# The border where modernism still hold's its tonal melodicism



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

Where is the border where modernism still hold's its tonal melodicism?

Schnittke's Concerto Grosso 2 is one example for me, Einojuhani Rautavaara - Piano Concerto No. 1 is another.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Is there not a designation 'post modern', music that has a tonal base?


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Ukko said:


> Is there not a designation 'post modern', music that has a tonal base?


If you refer to composers approximately in neo romantic or post minimalist schools, most of the music I've heard from them is just atmospheric or has minimalist architecture, but little melody in the sense that many the 1880-1910 composers had in abundance. Seems like there are some outliers and some composers these days that work with a style not too apparently disparate from "1950s old school modernism"(read expounding on possibilities laid down in the 1940s by much older composers)


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2016)

Rautavaara's first piano concerto is no more tonal than Schoenberg or Stockhausen.


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

nathanb said:


> Rautavaara's first piano concerto is no more tonal than Schoenberg or Stockhausen.


I disagree. I think it's very tonal, and has a lot of clear resolution going on in many passages.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

nathanb said:


> Rautavaara's first piano concerto is no more tonal than Schoenberg or Stockhausen.


It most certainly is. Its first movement begins with a long melody in D minor, moves through a number of related tonal areas which its cluster chords and free transitional passages cannot obscure, and ends in D major.

Here. You can follow the score:


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2016)

regenmusic said:


> I disagree. I think it's very tonal, and has a lot of clear resolution going on in many passages.


Well, of course, if we're using a non-common practice definition of tonal, I think both Rautavaara and Stockhausen are tonal. If we're using a common practice definition, neither are. 

My point was more that it's silly to mention such individual works, because if THOSE are tonal (iow: we're employing a definition outside of the common practice), then most contemporary music is.


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> It most certainly is. Its first movement begins with a long melody in D minor, moves through a number of related tonal areas which its cluster chords and free transitional passages cannot obscure, and ends in D major.
> 
> Here. You can follow the score:


Reading Comprehension Note: "No More Tonal Than Schoenberg Or Stockhausen" =/= "Not Tonal By Any Definition"

And I've followed this particular score before, thanks.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

nathanb said:


> Reading Comprehension Note: "No More Tonal Than Schoenberg Or Stockhausen" =/= "Not Tonal By Any Definition"
> 
> And I've followed this particular score before, thanks.


Music Comprehension Note: You might try following it again. The Rautavaara has _key centers._ This does not:






Neither does this:






The Rautavaara is more tonal than these pieces by these composers. I assume you were not referring to _Verklaerte Nacht_.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

I think (a)tonality and (non)existence thereof is the topical centre of Talk Classical.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

I do not know to begin.

Many of the band composers I have mentioned in other threads.

Whole list of composers in my tonal music thread: http://www.talkclassical.com/41172-12-tone-music-contemporary.html?highlight=


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Music Comprehension Note: You might try following it again. The Rautavaara has _key centers._ This does not:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Have you ever composed serial music, out of curiosity? You demonstrate very little understanding of it.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

regenmusic said:


> I disagree. I think it's very tonal, and has a lot of clear resolution going on in many passages.


Since when has resolution in general been a defining factor in distinguishing "atonality"?

If the music consists of dissonances that are treated as stable, it's not tonal pretty much by default. The music may sound more "pleasant" to you than Schoenberg or Stockhausen, but it's not more tonal. If anything, it's less so.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Man, people are super hung up on agendas and wording. There are other ways to answer and interpret such questions.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

nathanb said:


> Have you ever composed serial music, out of curiosity? You demonstrate very little understanding of it.


Why are you curious about what I've composed, or concerned with my understanding of something not under discussion?

Is the Rautavaara, or is it not, more tonal than the other pieces I've cited? Must I cite more examples of Stockhausen and Schoenberg to demonstrate my point? Can you cite examples of their work (aside from the early works of Schoenberg whose tonality no one disputes) to demonstrate yours?

The OP's question may not be stated with musicological precision, but I think most of us can catch its drift and suggest some other examples of the kind of thing it's asking for (or maybe I'm too optimistic about human nature... Nah.) Need we make it yet another occasion for quibbling about whether the word "tonality" ought to include practically everything?


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

The clusters are just a timbral effect, like organ stops playing "parallel fifths." They're irrelevant to understanding the tonality of the piece.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> Since when has resolution in general been a defining factor in distinguishing "atonality"?
> 
> If the music consists of dissonances that are treated as stable, it's not tonal pretty much by default. The music may sound more "pleasant" to you than Schoenberg or Stockhausen, but it's not more tonal. If anything, it's less so.


