as Schoenberg, Berg, etc [??]


Penderercki's early music was very avant-garde, atonal. But in his early forties he embraced a more tonal style.

One composer who has not been mentioned is George Rochberg who also abandoned atonality when he was in his early forties.

Corigliano is a very eclectic composer who will on occasion employ aleatoric or serial technique.

One of my favorite atonal composers who has not been mentioned is Skalkottas.

Heck, Skalkottas composed a fantastic work for bassoon and piano: _Sonata Concertante for bassoon and piano (1943)_. I purchased it and tried to learn it many years ago. It is way beyond my abilities.

Link to You Tube performance:


----------



## tortkis (Jul 13, 2013)

Schoenberg, Cage, Sciarrino


----------



## HerbertNorman (Jan 9, 2020)

I've given a lot of atonal works a go , but haven't warmed to many of them (yet) . 
I'm a big fan of Shostakovich' work and there's some atonality in there. 
I can also enjoy some Scriabin , difficult but I think his work is fascinating.
Penderecki is the third composer I think of , with atonality in his oeuvre...his atonal works have caught my ear too.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

arpeggio said:


> Penderercki's early music was very avant-garde, atonal. But in his early forties he embraced a more tonal style.
> One composer who has not been mentioned is George Rochberg who also abandoned atonality when he was in his early forties.
> Corigliano is a very eclectic composer who will on occasion employ aleatoric or serial technique.


Yes, Penderecki went from avant-garde to a more tonal mode....it's not all atonal.
Corigliano can be both, ime....



> One of my favorite atonal composers who has not been mentioned is Skalkottas.
> Heck, Skalkottas composed a fantastic work for bassoon and piano: _Sonata Concertante for bassoon and piano (1943)_. I purchased it and tried to learn it many years ago. It is way beyond my abilities.


I don't know this piece....the only thing I remember playing of Skalkottas was the Greek Dances, for orchestra, which were really cool, and fun to play....was not atonal


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

Bwv 1080 said:


> Source?


It's a well known anecdote about Schoenberg (who had a thing for grandiose delusions, like his assertion that his 12-tone method would ensure the dominance of German music for 1000 years... - that's not just delusional, it's creepy.)
He literally said that "one day even mail boys will whistle my tunes". It's quoted everywhere, haven't been able to find the actual source and I'm not gonna spend half a day trying to find it.

Also again, I don't hate Schoenberg, I frequently listen to his music, including his dodecaphonic works and I think he was a genius.



> Define 'natural' relative to music.


Literally natural, as in nature defined by the laws of physics.



> Are equal-tempered chromatic scales 'natural'?


No, they're a compromise.



> Are Beethoven symphonies 'natural'?


I don't even know how to answer that.



> If tonal harmony is based on overtones, why is the the 7th out of tune?


Again, a compromise for practical reasons.



> Also should it then follow that spectralists like Murail, Grisey or Radelescu wrote more 'natural' music than Mozart?


I've never heard of these people or the spectralists genre, but maybe their music is more natural than Mozart, sure, why not.
Again, to me, naturalness is not a factor that defines the quality of a musical piece. I just think that, the more composers deviate from natural harmony, the more difficult it is to find an audience that will embrace their music. Proof: the first signs of the present chasm between composer and audience coincided with the atonal experiments of the early 20th century.



> Are major triads more ubiquitous in world music than minor?


I guess they are.



> Would also pentatonics (major or minor) be the real natural music as seven note scales are only found in European, Middle Eastern, and Indian music?


I think they are, since a pentatonic scale consists of a major triad with the "skeleton" of the major third partially filled up, it's almost directly derived from the row of overtones, meaning it resonates strongly with the harmony we inherited from nature itself.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

Ethereality said:


> Atonal music is really old-fashioned. These days it's about untonal.


The average listener would say there's no difference between the two.



Bernamej said:


> Nothing comes close to Scriabin. Nothing.


Scriabin's music can be mistaken as tonal.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Bernamej said:


> Nothing comes close to Scriabin. Nothing.


I'm wondering if that's a double entendre. :lol:


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

1. Boulez
2. Webern
3. Ligeti

4. G. Benjamin
5. Stockhausen 
6. Nono

7. Dallapiccola
8. Berio
9. Donatoni


----------



## Bernamej (Feb 24, 2014)

I’ll add that Scriabin’s atonal sonatas are everything but weird conceptual experimentation, he actually manages to create beauty and emotion with them. It is a level of genius that is scary. Having goose bumps right now just thinking bout them.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I don't hear Scriabin as atonal at all personally. I love the Black Mass, and to think of it as atonal for me, it would lose a lot of what I get from it. I also like a lot of atonal, but for different reasons that what the Black Mass has to offer.


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

Phil loves classical said:


> I don't hear Scriabin as atonal at all personally. I love the Black Mass, and to think of it as atonal for me, it would lose a lot of what I get from it. I also like a lot of atonal, but for different reasons that what the Black Mass has to offer.


Apparently the term Atonal causes confusion. According to some experts here any music that doesn't fit into the Common-Practice-Tonality is atonal. Why shouldn't Scriabin count?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

^ Sure he could. I think labels aren't really important. I read some say Scriabin's Black Mass is highly chromatic, and flirting with atonality, but I hear it totally from a tonal perspective, as in a strong tonic in B, so for me that rules out atonality, which doesn't have a tonic. But it's clearly not major or minor, ant it goes to the tritone more than to the dominant.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

There are many works which are borderline atonal.

I have no problem with anyone who thinks that Scriabin atonal.

If one enjoys his music does it really matter?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Whenever a thread appears in which there is a discussion of tonal and atonal music it always seems to expose a basic misunderstanding of what is tonal music and thereby a misunderstanding of just what is atonal music.

Strictly speaking, tonal music is that which is expressed using the diatonic system of tonality, with key centers, and functional harmonic progression in which different diatonic harmonies have specific functions.

Atonal music is that which does none of this, i.e. while there may appear triads in both tonal and atonal music - e.g. a D Minor triad in a tonal setting will serve a specific function and behave according to the traditional practice in diatonic harmony according to the key center at the time. That same D Minor triad in an atonal work can do anything, progress to another minor triad, or to any chord bound by no harmonic practice or key center.

Just because a composer might use consonant harmonies does not mean he is writing tonal music.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

arpeggio said:


> There are many works which are borderline atonal.
> 
> I have no problem with anyone who thinks that Scriabin atonal.
> 
> If one enjoys his music does it really matter?


I was personally wondering about putting Debussy in my list, but he's not generally seen as "atonal" which tends to really "sound like serialism" for most, hah


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

There are two main ways the word 'atonal' is used. One is the way SanAntone described in post #57. There is also a broader way to use the term to distinguish between styles of music that sound very different from each other like 12 tone music and impressionism. 

In the strict definition of the term Debussy and Scriabin are atonal, in the broader definition of the term Debussy and Scriabin are not atonal. I consider Debussy and Scriabin to be tonal composers. 12 tone composers, and noise composers are examples of styles I consider atonal.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

^ There isn't really a strict definition of tonality. From the link below:

"Tonality (also known as 'tonal music') is music that has a tonic - that specific note on which music is the most stable and at rest. In general, tonal music works by establishing a tonic, moving away from it and then returning to it."

"tonal music is music that has a tonic and it *normally* works within the major/minor keys system and functional harmony"

That doesn't necessarily require a key. Major-minor tonality or CPT is more specific. From the first phrase of Scriabin's Black Mass the tonic of B had been established.

https://www.schoolofcomposition.com/what-is-tonality-in-music/


----------



## JackRance (Sep 13, 2021)

Nobody says Kurtàg?


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

JackRance said:


> Nobody says Kurtàg?


Post 20 .


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

> When was Glass ever atonal?


Ever since people who could understand the difference. Music that has a tonic is described as "tonal". Music that does not have a tonic is described as "atonal". Much, though not all, of Glass's music does not have a tonic and could therefore be eligible for the "atonal" label in describing its melodic/harmonic pitch structure/elements. It is as simple as that. The fact that you do not understand or cannot comprehend post-tonal theory and cannot decipher between tonality and *centricity* (which I'll get to later in another post), is your problem, not others'.

An example of atonality in Glass would be from page 2 of _Einstein on the Beach_. The chord progression that he cycles through is F Minor (voiced as F below middle C, then C (going up), Ab, and C), then with smooth voice-leading to Db Major first inversion (spelled enharmonically with C sharps), then A Major, then the chord A-D#-A (octave higher than the first)-B, and then E Major in second inversion (a 6/4 chord). Then it goes back to F Minor of course and the cycle repeats.

Just because it is mostly triadic does not make it tonal. The fourth chord is not even a pure triad, although it could be an incomplete dominant of the last chord. Its primary function makes sense through the voice leading as the notes are approached and left by stepwise motion. The progression works because the chords were chosen for their common tones and color and not their function--he holds 1 common tone between each chord-even between the last and the first when it repeats (enharmonically, the G# and Ab).

But there is no contrary direction and the 6/4 chord at the end suspends every cadential tradition (and isn't a passing 6/4 either). So, it is completely unorthodox and has practically no link to tradition at all. It would be difficult to explain the A major triad of bar 3 in the "key" of F minor of bars 1 and 2. Actually, it's not far off the mark from Hovhaness by its creation of subtle key shifts between chords.

In any case, it is not tonal. Music that is not tonal can be described as "atonal", since that is what it means (and only means).


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

> I don't consider some of the composers listed in this thread atonal, for example Messiaen and Takemitsu. I see Messiaen and Takemitsu as extensions of impressionism.


This is extremely confusing as those composers do not always write music with a tonic. Please be specific in musical terminology what it is that makes music tonal and/or atonal. In what way is a tonic established in Impressionist music?


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

> I think they are, since a pentatonic scale consists of a major triad with the "skeleton" of the major third partially filled up,


That's just cherry-picking. I could just as easily say that very same pentatonic scale consists of a minor triad (which it does) with a major third filled up. And if I want to promote the "naturalness" of clusters, I would tell you it's three sets of whole tone clusters in two groups a minor third apart. If I want to push forward an agenda of atonal "naturalness" of quartal harmony, I would tell you the pentatonic scale is just a five-note perfect quartal chord written as a scale, and the scale can be broken down into a series of quartal chords. Therefore, quartal harmony is more "natural" than tertian. It's just a Pollyanna game you're playing. Whatever you look for to support your bias, you find.



> it's almost directly derived from the row of overtones, meaning it resonates strongly with the harmony we inherited from nature itself.


No, that's just more of the same game. The overtone series contains many more notes than that. When taking the whole series into account, it actually contains more notes used in atonal, microtonal, and twelve-tone music. So, you're argument backfires.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

> I don't hear Scriabin as atonal at all personally.


Some of his music does not have a tonic, which classifies it as atonal, whether you hear it or not.

I wonder if you afford Schoenberg this same degree of leniency for _his_ atonal piano pieces written around the same time as _Black Mass_, such as the _6 Little Piano Pieces Op. 19_, considered one of the earliest landmark pieces in atonal literature. It has far more going for it in tonal implications than the Scriabin, IMO. Yet, experts label it "atonal" as well. What about you?


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

> Sure he could. I think labels aren't really important.


Then why start a thread asking for favorite composers labeled "atonal"? That seems a rather important modifier to what your asking.



> I read some say Scriabin's Black Mass is highly chromatic,


One only need to look at the score which is included in your link you posted to see this is factually and demonstrably true.



> and flirting with atonality, but I hear it totally from a tonal perspective, as in a strong tonic in B, so for me that rules out atonality,


Poor listening skills and a lack of understanding of what makes music atonal is no excuse for calling a piece tonal. Is this the method you suggest everyone use to determine whether something is tonal or atonal? Just a gut-feeling from listening to it? If that's the case, then there is no difference between the two. All music can be tonal and all music can be atonal, it doesn't matter.

If all's it takes for music to be tonal or atonal is a personal listening interpretation, then I could argue that _Variations for Orchestra Op. 31_ is tonal if it sounds that way to me, and no one has any leg to stand on to suggest otherwise. My listening opinion is just as valid. I could call any 12-tone piece tonal I want if I so choose as long as it sounds that way to me, just as you can call any atonal piece tonal.

If you give no reason for your argument, then the counterargument is equally valid and persuasive for no reason at all, either.



> which doesn't have a tonic.


Can you explain, in detailed musical terminology, how Scriabin established the tonic of B? And be more convincing than "I just hear it that way."? _Why do you think you hear it that way?_



> But it's clearly not major or minor, ant it goes to the tritone more than to the dominant.


That's because, like Debussy, Scriabin was concerned with symmetrical structures, such as symmetrical scales and forms (ABA, arch). Debussy thought symmetrical structures were more "natural". The tritone divides the octave exactly in half and makes structures (scales, chords, etc.) symmetrical.

The _Black Mass_ was clearly written with post-tonal techniques. In the first 4.5 bars you have a 2-bar canon that repeats in the next 2.5 bars. The canon is for 4 voices even though written for two hands. The top voice is a descending chromatic line that goes from B to Ab and cadences back to the B. The second voice begins a major third below the first (does not hint at any B tonality at all, if anything it would hint at G Major or e minor but that doesn't last even into the next note). The second voice descends a tritone and then "sequences" with another tritone descent from F to B, then returning to the opening note as well.

Bar 2 is in EXACT CANONIC imitation of the first bar, transposed down a tritone and an octave. It's an exact canon, VERY often used in atonal and 12-tone writing. Were it tonal, it would be inexact and follow the given key. The intervals would be different. If there were chromatic notes in the tonal context, they would follow a chord progression (like secondary dominants or something).

But there are no traditional chords (except one) to speak of at all. These are clearly *simultaneities* as a result of chromatic linear writing with no thought to key, scales, hierarchies, tonal relations, etc. It's PITCHES ARRANGED IN PATTERNS in an abstract way that is cohesive in a non-tonal context, that looks an awfully lot like Schoenberg at the time. The triadic structure at the end of the second bar (G7 in third inversion) has no function whatsoever. It is clear to anyone that it is completely an unintended consequence of the STRICT chromatic canon and linear writing. There is no preparation for it and no resolution. The other note combinations make so traditional sense whatsoever.

