# Tonal/Atonal



## Guest (Jan 8, 2013)

Tonality is a system. It is a way of manipulating pitches. It is a way of managing pitches both in their horizontal (melody) and vertical (harmony) dimensions.

Serialism is a system. It is a way of manipulating pitches and other musical elements. It is a way of managing them horizontally and vertically.

*Atonality, on the other hand, is no sort of system at all.* No matter who is using (and abusing) this ostensibly useful term (meaning anything from "whatever I don't like" to "anything that doesn't use keys"), it never ever means anything like a system.

This point has come up before, inside other threads. Maybe it will get a little more respect if it's given its own wee thread here.

Because atonality, improperly so-called, is constructed by putting an "a" in front of "tonality," it is easy to feel that it's an antonym. It's not. It's more along the lines of a bad joke. As I have pointed out before, it's about as useful taxonomically as dividing animals up into canines and acanines, which puts elephants and preying mantises into the same category.

But since "atonality" is not in any way, shape, or form a system, it's really not comparable to tonality, which definitely is a system. Systematically, before tonality there were modes. After tonality there was serialism. I suppose one could add in things like Norgard's infinity series or Schaeffer's electroacoustic solfege as other kinds of systems. So any of those could be usefully and logically compared.

Tonality and atonality, though? Not so much. They look so much alike, but really comparing them is like comparing apples and cartesian positivism. They're two conceptually unrelated things.

If, however, tonality and atonality can be made to mean "what I like" and "what I dislike," then sure, they can be compared quite easily. But then they are no longer very useful terms for identifying anything distinctly--stylistically, historically, even ideologically--because "what I like" and "what I dislike" vary so from person to person.

This stuff all seems so obvious. It's embarrassing to have started this thread. But so many people keep using these terms as if they actually meant something that they don't (and can't), apparently it was necessary.


----------



## Wandering (Feb 27, 2012)

atunal might be a better word, no?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

I like _pan tonal_


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

some guy said:


> It's embarrassing to have started this thread.


Uh...well...never mind...


----------



## Wandering (Feb 27, 2012)

or monolicious maybe?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)




----------



## Guest (Jan 8, 2013)

Pantonal is what Schoenberg liked anyway.

But monolicious? Clovis, you are hired.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

The term "atonal" is very interesting. I accept that it does not have a useful technical meaning in music. Generally, people who use it are _not_ really using it as a technical term (even if they think they are). They are using it to refer to a set of musical works. The term is used in the same way Classical, Baroque, and Romantic are used. People who don't like Bach, Handel, Vivaldi, Telemann, etc. simply say "I don't like Baroque music", and everyone understands what they mean. People who don't like composers such as Schoenberg, Berg, Boulez, Stockhausen, Ligeti, Babbitt, Cage, etc. do not have a simple term to use. We have not yet invented that term, but people want to use something simple (like Baroque) so they use "atonal".

Apparently many people want a term that refers to the set of works by 20th century composers who are "further" from Romantic music than say Debussy, Prokofiev, Ravel, Shostakovich, etc. They use "atonal' for lack of a better term. Maybe 100 years from now, the era from roughly 1920-2000 will be called the "Varied" era, and people will speak of Serial Varied, Minimalist Varied, Electronic Varied, Romantic Varied, etc.. Instead of using "atonal" people might say non-Romantic Varied music. Who knows?

If we accept that people are using "atonal" to refer to a set of musical works rather than in a technical sense, then we must ask if those people are referring to a reasonably well defined set of works. If many people used "atonal" to refer to differing sets of works, the term would not be very useful. My gut feeling is that the overlap between what most people here refer to as "atonal" is relatively large. In other words, most people have a pretty good sense of atonal music versus not atonal music. If that's true, then the real "complaint" would be that we should find a better term for "atonal" music.


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

I just thought "atonal" was used to refer to music that is not in a particular key.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I like _pan tonal_


Sorry, too close to 'pandiatonic' - that already taken as a specific early twentieth century style, 'pandiatonic' pretty strongly implying, 'pan-tonal'


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Non-tonal?


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Non-tonal? 

It amazes me to see folks can be so worked up by one word like "atonal". It's not like the music will be burnt forever when the word gets used or one is going deaf or whatever.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Tristan said:


> I just thought "atonal" was used to refer to music that is not in a particular key.