The Rautavaara has plenty of unstable dissonance. It has obvious and persistent key centers. Pleasantness has nothing to do with it.


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Why are you curious about what I've composed, or concerned with my understanding of something not under discussion?
> 
> Is the Rautavaara, or is it not, more tonal than the other pieces I've cited? Must I cite more examples of Stockhausen and Schoenberg to demonstrate my point? Can you cite examples of their work (aside from the early works of Schoenberg whose tonality no one disputes) to demonstrate yours?
> 
> The OP's question may not be stated with musicological precision, but I think most of us can catch its drift and suggest some other examples of the kind of thing it's asking for (or maybe I'm too optimistic about human nature... Nah.) Need we make it yet another occasion for quibbling about whether the word "tonality" ought to include practically everything?


You can cite all the examples you want, but if your minimal understanding of contemporary compositional methods prevents you from actually citing said examples properly, the argument is futile.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

To attempt a direct answer to the OP, I'd say you can't speak of a border because modern composers have found many different ways of using tonal and/or modal elements in non-traditional ways.

Prokofiev wrote basically tonal music with some extra crunch; Hindemith had his own system based on his theory of dissonant and consonant intervals related to a tonic; Debussy used modal scales and extended chords in non-functional ways; Berg used 12-tone rows that allude to triadic harmony; Stravinsky wrote in multiple keys; Bartok used modes drawn from folk music; Messiaen built chords from the distant overtones; Ligeti embedded diatonic harmonies in dense clouds of micropolyphony; the minimalists obsessively repeated modal figures.

A lot of that music "sounds tonal" to most listeners, for somewhat different reasons.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

nathanb said:


> You can cite all the examples you want, but if your minimal understanding of contemporary compositional methods prevents you from actually citing said examples properly, the argument is futile.


If you are going to claim that my examples are not cited "properly" and that my understanding of "contemporary compositional methods" is "minimal," you have some obligation to prove the first assertion, and show the relevance of the second, so that you won't be taken as purely contentious or insulting.

I and others have pointed to the tonal aspects of the Rautavaara concerto and offered the music and score for anyone to follow. If you don't want to address it, just say so and stop with the personal remarks.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*And I like um all*



isorhythm said:


> To attempt a direct answer to the OP, I'd say you can't speak of a border because modern composers have found many different ways of using tonal and/or modal elements in non-traditional ways.
> 
> Prokofiev wrote basically tonal music with some extra crunch; Hindemith had his own system based on his theory of dissonant and consonant intervals related to a tonic; Debussy used modal scales and extended chords in non-functional ways; Berg used 12-tone rows that allude to triadic harmony; Stravinsky wrote in multiple keys; Bartok used modes drawn from folk music; Messiaen built chords from the distant overtones; Ligeti embedded diatonic harmonies in dense clouds of micropolyphony; the minimalists obsessively repeated modal figures.
> 
> A lot of that music "sounds tonal" to most listeners, for somewhat different reasons.


And I like um all


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> If you are going to claim that my examples are not cited "properly" and that my understanding of "contemporary compositional methods" is "minimal," you have some obligation to prove the first assertion, and show the relevance of the second, so that you won't be taken as purely contentious or insulting.
> 
> I and others have pointed to the tonal aspects of the Rautavaara concerto and offered the music and score for anyone to follow. If you don't want to address it, just say so and stop with the personal remarks.


You declined to answer my question regarding whether or not you have ever composed in a serial idiom, so until you can prove yourself capable of directly answering a question, I think we're done here.

If, however, you would like to answer my question, I will gladly answer yours. That being how a conversation works, after all.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

isorhythm said:


> To attempt a direct answer to the OP, I'd say you can't speak of a border because modern composers have found many different ways of using tonal and/or modal elements in non-traditional ways.
> 
> Prokofiev wrote basically tonal music with some extra crunch; Hindemith had his own system based on his theory of dissonant and consonant intervals related to a tonic; Debussy used modal scales and extended chords in non-functional ways; Berg used 12-tone rows that allude to triadic harmony; Stravinsky wrote in multiple keys; Bartok used modes drawn from folk music; Messiaen built chords from the distant overtones; Ligeti embedded diatonic harmonies in dense clouds of micropolyphony; the minimalists obsessively repeated modal figures.
> 
> A lot of that music "sounds tonal" to most listeners, for somewhat different reasons.