The remaining 2.5 bars of the opening phrase are clearly smaller "cells", sequenced to reach a more definitive end to the opening. Looks a lot like atonality. The phrase is built of the two-note descending figure in the soprano of the canon, and the two-note descending tritone in the alto of the canon, then sequenced. Schoenberg called this sort of thing "liquidation". Quite _Pierrot Lunaire_-ish.

The end of the phrase in bar 7 clearly shows the post-tonal thinking of this technique as well. It's an added-note chord of a triad with an added-note a tritone away from the root in the bass. This further substantiates the patterns and intervals established in the previous canon and "liquidation" section.

I do not see how B can even be considered a tonic, since in the entire opening 2-bar phrase that is repeated, out of 20 notes sounded, only 4 of them are Bs.

Is it because it begins the piece in the soprano voice? And is the note on the cadence? Do you know the difference between Centricity and Tonality? Here is a link:

http://openmusictheory.com/symmetry...st-tonal music,becomes something like a tonic.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

> There are two main ways the word 'atonal' is used.


Well, there's a lot more than that, really. Such as equivalent to "music I don't like", or "anything by the Second Viennese School and their followers", or "anything dissonant", or "ugly", or "random", etc.



> One is the way SanAntone described in post #57.


That is the only way. It's very simple. Atonality can ONLY be defined as what TONALITY is NOT. A and not A. If you read SanAntone's post again, you'll see this is what he was saying. You have to understand what TONALITY is *first* before defining atonality. And:

Tonality is music with a tonic.
Atonality is not.

That's it.

You can harp all day long on what makes music have a tonic or not, but it really isn't up for debate. We know the facts of what makes music sound like it has a tonic. And just the mere presence of triads and consonance ain't it. Sorry. The link Phil posted explains it quite well, even though he wants to shroud it in ambiguity, which they didn't. It's very plain and simple.


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

None ..........................


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

haziz said:


> None ..........................


Well..........................thanks for stopping by.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Torkelburger said:


> I do not see how B can even be considered a tonic, since in the entire opening 2-bar phrase that is repeated, out of 20 notes sounded, only 4 of them are Bs.
> 
> Is it because it begins the piece in the soprano voice? And is the note on the cadence? Do you know the difference between Centricity and Tonality? Here is a link:
> 
> http://openmusictheory.com/symmetry...st-tonal music,becomes something like a tonic.


Thanks for the clarification. I had not heard the term 'centricity' before. But I believe the word atonal is still kind of ambiguous. Ligeti said his etudes (and music in general) is neither tonal, nor atonal, so according to him it's not necessarily 1 or the other. But still in the link I posted, it suggests major-minor tonality is not the only type of tonality. Maybe he's saying it could include other modes, and maybe he is saying something with centricity. He left it open to interpretation in my view, and some others supposedly.

See here:

"Although Scriabin's music developed in harmonic complexity, *it never became atonal.*"

https://www.westcorkmusic.ie/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/4.-Russian-Masters_Programme-Notes.pdf

There are even some who argue Schoenberg's Klavierstucke is tonal, but they couldn't agree on which key. But what that suggests is there is a certain however slim middle range between tonal and atonality, where it doesn't fit either.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

> But I believe the word atonal is still kind of ambiguous. Ligeti said his etudes is not tonal, nor atonal, so according to him it's not necessarily 1 or the other.


Thank you. Yeah, this reminds me of a conversation I once had with a prominent religious critic on the internet who I won't name. I asked him why he does not label himself as an atheist or agnostic atheist, etc. And he said that theist and atheist were not the only options. He said for example, that one cannot be sure if they believe in a god or not. I didn't say anything. But that is wrong. There are still only two options. A and not A. You either have the belief in a god(s), or you lack that belief. If you are unsure, then that is *still* lacking the belief, as you *still* do not possess it (because you are unsure, you lack the belief). You do not disbelieve, but that is not what defines you as an atheist. It's simply lacking the positive belief. I'm thinking people may have a similar type of distortion of tonality...but IDK.

So, even very intelligent people who we greatly respect can still be casting unnecessary doubt on terms that are, in fact, clear and concise.



> But still in the link I posted, it suggests major-minor tonality is not the only type of tonality. Maybe he's saying it could include other modes, and maybe he is saying something with centricity. He left it open to interpretation in my view, and some others supposedly.


I'll take another look and see if I have any further comments tomorrow.



> See here:
> 
> "Although Scriabin's music developed in harmonic complexity, it never became atonal."


This is an unproven assertion. I backed up my assertion with facts and evidence. By all means, if you agree with the above quote, then provide a detailed analysis of the pieces tonality. First 7 bars is fine. Define your definition of tonality (beyond "how I hear it", and how the bars in question satisfy that criteria).

When were done with that, we will see why or why not the Schoenberg piece I posted is afforded the same kind of analysis and history book publishers need to be contacted, as it has more tonality going for it than the Scriabin, IMO (which I can back up, if needed).


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

arpeggio said:


> Carter
> Berg
> Corigliano (He composes a mixture of tonal and atonal music. Sometimes, like if the last movement of his Clarinet Concerto, he employ a tone row.)


The third movement of Corigliano's _Piano Concerto_ is 12-tone, and where the "melody" states the row verbatim in order note-for-note.

I attended a couple lectures at Harvard (I wasn't a student there, they were open to the public) in the 1990s where he was a guest speaker. All the pieces we looked at he started with a tone row matrix in order to get his pitch content for the piece. He denied being a 12-tone composer because he would repeat single notes, groups of notes, or change an ordering here-and-there very rarely. He just said he used the matrix to have quick access to chromatic pitches and dissonance, etc. But in actuality, he is wrong, that doesn't preclude you from being a 12-tone composer. Those are perfectly acceptable things to do in the technique. Very few people understand that.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Here's an interesting definition of atonality from Britannica:
*atonality*, in music, the absence of functional harmony as a primary structural element.

According to that, even this by Ligeti which only uses octaves is atonal:


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

I think a better question is, Who are three of your favorite composers who have extensively and effectively used alternatives to conventional western harmony? Leaving aside early innovators like Debussy and Stravinsky, I think of Messiaen, Boulez and Crumb.

Use of the word "atonal" here tends to inhibit calm and thoughtful discussion.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Phil loves classical said:


> Here's an interesting definition of atonality from Britannica:
> *atonality*, in music, the absence of functional harmony as a primary structural element.


That is how I defined atonality in an earlier post. It is how it has been taught for decades, AFAIK.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

fluteman said:


> I think a better question is, Who are three of your favorite composers who have extensively and effectively used alternatives to conventional western harmony? Leaving aside early innovators like Debussy and Stravinsky, I think of Messiaen, Boulez and Crumb.
> 
> Use of the word "atonal" here tends to inhibit calm and thoughtful discussion.


Non-pitched percussion is "atonal" but it isn't "tonal" either. Ionization by Edgar Varése is a prime example of works which defy CP categorization but are not harsh or dissonant. Also, the prepared piano music of John Cage is non-tonal (a term I prefer), but is also not dissonant.

There seems to be the assumption by a number of members that atonal = ugly, which I do not accept.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> That is how I defined atonality in an earlier post. It is how it has been taught for decades, AFAIK.


What does modal mean? In this piece, which I think is modal, I don't think there's functional harmony but it doesn't sound like Babbitt.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

Modal music is a touchy subject, but inasmuch as modal harmony and melody in *jazz* is concerned, I was always taught that chords have functions just like major-minor tonality/CPT. You have a tonic or I chord. And there are chord progressions at cadences that sound final and resolute, such as bVII to i in Aeolian. Which is like dominant to tonic. Therefore, bVI to bVII to i would be like subdominant to dominant to tonic. Or in Phrygian, the melodic flat 2 to 1 has a resolving type effect not unlike a leading tone, so to speak. And cadences in that mode too like bII to i, or bvii to i. And so on.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

Mandryka said:


> What does modal mean? In this piece, which I think is modal, I don't think there's functional harmony but it doesn't sound like Babbitt.


Even today, we don't use the "hyper" modes once used in ancient Greece. We find them too dissonant.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Phil loves classical said:


> Here's an interesting definition of atonality from Britannica:
> *atonality*, in music, the absence of functional harmony as a primary structural element.
> 
> According to that, even this by Ligeti which only uses octaves is atonal:


So does that make Indian classical Music and every other tradition that consists of a monodic modal material over a drone atonal? In which case the word seems to have little use

So most all the traditional music of the world is atonal?


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Torkelburger said:


> Modal music is a touchy subject, but inasmuch as modal harmony and melody in *jazz* is concerned, I was always taught that chords have functions just like major-minor tonality/CPT. You have a tonic or I chord. And there are chord progressions at cadences that sound final and resolute, such as bVII to i in Aeolian. Which is like dominant to tonic. Therefore, bVI to bVII to i would be like subdominant to dominant to tonic. Or in Phrygian, the melodic flat 2 to 1 has a resolving type effect not unlike a leading tone, so to speak. And cadences in that mode too like bII to i, or bvii to i. And so on.


Per above, how does that relate to monodic modal music accompanied by only a drone?


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

Bwv 1080 said:


> Per above, how does that relate to monodic modal music accompanied by only a drone?


It's related to it as SanAntone explained in post #57 assuming the monodic modal music is diatonic (the term he used in post #57). And diatonic scales have a predictable pattern of whole and half steps which for many reasons make music sound predictable and inevitable in a pitch hierarchy. Further, what sets aside diatonic scales (in regards to their their hierarchy, predictability, and inevitability) from atonal scales such as symmetrical scales, is the fact they possess the property of uniqueness, meaning they contain each interval class a unique number of times. That property assists with determining the location of notes in relation to the first note of the scale.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

Bwv 1080 said:


> So does that make Indian classical Music and every other tradition that consists of a monodic modal material over a drone atonal? In which case the word seems to have little use
> 
> *So most all the traditional music of the world is atonal?*


Those based on pentatonic scales, such as gamelan and ancient chinese music, is. Aboriginal music is which only has one note (the upper partial is more percussive than anything else mostly). All of these are since there is no hierarchy, key, scales, functional harmony, all those criteria mentioned in the link Phil posted.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Torkelburger said:


> It's related to it as SanAntone explained in post #57 assuming the monodic modal music is diatonic (the term he used in post #57). And diatonic scales have a predictable pattern of whole and half steps which for many reasons make music sound predictable and inevitable in a pitch hierarchy. Further, what sets aside diatonic scales (in regards to their their hierarchy, predictability, and inevitability) from atonal scales such as symmetrical scales, is the fact they possess the property of uniqueness, meaning they contain each interval class a unique number of times. That property assists with determining the location of notes in relation to the first note of the scale.


But not just diatonic - this is a mode over a drone (scale is like melodic minor with a #4)






and the Dorian mode is symmetrical


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

Bwv 1080 said:


> But not just diatonic - this is a mode over a drone
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Does it have a tonic?

The dorian mode is diatonic too.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Torkelburger said:


> Does it have a tonic?
> 
> The dorian mode is diatonic too.


Is the drone not the tonic? All raags have a 'Sa' which is the drone note and tonic of the scale

but you agree then that the absence of functional harmony does not make something atonal, contra to Brittanica?

I dont have access, but Oxford / Grove dictionary of music defines atonal with the traditional def,

_Not in any key, hence atonality. Schoenberg preferred the term pantonal, denoting synthesis of all keys. Atonality is usually applied where there is no tonal centre and the notes of the chromatic scale are used impartially: the 12 notes of the octave function independently, unrelated to a key centre. Atonality is foreshadowed in the mus. of Debussy and Scriabin, even Liszt, but can perhaps be dated from the finale of Schoenberg's 2nd str. qt. (1908). From atonality there developed the twelve‐note system. With atonality, consonances and dissonances of trad. harmony no longer apply._

https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095432359


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

Bwv 1080 said:


> Is the drone not the tonic? All raags have a 'Sa' which is the drone note and tonic of the scale


Then it's tonal


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> What does modal mean? In this piece, which I think is modal, I don't think there's functional harmony but it doesn't sound like Babbitt.


There are seven modern modes, the first of which, the Ionian, is the same as the major scale, and the sixth, the Aeolian, is the same as the natural minor scale. Some modes are rarely used but a few turn up occasionally, such as the Dorian often occurs in Jazz, e.g. Miles Davis's "So What". The most common expression of modes is probably in Gregorian chant.

Modal music does not conform entirely with diatonic tonality, but at the same time it is not atonal in the strict sense since modes are so closely related to diatonic scales and the harmonic triads built on the mode degrees will often mirror and functional like those found in diatonic scales, although with specific differences, e.g. a minor triad built up from 5th degree instead of the usual dominant harmony.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

Bwv 1080 said:


> Is the drone not the tonic? All raags have a 'Sa' which is the drone note and tonic of the scale
> 
> *but you agree then that the absence of functional harmony does not make something atonal, contra to Brittanica?*
> 
> ...


Correct. As I've said (and others) several times previously already, what makes something atonal is how you define tonal. Period. And tonal is defined by one thing and one thing alone--music with a tonic. That is all. Therefore, atonality = NOT music with a tonic. A and not A.

The link that Phil posted showed several ways in which a tonic is identified in music, of which only functional harmony is but one criteria. But it is not the only one, or completely necessary at all. No kind of harmony AT ALL is necessary for establishing a tonic.

People are confusing the concept of proposition A with an opposing proposition B, and the concept of A and not A. Those do not mean the same thing. Saying you believe in god and saying god does not exist are not the same thing as saying you believe in god and you do not believe in god (lack the belief). It's the EXACT same thing with tonality. People think it's A and B. Like we have to come up with some sort of extravagant definition of atonality that directly opposes tonality in some way we list with property A B C and D, etc. Nope. It's A and not A. Those are two different things.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

And the two examples I cited, the piano pieces by Walter Zimmermann and Mark R Taylor. Is there a tonic? Are they atonal? If there is I don’t hear it but I know I’m very bad at that sort of thing.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Another example, from Stockhausen, is this atonal?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

My real point is that this concept of atonal is too broad to be particularly useful. We need to make distinctions among musics with no tonic to have a valuable discussion.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Bwv 1080 said:


> Is the drone not the tonic? All raags have a 'Sa' which is the drone note and tonic of the scale
> 
> but you agree then that the absence of functional harmony does not make something atonal, contra to Brittanica?
> 
> ...