As a label, it most certainly sounds like a misnomer. It takes an understanding in context of the primary application of atonal, i.e. it avoids the common practice of Tonic (ton-al) as the beginning and end point reference of the scale and chord functions built thereon, and further, assiduously avoids also any real sounding appearances of IV and V as chord functions -- again from that common practice viewpoint, because those would have any ear used to common practice already anticipating a frame of reference where I as tonic is the base.

Might as well extend the lesson, though I think it can confuse those dealing with basics more than it might help....

The moment Debussy first wrote music which used chords as color, no longer functioning in the common practice manner, 'tonality' as we know it from the common practice period was effectively 'busted.' (It had been happening since Wagner, but that is another technical story.)

After that, what we now call generally 'tonal' later twentieth century music -- if that 'tonal' refers to the common practice definition and chord function -- is also no longer 'technically' Tonal.

Everything clear now?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Clovis said:


> atunal might be a better word, no?


No, it's lame and antique, 'dude.' If it is a line, whatever you think of it, it can be and often is 'a melody.' It is just not "go tell aunt grody" or "Twinkle Twinkly Little Dude" anymore


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> The term "atonal" is very interesting. I accept that it does not have a useful technical meaning in music. Generally, people who use it are _not_ really using it as a technical term (even if they think they are). They are using it to refer to a set of musical works. The term is used in the same way Classical, Baroque, and Romantic are used. People who don't like Bach, Handel, Vivaldi, Telemann, etc. simply say "I don't like Baroque music", and everyone understands what they mean. People who don't like composers such as Schoenberg, Berg, Boulez, Stockhausen, Ligeti, Babbitt, Cage, etc. do not have a simple term to use. We have not yet invented that term, but people want to use something simple (like Baroque) so they use "atonal".
> 
> Apparently many people want a term that refers to the set of works by 20th century composers who are "further" from Romantic music than say Debussy, Prokofiev, Ravel, Shostakovich, etc. They use "atonal' for lack of a better term. Maybe 100 years from now, the era from roughly 1920-2000 will be called the "Varied" era, and people will speak of Serial Varied, Minimalist Varied, Electronic Varied, Romantic Varied, etc.. Instead of using "atonal" people might say non-Romantic Varied music. Who knows?
> 
> If we accept that people are using "atonal" to refer to a set of musical works rather than in a technical sense, then we must ask if those people are referring to a reasonably well defined set of works. If many people used "atonal" to refer to differing sets of works, the term would not be very useful. My gut feeling is that the overlap between what most people here refer to as "atonal" is relatively large. In other words, most people have a pretty good sense of atonal music versus not atonal music. If that's true, then the real "complaint" would be that we should find a better term for "atonal" music.


How about 'accepting' a handful of definitions as already given us by composers and musicologists vs. recontextualizing everything and making stuff up?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

PetrB said:


> How about 'accepting' a handful of definitions as already given us by composers and musicologists vs. recontextualizing everything and making stuff up?


It's really just a practical matter. People generally prefer to use one word or phrase rather than a handful of words or phrases. Think of the term "organic" as used for foods. Scientists define all foods as organic, and many compounds that are not foods are also organic. The term is not used correctly from a scientific standpoint, but society wanted a term to refer to a set of foods grown various (not totally well defined) ways. The foods should not use certain pesticides or certain additives and maybe must be grown using certain techniques. Rather than use the unwieldy technical descriptions of what foods qualify, people just say "organic" and almost everyone knows roughly what is meant.

And, of course, the term "organic" probably means something slightly different to various people (as "atonal" might), but still people find it useful since most people mean something fairly similar when they use "organic". As a scientist, I'm not really happy with the term, but I recognize that it makes sense for non-scientists to use such a term.

The real question is whether people use the term "atonal" to refer to a reasonably consistent set of works. If so, it makes sense for them to coin a word or term for that set.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I shll kindly leave you linguists and academisc to figure it all out, while I go listen to some atonal piano sonatas by Scriabin.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> It's really just a practical matter. People generally prefer to use one word or phrase rather than a handful of words or phrases. Think of the term "organic" as used for foods. Scientists define all foods as organic, and many compounds that are not foods are also organic. The term is not used correctly from a scientific standpoint, but society wanted a term to refer to a set of foods grown various (not totally well defined) ways. The foods should not use certain pesticides or certain additives and maybe must be grown using certain techniques. Rather than use the unwieldy technical descriptions of what foods qualify, people just say "organic" and almost everyone knows roughly what is meant.
> 
> And, of course, the term "organic" probably means something slightly different to various people (as "atonal" might), but still people find it useful since most people mean something fairly similar when they use "organic". As a scientist, I'm not really happy with the term, but I recognize that it makes sense for non-scientists to use such a term.
> 
> The real question is whether people use the term "atonal" to refer to a reasonably consistent set of works. If so, it makes sense for them to coin a word or term for that set.