Schoenberg did all of the above, too (micropolyphony aside), but people seem to have him pegged as being the very definition of atonal. You're never going to understand what he did with music if you think that his methods were derived from atonality, and much less if you think that atonality and melody are in conflict in some way.

I can't respond to the OP because it makes no sense to me. There is nothing that is inherently tonal about melody (or else there would have been no melodies outside of the Western tradition), and there is nothing unmelodic about modernist music.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

I'm not doubting you, but I didn't know Schoenberg ever used folk modes.


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> Schoenberg did all of the above, too (micropolyphony aside), but people seem to have him pegged as being the very definition of atonal. You're never going to understand what he did with music if you think that his methods were derived from atonality, and much less if you think that atonality and melody are in conflict in some way.
> 
> I can't respond to the OP because it makes no sense to me. There is nothing that is inherently tonal about melody (or else there would have been no melodies outside of the Western tradition), and there is nothing unmelodic about modernist music.


But the majority of people would disagree with you, calling the "classical music" of Schoenberg, Stockhausen and similar composers noise. Just because classical music enthusiasts cut them slack, and about half like them and half don't (I'm being generous), doesn't put it in the same set as acceptable standards of what melody means to people. After all, composers are graded as good melodicists as a standard, and there is obviously a lot that don't meet that grade, just as there are the same for pop music composers. Also, you don't hear Schoenberg and Stockhausen on most FM Classical music stations playlists, which proves their ideas of melody are not full accepted, mainly because their melodies are not tonal. So, it's an interesting question I pose because I think music is exciting at this border.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

nathanb said:


> You declined to answer my question regarding whether or not you have ever composed in a serial idiom, so until you can prove yourself capable of directly answering a question, I think we're done here.
> 
> If, however, you would like to answer my question, I will gladly answer yours. That being how a conversation works, after all.


So are you saying only composers of serial music have an understanding of it? Just because one doesn't compose serial music doesn't mean one cannot have a firm grasp of understanding that idiom... Perhaps you could cite some examples of why you feel Woodduck has minimal understanding of serial works, unless your just trying to have the last word which seems to be your M.O, I for one found his examples and statements insightful and not lacking in understanding. Why is it even necessary to answer your question that had nothing to do with what was previously being debated or were you just trying to look for another avenue of weakness to begin poking holes in since he was successfully arguing against your original statement in post #4?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

regenmusic said:


> But the majority of people would disagree with you, calling the "classical music" of Schoenberg, Stockhausen and similar composers noise. Just because classical music enthusiasts cut them slack, and about half like them and half don't (I'm being generous), doesn't put it in the same set as acceptable standards of what melody means to people. After all, composers are graded as good melodicists as a standard, and there is obviously a lot that don't meet that grade, just as there are the same for pop music composers. Also, you don't hear Schoenberg and Stockhausen on most FM Classical music stations playlists, which proves their ideas of melody are not full accepted, mainly because their melodies are not tonal. So, it's an interesting question I pose because I think music is exciting at this border.


Leaving aside Stockhausen for a moment, whose music I am not nearly as familiar with and whose music isn't as melody/motif based, the issue is not that people have heard Schoenberg's music and decided they disliked the melodies it contains, the issue is that _they don't hear the melodies at all_.

The reason for this is not "atonality," but the unfamiliarity of the musical language, which is more difficult to become familiar with by reason of its lack of repetition and constant variation.

I am not in a position to judge how well-written a French novel is, because my knowledge of French extends only about as far as recognizing some words by their Latin roots. Similarly, if one is not able to follow a musical language to the extent where one cannot even recognize what is being conveyed, one cannot pronounce judgment on works using that language.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

isorhythm said:


> I'm not doubting you, but I didn't know Schoenberg ever used folk modes.


He did actually write a set of modal settings of older German songs in his op. 49 (which is a revision of a much earlier work), just as Bartok did harmonizations of folk melodies.

There are also plenty of pentatonic enclaves in his later works, such as the Violin Concerto, Moses und Aron, and the Four Pieces for Choir.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Before this thread gets too unpleasant, please remember to comment on threads ideas rather than other members.


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2016)

Fugue Meister said:


> So are you saying only composers of serial music have an understanding of it? Just because one doesn't compose serial music doesn't mean one cannot have a firm grasp of understanding that idiom... Perhaps you could cite some examples of why you feel Woodduck has minimal understanding of serial works, unless your just trying to have the last word which seems to be your M.O, I for one found his examples and statements insightful and not lacking in understanding. Why is it even necessary to answer your question that had nothing to do with what was previously being debated or were you just trying to look for another avenue of weakness to begin poking holes in since he was successfully arguing against your original statement in post #4?