One one of the many occasions here when debates have arisen as to the meaning of "atonal", I said, without looking anything up, that I've seen the word used in a broad sense and a narrow sense. Eventually, as this debate showed no signs of fading away here, I finally did do a quick Google search. Sure enough, at the top of the page, from that most authoritative and accurate source, Wikipedia, I read:

Atonality in its broadest sense is music that lacks a tonal center, or key. Atonality, in this sense, usually describes compositions written from about the early 20th-century to the present day, where a hierarchy of harmonies focusing on a single, central triad is not used, and the notes of the chromatic scale function independently of one another.[2] More narrowly, the term atonality describes music that does not conform to the system of tonal hierarchies that characterized European classical music between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries.

The debate (and periodic confusion) continues here, as many posters, especially those with at least some formal music education, gravitate towards the first definition, while others are very vocal and persistent in their support of the second. I see no point in these endless debates over definitions. I think it's better to avoid the word altogether.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I think getting too literal about the word 'atonal' obfuscates more than it clarifies. Torkelburger's idea that Glass is atonal is an example of this. Impressionism and minimalism like Glass use musical harmonies that sound natural to the ear, they sound as though there is a kind of logic and magnetism as to how the chords are used. 

Schoenberg's method on the other hand is about extinguishing harmony. The resulting sound is very far removed from impressionism and the kind of minimalism we find in the music of Glass. 

In this sense I think the more vague and less literal use of the word atonal is actually more useful because it differentiates from what is generally perceived as more natural 'ear' music, from music that is trying to subvert this kind of effect. 

My guess as to why Torkelburger and SanAntone want to group all the kinds of music together that differ from the kind of harmonic uses we find in the common practice period as 'atonal' is because in their mind composers that write in 12 tone and other non tone-centric styles are like the 'underdogs' of music who have been wrongly vilified. Everything should be fair and none should be discriminated against so calling one thing atonal and not the other is in their view unethical. They will likely deny this and imply they are being more to the letter definitive and in this sense 'scientific'.

As far as I am aware there are no music conservatories today that teach that there is any moral dimension to music, or how it might effect the spirit. In today's world these things are looked at as hocus pocus. I however am not so quick to dismiss these other dimensions of music, and prefer to differentiate between styles that sound like they are based on magnetic harmonic principles that are more aligned with the natural laws of harmony and the overtone series, and styles that just sound wrong to me on a 'gut level'. 

I will continue to use atonal in this broader sense, the way that many others use it here, because it makes more sense to me in that way, and I think the term is more useful in that way. To use it the way Torkelburger suggests renders the term essentially useless in describing post romantic styles of music.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

Yes, when you have no argument and cannot even define your terms when asked, just go with outright arrogance and say your gut feeling trumps all your opponents well thought out arguments. Fortunately, all of us can stick our fingers in our ears and say Nyah nyah nyah I’m not listening. Btw, you keep saying atonality is a style. It’s a technique, not a style. The avoidance of a tonic. I know. I know. You have a gut feeling it’s a style so that means a style…but I don’t know, whose gut feeling is right? Are you sure it’s not obfuscated?


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

tdc said:


> ..... I ... prefer to differentiate between styles that sound like they are based on magnetic harmonic principles that are more aligned with the natural laws of harmony and the overtone series, and styles that just sound wrong to me on a 'gut level'.
> 
> I will continue to use atonal in this broader sense, the way that many others use it here, because it makes more sense to me in that way, and I think the term is more useful in that way. ....


So, music that in your opinion is aligned with the natural laws of harmony is "tonal", and music that just sounds wrong to you on a 'gut level' is "atonal"? And you believe that definition is more useful than those of Torkelburger and SanAntone?

I rest my case.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

tdc said:


> I think getting too literal about the word 'atonal' obfuscates more than it clarifies. Torkelburger's idea that Glass is atonal is an example of this. Impressionism and minimalism like Glass use musical harmonies that sound natural to the ear, they sound as though there is a kind of logic and magnetism as to how the chords are used.
> 
> Schoenberg's method on the other hand is about extinguishing harmony. The resulting sound is very far removed from impressionism and the kind of minimalism we find in the music of Glass.
> 
> ...


As Torkelburger pointed out in one of his last posts, harmony is not necessary to establish a tonic, which I agree with, as in a more broad view tonal music doesn't necessarily have to be CPT or major-minor keys as some definitions have it. Bartok played around with some crazy key signatures, and still established a tonic, sometimes more than one as in Hands Crossing in Mikrokosmos Vol. 4 at around 1:14.00

I recall Bartok wrote that he had thought he discovered something completely new in music, until he realized certain folk songs in Eastern Europe (can't recall the countries or find the quote anymore) contained that thing he was seeking. Tonal music with unconventional harmony.






I still maintain that in Scriabin's 9th Sonata, he established a tonic of B natural by starting and ending and sustaining on the note in the strong beats in the first few bars, before heading elsewhere or combining different harmonies, and then returns to from time to time.


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

Torkelburger said:


> Modal music is a touchy subject, but inasmuch as modal harmony and melody in *jazz* is concerned, I was always taught that chords have functions just like major-minor tonality/CPT. You have a tonic or I chord. And there are chord progressions at cadences that sound final and resolute, such as bVII to i in Aeolian. Which is like dominant to tonic. Therefore, bVI to bVII to i would be like subdominant to dominant to tonic. Or in Phrygian, the melodic flat 2 to 1 has a resolving type effect not unlike a leading tone, so to speak. And cadences in that mode too like bII to i, or bvii to i. And so on.


But if the modes are tonal, then I don't see why symmetrical scales, e.g. Messiaen modes, shouldn't be tonal.

For example the Octatonic scale also has the flat 2 to 1, like phrygian. I think that an octatonic chord progression like c#d#g to ceg has a resolving effect like a cadence into a c-major chord.

I think there are many Messiaen pieces that fit your description of "final and resolute cadences".

This one for example:






Just looking at the first 3 bars: The first chord is F#-Major in 1st inversion. The First chord in the 3rd bar (at 0:20) is again a F#-major (in root position with added sixth) which sounds like a resolution, probably because it was approached by half steps via more dissonant chords in the second bar. This kind of chord progressions with a cadential feel keep reoccurring in this and other messiaen pieces, so maybe he indeed shouldn't count as atonal?


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

^^^Continual reference to a pitch centre or chord, does not always technically make the music simply tonal (as the term, along with atonality is accurately defined above by TB and SA), no matter the concordance and resolution one feels when it happens. I do agree with your observation though chipia, i.e. that tonality (as in a gravitationally strong tonic) is important here, as is also evidenced by the key signature, which is also indicitive of Messiaen's thinking. Fsharp major for him has divine implications and his use of added 6th chords is a recurring motif in his work.

However, none of this makes him a tonal composer in the strict definition of the term. His use of modes and derived harmony is a long way from period defined functional harmony, even if some compositional procedures might be similar and/or familiar. In fact he himself describes his modes as not tonal or serial....(my bolded)

_"He explains that *his modes of limited transposition have nothing to do with tonalities,* neither with rows, nor with (his detailed expositions of) Chinese, Hindu, Greek, and church modes, claiming that "the chords that can be formed with the modes have to be thought and read modally, and* not following the rules of classical harmony" *(Messiaen 1992: 50, my translation). *Rather than in terms of tonic and dominant, or serial principles, he defines them as "colors, harmonic colors". *_


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

A way to (over?)simplify the discussion would be determining that there are two major interpretations of the musical concept of tonality:
- a combination of a fixed, dominant key and the harmonic functions associated with traditional harmony
- a mere tone center that's used as an anchor for the musical proceedings, without any necessary connection to established harmonic functionality, or even the use of triads as "building blocks".

If the most strict definition is used, even Schubert's music would be considered atonal at places. Take the following famous fragment from the piano sonata D850:









Traditional harmonic functions are sacrificed here for a game of contrasting colors: instead of tonic - (sub)dominant relationships, chords are used here that are a third apart, and chosen because of musical color only, not function. Most striking is the shift from D major to an F# major 6/4 chord in the 2nd system - and back, without the F# chord resolving in a traditional way. Also notice how Schubert makes a big statement of arriving at Gb major in a G major piece...
This is really modern music, with tone color being more important than harmonic logic, and claiming that Schubert paved the way for Wagner and Schoenberg isn't an exaggeration.

The second definition is what I use for my own music. I consider it tonal and I always use key signatures, but only the melodic patterns are related to traditional tonality (since they make use of major/minor or modal scales), not the harmony, which merely results from the (often dissonant) combination of contrapuntal voices.
I'm not claiming any originality here, I guess this concept (having counterpoint "decide" about harmony) was and is widely used by composers who used and use a fairly conservative idiom.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

Chipia,

I’ll start the explanation with a question.

Is there a tonic in the chromatic scale?


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

Also chipia, do you understand post #83? In particular the part about uniqueness?


----------



## Doublestring (Sep 3, 2014)

1. Schönberg
2. Ligeti
3. Berg


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

chipia said:


> But if the modes are tonal, then I don't see why symmetrical scales, e.g. Messiaen modes, shouldn't be tonal.
> 
> For example the Octatonic scale also has the flat 2 to 1, like phrygian. I think that an octatonic chord progression like c#d#g to ceg has a resolving effect like a cadence into a c-major chord.
> 
> ...


From my non-authoritative view, I would say in symmetrical scales it is hard to form a pitch centre or hierarchy (in practice). My own definition of tonality which I hope will every dictionary will come to adopt  is that a piece of music with a tonal centre or hierarchy in any asssymetrical scale forms a certain kind tonality. That way it includes scales /modes of other cultures. In the diatonic scale it's obvious the pitch centre doesn't have to be as in major and minor scales, and songs/pieces in such modes as Dorian can be considered tonal.

"Within a set scale it is possible to emphasize a particular pitch in such a way that it seems to become the pitch centre. Such variations of pitch centre within a scale yield different modes."

https://www.britannica.com/art/Chinese-music/Tonal-system-and-its-theoretical-rationalization

I think Wikipedia says it quite well:
"Tonality is the arrangement of pitches and/or chords of a musical work in a hierarchy of *perceived relations*, stabilities, attractions and directionality. "

From Brittanica again:
"tonality, in music, principle of organizing musical compositions around a central note, the tonic. Generally, any Western or non-Western music periodically returning to a central, or focal, tone exhibits tonality. " strangely this is not the exact opposite of its definition of atonality which is the absence of functional harmony.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

fluteman said:


> Atonality in its broadest sense is music that lacks a tonal center, or key. Atonality, in this sense, usually describes compositions written from about the early 20th-century to the present day, where a hierarchy of harmonies focusing on a single, central triad is not used, and the notes of the chromatic scale function independently of one another.[2] More narrowly, the term atonality describes music that does not conform to the system of tonal hierarchies that characterized European classical music between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries.
> 
> The debate (and periodic confusion) continues here, as many posters, especially those with at least some formal music education, gravitate towards the first definition, while others are very vocal and persistent in their support of the second. I see no point in these endless debates over definitions. I think it's better to avoid the word altogether.


Yes, I dont see how [2] is a workable definition - it makes too much music 'atonal' - all non-western music and a good deal of contemporary popular music. The word works as a catch-all description for a particular tradition of modernist music stemming from the Second Viennese School based on the chromatic scale (including some w/ microtones like Ferneyhough), but is of little use as a precise technical term and is of no use describing music not part of this niche within the Western classical music tradition


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

> But if the modes are tonal, then I don't see why symmetrical scales, e.g. Messiaen modes, shouldn't be tonal.


The reason is because symmetrical scales do not have a tonic. And if you don't have a tonic, it isn't tonal. Let's look at some symmetrical scales.

Look at the whole tone scale. What is the tonic of the whole tone scale? There isn't one. Why? Because any pitch you decide to use will never sound like a tonic. Every note in the scale is separated from its neighbors by the exact same interval. If you start on C, all the other notes of the scale are exactly the same distance away from C as if you had started the scale on D. Or E, or F#. And so on. There is no leading tone because all the intervals between notes are whole steps.

So, if you were trying to make C the tonic, you can't because going D to C melodically to resolve is no different than E to D, or C to Bb, or Bb to Ab. It all sounds the same and you have no point of reference for where you are.

Also, how do you know which whole tone scale you are talking about? There are two. Theorists do not usually denote the whole tone scale by a starting pitch but rather like a set designation. 0 (zero) or 1 (one). Or some other label. You do not say "C whole tone". But rather "Whole Tone 0" and we will know it is the entire set collection of the scale you are talking about.



> For example the Octatonic scale also has the flat 2 to 1, like phrygian.


Really? What's the tonic (or just "1" if you want) of the octatonic scale? Or, in other words, if I was to look at a Phrygian mode, how many "flat 2s to 1s" would I find? Since you don't answer, I'll answer for you: ONE.

Ok, now look at an octatonic scale. How many "flat 2s to 1s" do you find now? Hint: FOUR.

So, which one is the "real" tonic, then in the octatonic scale? The "real" 1? Hint: None of them. You'd have to choose one but it's completely arbitrary. Totally by your whims. Nothing mechanical from the scale.

Yes, Phrygian has another half step between b6 and 5, but it is not the same as the b2 to 1. Why, because the REST OF THE SCALE IS VARIED. The 5 can't sound like the 1, because of the b2 (If we are in C, the B can't sound like the E in Phrygian (be mistaken for another "root") because the F is too low. The E has a *B* 4 steps below it.)

Notice, though, that DOESN'T HAPPEN in the octatonic example. ***THE REST OF THE SCALE ISN'T VARIED***. Every note in the scale is separated from its neighbors by the exact same intervals. One neighbor by a whole step and the other by a half step. So, there is nothing to differentiate one flat 2 to 1 from another. There is nothing to differentiate ANY pattern you do on the scale transposed to any other degree. Just like a whole tone scale, or a chromatic scale. Going A-Bb-G is exactly the same as going C-Db-Bb. They have the exact same sound (just one is higher, but that doesn't make something more tonal, etc.). They are functionally the same. If you start on C, all the other notes of the scale are exactly the same distance away from C as if you had started the scale on any other note of the scale (including inverted (descending)). You cannot decipher a leading tone because ALL of the pitches in the scale are exactly a half step away from a neighbor and have the same pitch relation to all other pitches.
So, if you were trying to make C the tonic, you can't because going Db to C melodically to resolve is no different than E to Eb, or Bb to A, etc. etc. It all sounds the same and you have no point of reference for where you are.