'Society' in this case is all of 2% of the entire population of the planet; somehow, I don't think there are enough people with 'atonal' about to trip off their lips in discussing musical in general, that a 'peoples' definition would do anything but further clutter the scene and make more confusion.

In pop music, 'neoclassical' now means 'not 20th century classical neoclassical' but that is a huge marketplace that will, for its own convenience, make up terms.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> I shll kindly leave you linguists and academisc to figure it all out, while I go listen to some atonal piano sonatas by Scriabin.


How can Piano be atonal exactly?


----------



## Wandering (Feb 27, 2012)

PetrB said:


> No, it's lame and antique, 'dude.' If it is a line, whatever you think of it, it can be and often is 'a melody.' It is just not "go tell aunt grody" or "Twinkle Twinkly Little Dude" anymore


'Ah the creature, the creatures, everything has to be explained to them.' - Beckett


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> The term "atonal" is very interesting. I accept that it does not have a useful technical meaning in music. Generally, people who use it are _not_ really using it as a technical term (even if they think they are). They are using it to refer to a set of musical works. The term is used in the same way Classical, Baroque, and Romantic are used. People who don't like Bach, Handel, Vivaldi, Telemann, etc. simply say "I don't like Baroque music", and everyone understands what they mean. People who don't like composers such as Schoenberg, Berg, Boulez, Stockhausen, Ligeti, Babbitt, Cage, etc. do not have a simple term to use. We have not yet invented that term, but people want to use something simple (like Baroque) so they use "atonal".


There is a term. The style is called Modernism.



mmsbls said:


> Apparently many people want a term that refers to the set of works by 20th century composers who are "further" from Romantic music than say Debussy, Prokofiev, Ravel, Shostakovich, etc. They use "atonal' for lack of a better term. Maybe 100 years from now, the era from roughly 1920-2000 will be called the "Varied" era, and people will speak of Serial Varied, Minimalist Varied, Electronic Varied, Romantic Varied, etc.. Instead of using "atonal" people might say non-Romantic Varied music. Who knows?


By any measure you would like to name, Schoenberg and Berg are much closer to Romantic music's style and practice than many of the composers you listed. I am utterly serious. That people cannot or will not hear this does not change the facts.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

PetrB said:


> 'Society' in this case is all of 2% of the entire population of the planet; somehow, I don't think there are enough people with 'atonal' about to trip off their lips in discussing musical in general, that a 'peoples' definition would do anything but further clutter the scene and make more confusion.
> 
> In pop music, 'neoclassical' now means 'not 20th century classical neoclassical' but that is a huge marketplace that will, for its own convenience, make up terms.


It really doesn't matter if the group coining a term is a few thousand people (as in particle physicists with terms such as "propagator" and "charm quark") or hundreds of millions. _Any_ group of people who wish to discuss something they are interested in will make up terms for that thing. That's how language works. People who talk about "atonal music" don't care that 98% of the world has no idea what they mean. Discussions about "atonal music" do not involve those 98%, just as particle physicists will (generally) not discuss "charm" with non physicists.



Mahlerian said:


> There is a term. The style is called Modernism.


I thought Modernism included Prokofiev, Barber, Adams, Shostakovich, etc. If so, then Modernism wouldn't really be a good substitute. If the two terms are essentially equivalent, then Modernism might be better. My only issue with Modernism and the Modern period is that in the future none of those things will be modern any more.



Mahlerian said:


> By any measure you would like to name, Schoenberg and Berg are much closer to Romantic music's style and practice than many of the composers you listed. I am utterly serious. That people cannot or will not hear this does not change the facts.


I agree. But remember, people who use the term "atonal" don't hear the music that way. To them "atonal" music is a clear break from Romantic. It doesn't matter that Schoenberg sounds much different from Xenakis. Those two are still in the same set _to most people who use the term atonal_. That also is a fact.