I decided to ask if he actually had any experience with contemporary compositional idioms rather than rattle off a bunch of arguments he probably wasn't going to comprehend without said experience. Guess I took a short cut. Sorry.


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> Leaving aside Stockhausen for a moment, whose music I am not nearly as familiar with and whose music isn't as melody/motif based, the issue is not that people have heard Schoenberg's music and decided they disliked the melodies it contains, the issue is that _they don't hear the melodies at all_.
> 
> The reason for this is not "atonality," but the unfamiliarity of the musical language, which is more difficult to become familiar with by reason of its lack of repetition and constant variation.
> 
> I am not in a position to judge how well-written a French novel is, because my knowledge of French extends only about as far as recognizing some words by their Latin roots. Similarly, if one is not able to follow a musical language to the extent where one cannot even recognize what is being conveyed, one cannot pronounce judgment on works using that language.


I guess this kind of goes into deconstructivism. One is deconstructing the original question for a revisionist purpose, instead of seeing it's commonly held semantic value.

I like very abstract music (as well as traditional), but I guess my experience of life doesn't value things resolving on dissonant clusters, calling that melody.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

regenmusic said:


> I guess this kind of goes into deconstructivism. One is deconstructing the original question for a revisionist purpose, instead of seeing it's commonly held semantic value.
> 
> I like very abstract music (as well as traditional), but I guess my experience of life doesn't value things resolving on dissonant clusters, calling that melody.


No, you just never defined your terms to begin with. I can assure you that my sense of what sounds melodic is pretty much the same as yours.

Also, if we're going to talk about clusters, Schnittke and Rautavaara are far more associated with that technique than either Schoenberg (I can't think of any clusters in his work, honestly) or Stockhausen. The Piano Concerto you cited is *filled* with clusters, even parallel clusters.


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> No, you just never defined your terms to begin with. I can assure you that my sense of what sounds melodic is pretty much the same as yours.
> 
> Also, if we're going to talk about clusters, Schnittke and Rautavaara are far more associated with that technique than either Schoenberg (I can't think of any clusters in his work, honestly) or Stockhausen. The Piano Concerto you cited is *filled* with clusters, even parallel clusters.


OK, I appreciate the intellectual workout. I said however resolving on dissonant clusters, which is different than using clusters as the above poster said, more as transitional embellishment.

Defining terms when done excessively can seem like one is being needlessly interrogated. I think the question could have about 30 interesting answers, but it would take me years to find them on my own.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

regenmusic said:


> OK, I appreciate the intellectual workout. I said however resolving on dissonant clusters, which is different than using clusters as the above poster said, more as transitional embellishment.


Clusters are dissonant by definition, so "dissonant cluster" is redundant. Also, as I said, clusters are not a noted feature of either Stockhausen's or Schoenberg's music. I know Schoenberg's oeuvre quite well and I'm at a loss to remember any time he used them.



regenmusic said:


> Defining terms when done excessively can seem like one is being needlessly interrogated. I think the question could have about 30 interesting answers, but it would take me years to find them on my own.


You still haven't provided *any* definition of melody though.

Also, the reason why definitions of terms like tonality and atonality are important is because, as I said before, they are used as a means to exclude things, to say that things are "unnatural" or inferior. If it turns out that people have been constructing their opinions around vague ideas that fit their emotional distastes rather than any actual musical trait, isn't that meaningful? It's not just a game of semantics.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> He did actually write a set of modal settings of older German songs in his op. 49 (which is a revision of a much earlier work), just as Bartok did harmonizations of folk melodies.
> 
> There are also plenty of pentatonic enclaves in his later works, such as the Violin Concerto, Moses und Aron, and the Four Pieces for Choir.


And then there's this:


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

This discussion is going wrong the same way so many others have. "Diatonic melodicism" might have been a strategically better choice than "tonal melodicism" for the thread title, in that it wouldn't immediately invite the usual thread derailments that happen whenever someone foregrounds the tonal-atonal dichotomy, but tonal melodicism is certainly accurate enough for the examples the OP has chosen. The Rautavaara has key centers and prominently uses diatonic sets in its harmony and melody. It has much in common with Schnittke and Weinberg's more adventurous works. It has diatonic melodies with a lot of conjunct motion, which makes them easily identifiable and singable by musical amateurs. It has little in common with Schoenberg or Stockhausen and bringing up this comparison is an irrelevant distraction.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> It most certainly is. Its first movement begins with a long melody in D minor, moves through a number of related tonal areas which its cluster chords and free transitional passages cannot obscure, and ends in D major.
> 
> Here. You can follow the score:


It's quasi-tonal in a way that I've never heard Stockhausen be. Perhaps someone will cite an example of Stockhausen that compares in it's use of underlying triadic harmony.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

regenmusic said:


> I like very abstract music (as well as traditional), but I guess my experience of life doesn't value things resolving on dissonant clusters, calling that melody.