Also, how do you know which octatonic scale you are talking about? There are three. Theorists do not usually denote the octatonic scale by a starting pitch but rather like a set designation. 0 (zero) or 1 (one) or 2 (two). You do not say "C-Db Octatonic". But rather "Octatonic 1" and we will know it is the entire set collection of the scale you are talking about. It is a SET. No root or tonic. Just like WT and chromatic.

Which also leads us to uniqueness. The location of notes in relation to the first note of the scale is assisted by uniqueness. The property of uniqueness is when the scale contains each interval class a unique number of times.

So, look at the whole tone for example. How many perfect fourths are there? Zero. How many perfect fifths? None. How many minor seconds? None. How many major sevenths? None. And so on.

Compare this to the major scale. See the variety?

Do the same for the other symmetrical scales. See the problem? Here's the thing, though. It's not only what intervals are missing. It's also which ones are duplicated.

For instance, if a certain Messiaen Mode is missing a perfect fourth and perfect fifth. But it has a tritone, two minor seconds (major sevenths), and three minor thirds (I don't know if this is the case for one), it would cause problems determining the first note of the scale because of the missing and duplicated interval classes.



> I think that an octatonic chord progression like c#d#g to ceg has a resolving effect like a cadence into a c-major chord.


You could do that on any collection of pitches in that scale with the same interval relationships (several choices), so it is not unique. That doesn't make it tonal. It's completely arbitrary. Also, that is done all the time with non-triadic tonality as well. I could just as easily make the pitch classes A-Bb-Eb-F a "tonic" chord (starting the piece with it, repeating it, and putting it on strong beats as Phil suggests) and then "resolve" the chord at cadences via common tones and stepwise motion. This is taught in schools.

postscript--here is the link to uniqueness stuff so everyone knows I'm not making this stuff up. It's wikipedia but the reference is given

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

Whole tone/Symmetrical scales called atonal here:

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


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Torkelburger said:


> The reason is because symmetrical scales do not have a tonic. And if you don't have a tonic, it isn't tonal. Let's look at some symmetrical scales.


This is the octatonic scale with a drone, sounds tonal to me






Whole tone and octatonic scales also get used in dominant functions, if you play one of these over a V7 is that atonal?

Again, the dorian mode is symmetrical so if you are going to make a blanket statement of symmetric = atonal need to account for that (also some exotic scales used tonally like Hungarian Minor are symmetrical)


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Bwv 1080 said:


> Yes, I dont see how [2] is a workable definition - it makes too much music 'atonal' - all non-western music and a good deal of contemporary popular music.


A lot of it is atonal. This is maybe inconvenient if you want to argue that atonality is against human nature or something, but the fixation with tonality is closer to being an unusual aspect about western classical period music than something natural.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Bwv 1080 said:


> This is the octatonic scale with a drone, sounds tonal to me
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, it sounds concordant (I listened to the first mvt). As you'll know Bwv, it's modal linear writing over a pedal. Modal writing and its exploitation of inherent intervals to create finals via emphasis, melodic shape and phrasing is a pre-tonal concept. Besides, the pedal is bound to become the centre of gravity and resonate more or less so with the intervals above. It's modal not tonal imv and one could say it's atonal with the strictest definition of the word.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

> This is the octatonic scale with a drone, sounds tonal to me


It isn't.

I assumed the piece you posted yesterday was modal and therefore had pitch hierarchy, variation, intervallic uniqueness, etc. etc. Now I'm thinking you were saying that it had a tonic BECAUSE there was a DRONE.

Um, drones don't make something tonal. Emphasizing a note does not make that pitch the tonic. That would be centricity.

Take this piece:






Debussy made a "drone" from the Bb pedal. But is it the tonic? No. Why? Because he could have chosen any note from that SAME scale with the SAME music, and it wouldn't have changed anything. THAT NEW NOTE would have sounded like the "tonic".
Or in other words, did Debussy have a choice in the matter with which note to "drone" for the "tonic"? Yes. He could have chosen any of the notes in the scale. His hand was not forced.

If he wrote this piece in D Dorian and wanted to "drone" on the "tonic", would he have a choice in the matter with which note to "drone" for the "tonic"? Nope. He could NOT have chosen any of the notes in the scale/mode. His hand WOULD be forced if he wants to "drone" on the "tonic" of the scale and sound "dorian".

It's the same with your example. Is the drone note the tonic? No. Why? Because he could have chosen any note from the SAME collection of pitches/scale and it wouldn't have changed anything. Want to emphasize a different note, no problem. No need to change the scale at all. Just land on another note at the cadence. Your hand isn't forced. Flip a coin to choose which note to drone. It doesn't matter.

If you are going to suggest that drones make something tonal, then I want a source for that. I already gave one source for why just emphasizing a note above others (with no other tonic identifying techniques as in Phil's link) is centricity, not tonality.



> Whole tone and octatonic scales also get used in dominant functions, if you play one of these over a V7 is that atonal?


If I play a 12-tone row over a V7, then 12-tone rows are tonal too, right? If not, then I could just play a drone under the row, right?


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

It seems to me the above two posts by fbjim and mikeh375, as well as many if not most of the posts preceding them, only confirm the futility of these debates over what is tonal or atonal. These terms, like many others, can be useful in certain contexts, but like fire, are good servants and bad masters.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

mikeh375 said:


> Yes, it sounds concordant (I listened to the first mvt). As you'll know Bwv, it's modal linear writing over a pedal. Modal writing and its exploitation of inherent intervals to create finals via emphasis, melodic shape and phrasing is a pre-tonal concept. Besides, the pedal is bound to become the centre of gravity and resonate more or less so with the intervals above. It's modal not tonal imv and one could say it's atonal with the strictest definition of the word.


Is that modal? I thought he said octatonic?


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

The problem with this debate is that atonality is a style of music stemming from the second Viennese school, not a technical definition. Arguing about whether something is atonal is analogous is like arguing whether something is Jazz or not. What has a tonal center (and what that tonal center is) remains always subject to debate. You can even find analysis of Second Viennese works arguing for local or broad tonal centers.


----------



## Doublestring (Sep 3, 2014)

I prefer to distinguish three basic systems: modal, tonal and atonal. Modal can be divided further into natural and artificial. There's also expanded tonality, which sometimes comes close to atonality through its far reaching chromaticism. Tonal music can also incorporate modal elements. And finally music can be polytonal or -modal, but that's just using two or more things at the same time. So you get something like this:

*Modal*
*Natural modes: Church modes, pentatonic, heptatonic oriental modes, blues scale, etc.
*Artificial: Whole tone scale, octotonic, Messiaen modes, modes with microtones

*Tonal*
*Major, minor
*Expanded tonality: chromaticism in Wagner, late Liszt, Scriabin, early Schönberg; etc.

*Polytonal or polymodal*
*Bitonal/polytonal: Charles Ives
*Polymodal: Some works by Stravinsky, Debussy etc.

*Atonal*
*Free atonal: Schoenberg, Berg and Webern in the 1910s
*Dodecaphonic: Same composers in the 1920s
*Atonal with microtones


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Torkelburger said:


> It isn't.
> 
> I assumed the piece you posted yesterday was modal and therefore had pitch hierarchy, variation, intervallic uniqueness, etc. etc. Now I'm thinking you were saying that it had a tonic BECAUSE there was a DRONE.
> 
> ...


You ought to be more specific as your argument - your assertions about symmetrical scales really refer to only those some transpositional invariance, not all symmetrical scales. You can phrase an octatonic or whole tone scale to imply a center on a particular pitch either with or without a drone. But again, tonality or centricity is a nebulous concept tied to a particular musical style - Indian music always has a tonal center, even with complicated raga structures with ascending and descending 'chromatic' alterations

You could easily write a passage with a 12-tone row, played either over a drone or a V7 chord that would sound like a major or minor scale with chromatic passing notes, in which case the passage would be tonal

All this illustrates is how useless this type of analysis is - how does labeling Voiles atonal help in understanding the piece? of more interest is the emphasis on the local drone and the extent to which it establishes of some center


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

Bwv 1080 said:


> The problem with this debate is that atonality is a style of music stemming from the second Viennese school, not a technical definition. Arguing about whether something is atonal is analogous is like arguing whether something is Jazz or not. What has a tonal center (and what that tonal center is) remains always subject to debate. You can even find analysis of Second Viennese works arguing for local or broad tonal centers.


I disagree. Is tonality a style too? Like Beethoven and Vivaldi both use tonality. Are they the same style? No, it's an analytical term to label and describe the melodic and/or harmonic pitch structure/elements. Which is one of many aspects of the music (like a painting have the color "blue"). How someone uses tonality or not, along with SEVERAL, if not MANY, other factors, contribute to a "style". It is not the style itself.

Besides, I don't see anyone the vast majority here strictly limiting themselves to the SVS and their followers. Everyone seems to get the gist of it. There were just a few posts from a handful of people who have to try and muddy the waters.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Torkelburger said:


> I disagree. Is tonality a style too? Like Beethoven and Vivaldi both use tonality. Are they the same style? No, it's an analytical term to label and describe the melodic and/or harmonic pitch structure/elements. Which is one of many aspects of the music (like a painting have the color "blue"). How someone uses tonality or not, along with SEVERAL, if not MANY, other factors, contribute to a "style". It is not the style itself.


CP tonality is a style, just like functional Jazz harmony is a separate style



> Besides, I don't see anyone the vast majority here strictly limiting themselves to the SVS and their followers. Everyone seems to get the gist of it. There were just a few posts from a handful of people who have to try and muddy the waters.


Actually most everyone posted composers part of the modernist tradition that began with the 2nd Viennese school


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

> CP tonality is a style, just like functional Jazz harmony is a separate style


No, it isn't.



> Actually most everyone posted composers part of the modernist tradition that began with the 2nd Viennese school


See, that's the problem. The modernist tradition began with Debussy. Way before the SVS.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Doublestring said:


> I prefer to distinguish three basic systems: modal, tonal and atonal. Modal can be divided further into natural and artificial. There's also expanded tonality, which sometimes comes close to atonality through its far reaching chromaticism. Tonal music can also incorporate modal elements. And finally music can be polytonal or -modal, but that's just using two or more things at the same time. So you get something like this:
> 
> *Modal*
> *Natural modes: Church modes, pentatonic, heptatonic oriental modes, blues scale, etc.
> ...


A little more granularity than I would have chosen - but a pretty good overview.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

> You can phrase an octatonic or whole tone scale to imply a center on a particular pitch either with or without a drone.


Sigh. Lord, give me the strength.

I've already acknowledged that SEVERAL times in this thread. You can stop saying it now. That doesn't make it tonal. There are several differences which I've already stated SEVERAL times already as well. I'll say it again. One difference is that you have complete freedom of choice with which what pitch you want to emphasize in a whole tone scale. The scale doesn't MAKE ME CHOOSE a B FLAT as the tonic, can it? Or "THE FIRST SCALE DEGREE"? What would that even mean????

But what about D Dorian? I HAVE to choose D as the tonic. Or if just "dorian" I have to choose "the first scale degree" as the tonic. It MAKES ME CHOOSE. By force. Because of the inherent properties of the scale!

Because of the inherent properties of the octatonic, it's the same as whole tone. Is there even a "first scale degree of the octatonic"? No. It's a set.



> But again, tonality or centricity is a nebulous concept tied to a particular musical style - Indian music always has a tonal center, even with complicated raga structures with ascending and descending 'chromatic' alterations


That's just special pleading. It doesn't make it nebulous at all. Stop spending all your time trying to come up with these "gotcha" moments. It's really very simple. Stop trying to complicate matters.



> You could easily write a passage with a 12-tone row, played either over a drone or a V7 chord that would sound like a major or minor scale with chromatic passing notes, in which case the passage would be tonal


That doesn't make 12-tone rows tonal. Nor does putting atonal music or tone rows over drones, triads, consonant intervals, etc.

We can sit here all day and come up with ridiculous scenarios to make goofy things "tonal" because they are juxtaposed with chords. I can play a phrase with 24 microtones and do the same thing you described above. Or a bunch of noise. If I can drag a chair across the floor and it sounds like it fits in with an underlying chord played by a string quartet in the room, is the noise tonal now? It's like your saying I can now advertise a Ferneyhough String Quartet concert as a "tonal" concert simply by hiring a bass player to stand in the corner and play a drone all night while they quartet is played.

You're looking at things backwards. Putting the cart before the horse.



> All this illustrates is how useless this type of analysis is - how does labeling Voiles atonal help in understanding the piece? of more interest is the emphasis on the local drone and the extent to which it establishes of some center


Really? Can't think of anything, eh? Do you know what Debussy's goals were as a composer? Do you see how this piece (and the Preludes in general of which this is from) accomplishes those goals? Do you see how the tonality plays a role in all of that? Further, I'd say discussing it's groundbreaking melodic and harmonic content helps understand the piece in a historical context.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Torkelburger said:


> No, it isn't.


LOL, yes it is



> See, that's the problem. The modernist tradition began with Debussy. Way before the SVS.


As you are well aware, different strands of modernism branched out after Debussy


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Bwv 1080 said:


> This is the octatonic scale with a drone, sounds tonal to me


That's because you don't understand what "tonal" or "tonality" mean.

One definitive component of tonal music is the presence of *functional harmony*. Tonality is a system in which scale degrees, and the triads built up from them, serve specific functions. For a work to be tonal the presence of consonant or dissonant triads made up from diatonic scales isn't enough. The dissonances have to be resolved according to certain conventions.

While there is plenty of leeway - drones needn't apply.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Torkelburger said:


> No, it isn't.
> 
> See, that's the problem. The modernist tradition began with Debussy. Way before the SVS.


Yes, I was careful to mention Debussy and Stravinsky, and even more careful to avoid using the term 'atonal'. Yet this same old debate arises again. It should be obvious that music can have nothing to do with the Second Viennese School yet still be atonal, at least in the sense of the "general" definition in Wikipedia. Composers well within the 17th-19th century European tradition still wrote music that at least featured atonal aspects or passages. So, the fact that this debate drags on demonstrates that people are using the term in different ways, or to be more precise, thinking of it in different contexts.