-----

Just to be clear: I personally am not happy with the term "atonal" as I'm not happy with "organic food". I no longer wish to use the term "atonal" referring to a type of music. I thank @some guy for past posts allowing me to understand the issue better. The question is whether it makes sense for general classical music listeners (not experts) to use _any term_ to refer to what most of us believe "atonal" refers to. If "atonal" makes knowledgeable people unhappy (as "organic" does for me), we might have to live with that.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> I thought Modernism included Prokofiev, Barber, Adams, Shostakovich, etc. If so, then Modernism wouldn't really be a good substitute. If the two terms are essentially equivalent, then Modernism might be better. My only issue with Modernism and the Modern period is that in the future none of those things will be modern any more.


Prokofiev and Shostakovich, yes. Barber, possibly (although I've seen the term Neoromantic used as well). Adams (along with all other minimalists/post-minimalists) is considered Postmodern, which is even more poorly defined than Modernism, but seems to have something to do with the difference between Carter and Ligeti, Barber and Reich.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Planet of Atonality*

I had in interesting experience a few year ago at work. I met an African-American gentleman who was very active at singing with his church choir. He discovered that I was an amateur musician and we use to have general discussions about music. It was along the lines of talking about the various groups we performed with and how much fun we had. He had a great voice and I went to a few of his concerts. His high school choir had a reunion and performed Randall Thompson's _Testament of Freedom_. He recruited me to play with the orchestra.

During one of our discussions I mentioned that there were African-Amercan classical composers. He never heard of such of thing. So I loaned him some recordings including music of William Grant Still.

His favorite was the _Sinfonia_ by Olly Wilson, a 12-tone work. It was the most dramatic and reminded him of the soundtrack to _Planet of the Apes_.


----------



## Guest (Jan 8, 2013)

The word tonality in music theory refers to a system.

The word atonality refers to what? There's no "it" out there for it to refer to. Hence my little example of taxonomy: canines and acanines. Canines is useful. There are creatures out there who have certain similarities, who despite all their differences, and there are many, are clearly part of the same group. Poodles and St. Bernards. Timber wolves and Chihuahuas. But what the hell's an "acanine"?

This is not so much about diction and terminology as it is about usefulness. In the real conversations that you can read online, "atonal" can refer to practically anything (including "not in a key," which is probably as useful as it gets). Undefined and undefinable, it is of course immensely useful for people who want to damn large swaths of music without really knowing anything about individual pieces. Like little kids hating "vegetables." As if....

Of course, it's also true that tonal pieces vary quite a lot from each other. Give it a try. Listen to some Monteverdi madrigals. Then listen to a Wagner opera. Listen to some Vivaldi mandolin concertos. Then listen to a Berlioz symphony.

Then put some Nielsen on, why not? Or some Britten.

People who want to damn thoughtlessly really like vague terms and broad categories. And so we will always have arguments about "atonality" as well as "young people" and "Muslims" and "politicians." Anything to avoid getting down to specifics. "Women" are all.... (But what about Sarah? She's not like that at all.) "Modernist ideologues" are all.... (But what about some guy? He's not like that at all.)

And so it goes.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

some guy said:


> Tonality is a system. It is a way of manipulating pitches. It is a way of managing pitches both in their horizontal (melody) and vertical (harmony) dimensions.


_If you are referring to CP tonality, yes. But it's not the only "harmonic" system._



some guy said:


> Serialism is a system. It is a way of manipulating pitches and other musical elements. It is a way of managing them horizontally and vertically.


_ I feel compelled to clarify this, in this sense: although serialism was a "movement, ideology, or system," it was mainly "a way of thinking" about music. It started as an outgrowth of Schoenberg's ideas, as well as other new ideas about musical craft: symmetry, pitch sets, local pitch centers, and other ideas which were in the air at the beginning of the 20th century. Some of these ideas of symmetry can be traced backwards as well, to Bach and Beethoven._



some guy said:


> Atonality, on the other hand, is no sort of system at all.[/B] No matter who is using (and abusing) this ostensibly useful term (meaning anything from "whatever I don't like" to "anything that doesn't use keys"), it never ever means anything like a system.