Wait, what would resolving on a dissonant cluster have to do with melody? The same melody could resolve on a cluster tone or a major triad (with different effects, of course).

In the context of modern music, resolving on a cluster tone (assuming that the previous phrases had not contained cluster tones) I would think might have the same musical effect as a deceptive cadence.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> It's quasi-tonal in a way that I've never heard Stockhausen be. Perhaps someone will cite an example of Stockhausen that compares in it's use of underlying triadic harmony.


But that's confusing triads with tonality. Tonality is about a certain use of specific triadic relationships, not simply the use of triads.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> But that's confusing triads with tonality. Tonality is about a certain use of specific triadic relationships, not simply the use of triads.


Yes but it's the use of triads and sequences of them which make the music _sound _more tonal than Stockhausen whether it is by a strict definition or not. And thus it is no doubt more accessible to many people than is Stockhausen.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Clusters are dissonant by definition, so "dissonant cluster" is redundant. Also, as I said, clusters are not a noted feature of either Stockhausen's or Schoenberg's music. I know Schoenberg's oeuvre quite well and I'm at a loss to remember any time he used them.
> 
> You still haven't provided *any* definition of melody though.
> 
> Also, the reason why definitions of terms like tonality and atonality are important is because, as I said before, they are used as a means to exclude things, to say that things are "unnatural" or inferior. If it turns out that people have been constructing their opinions around vague ideas that fit their emotional distastes rather than any actual musical trait, isn't that meaningful? It's not just a game of semantics.


Why does every thread have to be about Schoenberg? He was introduced through an irrelevant and distracting post making a mistaken claim. So of course we now have to run with it even though the only thing it will accomplish is thread derailment. Quibbling about whether the expression "dissonant cluster" is redundant is simply ungenerous and a distraction to discussion of the music as well. I don't think this sort of pedantic correction is likely to encourage musical amateurs to speak up on TC. And asking for a definition of melody is insulting in this context. What will it accomplish? It will prevent the discussion of interesting music. And it will put someone on the defensive.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> But that's confusing triads with tonality. Tonality is about a certain use of specific triadic relationships, not simply the use of triads.


No, that is common-practice tonality. Clearly the OP is using tonal in an extended sense. And since he cited examples that do indeed have tonal centers, why don't you just assume that he is talking about the kind of extended tonality that is heard in the examples? That is why we cite examples, isn't it? To clarify the subject?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Petwhac said:


> Yes but it's the use of triads and sequences of them which make the music _sound _more tonal than Stockhausen whether it is by a strict definition or not. And thus it is no doubt more accessible to many people than is Stockhausen.


It not only _sounds_ tonal, it _is_ tonal, and obviously so. "Accessible" or "inaccessible" to whomever, Rautavaara's use of triadic harmony is tonal, even in a purely Western sense. The piece begins in D minor and clearly visits such related key areas as G minor, F major and D major, where it decisively ends. Tone clusters, extended chords, polytonal effects, and "nonfunctional" relationships along the way (and they aren't all "nonfunctional") can't conceal the underlying tonality - at least not from a number of us here - and they are not intended to. A good performance will ensure that they don't.

A conception of tonality that sets people to hunting down "tonal centers" in Schoenberg's 12-tone works, while dismissing the tonal credentials of a piece where explicit and persistent tonal centers audibly and visibly undergird the whole work, makes my head spin. How is this going to help anyone understand what's going on in _any_ music? If there's some theory that so contradicts the evidence of one's ears and eyes, that theory needs revising.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I think there are increasingly good examples of composers who aspire to traditional models but obviously aware of contemporary developments as these belong to their (our) times.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> I think there are increasingly good examples of composers who aspire to traditional models but obviously aware of contemporary developments as these belong to their (our) times.