For me, any music not entirely based on tonal hierarchies created by the diatonic (or other asymmetrical) scale is in some sense, or to some degree, atonal. But, so what? It isn't a very meaningful concept in the abstract.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> That's because you don't understand what "tonal" or "tonality" mean.
> 
> One definitive component of tonal music is the presence of *functional harmony*. Tonality is a system in which scale degrees, and the triads built up from them, serve specific functions. For a work to be tonal the presence of consonant or dissonant triads made up from diatonic scales isn't enough. The dissonances have to be resolved according to certain conventions.
> 
> While there is plenty of leeway - drones needn't apply.


I understand perfectly well, this is just semantics. If you define tonal = CP tonality w/ functional harmony then very little music is tonal (including most all non-Western and early music). I find it much clearer to refer to CP tonality as CP tonality then everyone knows what you are referring to. You find both the specific CP tonality definition and broader 'tonal centricity' definition at work.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

> LOL, yes it is


Ok, I'll be the bigger man then and I'll let you have the last word if it makes you feel better.



> As you are well aware, different strands of modernism branched out after Debussy


Bingo. That's exactly what I'm talking about.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Bwv 1080 said:


> I understand perfectly well, this is just semantics. If you define tonal = CP tonality w/ functional harmony then very little music is tonal (including most all non-Western and early music). I find it much clearer to refer to CP tonality as CP tonality then everyone knows what you are referring to. You find both the specific CP tonality definition and broader 'tonal centricity' definition at work.


Clearer still would be to define tonality either in the context of the diatonic scale, that is still the standard in most western music to this very day, or more generally in the context of any asymmetric scale, to use Torkelburger's term. That way, we can define non-Western musical traditions based on non-diatonic asymmetric scales, as many are, as tonal.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

To an extent attempting to define non-Western music in terms of Western music theory is a bit silly, and I believe a lot of developments in the recent past of music theory have been attempting to resolve this in a way that doesn't centralize classical Western tonality as the default. In fact it should be no surprise that a great deal of music around the world doesn't follow standards of western tonality - no more than that many languages don't use English grammar structures.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Bwv 1080 said:


> I understand perfectly well, this is just semantics. If you define tonal = CP tonality w/ functional harmony then very little music is tonal (including most all non-Western and early music). I find it much clearer to refer to CP tonality as CP tonality then everyone knows what you are referring to. You find both the specific CP tonality definition and broader 'tonal centricity' definition at work.


There is plenty of music which is tonal, according to the standard definition of functional diatonic harmony - CP and later. It isn't semantics, it is how music theory has been taught for centuries.


----------



## Gargamel (Jan 5, 2020)

Torkelburger said:


> I can play a phrase with 24 microtones and do the same thing you described above. Or a bunch of noise. If I can drag a chair across the floor and it sounds like it fits in with an underlying chord played by a string quartet in the room, is the noise tonal now? It's like your saying I can now advertise a Ferneyhough String Quartet concert as a "tonal" concert simply by hiring a bass player to stand in the corner and play a drone all night while they quartet is played.


Wouldn't that amount to arguing that music is tonal due to scale degrees and their progressions, not function. (Ie. putting the cart before the horse.) Berg's late music; lots of chord progressions. Most of it is aligned with some tonal scheme, which is heavily emphasized with doublings. But polyphonically, I don't think there's anything explicitly tonal about late Berg.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

fbjim said:


> A lot of it is atonal. This is maybe inconvenient if you want to argue that atonality is against human nature or something, but the fixation with tonality is closer to being an unusual aspect about western classical period music than something natural.


I have to say I've heard many times on this board and elsewhere that most or almost all non-Western music is tonal in explaining how atonality is unnatural. If tonality is confined to the narrow scope of CPT, then that's fine. I read elsewhere it could have tonal centre but not strictly tonal. All depends on how you define. I think in that case it's good to have a 3rd category as Ligeti put it, as fitting neither.

Here is a good piece on clarifying a lot of the disagreement here.

"Some musicians use the terms tonality and tonic only in connection with functional tonality, and pitch centricity and tonal center only in connection with other kinds."

https://wiki.uiowa.edu/display/75128/Tonality


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

Phil loves classical said:


> I have to say I've heard many times on this board and elsewhere that most or almost all non-Western music is tonal in explaining how atonality is unnatural. If tonality is confined to the narrow scope of CPT, then that's fine. I read elsewhere it could have tonal centre but not strictly tonal. All depends on how you define. I think in that case it's good to have a 3rd category as Ligeti put it, as fitting neither.
> 
> Here is a good piece on clarifying a lot of the disagreement here.
> 
> ...


How about instead of obfuscating things worse by changing established definitions (some used for centuries), then just come up with new terms to use?

"it could have tonal centre but not strictly tonal" makes no sense at all with the definition of tonality used for centuries. Tonality means it has a tonic (a tonal center). Something can't have a tonal center and not have a tonal center at the same time. That is a contradiction. That phrase would only make sense if tonal meant something else. Please just use a different term, then.

Same for Maestro Ligeti. The music either has a tonic or it doesn't. Something either EXISTS or it doesn't. Like god. Is there a third option for god's existence. No. He's not halfway there. He either exists or doesn't. Music can't have a tonic and not have one at the same time. Or sort of have one. What does that mean? Just say it has one for crying out loud. And explain how you came to that conclusion.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

Gargamel said:


> Wouldn't that amount to arguing that music is tonal due to scale degrees and their progressions, not function. (Ie. putting the cart before the horse.) Berg's late music; lots of chord progressions. Most of it is aligned with some tonal scheme, which is heavily emphasized with doublings. But polyphonically, I don't think there's anything explicitly tonal about late Berg.


If I understand this correctly, yes.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Torkelburger said:


> How about instead of obfuscating things worse by changing established definitions (some used for centuries), then just come up with new terms to use?
> 
> "it could have tonal centre but not strictly tonal" makes no sense at all with the definition of tonality used for centuries. Tonality means it has a tonic (a tonal center). Something can't have a tonal center and not have a tonal center at the same time. That is a contradiction. That phrase would only make sense if tonal meant something else. Please just use a different term, then.
> 
> Same for Maestro Ligeti. The music either has a tonic or it doesn't. Something either EXISTS or it doesn't. Like god. Is there a third option for god's existence. No. He's not halfway there. He either exists or doesn't. Music can't have a tonic and not have one at the same time. Or sort of have one. What does that mean? Just say it has one for crying out loud. And explain how you came to that conclusion.


My impression for the disagreement is because what was ok for centuries before the 20th century is because of concept of atonality hadn't really existed before 2nd Viennese. Nobody thought of the need to distinguish between tonality and atonality before. People have reconsidered what makes something tonal or not.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

Phil loves classical said:


> My impression for the disagreement is because what was ok for centuries before the 20th century is because of concept of atonality hadn't really existed before 2nd Viennese. Nobody thought of the need to distinguish between tonality and atonality before. People have reconsidered what makes something tonal or not.


No, the concept was around before the SVS.

From a letter dated October 10th 1896 to Henri Gauthier-Villars, Debussy writes (my emphasis):

"[The Prelude a 'l'apres-midi d'un faune] also demonstrates a disdain for the 'constructional knowhow' which is a burden upon our finest intellects. Then again,* it has no respect for tonality!* Rather it's in a mode which is intended to contain all the nuances - I can give you a perfectly logical demonstration of this."

And in conversation with Ernest Guiraud, Debussy stated:

"The tonal scale must be enriched by *other* scales." Since "atonality" was not a term back then, something akin to it is obviously implied. Something "not tonal", "other" than tonal scales, in opposition to a tonal scale, etc.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Colour lies at the heart of Messiaen's music. He believed that terms such as "tonal", "modal" and "serial" are misleading analytical conveniences. For him there were no modal, tonal or serial compositions, only music with or without colour. He said that Claudio Monteverdi, Mozart, Chopin, Richard Wagner, Mussorgsky and Stravinsky all wrote strongly coloured music.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> Colour lies at the heart of Messiaen's music. He believed that terms such as "tonal", "modal" and "serial" are misleading analytical conveniences. For him there were no modal, tonal or serial compositions, only music with or without colour. He said that Claudio Monteverdi, Mozart, Chopin, Richard Wagner, Mussorgsky and Stravinsky all wrote strongly coloured music.


That is an interesting biographical fact about Messiaen. However, music theory is an actual pedagogical discipline and like any scholarly discipline has terminology and accepted technical concepts. One of the primary theoretical concepts is functional harmonic tonality. The principles of functional tonality are used to analyze the music from Bach to Brahms and to some degree further into the 20th century.

Atonality encompasses music which cannot be described by the principles of functional harmonic tonality.

It is really very simple.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> That is an interesting biographical fact about Messiaen. However, music theory is an actual pedagogical discipline and like any scholarly discipline has terminology and accepted technical concepts. One of the primary theoretical concepts is functional harmonic tonality. The principles of functional tonality are used to analyze the music from Bach to Brahms and to some degree further into the 20th century.
> 
> Atonality encompasses music which cannot be described by the principles of functional harmonic tonality.
> 
> It is really very simple.


Which brings us back to the absurdity of calling music without functional harmony, like Palestrina or Machaut, atonal


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Unfortunately Grove is locked up tight behind a paywall, but the Wikipedia article conveys the ambiguousness of the term well enough and most of the references below are to the 2001 New Grove Dictionary of Music



> At least eight distinct senses of the word "tonality" (and corresponding adjective, "tonal"), some mutually exclusive, have been identified.[2][vague]
> 
> 1. Systematic organization
> The word tonality may describe any systematic organization of pitch phenomena in any music at all, including pre-17th century western music as well as much non-western music, such as music based on the slendro and pelog pitch collections of Indonesian gamelan, or employing the modal nuclei of the Arabic maqam or the Indian raga system.
> ...


...



> *The noun "tonality" and adjective "tonal" are widely applied also, in studies of early and modern Western music, and in non-Western traditional music (Arabic maqam, Indian raga, Indonesian slendro etc.), to the "systematic arrangements of pitch phenomena and relations between them"*.[50] Felix Wörner, Ullrich Scheideler, and Philip Rupprecht in the introduction to a collection of essays dedicated to the concept and practice of tonality between 1900 and 1950 describe it generally as "the awareness of key in music".[51]
> 
> Harold Powers, in a series of articles, used terms "sixteenth-century tonalities"[52] and "Renaissance tonality".[53] He borrowed German "Tonartentyp" from Siegfried Hermelink [de],[54] who related it to Palestrina, translated it into English as "tonal type",[55] and systematically applied the concept of "tonal types" to Renaissance sacred and paraliturgical polyphony. Cristle Collins Judd (the author of many articles and a thesis dedicated to the early pitch systems) found "tonalities" in this sense in motets of Josquin Desprez.[56] Judd also wrote of "chant-based tonality",[57] meaning "tonal" polyphonic compositions based on plainchant. Peter Lefferts found "tonal types" in the French polyphonic chanson of the 14th century,[58] Italian musicologists Marco Mangani and Daniele Sabaino in the late Renaissance music,[59] and so on.
> 
> ...


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

Yeah, thanks for stating once again something we've already acknowledged several times over the last 10 pages. People use the term to mean different things. There are colloquial usages, personal usages, formal, etc. We know that, thanks.

And before you do another post but with the different meanings of "atonal", let me point out that we've already covered the multiple ways people use that word as well too, a few times.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

Bwv 1080 said:


> Which brings us back to the absurdity of calling music without functional harmony, like Palestrina or Machaut, atonal


Given that you have the already absurd idea that atonality is a style, I can see why.


----------



## Gargamel (Jan 5, 2020)

Torkelburger said:


> If I understand this correctly, yes.


Yeah, I mean to be considered tonal, I guess the musical hierarchy should be somehow reductible to roots, something you can probably do with some non-functional music like Debussy? Does polytonal music, exist? Babbitt called polytonality a "self-contradictory expression which, if it is to possess any meaning at all, can only be used as a label to designate a certain degree of expansion of the individual elements of a well-defined harmonic or voice-leading unit". (This was maybe elaborated in his Bartok essay.)


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Bwv 1080 said:


> Which brings us back to the absurdity of calling music without functional harmony, like Palestrina or Machaut, atonal


Why is that absurd? In this and numerous other threads here on this precise topic, it has been pointed out that a tonal center or hierarchy can be established by means other than functional harmony. For example, a particular note can be played more often or more loudly than others, appear at the beginning and end of musical phrases, or drone continuously, all entirely apart from any harmonic process or relationship.

But it doesn't seem especially useful for pedagogic, musicological or theoretical purposes, or even ordinary chit chat, to include all of that in the term "tonality". And if we're really going to fight about how a term should be defined, as I've already said here and in other threads when this issue arises, the most useful definition should be the primary one. That is the point SanAntone is making above when he says music theory is an actual pedagogical discipline and like any scholarly discipline has terminology and accepted technical concepts. That makes sense to me. But if anyone wants to use the term differently, that's fine with me so long as one explicitly defines one's terms.

The real problem I have with the tonality definition debates is when they are used as a proxy to argue that certain music is more in accordance with supposed natural laws and thus inherently superior to music that supposedly is less so. These people want to limit "atonal" to being an insult or slur for music they happen not to like. That argument has already emerged in this thread. No thanks, I'll stick with SanAntone's definition.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

fluteman said:


> Why is that absurd? In this and numerous other threads here on this precise topic, it has been pointed out that a tonal center or hierarchy can be established by means other than functional harmony. For example, a particular note can be played more often or more loudly than others, appear at the beginning and end of musical phrases, or drone continuously, all entirely apart from any harmonic process or relationship.
> 
> *But it doesn't seem especially useful for pedagogic, musicological or theoretical purposes, or even ordinary chit chat, to include all of that in the term "tonality".*


Why not, if you have the more fine-grained concept 'CP tonality' alongside a more inclusive concept of 'tonality'?

I'm not understanding this debate.

There seems to me to be very broad class of music that sounds more natural than late Schoenberg or Weber, because it sets up 'expectations' and then deviates or conforms to them - in various ways (only one of which is via functional harmony). Some people want to use a more inclusive concept of 'tonality' to talk about this music in contrast with Schoenber/Weber/Boulez etc. They want the more fine-grained concept of 'CP tonality' to designate music from circa 1600-1910 (etc.).