_I must clarify this also, as one must distinguish A.) "CP tonal chromaticism" from B.) "non-tonal harmonic chromaticism."

With A.), the chromatic notes are still the result of and the consequence of diatonic harmonic root movement and function, although they are more ambiguous functions, with possible multiple meanings. This category includes works by Richard Strauss (Metamorphosen), Mahler (Tenth Symphony), and Schoenberg (Transfigured Night, Pelleas und Mellisande). Even Bach's Sinfonia No. 9 in F minor can be considered an example of early CP chromaticism, although this is due mainly to passing tones, not changing key areas.

With B.), the starting point is the chromatic scale, and in this way of thinking, it is divided differently (at the tritone) and there is no longer an "hierarchy" of tonal function, as with CP tonality. "Localized tone-centers" can be created, then suddenly abandoned. There is no need for modulation sequences; things can instantly change. This includes Debussy, Shostakovich, Stravinsky, and mid-period/pre-serial Schoenberg.
_


some guy said:


> This point has come up before, inside other threads. Maybe it will get a little more respect if it's given its own wee thread here. Because atonality, improperly so-called, is constructed by putting an "a" in front of "tonality," it is easy to feel that it's an antonym. It's not. It's more along the lines of a bad joke. As I have pointed out before, it's about as useful taxonomically as dividing animals up into canines and acanines, which puts elephants and preying mantises into the same category.


_I feel that the terms "atonal/tonal" are like a pair of viruses, and one cannot survive without the other. I think "tonal" should be replaced with "CP tonality," and "atonal" should be dropped in favor of "A and B chromaticism."_



some guy said:


> This stuff all seems so obvious. It's embarrassing to have started this thread. But so many people keep using these terms as if they actually meant something that they don't (and can't), apparently it was necessary.


_I don't mind a bit._


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Yes, people use the terms wrongly. It happens all the time, and there are worse examples than this where the technical meaning is the precise opposite of its real meaning.

This is a 'classical' music forum. When did 'classical' get such a wide meaning?

I agree with you that it would be nice if everyone used words correctly, with full knowledge of what they meant, but its swimming against the tide. It helps, I suppose, if people at least know what the words actually mean.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Schoenberg's 12-tone technique is certainly a highly organized system despite not being tonal .
His earliest atonal works are generally described as being "freely atonal", but he felt the need for a
strictly organized system of atonal composition to avoid chaos . So he developed a technique of organizing the 12 tones of the chromatic scale into a basic "row" in which none of the 12 tones fucntioned as a tonal center, and all 12 tones were equal .


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

I'm not sure canine/acanine is a very good comparison to tonal/atonal. Acanine might be a nonse word that doesn't have much utility as "not dogs" is so broad, but in biology vertebrate/invertebrate is a standard distinction. Invertebrates certainly aren't a system, and there is little connection between them, but it is still a well used term and many find it helpful.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

superhorn said:


> Schoenberg's 12-tone technique is certainly a highly organized system despite not being tonal .
> His earliest atonal works are generally described as being "freely atonal", but he felt the need for a
> strictly organized system of atonal composition to avoid chaos . So he developed a technique of organizing the 12 tones of the chromatic scale into a basic "row" in which none of the 12 tones functioned as a tonal center, and all 12 tones were equal .


It's organized, but not nearly so much as tonality. Once one has a row in place, it offers few pointers as to where to go next. You can't just restate the row in its other forms, one after the other. (Although the bland usage of serial method in the middle movement of Stravinsky's Cantata is almost this poor in conception. Thankfully his later serial works quickly improved upon it.) One has to already have a sense of how composition works in order to utilize it in anything resembling an effective manner.

Tonality in its common practice form, on the other hand, gives one an immediate idea of where to go. One progresses from tonic to dominant and then back. If you do that, you'll have something that people will recognize as music. It might not be any good, but hey, who cares?

Put another way, (common practice) tonality innately implies a form for the music it supports. Post-common practice music of all kinds must have its form and material designed specifically to fit the needs of a given piece.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Arsakes said:


> How can Piano be atonal exactly?


Because piano is Italian for soft or quiet.


----------



## Guest (Jan 8, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> [T]onality innately implies a form for the music it supports. Post-common practice music of all kinds must have its form and material designed specifically to fit the needs of a given piece.


First part, what I was thinking when I read million's comment that serialism was a way of thinking about music. Tonality was a way of thinking about music, too.