Like who? Always interested to check out recommended new composers and trends


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> No, that is common-practice tonality. Clearly the OP is using tonal in an extended sense. And since he cited examples that do indeed have tonal centers, why don't you just assume that he is talking about the kind of extended tonality that is heard in the examples? That is why we cite examples, isn't it? To clarify the subject?


Well, the music he calls atonal also has tonal centers, so there's once again no real distinction between the two other than the fact of triads, which were not in the first place the primary distinction that makes something tonal.


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> Well, the music he calls atonal also has tonal centers, so there's once again no real distinction between the two other than the fact of triads, which were not in the first place the primary distinction that makes something tonal.


I didn't cite anything to begin with, I was responding to music others called atonal. I like a little Schoenberg and more of Stockhausen, like his music for music boxes.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

regenmusic said:


> Where is the border where modernism still hold's its tonal melodicism?
> 
> Schnittke's Concerto Grosso 2 is one example for me, Einojuhani Rautavaara - Piano Concerto No. 1 is another.


Frank Martin is an interesting figure to think about along these lines--ambiguously "tonal" lyricism (which he alluded to, but didn't describe in detail) combined with serial techniques. Here's his string quartet, which I think is quite lovely, in case you're of interest:


















Of course, I'm not really sure how well Martin fits into any sort of timeline of music--he's something of an outlier.


----------



## Guest (Apr 27, 2016)

Blancrocher said:


> Frank Martin is an interesting figure to think about along these lines--ambiguously "tonal" lyricism combined with serial techniques. Here's his string quartet (which I think is quite lovely), in case you're of interest:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Frank Martin is a wonderful composer, but I'd like to point out that I'm glad you did NOT first recommend his mass. It's a fantastic work, but it was pretty awkward when I realized that it's not remotely representative of his style.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Well, the music he calls atonal also has tonal centers, so there's once again no real distinction between the two other than the fact of triads, which were not in the first place the primary distinction that makes something tonal.


This is quite wrong. There are other centrally important distinctions:

The Germanic "atonal" line:
1. undercut the sense of key and tonal center
2. eliminated the triad (standard major, minor and diminished chords) as the basic unit of harmony
3. suspended or loosened the gravitation that comes with key and traditional voice-leading

The Eastern European line: 
1. undercut the sense of key but facilitated new and systematic ways of establishing pitch centrality 
2. kept the triad as the basic unit
3. exploited gravitation between unrelated triads by preserving and extending aspects of traditional voice-leading

As an illustration of how this works consider the basic triadic progression underlying Schnittke's Concerto for Piano and Strings:









You can see how my examples relate to the actual piano part by examining the score in this youtube performance, to which the timings below are keyed:






None of the six triads defining the principal theme in Example 1 exists in the same key as those preceding or following it, but each connects smoothly with the others by stepwise voice-leading, and some of the connections (2-3, 5-6) have an intense sense of resolution akin to a traditional cadence. The complex chords in mm. 5 and 6 of the example, which are created by stacking two triads, each have a strong, quasi-dominant attraction to the C minor triad (m. 7) because of this style of parsimonious voice-leading. The conspicuous use of these stacked chords is one way in which C minor (and then major) becomes the gravitational center of the concerto's whole first section. (In the video, hear a deceptive cadence on C at 2:59, a strong cadence on C minor at 3:32, all anticipating the climactic I-V-I progression in C major at 4:11.) Another way is by analogy of progression. The first three chords go to D minor, the second three to G minor, establishing an overall progression by fifths(!) By analogy, the next step is C minor.

Note that Schnittke's language grew organically out of the harmonic language of Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Miaskovsky, et alia. Essentially, what these composers did was to systematically exploit every possible non-diatonic triadic relationship with root motion by second, third, or tritone using maximally smooth, parsimonious voice-leading. This is a central part of what defines this school of composition and makes its practitioners' method of undercutting the traditionally concept of key wholly different from the Germans.

Example 2 shows one way Schnittke increases harmonic tension in the development by stacking all sets of two adjacent triads from Example 1. Note that each set of stacked triads moves smoothly to the next by stepwise motion. As a point of interest, Schnittke derives a tone row from the basic triadic progression, consisting of four trichords, all permutations of the first. The tone row is used prominently as the bass line of a waltz (P10) at 11:45 and all twelve of its pitches hang in the air at the end of the concerto. The row statement (P0) begins at 21:24. The magical effect of this ending, however, has to do with the fact that every pitch in the row carries a memory of the triadic context from which it emerged.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

But the German line also found new ways of establishing tonal centers and extended voice leading. Like I said, the difference is in the triad.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Mahlerian - respectfully, people have asked you many times to explain what you mean by this, and the closest you've come in my memory is saying that the first two measures of Schoenberg's Fourth Quartet sound "D minor-ish" to you.