What is wrong with this? Surely we want our concepts to carve nature at its joints, so to speak, and there at least _appears_ (or sounds) like there is a kind of music (SVS) that violates musical expectations in a way which medieval, indian, (etc.) music does not.



fluteman said:


> The real problem I have with the tonality definition debates is when they are used as a proxy to argue that certain music is more in accordance with supposed natural laws* and thus inherently superior to music* that supposedly is less so. These people want to limit "atonal" to being an insult or slur for music they happen not to like. That argument has already emerged in this thread. No thanks, I'll stick with SanAntone's definition.


Maybe, maybe not. I'm more interested in the carving-nature-at-its-joints issue.

I guess your reply would have to be something like: well there is nothing in _music theory_ that distinguishes SVS and its followers from all other (non CP functionally-harmonic) music. There is no 'objective' difference between SVS and other non CP music.

But is this true? is there really nothing that sets SVS apart? Surely there must be if it sounds so random to most people - more random than, say, Medieval or Indian music. Or are we simply the great musical unwashed?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Bwv 1080 said:


> Which brings us back to the absurdity of calling music without functional harmony, like Palestrina or Machaut, atonal


No, they would be pre-tonal, although Palestrina had pretty much found his way to functional tonality.

I will say that the term "atonal" has taken on a connotation which links it to a specific period and kind of music. Possibly a better term is non-tonal.


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast (Jun 3, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> Possibly a better term is non-tonal.


And thus we arrive at what I said on page 1 (I think), "which are your favourite *non-tonal* composers" should have been OP's question, and, although I enjoyed the back and forth, we would have avoided this whole shebang... or perhaps it is good that it happened


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

allaroundmusicenthusiast said:


> And thus we arrive at what I said on page 1 (I think), "which are your favourite *non-tonal* composers" should have been OP's question, and, although I enjoyed the back and forth, we would have avoided this whole shebang... or perhaps it is good that it happened


I didn't know the 'proper' definition of tonality was more specific than I had previously understood. So I'm glad that got cleared up.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

I think the point is not that one can't identify stylistic similarities between Berg and Webern, or between Boulez and Carter, or between Reich and Young - more that "Atonal" does not have a proper definition of "Music written since the First World War that doesn't sound 'natural'".


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

RogerWaters said:


> But is this true? is there really nothing that sets SVS apart? Surely there must be if it sounds so random to most people - more random than, say, Medieval or Indian music. Or are we simply the great musical unwashed?


 I read (but don't know for sure) that Dallapiccola's ciaconna for solo cello is as harmonically SVS style as they come, but it's too sensual and tuneful to be deemed to be random by anyone, surely. What I'm getting at is this: it's not the SVS approach to harmony per se which makes a piece difficult. It's something else.

Dallapiccola is a good one to explore precisely because he spent a lifetime trying to address the problem you've highlighted - and I at least think the music is nice.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

RogerWaters said:


> I guess your reply would have to be something like: well there is nothing in _music theory_ that distinguishes SVS and its followers from all other (non CP functionally-harmonic) music. There is no 'objective' difference between SVS and other non CP music.
> 
> But is this true? is there really nothing that sets SVS apart? Surely there must be if it sounds so random to most people - more random than, say, Medieval or Indian music. Or are we simply the great musical unwashed?


No, my reply would be, define your terms any way you want, just be explicit about it, as I've already said. But I'd also ask, what if music you consider unnatural I consider natural, and music you consider random I consider well organized?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

fbjim said:


> I think the point is not that one can't identify stylistic similarities between Berg and Webern, or between Boulez and Carter, or between Reich and Young - more that "Atonal" does not have a proper definition of "Music written since the First World War that doesn't sound 'natural'".


People seem to be using the SVS as an example of atonal music. However, the SVS exhibited at least three different styles: post-Romantic, free atonality, and dodecaphonic, and Webern was more rigorously serial than Berg or Schoenberg.

It should be obvious that there is a continuum from pre-tonal -> tonal -> post-tonal -> atonal -> noise - and composers often were not chronological, some reaching back to a prior period's use of tonality while still writing other non-tonal works.

I am not sure if these terms have much use outside of analysis and music theory. It would seem for the purpose of enjoying Classical music, nailing down definitions of tonality, atonality, and other such terms, is unnecessary.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

fluteman said:


> No, my reply would be, define your terms any way you want, just be explicit about it, as I've already said.


I think we should define out terms to carve nature at its joints, as I mentioned above. So have different concepts for different 'natural kinds'.

This kind of leads into:



fluteman said:


> But I'd also ask, what if music you consider unnatural I consider natural, and music you consider random I consider well organized?


I think one person can be an outlier, and we'd need to know if a more representative sample size (including people across cultures and classes) finds more in common between, say, Bach and traditional Indian music than between SVS and Indian music.

I think a more tractable question is: are there similarities that musicology or musical analysis would identify between pre-CP tonal, CP tonal, indian, blues music, etc., that sets it apart from SVS and its children?


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

SanAntone said:


> People seem to be using the SVS as an example of atonal music. However, the SVS exhibited at least three different styles: post-Romantic, free atonality, and dodecaphonic, and Webern was more rigorously serial than Berg or Schoenberg.
> 
> It should be obvious that there is *a continuum from pre-tonal -> tonal -> post-tonal -> atonal -> noise* - and composers often were not chronological, some reaching back to a prior period's use of tonality while still writing other non-tonal works.
> 
> I am not sure if these terms have much use outside of analysis and music theory. It would seem for the purpose of enjoying Classical music, nailing down definitions of tonality, atonality, and other such terms, is unnecessary.


But if there are higher-order similarities between your notions of pre-tonal, tonal and post-tonal music setting them apart from your notions of 'atonal' and noise music, we will need a concept to group them in opposition to (SVS) atonal and noise music.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

RogerWaters said:


> But if there are higher-order similarities between your notions of pre-tonal, tonal and post-tonal music setting them apart from your notions of 'atonal' and noise music, we will need a concept to group them in opposition to (SVS) atonal and noise music.


_We_ need to do nothing of the sort. These labels are of practical use only to music scholars working in the theory, musicology, and analysis fields. They are part of the technical jargon used by these professionals when writing their papers, articles, and books, and have little to do with listening to and finding enjoyment from music.

If, however, you wish to divide music up according to your own understanding of the nuances between tonal and atonal music, that is your option. For myself, I don't think about this stuff, all of which I learned as part of my music education a long time ago.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

SanAntone said:


> *We need to do nothing of the sort*. These labels are of practical use only to music scholars working in the theory, musicology, and analysis fields. They are part of the technical jargon used by these professionals when writing their papers, articles, and books, and have little to do with listening to and finding enjoyment from music.
> 
> If, however, you wish to divide music up according to your own understanding of the nuances between tonal and atonal music, that is your option. For myself, I don't think about this stuff, all of which I learned as part of my music education a long time ago.


I find it very hard to believe that, if there _were _commonalities between pre-tonal, tonal and music from other cultures (Indian music, blues music, Japanese music etc.), setting them apart from SVS atonalism according to musical theory, it would _not _be interesting to capture these.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Page 1: please list your favorite atonal composers, no negativity.

Page 11: We must fix music theory and change definitions so it says that Webern is unnatural and objectively sounds weird to human beings.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Aside from the Second Viennese School (Schoenberg, Berg and Webern), my other three favorite "atonal" composers would be the following:

1. Ligeti
2. Boulez
3. Scelsi


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

In light of the proper definition of atonality, I'd like to change my 3 favourite atonal composers to:

1. W. Byrd
2. de Victoria
3. R. Shankar


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

RogerWaters said:


> I think we should define out terms to carve nature at its joints, as I mentioned above. So have different concepts for different 'natural kinds'.
> 
> This kind of leads into:
> 
> ...


I think musicological analysis would show there are strong similarities between the music of Schoenberg and that of Bach, Beethoven and Brahms, much stronger in many ways than any similarities between Indian classical music or traditional Delta blues and the music of Bach, Beethoven and Brahms. Berg and Webern ventured further from the 18th and 19th century European classical tradition, and Boulez further still, but significant links to that earlier tradition remain.

As far as the supposed statistical lone 'outlier' is concerned, all of this music continues to have a significant audience, though even the most recent of it is nearly a century old. Though all of it is from old 'classical' music traditions, and all of it far less popular than today's most popular genres, all of it continues to be commercially recorded and performed.

So, who were you assuming was the 'outlier', you or me?


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

fluteman said:


> I think musicological analysis would show there are strong similarities between the music of Schoenberg and that of Bach, Beethoven and Brahms, much stronger in many ways than any similarities between Indian classical music or traditional Delta blues and the music of Bach, Beethoven and Brahms.


Absolutely _not_. Bach and Beethoven have in common with Indian Classical music that they are both based on distinct 7-note scales. On top of that most indian scales are pretty similar to the diatonic modes (the tunings are different, but in equal temperament they are best approximated by the diatonic scales).
Also, both CPT music and blues are based on triadic harmonies derived from diatonic scales (especially tonic, subdominant and dominant).

None of these things apply to the Schönberg's non-tonal music, or at best occasionally.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

chipia said:


> Absolutely _not_. Bach and Beethoven have in common with Indian Classical music that they are both based on distinct 7-note scales. On top of that most indian scales are pretty similar to the diatonic modes (the tunings are different, but in equal temperament they are best approximated by the diatonic scales).
> Also, both CPT music and blues are based on triadic harmonies derived from diatonic scales (especially tonic, subdominant and dominant).
> 
> None of these things apply to the Schönberg's non-tonal music, or at best occasionally.


This is a superficial interpretation of what is at the root of both the CP method of composition and Schoenberg. who often poured his 12-tone music into the older forms, and more importantly felt he was carrying on the same tradition as Beethoven.

The construction of Indian Classical Music (ICM) and the Blues share little with the sonata-allegro practice of Beethoven (possibly a loose idea of the tripartite ABA form, AAB with the Blues) or the contrapuntal forms of suites, fugues, toccatas, and partitas of Bach. And both ICM and Blues are improvised music, whereas Beethoven and the Bach we play are not.

Also the scales and the underlying harmonic parts operate differently in all these musics, and are only superficially related. Both ICM and Blues utilize static harmonies, drones, and only loosely approximate diatonic triadic harmonies.


----------



## chipia (Apr 22, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> This is a superficial interpretation of what is at the root of both the CP method of composition and Schoenberg. who often poured his 12-tone music into the older forms, and more importantly felt he was carrying on the same tradition as Beethoven.


You are right that Bach is closer to Schönberg with regards to _form_. But I don't think this is true for the _contents_ of these forms. I think when people listen to music, the contents (melody, harmony, rhythm) are the most salient aspect rather than form.

The abolition of 7-tone diatonic scales and triadic chords was a major break with Bach's tradition as regards melody and harmony.

The former is in fact a breach with almost any musical tradition on the planet, since most cultures based their music on scales with 5-7 notes, most of them resembling the major pentatonic or the diatonic scale.



SanAntone said:


> And both ICM and Blues are improvised music, whereas Beethoven and the Bach we play are not.


Both Bach and Beethoven were famous as great improvisers of their music. On the other hand, I've never heard of Schönberg or Webern improvising any serial or atonal music.



SanAntone said:


> Also the scales and the underlying harmonic parts operate differently in all these musics, and are only superficially related. Both ICM and Blues utilize static harmonies, drones, and only loosely approximate diatonic triadic harmonies.


Possibly, but they are at least loosely related. Most of the harmonies and "scales"(essentially the chromatic scale) of the SVS deviate even more from diatonic triad progressions.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> This is a superficial interpretation of what is at the root of both the CP method of composition and Schoenberg. who often poured his 12-tone music into the older forms, and more importantly felt he was carrying on the same tradition as Beethoven.
> 
> The construction of Indian Classical Music (ICM) and the Blues share little with the sonata-allegro practice of Beethoven (possibly a loose idea of the tripartite ABA form, AAB with the Blues) or the contrapuntal forms of suites, fugues, toccatas, and partitas of Bach. And both ICM and Blues are improvised music, whereas Beethoven and the Bach we play are not.
> 
> Also the scales and the underlying harmonic parts operate differently in all these musics, and are only superficially related. Both ICM and Blues utilize static harmonies, drones, and only loosely approximate diatonic triadic harmonies.


Yes. Not only Schoenberg's large-scale forms, but his thematic / motivic structures, instrumentation, phrasing and timbre, all very much harken back to 18th and 19th century European traditions. You don't have to be an expert musicologist or historian to hear that in his music. A bit of reading reveals this was entirely intentional on his part, not surprisingly.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

chipia said:


> You are right that Bach is closer to Schönberg with regards to _form_. But I don't think this is true for the _contents_ of these forms. I think when people listen to music, the contents (melody, harmony, rhythm) are the most salient aspect rather than form.
> 
> The abolition of 7-tone diatonic scales and triadic chords was a major break with Bach's tradition as regards melody and harmony.
> 
> ...


You are overlooking one important point: Schoenberg, Beethoven and Bach all came from a Western European tradition of music and share a culture which musicians from India or the Mississippi Delta do not. It is a superficial difference that Schoenberg wrote outside the tonal system, his entire understanding of musical phrasing, large form construction and development, and thematic operation was coming out of the same tradition as that of Beethoven and Bach. This is not true for, again, both ICM nor the Blues.

And finally whether Bach or Beethoven improvised is irrelevant since their music today is played from a frozen score and performers do not tamper with the music other than with normal interpretive liberties, i.e. dynamics, articulation, rubato, etc. - and even these are related to the markings found in the score and the performance tradition for this music.

I think it is more important and respectful to celebrate the musical traditions from other cultures like ICM and Blues, viewed in their own right, rather than to try to link them to Western Classical music as some kind of validation.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

fluteman said:


> Yes. Not only Schoenberg's large-scale forms, but his thematic / motivic structures, instrumentation, phrasing and timbre, all very much harken back to 18th and 19th century European traditions. You don't have to be an expert musicologist or historian to hear that in his music. A bit of reading reveals this was entirely intentional on his part, not surprisingly.


despite his reputation for a revolutionary and a destroyer of tradition, he was really after revitalizing the tradition of germanic orchestral music in abstract classical forms more than anything else, hence his comment about "securing the future of German music" or whatever it was


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

fluteman said:


> I think musicological analysis would show there are strong similarities between the music of Schoenberg and that of Bach, Beethoven and Brahms...