Second part, even more reason not to lump things together into one category. When the rules change from piece to piece....


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> _If you are referring to CP tonality, yes. But it's not the only "harmonic" system._
> 
> _ I feel compelled to clarify this, in this sense: although serialism was a "movement, ideology, or system," it was mainly "a way of thinking" about music. It started as an outgrowth of Schoenberg's ideas, as well as other new ideas about musical craft: symmetry, pitch sets, local pitch centers, and other ideas which were in the air at the beginning of the 20th century. Some of these ideas of symmetry can be traced backwards as well, to Bach and Beethoven._
> 
> ...


Indeed, nice to see some not black-white considerations. I think that when most people say "tonal", they are talking about CP tonality and "CP tonal chromaticism". When they say "atonal", they are talking about "non-tonal harmonic chromaticism" and serialism.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Arsakes said:


> How can Piano be atonal exactly?


Literally, as a construct from Greek or Latin Word parts, it can be taken to mean 'without tones.' Well, of course there is no music without 'tones.' LOL.

It was meant, referring to common practice theory, ala 
Tonic
Dominant
Sub-Dominant

to a music 'without a Tonic' center.

The term is theoretic, in reference to terms understood via Common Practice music theory.

No wonder laymen are at best, confused.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Clovis said:


> 'Ah the creature, the creatures, everything has to be explained to them.' - Beckett


Creatures are innocent, and ask no questions: it is that damned homo sapiens with its inclinations to consciously think what muck things up....

But, open the door, grab some convenient thing from store (tonal / atonal), and then refuse to deal with all the rest really attached to what you've grabbed, well, a forum like this is exactly where someone will hold you to account for the rest, and doggedly refuse to allow the flip use and / or dismissal of all the consequences of 'tonal / atonal.'

Of course, all that and the fare gets anyone on the bus, and there is no test or punishment for absence from 'class' or failing to 'do the homework.' It is a forum, after all.

There is, though, in a discussion, some expectation of bringing along with you more than a completely 'skate on thin ice mentality'... and perhaps an understanding that if a thread set up as a bit of a wallow in music theory is a session where you might not wish to play at all, then there is probably another thread, at that very same moment, with your name on it


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

aleazk said:


> Indeed, nice to see some not black-white considerations. I think that when most people say "tonal", they are talking about CP tonality and "CP tonal chromaticism". When they say "atonal", they are talking about "non-tonal harmonic chromaticism" and serialism.


Common Practice, reference to TONIC = 'Tonal'
Later, A-Tonal refers back to Tonic = Tonal, Atonal = Without Tonic.

That is not rocket science, nor does it need any revision, requires no more than a literal understanding of the basic terms - which, I think is more efficient, streamlined, than proposing yet another substitute based on the popularity of 'what people feel' about something vs. how anyone Actually Thinks Of It... the 'what people feel about' of which there is more than enough floating around already - so much so it is beginning to smell as if heaps of it were deposited someplace but no one has thought to flush.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Ramako said:


> This is a 'classical' music forum. When did 'classical' get such a wide meaning?


The Western classical tradition is as deep and wide as the Mississippi River. I agree completely that this is a "classical" music forum.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> _*I feel that* the terms "atonal/tonal" are like a pair of viruses, and one cannot survive without the other. I think "tonal" should be replaced with "CP tonality," and "atonal" should be dropped in favor of "A and B chromaticism."_


Take two Aspirin, drink plenty of fluids, and call me in the morning. 
(and don't worry, your thinking will clear up when the fever subsides and your temperature goes back to normal.)


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> It's organized, but not nearly so much as tonality. Once one has a row in place, it offers few pointers as to where to go next. You can't just restate the row in its other forms, one after the other. One has to already have a sense of how composition works in order to utilize it in anything resembling an effective manner...Tonality in its common practice form, on the other hand, gives one an immediate idea of where to go. One progresses from tonic to dominant and then back. If you do that, you'll have something that people will recognize as music...Put another way, (common practice) tonality innately implies a form for the music it supports. Post-common practice music of all kinds must have its form and material designed specifically to fit the needs of a given piece.