I don't think that's enough to support the idea that "tonal centers" play a consistent, important role in Schoenberg's 12-tone music.

You've been proffering an idiosyncratic theory of Schoenberg's music, far outside mainstream music theory. There's nothing wrong with that, but it does put a burden on you to provide strong evidence if you want to convince others.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

isorhythm said:


> Mahlerian - respectfully, people have asked you many times to explain what you mean by this, and the closest you've come in my memory is saying that the first two measures of Schoenberg's Fourth Quartet sound "D minor-ish" to you.
> 
> I don't think that's enough to support the idea that "tonal centers" play a consistent, important role in Schoenberg's 12-tone music.


I did not say the first two bars sounded D-minorish. YOU said that on the basis of my saying that the first theme group had a tonal center on D with a focus that sounded close to the minor. YOU were the one who said that the reason I was saying that was the first few notes of the melody, even though this was in direct contradiction to what I said.



isorhythm said:


> You've been proffering an idiosyncratic theory of Schoenberg's music, far outside mainstream music theory. There's nothing wrong with that, but it does put a burden on you to provide strong evidence if you want to convince others.


I don't see why the burden of proof is shifted onto me to prove definitively that I hear the way I hear, while Woodduck and others get a pass simply for saying that there are no such things as the ones I hear. The tonal centers I perceive in Schoenberg are far stronger than the ones I perceive in the Rautavaara or in much of Debussy, let alone pre-tonal music.

I can't fully justify my perceptions to your satisfaction. But *it's not a theory*, it's the way I and others hear the music. You can't argue on the basis of the tonal centers not being perceptible if you run into someone who claims they perceive them. It would be more fruitful if we could discuss how a tonal center is created and perceived.

You seem to think I started with the idea that all music is tonal, and shaped my perceptions on that basis. Well, you're wrong.

I started out thinking that tonality and atonality were separate and opposed, and gradually realized that they weren't, on the basis of what I heard.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Mahlerian said:


> I don't see why the burden of proof is shifted onto me to prove definitively that I hear the way I hear, while Woodduck and others get a pass simply for saying that there are no such things as the ones I hear. The tonal centers I perceive in Schoenberg are far stronger than the ones I perceive in the Rautavaara or in much of Debussy, let alone pre-tonal music.


It doesn't matter what you, personally, hear if no one else does.

So you can either show us that a significant number of other people consistently hear the same tonal centers that you do, in which case it will be up to us to theorize about why that is.

Or you can show us analytically how the music works to create the tonal centers you perceive.

So far you've done neither.

What if I said that I hear Mozart K 488 as really being in F minor? No one else can tell me I don't hear what I hear. But at the same time, no one else needs to worry about it.

If I found a bunch of other people who also heard it in F minor, then we would have a problem needing explanation.

If I performed some kind of analysis of the piece pointing to a tonal center of F minor, that could perhaps allow other people to hear it the way I do, that would support my case.

But if I just keep saying "I hear what I hear" - that's not worth much.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

isorhythm said:


> It doesn't matter what you, personally, hear if no one else does.
> 
> So you can either show us that a significant number of other people consistently hear the same tonal centers that you do, in which case it will be up to us to theorize about why that is.
> 
> ...


Yes, but you and Woodduck are in effect saying that I am not hearing the music correctly.

You continue to state that the music "contains no perceptible tonal centers." This is in direct conflict with my and others' hearing tonal centers throughout the music. You are just shifting the burden of proof back to me to force me to prove that I perceive what I perceive.

I have in fact cited writers before, including Sessions and Haimo, to the effect that Schoenberg's music continued to be shaped by and defined by tonality. Here's a quote from a third writer, Sabine Feisst: "Not only are its sections short and clearly articulated, but [the Phantasy's] texture also alludes to G minor and major keys and other consonant harmonies."


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Dim7 said:


> I think (a)tonality and (non)existence thereof is the topical centre of Talk Classical.


And yet many here seem to think the question of tonality is boring, irrelevant, etc. It seems to me that it does matter, to most listeners, if they are listening for meaning or comprehension. We are human, we are ear/brain, and never shall we separate the two.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> Yes, but you and Woodduck are in effect saying that I am not hearing the music correctly.
> 
> You continue to state that the music "contains no perceptible tonal centers." This is in direct conflict with my and others' hearing tonal centers throughout the music. You are just shifting the burden of proof back to me to force me to prove that I perceive what I perceive.


