# Questions about the term Post-Tonal



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

How do TC members react to the term Post-Tonal? Do many TC member find it is more acceptable than other terms? If so, I am going to try to use the term. But not if it is still going to cause people to be upset.

I try to stay informed on Music Theory as much as I am able. The most widely used college textbook on Music Theory as of two years ago was Tonal Harmony by Kostka and Payne. Chapter 29 is titled "Post-Tonal Theory".

Chapter 29 on Post-Tonal Theory includes sub heading for the following:

Basic Atonal Theory (with sub headings)
Twelve-Tone Serialism
Integral Serialism
According to Kotka and Payne, I infer from the organization of their text, that Post-Tonal Theory does not include the Avant-guarde, Indeterminacy (chance music), Minimalism, (or I suppose Post-minimalism), and Electronic and Computer Music.

I have tended in the past to lump together all Post-Tonal, Avant-guarde, Indeterminacy (chance music) and other highly dissonant musics under the one term "atonal". Assuming Kostka and Payne represent the current best thinking among Music Theoreticians, I should PROBABLY not do that to be theoretically accurate.

Looking for input here.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Post-Tonal -- (1) music for the future generations of humans (deaf people) who have lost their hearing due to overexposure to loud pop music listened to over headphones or at discos! It consists of non-directional sound at frequencies below 20 Hz which can be felt in the rattling of the teeth. (2) music that does not utilize sound at all, sort of like paintings or poetry.


----------



## Guest (Feb 12, 2016)

Serial, Indeterminate, Spectral, Microtonal, Stochastic, Electroacoustic, etc are all useful words with specific meaning.

Post-tonal and atonal are far too vague to be of any real use, imo. Why people refuse to use specific verbage is beyond me. Maybe they know their arguments are flimsy and would not hold up if anyone knew what they were actually talking about?


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

I wish I hadn't started this thread, what was I thinking? Ugh!


----------



## Guest (Feb 13, 2016)

Truckload said:


> I wish I hadn't started this thread, what was I thinking? Ugh!


Beats me, friendo.


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

I think it means everything that was written after tonality died.

But as Aramis proves, tonality is not dead.

Long live neo-post-post-tonality!


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I'm gathering more and more every day that avoiding a tonal center was in vogue a hundred years ago and might even be old fashioned now. All those more contemporary -isms have assimilated and moved beyond that into an ever branching fractal tree of wonderfully bewildering genres.

But then, I'm not all that educated so I know what people mean when they use terms like "atonal," "post tonal," or "that modern garbage," even if it's not academically correct. None of it bothers me. I'm too busy enjoying all of it.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Truckload said:


> I wish I hadn't started this thread, what was I thinking? Ugh!


:lol:

A distinction:

"Post-tonal _theory"_ seems a legitimate term to describe theories of harmony applicable to non-tonal music. "Post-tonal _music"_ doesn't seem a very useful designation. It would imply music that came into existence "after" tonal music, but of course tonal music never stopped being written. "Post-tonal" might describe the output of a specific composer (or group of composers) who follows a period of writing tonal music with one of writing atonal music: we could speak of so-and-so's "post-tonal" period. But contriving a term to describe music embracing a grab bag of styles that have only a lack of tonality in common is just make-work for academics. Who needs it?

"Atonality" is a different story. There is nothing wrong with having a word to designate the (complete or partial) absence in music of the operation of tonality. "Atonal" does that, and that's all that it needs to do. It is no objection to its use to say that it doesn't describe a particular style of music; lots of words designate the absence of something (e.g., atheism, arrhythmia). "Tonal" doesn't describe a specific style either, but if that were a reason to drop that term from the lexicon we'd only have to come up with another term meaning the same thing. People who don't understand the perceptual or structural implications of tonality (either in its full sense or in the more restricted sense of "common practice tonality," which ought always to be specified) naturally might use "atonal" in careless ways, which is bound to upset the fastidious, or those who don't believe in tonality or its absence. Using "post-tonal" as a euphemism isn't likely to placate those people, and it shouldn't.

The purpose of language is communication. As with all terminology describing aesthetic qualities and attributes (and anything else for that matter), the best course is to use language as specific as necessary to get our meaning across. If we're talking to people who share a common understanding and vocabulary with us, and we speak of "atonal" music knowing that they'll get the point, there's no need to engage in euphemism or circumlocution ("post-tonal" or "non-tonal"). If we're talking to other people, all we need do is explain what we mean.

"Post-tonal theory" seems clear and precise enough. "Post-tonal music" is just an attempt to dodge the tonality issue.


----------



## dsphipps100 (Jan 10, 2016)

In addition to Woodduck's excellent comments, I would also mention that "post-" anything implies a chronological sequence, meaning "after". When I first saw the title of your thread before I opened it, I thought you might be referring to any music that was written after Schoenberg introduced 12-tone writing, including tonal music.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

It doesn't do anything for me: it's just another attempt at segregation. Unless all of your audience has a Master of Music, I don't think this communicates anything meaningful.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Truckload said:


> How do TC members react to the term Post-Tonal? Do many TC member find it is more acceptable than other terms? If so, I am going to try to use the term. But not if it is still going to cause people to be upset.


No matter how clear it seems to be in one person's own mind, there will never ever be a single word or expression that can successfully capture the concept of "the property that unites all the music that makes me react one way while excluding all the music that makes me react another way" in a manner that will convince anyone who doesn't react in exactly the same way to all that music.


----------



## Guest (Feb 13, 2016)

Nereffid said:


> No matter how clear it seems to be in one person's own mind, there will never ever be a single word or expression that can successfully capture the concept of "the property that unites all the music that makes me react one way while excluding all the music that makes me react another way" in a manner that will convince anyone who doesn't react in exactly the same way to all that music.


Wait a minute...could you just say that again...very slowly...I got lost somewhere around the beginning of the first sentence :lol:


----------



## dsphipps100 (Jan 10, 2016)

Nereffid said:


> No matter how clear it seems to be in one person's own mind, there will never ever be a single word or expression that can successfully capture the concept of "the property that unites all the music that makes me react one way while excluding all the music that makes me react another way" in a manner that will convince anyone who doesn't react in exactly the same way to all that music.


Could you show us how to diagram this sentence for an English teacher?


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Drop the technical stuff and just call it "yucky music" - you know you want to


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> The purpose of language is communication. As with all terminology describing aesthetic qualities and attributes (and anything else for that matter), the best course is to use language as specific as necessary to get our meaning across. If we're talking to people who share a common understanding and vocabulary with us, and we speak of "atonal" music knowing that they'll get the point, there's no need to engage in euphemism or circumlocution ("post-tonal" or "non-tonal"). If we're talking to other people, all we need do is explain what we mean.


As usual, I can not help but agree with your perceptive comments. The paragraph I included above is particularly apt in pointing out what should be the primary concern, accurate communication. Thanks,


----------