Of course, just as musicological analysis would show strong similarities between Mahler and that of Handel and Haydn.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> You are overlooking one important point: Schoenberg, Beethoven and Bach all came from a Western European tradition of music and share a culture which musicians from India or the Mississippi Delta do not. It is a superficial difference that Schoenberg wrote outside the tonal system, his entire understanding of musical phrasing, large form construction and development, and thematic operation was coming out of the same tradition as that of Beethoven and Bach. This is not true for, again, both ICM nor the Blues.
> 
> And finally whether Bach or Beethoven improvised is irrelevant since their music today is played from a frozen score and performers do not tamper with the music other than with normal interpretive liberties, i.e. dynamics, articulation, rubato, etc. - and even these are related to the markings found in the score and the performance tradition for this music.
> 
> I think it is more important and respectful to celebrate the musical traditions from other cultures like ICM and Blues, viewed in their own right, rather than to try to link them to Western Classical music as some kind of validation.


Over the years I've come to learn that some people hear only the harmony in music, and harmony only in the sense of triads and tonic-dominant-subdominant relationships, and even those not very well. My theory is that this has little to do with European classical music, which was expanding well beyond these principles by the late 19th century, and more with mainstream, white middle-class American popular song, which didn't begin to expand significantly past them until the 1960s and 70s.

I also think this is a key reason that people interested in and familiar with jazz, blues and certain non-western musical traditions are more likely to be interested in Schoenberg, Nono, Maderna, Boulez, Carter, Crumb, Feldman, Glass, et. al. than those raised on a strict diet of traditional white American popular song.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

arpeggio said:


> Carter
> Berg
> Corigliano (He composes a mixture of tonal and atonal music. Sometimes, like if the last movement of his Clarinet Concerto, he employ a tone row.)


After reading all of the above discussions on the definition of atonal music, my three favorite whatever composers are...


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

arpeggio said:


> After reading all of the above discussions on the definition of atonal music, my three favorite whatever composers are...


Corigliano has the gift of eclecticism, like his early mentor Leonard Bernstein, though imo he did expand beyond anything Bernstein did.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

fluteman said:


> Corigliano has the gift of eclecticism, like his early mentor Leonard Bernstein, though imo he did expand beyond anything Bernstein did.


But he also never wrote anything as impactful as several works by Bernstein.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> But he also never wrote anything as impactful as several works by Bernstein.


Maybe not. Bernstein continues to be underrated as a composer, imo, but that is nothing new. Virgil Thomson dismissed him as a minor composer (and considered himself a major one), though I doubt many would rank Thomson ahead of Bernstein today. Bernstein's great score for On The Waterfront lost the Academy award to a vastly inferior (imo) score for a John Wayne movie. Even West Side Story lost the Tony award for best musical to The Music Man. That was a great show, but also is a nostalgic look back, musically and in general, on the small town America of a generation earlier. WSS was truly innovative and cutting edge, and a huge influence on the musicals that followed.

Even Bernstein's concert music, such as Chichester Psalms and Halil, is not taken seriously enough, imo. The piano music, the early clarinet sonata, and the swinging Prelude, Fugue and Riffs are also highly worthwhile. I guess he isn't 'atonal' enough for this thread, though.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Torkelburger said:


> Yes, when you have no argument and cannot even define your terms when asked, just go with outright arrogance and say your gut feeling trumps all your opponents well thought out arguments. Fortunately, all of us can stick our fingers in our ears and say Nyah nyah nyah I'm not listening. Btw, you keep saying atonality is a style. It's a technique, not a style. The avoidance of a tonic. I know. I know. You have a gut feeling it's a style so that means a style…but I don't know, whose gut feeling is right? Are you sure it's not obfuscated?





fluteman said:


> So, music that in your opinion is aligned with the natural laws of harmony is "tonal", and music that just sounds wrong to you on a 'gut level' is "atonal"? And you believe that definition is more useful than those of Torkelburger and SanAntone?
> 
> I rest my case.


Well I see you two decided to ignore all of my points except where I said 'natural' and 'gut feeling'. You then reframed my post to suggest that is _all_ I said and argued against solely those points. That is called creating a 'strawman'.

As I said before the 12 tone style differs from other styles because it was created with the specific intention of extinguishing harmony. Philip Glass and Debussy's music does not do that, and I doubt they would consider their music 'atonal'. Bartok did not consider his music 'atonal'. The fact is most people use the word to describe a certain sound in classical music that originated with the music of the SVS. This harmonic language is clearly different than anything that preceded it, it does not take a musical expert to hear this difference, hence my quote one can rely on just their ears or 'gut' to distinguish between these styles.

The broader way is how the word has been used long before we have had this debate. So I guess the question is, is the term more useful in this way it is commonly used, or is it more useful, in its narrow definition, which would mean that essentially only some baroque and most classical music is strictly tonal, and everything else may or may not be 'atonal'.

In my view the way it has already been used is more useful, and it is the way many people will continue to use the word.


----------



## Opisthokont (Dec 16, 2021)

Hmm... it's a very tough question to name only three - there are so many great atonal composers out there!

-Milton Babbitt: His music is just so beautiful that he has to be in my top 3.

-Webern: No explanation necessary, lol.

-Ornette Coleman: Not technically a classical composer but his atonal work is so wonderful and innovative that I have to mention him.

*-Ruth Crawford: If Coleman doesn't count since he's jazz then Ruth Crawford would take that spot instead for me. Her music is fascinating - her folk music period I think is less interesting, but the absolute fascinating thing for me is her last works, where she goes back into modernist idioms but incorporates all of her musicological knowledge.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

> Well I see you two decided to ignore all of my points except where I said 'natural' and 'gut feeling'. You then reframed my post to suggest that is all I said and argued against solely those points. That is called creating a 'strawman'.


Actually, your entire post was the strawman, any points made were embedded in how you think I have some kind of agenda for wanting to group all kinds of music together as atonal other than anything honest or academic.

And let's see you answer *my* points specifically in this thread. Start at the top. Go through each one since you're such a stickler for leaving no stone unturned.



> As I said before the 12 tone style differs from other styles because it was created with the specific intention of extinguishing harmony.


Baloney. A good 12-tone composer will most certainly design the row in such a way as to produce a specific harmonic climate that he has in mind. For example, one may design a row in which seconds are more common so that the harmonies will yield a more strident harmonic sound (such as Webern's typical rows). On the contrary, one may design a row in which thirds are prevalent so that triadic harmonies are available (such as Berg and Walton). Or fourths and fifths for austerity/neutrality. Further, one may design a row so that obscure tonal implications are present, such as notes in a row that are in a key, scale, chord, etc. such as some Schoenberg rows. So, you are dead wrong.

In addition to that, Reginald Brindle Smith outlines in his serial composition book several pages in which he shows how a 12 tone composer manipulates the row (rhythmically mostly, but also sometimes the order seldomly) to write harmonies in which the character of the music must be maintained and reflected in the harmony. Notes are *not* just "plugged in" and "let the chips fall where they may". I can post some of this, if able and you are interested, as long as I'm not violating copyright.



> Philip Glass and Debussy's music does not do that, and I doubt they would consider their music 'atonal'.


I would bet anything that if asked, Glass would admit that certain pieces (such as the excerpt quoted from Einstein) does not have a tonal center; and if asked, would admit that certain pieces (such as Knee Plays and Spaceship from the same opera) DO have a tonal center (and can be analyzed as such), if he is intellectually honest (which I would hope he is).

The word "atonal" was not around during Debussy's lifetime. But it is crystal clear from his letters, interviews, and music itself that he intentionally and without any doubt whatsoever, distanced himself from tonality. Some of it had no triads at all, nor major or minor scales. He did that completely on purpose. The fact that you are disappointed that it does not meet your standard of "sounding like the SVS" is your problem. It is not tonal music. You can write 12 tone music completely with triads too, but that doesn't make it tonal.



> Bartok did not consider his music 'atonal'.


Since you think "atonal" = SVS, I can understand why you think so. Much of Bartok's music is centric in much the same way as Debussy's, in that the octave is divided in half (symmetrically) at the tritone. But it doesn't have a tonal center. It just sounds like it (being centric).

Much of Bartok's harmony cannot be analyzed in any tonal sense at all. For example, in the 4th String Quartet, Second Movement 4 bars before rehearsal 75, there is the 7-note chromatic cluster of G-Ab-A-Bb-B-C-C# (spanning a tritone) that is stated loudly 12 times and then again at rehearsal 75 itself loudly six times.

Schoenberg and the SVS never wrote harmonies this dissonant. This sort of thing that Bartok, Ligeti, Penderecki, etc. did is WAAAY more dissonant and harsh than Arnie and company. Yet, for some reason it's the SVS who gets all the blame for "extinguishing harmony". Unbelievable and mind-boggling.

Bartok also used microtones (SQ #6, Miraculous Mandarin, VC #2, Solo Vln Sonata). That doesn't even exclusively use the 12 tones of the chromatic scale!



> The fact is most people use the word to describe a certain sound in classical music that originated with the music of the SVS.


Once again, people, that's already been acknowledged. Yes, we know that. That doesn't make them correct. I don't care if the majority of people believe the earth is flat. That doesn't make them right. Atonality does not equal SVS. Sorry. Ives' atonality near the turn of the century was in no way influenced by the SVS.



> This harmonic language is clearly different than anything that preceded it,


Dead wrong. Scriabin looks an awful lot like it. Not to mention Debussy, Mussorgsky, Mahler's 10th, and others. And all 3 of the SVS were writing in a post-Romantic style prior to adopting atonal techniques. You can clearly see where their heads were at.



> it does not take a musical expert to hear this difference,


Ironically, it should not take a musical expert to hear the difference between Debussy and what came before him, but *that* seems to elude your expertise somehow.



> hence my quote one can rely on just their ears or 'gut' to distinguish between these styles.


Hence my quote that one can just as easily rely on the same weak argument to counter that position.



> The broader way is how the word has been used long before we have had this debate.


Just in the colloquial sense perhaps, but I don't think there is any disagreement among teachers and academics, as was stated previously in #57.



> So I guess the question is, is the term more useful in this way it is commonly used, or is it more useful, in its narrow definition, which would mean that essentially only some baroque and most classical music is strictly tonal, and everything else may or may not be 'atonal'.
> 
> In my view the way it has already been used is more useful, and it is the way many people will continue to use the word.


I've already stated what I think and why, and you are welcome to disagree. By all means, we can continue using how we want since neither of us have the ability to control the thoughts or actions of others.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

The bottom line is that when someone listens to a piece of music, if they like it, it does not matter if it is tonal, atonal, pan tonal or anti-tonal.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

arpeggio said:


> The bottom line is that when someone listens to a piece of music, if they like it, it does not matter if it is tonal, atonal, pan tonal or anti-tonal.


But, there are quite a few members here, that have stated in one way or another, that those of us that listen to a lot of atonal, poly-tonal, etc, music, do not really like it. We only say we do with some other motives.

I've seen people here say, we only say we like it so we can claim some sort of intellectual superiority, or some similar nonsense.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Torkelburger said:


> ...
> 
> Much of Bartok's music is centric in much the same way as Debussy's, in that the octave is divided in half (symmetrically) at the tritone. But it doesn't have a tonal center. It just sounds like it (being centric).
> 
> ...


I wouldn't disagree that in Bartok it is difficult in most cases to analyse in terms of traditional harmony consistently, but in his notation, his music suggests diatonicism and a reference to a tonic and certain relationships to it.

https://relatedrocks.com/1996/03/01/some-aspects-of-bartoks-notation/

It is said in places elsewhere he was pursuing new forms of tonality, and that his music can be approached with both atonal and tonal theory. At least in Bartok's and a few others' view tonality was evolving, hence the term *Neotonality.* I recall reading one review of several books on Bartok, that 5 writers looked at his music from a tonal point of view, and only 1 writer took an atonal point of view.

""Neo-tonal" in the most general sense describes music after the common practice that retains the idea of tonality or pitch centricity."

https://academic.oup.com/mts/article-abstract/41/2/285/5497773?redirectedFrom=fulltext

This is on Stravinsky from elsewhere:
"Symphony of Psalms is neotonal: it uses reiteration and other means to establish a tonal center, rather than *traditional functional harmony.*"

Dissonance is not necessarily a measure of distance from harmony. In addition to this, something like Prokofiev's Sonata 7 has a lot of dissonance, little to no functional harmony, very chromatic yet it is a key, through repetition of a pitch center and a major chords here and there which has nothing to do with most other elements.

No problem if CPT is the accepted definition of tonality, but there is other music that has certain tonal implications, and it doesn't clarify things by calling all things outside CPT atonal (if the point of interest or frame of reference is outside of CPT). Tonality/ Atonality does not need to be seen as black and white.

Your quotes by Debussy could be attributed by some as his departure from traditional harmonic tonality, which he simply calls tonality, and into a more expansive view of it. From one writer: ""harmonic tonality was abandoned," as in the music of Claude Debussy: "melodic tonality plus modulation is [Debussy's] modern tonality"

Personally I still prefer Wikipedia's definition of tonality with the hierarchy of perceived relations, stabilities, attractions and directionality.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

> I wouldn't disagree that in Bartok it is difficult in most cases to analyse in terms of traditional harmony consistently, but in his notation, his music suggests diatonicism and a reference to a tonic and certain relationships to it.


I disagree. That's only in pieces in which he notated on multiple staves with two separate key signatures that suggest bitonality as in the examples from the site you linked. None of that applies to the two examples I gave (microtonality or the 4th SQ). And the mirror writing example in the link doesn't apply to all of his writing either. Such as the mirror writing at the beginning of the Concerto for Orchestra.



> It is said in places elsewhere he was pursuing new forms of tonality, and that his music can be approached with both atonal and tonal theory.


Both of those statements could just have easily been said about Schoenberg, as was mentioned to you SEVERAL times already to which you CONTINUE to ignore over and over and over again. Because it presents a huge contradiction in your argument.

I asked you at least twice to explain why or why not Schoenberg's Op. 19 is tonal or atonal and you continue to not even acknowledge that I've asked. I even posted the link to a youtube video of a performance with the score. Here it is yet again.