I don't necessarily agree. Like you said, "...One has to already have a sense of how composition works in order to utilize it in anything resembling an effective manner." Ideas about tritone division, note sets, symmetry, etc., were already in the air. Schoenberg chose his sets carefully, making sure they gave good inversions and vertical elements. He exploited aspects of tonality, like his use of whole-tone-like rows, tritone relations, etc.

I don't see much real difference as far as making good music goes. Put another way, it sounds like you are saying "monkeys can write tonal music, but not 12-tone."


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Take two Aspirin, drink plenty of fluids, and call me in the morning. (and don't worry, your thinking will clear up when the fever subsides and your temperature goes back to normal.


_Okay, Doktor PetrB. Because I feel a "tonal/atonal virus" coming on._


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> Because piano is Italian for soft or quiet.


... and all this time I thought it was the surname of a contemporary Italian architect... gawrsh.


----------



## Wandering (Feb 27, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Creatures are innocent, and ask no questions: it is that damned homo sapiens with its inclinations to consciously think what muck things up....
> 
> But, open the door, grab some convenient thing from store (tonal / atonal), and then refuse to deal with all the rest really attached to what you've grabbed, well, a forum like this is exactly where someone will hold you to account for the rest, and doggedly refuse to allow the flip use and / or dismissal of all the consequences of 'tonal / atonal.'
> 
> ...


I'd responded in the tonal desire thread.

As far as logic in debating, you yourself have answered why not, you already have the answers as to everything that wills every else, or so it seems to you?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> I don't necessarily agree. Like you said, "...One has to already have a sense of how composition works in order to utilize it in anything resembling an effective manner." Ideas about tritone division, note sets, symmetry, etc., were already in the air. Schoenberg chose his sets carefully, making sure they gave good inversions and vertical elements. He exploited aspects of tonality, like his use of whole-tone-like rows, tritone relations, etc.
> 
> I don't see much real difference as far as making good music goes. Put another way, it sounds like you are saying "monkeys can write tonal music, but not 12-tone."


Obviously a monkey couldn't write _good_ tonal music, but given the restrictions the tonal system puts in place, I think there are fewer barriers to writing something tonal, given understanding of the system. My few attempts at composing have all been more or less tonal, so I can attest to finding it easier.

What I'm saying is that if one knows the "rules" of the tonal system, knowing nothing of form, construction, or content, one can write tonal music. Even if one knows the "rules" of Schoenberg's system, if one attempts writing 12-tone music without knowledge of the above, it will most likely be an incoherent mess.

Good composition requires practice and training either way.


----------



## Wandering (Feb 27, 2012)

I think what would be most helpful on my end is being less blurting with what I say. Talking it out, connecting a to b and x to y in a calm and methodical manner. If I wish to make a point, summing it up with a crude slap in the face simply _is not_ going to get anything useful accomplished'.'

yes, slow your roll, my dear, _slow your roll_...


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2013)

Ramako said:


> When did 'classical' get such a wide meaning?


Around 1870.

The first recorded use of the term "classical music" was in Germany in 1810. It got to England some time in the mid 20s. The next fifty years was a long series of pitched battles about what got to be called classical and what not. (A long series of pitched battles as to whether new music would dominate--as it had always done before--or old music. We know how THAT war has ended up! That's one reason the "modernists" are so damned persistent: modern music has been on the ropes for around two hundred years already. If the modernists had not kept at it and at it and at it, many of your favorite "nice" pieces from the past might never have made it into your beautiful, shell-like ears.*)

*What if the following attitudes had won? "The audience had already spoken out with full clarity about _______. Such a piece of music [is] repulsive and barbarbic, and we cannot understand how the Vienna Philharmonic... gives place in its concerts to such tasteless charivari." Or this, about the same piece, "...gives us for the first time the hideous notion that there can be music that stinks to the ear."

Is that what you anti-modernists are all about? Trying to make sure that your grandchildren's grandchildren never get a chance to hear the "Tchaikovsky violin concertos" of today? For shame. I hope you fail as miserably as did Dr. Wörz (supported by a familiar figure to all of you, "the audience") and Eduard Hanslick (supported by the equally chimerical "we").

[


----------



## Zauberberg (Feb 21, 2012)

We use "Atonal" the same way we use "indie music"; not to talk about independent hip-hop but a simplification to describe a particular aesthetic derived from independent rock. 