I think isorhythm was asking for factual notation, cited resources backing up what you perceive. I must confess I'm curious... EdwardBast has given some rather interesting points and your response back was a bit vague, maybe you wouldn't mind elaborating.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Mahlerian said:


> Yes, but you and Woodduck are in effect saying that I am not hearing the music correctly.


I'm certainly not saying this. I don't even know what "not hearing the music correctly" is supposed to mean. You hear what you hear.

We're talking about _describing how it works_. Describing Schoenberg's music as tonal is a wrong description.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Fugue Meister said:


> I think isorhythm was asking for factual notation, cited resources backing up what you perceive. I must confess I'm curious... EdwardBast has given some rather interesting points and your response back was a bit vague, maybe you wouldn't mind elaborating.


I'm not disagreeing that Eastern European composers generally continued to write triadic music. I'm disagreeing with the idea that the music written by German composers was a significant departure from traditional voice leading or methods of creating tonal centricity to a greater degree. It seems to me that the only way you can make that argument is by ad hoc additions that are designed specifically to make it the case that "atonal" music is separate from tradition.






The voice leading used throughout here is very smooth, lots of small stepwise movement, with the exception of melodic or motivic lines, which are more freely treated, as they always have been.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

isorhythm said:


> I'm certainly not saying this. I don't even know what "not hearing the music correctly" is supposed to mean. You hear what you hear.
> 
> We're talking about _describing how it works_. Describing Schoenberg's music as tonal is a wrong description.


So is describing Debussy as tonal, and for the exact same reasons.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> I'm not disagreeing that Eastern European composers generally continued to write triadic music. I'm disagreeing with the idea that the music written by German composers was a significant departure from traditional voice leading or methods of creating tonal centricity to a greater degree.


You are simply mischaracterizing the earlier point of contention. You claimed:



Mahlerian said:


> Well, the music he calls atonal also has tonal centers, so there's once again no real distinction between the two other than the fact of triads, which were not in the first place the primary distinction that makes something tonal.


I argued that there were other important distinctions: systematic ways of establishing tonal centers using a vocabulary of non-diatonically related triads. It isn't the mere fact of using triads. It is using specific networks of triads in a specific way to create tonal centricity. If this is correct - and I can provide numerous other examples of the same methods if you aren't convinced - then I have demonstrated that your claim is false.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> You are simply mischaracterizing the earlier point of contention. You claimed:
> 
> I argued that there were other important distinctions: systematic ways of establishing tonal centers using a vocabulary of non-diatonically related triads. It isn't the mere fact of using triads. It is using specific networks of triads in a specific way to create tonal centricity. If this is correct - and I can provide numerous other examples of the same methods if you aren't convinced - then I have demonstrated that your claim is false.


But there are ways of creating tonal centers using a vocabulary completely devoid of or not emphasizing triads as well. It's not that I'm not convinced regarding the existence of common usages among a certain group of composers (and certainly each composer had his own methods which stayed relatively consistent), it's that I'm not convinced that those usages constitute a system, much less a replacement for common practice tonality, in a way that the German line's music did not.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> But there are ways of creating tonal centers using a vocabulary completely devoid of or not emphasizing triads as well. It's not that I'm not convinced regarding the existence of common usages among a certain group of composers (and certainly each composer had his own methods which stayed relatively consistent), it's that I'm not convinced that those usages constitute a system, much less a replacement for common practice tonality, in a way that the German line's music did not.


I've claimed that the Eastern Europeans found specific ways of establishing strong tone centricity in a triadic system while eliminating organization according to key. You've claimed this is no more a replacement for common practice tonality than is whatever the German line was doing in their "atonal" music. How so? One important thing CP tonality accomplishes is establishing tonal centricity through functional relationships among triads. I've demonstrated functional relationships among non-diatonically related triads that establish tone centricity in a powerful way, in the case of the Schnittke concerto, across five minutes of music. Whether or not this approach is a thoroughgoing "replacement" for CP tonality (an irrelevant criterion and a red herring in any case), it does accomplish something similar and was widely used. So, now I am asking you, as others have at this point in similar arguments: What did the German line do to create a comparable tone centricity in their so-called atonal music? And how does it work, in broad terms at least? If you are going to keep making this claim, others are going to continue to suggest that you should either put up or desist.

By the way, why you want to make this argument at all has always been a mystery to me. Why do you think it important that "atonal" music should have tone centers?


----------