Please state whether you believe Schoenberg was pursuing new forms of tonality or not, and whether this music can be approached with both atonal and tonal theory. Please state whether you think this piece (widely considered an early atonal masterpiece) is tonal or atonal. Please explain why or why not we should afford Scriabin and now Bartok a degree of leniency we DO NOT afford to Schoenberg. Explain why other than a personal bias against Schoenberg.

If necessary I will then go through the entire piece, practically bar by bar, and give my analysis and thoughts, and see if I agree with you or not.

Otherwise, your whole argument and constant dodging is a contradiction.



> At least in Bartok's and a few others' view tonality was evolving, hence the term Neotonality. I recall reading one review of several books on Bartok, that 5 writers looked at his music from a tonal point of view, and only 1 writer took an atonal point of view.


I'll just take a wild guess here and suggest that this Neotonality doesn't include anything at all by Schoenberg, especially anything in a 12-tone style, even with triads. Like his Op. 41 Ode to Napoleon Buonaparte, which uses a tone row that allows for triads to be made with all odd and even numbered pitches in the row (introducing the idea of permutations in serialism, instead of being restricted to transpositions of the row), where he exploited triadic usage at the beginning and ending of many phrases as in tonal music. I'll just take a stab in the dark here.



> This is on Stravinsky from elsewhere:
> "Symphony of Psalms is neotonal: it uses reiteration and other means to establish a tonal center, rather than traditional functional harmony."


I know this piece well. Post the link. What movement are they talking about? As has also been said several times already, reiteration doesn't mean squat for tonality, that is centricity. If it did, we'd be calling Varese tonal, wouldn't we? IDK, maybe you do. It even uses the octatonic scale at times! He ain't though. Good luck trying to convince someone _Deserts_ is tonal, or even "neotonal".



> Dissonance is not necessarily a measure of distance from harmony. In addition to this, something like Prokofiev's Sonata 7 has a lot of dissonance, little to no functional harmony, very chromatic yet it is a key, through repetition of a pitch center and a major chords here and there which has nothing to do with most other elements.


What are you talking about here? Dissonance or atonality? And for the millionth time, my goodness, pitch centers, major chords "here and there", and keys, don't make something tonal! If so, then Varese's _Deserts_ and Schoenberg's Op. 41 are tonal. Just add a key signature and use accidentals. Op. 41, a SERIAL piece has the major triads "here and there" already.



> No problem if CPT is the accepted definition of tonality, but there is other music that has certain tonal implications,


I take it you suggest we rewrite the history books in regards to Op. 19 then, pray tell? Pretty please, pray tell?



> and it doesn't clarify things by calling all things outside CPT atonal (if the point of interest or frame of reference is outside of CPT). Tonality/ Atonality does not need to be seen as black and white.


Sounds like your just obfuscating things to me, but what do I know?



> Your quotes by Debussy could be attributed by some as his departure from traditional harmonic tonality, which he simply calls tonality, and into a more expansive view of it. From one writer: ""harmonic tonality was abandoned," as in the music of Claude Debussy: "melodic tonality plus modulation is [Debussy's] modern tonality"


How is the melody in _Voiles_ tonal? Please explain. Feel free to use the internet.



> Personally I still prefer Wikipedia's definition of tonality with the hierarchy of perceived relations, stabilities, attractions and directionality.


Good idea. Me too.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Torkelburger said:


> I disagree. That's only in pieces in which he notated on multiple staves with two separate key signatures that suggest bitonality as in the examples from the site you linked. None of that applies to the two examples I gave (microtonality or the 4th SQ). And the mirror writing example in the link doesn't apply to all of his writing either. Such as the mirror writing at the beginning of the Concerto for Orchestra.
> 
> Both of those statements could just have easily been said about Schoenberg, as was mentioned to you SEVERAL times already to which you CONTINUE to ignore over and over and over again. Because it presents a huge contradiction in your argument.
> 
> ...


Sorry, I must have missed post on the Op. 19 by Schoenberg, or wasn't sure you were addressing it to me. I'm more familiar with his Klavierstucke, which I did mention a few writers interpreted it to be written in a key but they couldn't agree on which one. So at least in that one there is ambiguity on whether or not it has a tonal centre. Is Schoenberg neotonal? Maybe in his eyes; he liked to call his music pantonal as in using many keys. I never called Schoenberg atonal, but I don't think he would fit the description of neotonal as in music based on 1 pitch centre. My point is the term neotonal has been described as pitch centric. It may not fit your description of tonality, but as I quoted, some use it. The difference between Bartok and Schoenberg is Bartok music is primarily pitch centric, while Schoenberg is not.

So the Prokofiev 7 is not tonal even when it is set in the key of Bb major (although not in the key signature)? It definitely is not traditional sort of tonal, but has strong pitch centricity, and even Prokofiev doesn't like to view his music as atonal (but admitted to having moments of atonality). Neotonality is pitch centric, or has has a backbone on a single pitch. Not me saying it, but those sources I've quoted. So yes, for me Varese is not necessarily strictly atonal.

I think my view which other writers have taken, can be justified and appreciates the tonal elements in some composers music (the so-called neotonal composers), outside of CPT rather than lumping it all as atonal.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

> I'm more familiar with his Klavierstucke, which I did mention a few writers interpreted it to be written in a key but they couldn't agree on which one. So at least in that one there is ambiguity on whether or not it has a tonal centre.


By that same token, bitonality would have the same ambiguity, right? (unless the two keys have the same tonic pitch).



> Is Schoenberg neotonal? Maybe in his eyes; he liked to call his music pantonal as in using many keys. I never called Schoenberg atonal,


I thought you named him as one of your 3 favorite atonal composers in your first post, though.



> but I don't think he would fit the description of neotonal as in music based on 1 pitch centre.


Well, look again at the Op. 19. Try Mvt. IV. Notice the B in bar 2 (not including the pickup as a bar). This is an important chord (it is a pivot chord between two "tonalities") and is accented. It is also the highest note of the movement. The B also begins the next phrase, appears as a moment of repose and stress on a downbeat, and finally as accented at the final cadence (last note approached by a half step below as in tonal music). Seems to fit your criteria to me. Did you not notice that?



> My point is the term neotonal has been described as pitch centric. It may not fit your description of tonality,


That's the exact definition of centricity, not tonality. They do NOT mean the same thing.



> but as I quoted, some use it.


To use centricity as a synonym for tonality is incorrect and obfuscates matters worse. Like making Varese tonal just because he reiterates notes. It actually is barely even centric. It's extremely atonal really.



> The difference between Bartok and Schoenberg is Bartok music is primarily pitch centric, while Schoenberg is not.


But as was explained previously, there are many examples in Schoenberg, even those written in 12-tone technique, that use more tonal "style" techniques and implications than in a lot of Bartok pieces. So why the bias?



> So the Prokofiev 7 is not tonal even when it is set in a key of Bb major?


Can't Variations for Orchestra Op. 31 be written in the key of Bb Major? What's stopping you? Why not, he reiterates the Bb over and over and over again, especially at the beginning? I could write a piece with Octatonic 0 in A Major but nothing forces my hand to do so, does it? The A Major chord appears in the pitch collection/scale, but I could have just as easily put the key signature as C Major and made THAT the tonic, right? Or Eb Major? Or A minor? C Minor? F# Minor? Heck, I could have even put it in C Flat Major and just use accidentals. It doesn't matter. Doesn't make it tonal in the least.



> It definitely is not traditional sort of tonal, but has strong pitch centricity, and even Prokofiev doesn't like to view his music as atonal (but admitted to having moments of atonality).


Neither did Schoenberg, as you pointed out, but for some reason that never seems to be up for debate by others here when clearly one could make the SAME arguments for his "atonal" music you and all the others make for saying "centric", "neotonal", etc. music as not atonal. Even when Schoenberg's music has MORE tonal implications than theirs. Very strange. Still a contradiction in your position, IMHO.



> Neotonality is pitch centric. Not me saying it, but those sources I've quoted. So yes, for me Varese is not necessarily strictly atonal.


But then music written with 12-tone technique is also tonal as well, since even Schoenberg repeated pitches over and over again one after the other, or anyone can do with the technique (as it is fully allowed).



> I think my view which other writers have taken, can be justified and appreciates the tonal elements in some composers music (the so-called neotonal composers), outside of CPT rather than lumping it all as atonal.


Yeah, just not Schoenberg, right?


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

I have to ask, Torkelburger, as you make the gap between 12-tone composers and others seem smaller than it may appear to plebs like me. This leaves a new gap of its own: the sound. 12 tone compositions sound harmonically (or whatever) random to me compared to nearly all other music I've ever heard. I realise that 'sounds like' is a product of exposure (or lack of) and many other factors that may be misleading me. However, this leads to I guess the ultimate question for me:

What is the *point* of 12-tone compositions, if it's not to extinguish harmony etc. Why would you dictate that all 12 tones of the chromatic scale must be used with equal weight?



> The technique is a means of ensuring that all 12 notes of the chromatic scale are sounded as often as one another in a piece of music while preventing the emphasis of any one note


----------



## Opisthokont (Dec 16, 2021)

> The works that followed, many of them now familiar, include the _Five Pieces for Orchestra_, _Erwartung_, _Pierrot Lunaire_, and they and a few yet to follow soon were termed "atonal," by I know not whom, and I prefer not to know, for in no sense does the term make sense. Not only does the music employ "tones," but it employs precisely the same "tones," the same physical materials, that music had employed for some two cen-turies. In all generosity, "atonal" may have been intended as a mildly analytically derived term to suggest "atonic" or to signify "a-triadic tonal-ity," but, even so there were infinitely many things the music was not;what it was is better described by such terms as "automorphic," "con-textual," "self-referential," and others, all agreeing on a characterization of the music so context-dependent as to be highly sensitive to its statement of its initial conditions, and defining its modes of relation and progression within itself, that is, within each composition. Later, Schoenberg described his procedures of that period as "composing with tones" and"composing with the tones of a motive," which are not equivalent characterizations, the first suggesting as a referential norm a pitch-class collection, the second a registral and temporal instantiation of such a collection, but both confirmed the notion of the highly autonomous nature of the individual compositions' structure, and both placed the composer in the position that an idea for a piece was, necessarily, the idea of a piece.


-Milton Babbitt, _A Life of Learning_

Trying to get a universally definition of atonality is not particularly useful. There is a sense of _atonic_ music, but such a description is not actually particularly useful since you're now describing the music by what it's not rather than what it is. The term atonal has stuck itself so prominently in our discourse that I'm not suggesting we get rid of it, just that arguing back and forth about what we mean by atonal isn't going to be particularly useful, the description is vague to begin with. Atonal can be useful operationally - the question to ask isn't what atonality means, but rather what was OP trying to get at in this thread by using the word 'atonal' - what did OP mean by the word in this context, what sorts of answers are they looking for? It doesn't particularly matter what atonal means in general really, in the cases where the word is confusing the right move is to clarify rather than argue for one definition over another.

Is bartok atonal? I'm not even sure what the question means? If we want to talk about bartok's music is that even a useful question to ask? Much better to talk about what the music is than what it isn't, imo. The right question is whether OP wants answers like bartok in this thread. Or do they want something else?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Torkelburger said:


> By that same token, bitonality would have the same ambiguity, right? (unless the two keys have the same tonic pitch).
> 
> I thought you named him as one of your 3 favorite atonal composers in your first post, though.
> 
> ...


Actually I don't see Schoenberg as strictly atonal either, but since most consider him so, that is why I list him as one of my favourite 'atonal' composers. I do think the tonal implications of Op. 19 set his work apart from, say, Webern. Why is Variations Op. 31 not pitch centric, because he keeps from the beginning figure juxtaposing Bb with E, forming a tritone, which by itself is ambiguous. Is it Bb or E? I didn't look at the rest, because it appeared too small on the screen in full score. But Prokofiev's Sonata 7 has more directional bias towards the Bb major, or at least the Bb pitch centre.

I wouldn't state Varese is a tonal composer either (even though Integrales is very pitch centric) but as I said there is a range between the 2 poles, which is my main point. I do think that there is a point in some approaches, where it doesn't make sense to talk about tonality and atonality. As BMV 8060 (not sure if I got his handle right) says, atonality is considered a style by some.

Babbitt described Varese and his generation as involved in a '*struggle to create a world of musics, not a struggle between one music and another, serial and nonserial, tonal and "atonal"*' (his own use of quotes in the word 'atonal' is kind of interesting). Which is similar to what Ligeti has stated of his own music, to your disapproval.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/832209?seq=6#metadata_info_tab_contents

The semblance of tonality is in keeping of what the writes of some neotonal composers (whom Schoenberg could possibly be considered a part of) and those composers suggest themselves. Been great talking to you.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Phil loves classical said:


> Who are your favourite 3 atonal composers (ok to give less than 3, but not interested in hearing from those who don't like it). I'll have to give the nod to Schoenberg and Carter (yes, I'm a convert of Carter since I joined the forum) as my go-to's now. The 3rd spot is not so clear.


I'm not as much into this sort of music as I used to be. It can be heavy going. Two of my selections are the same as yours.

*Schoenberg* - for the sheer variety of his output. After many years, I still find much of his music somewhat perplexing and even disturbing, yet something draws me in all the same. Favourite works: Transfigured Night, Violin Concerto, Pierrot Lunaire, also his orchestration of Brahms' Piano Quartet No.1.

*Carter* - Again, not an easy sort of composer, but at least in some respects worth the effort. I really like String Quartet No. 1, because the themes are still discernible (albeit highly fragmented), and it retains the overall structure of more conventional string quartets. The subsequent quartets are entirely baffling to me, because he dispenses with the tight thematic, structural and rhythmic approach he used in the first quartet. Fair enough, since Carter said he wanted to go into other directions and not simply repeat what he did. I also like his late chamber music (e.g. Mosaics, Dialogues) for its sense of colour and lightness of texture.

*Berg* - He was my introduction to atonal and serial music. I think highly of Wozzeck, even though I generally don't like opera. His String Quartet Op. 3, Piano Sonata and Violin Concerto are key works for me. I can listen to, but don't get the same sense of thematic unity from, the Lyric Suite and Chamber Concerto.


----------