It's just a convenience.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Clovis said:


> I'd responded in the tonal desire thread.
> 
> As far as logic in debating, you yourself have answered why not, you already have the answers as to everything that wills every else, or so it seems to you?


No, I am just really amazed that instead of cracking open any number of well-known and respected sources, a dictionary, for example, or a music dictionary, that some feel compelled to instead make up a definition as per their most idiosyncratic and personal 'feelings' about the subject.

That, to me, diverts a 'discussion' into a playpen of 'what should we call it, what color should we make it' - _instead of acceptin_g one of several less conflicting, _well thought out and already in place definitions_ - it creates a puddle of diversions away and apart from actually discussing whatever point was put up for discussion.

This is like everyone discussing GREEN, but instead getting side-tracked by redefining GREEN, asking what 'everyone might feel about GREEN,' etc.

it is almost as useless as redefining '2' when all one is really wishing to talk about is '2 + X = _____'


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Zauberberg said:


> We use "Atonal" the same way we use "indie music"; not to talk about independent hip-hop but a simplification to describe a particular aesthetic derived from independent rock.
> 
> It's just a convenience.


"We use." I like to think I do not try or claim to speak for "We."


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

Agreed, there is very little music that is strictly "atonal", in the sense of having indiscernible chordal roots. Every chord would have to consist only of tritones or minor seconds/major sevenths, and nothing else.

Most "atonal" music is probably best called "pantonal" because it doesn't exist in the realm of traditional tonality. Or perhaps something more apt like "nontraditional tonality" would best describe most of the music we commonly call "atonal"?


----------



## Zauberberg (Feb 21, 2012)

PetrB said:


> "We use." I like to think I do not try or claim to speak for "We."


Well, usually "we" do speak for "we" when talking about wars and sad things that makes oneself not proud of being a human... but I didn't make any of those things


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Zauberberg said:


> Well, usually "we" do speak for "we" when talking about wars and sad things that makes oneself not proud of being a human... but I didn't make any of those things


Made any fun or interesting tonal or atonal music lately  ?


----------



## Zauberberg (Feb 21, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Made any fun or interesting tonal or atonal music lately  ?


Every time I unsuccessfully try to improvise something on piano with my poor technique. It becomes a mix of both worlds, perhaps I could make a career mixing salad and sweet, nouvelle cuisine music.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Zauberberg said:


> Every time I unsuccessfully try to improvise something on piano with my poor technique. It becomes a mix of both worlds, perhaps I could make a career mixing salad and sweet, nouvelle cuisine music.


Ah! A member of the club. Happy to meet you, sincerely, and delighted you are 'in it' rather than around it. You know its personal 'payoff' as well as its frustrations... never stop!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I listened to Ravel's "Daphnis et Chloé" today, and it was beautifully harmonic...but damned if I knew what key it was in! It wandered all over the place. This was not "tonal," because it was too free, too wandering. It was not *CP* tonality. Yet, I would hesitate to call it "atonal." Neither term seems adequate. And the answer ain't in no dictionary or encyclopedia.

So, I'll go to my own nomenclature: it is "non-tonal chromatic" music, under the larger umbrella with (CP tonality) of "harmonic music."


----------



## Wandering (Feb 27, 2012)

PetrB said:


> No, I am just really amazed that instead of cracking open any number of well-known and respected sources, a dictionary, for example, or a music dictionary, that some feel compelled to instead make up a definition as per their most idiosyncratic and personal 'feelings' about the subject.
> 
> That, to me, diverts a 'discussion' into a playpen of 'what should we call it, what color should we make it' - _instead of acceptin_g one of several less conflicting, _well thought out and already in place definitions_ - it creates a puddle of diversions away and apart from actually discussing whatever point was put up for discussion.
> 
> ...


I do not have to crack open a dictionary. I know what tonal is, atonal, twelve-tone, serial, random chance, ZEN Cage, key, major, minor, chromatic, etc. etc. so so many 'isms' and their cranial dispatchers, but I ask why why why

You simply cannot turn up the nose all the time, this is not appealing by either me or you. Don't you think all these things are quite alien enough from the general population already without, what is only exacerbate the problem, and not anywhere near finding a valid solution, at least not any more than myself.

Why don't you simply state something, something concrete and tangible, something that doesn't have to be referred to, or referenced, something that isn't part of a hierarchy, or ranking system, or scheme. Something...down to earth...and then proceed from there


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2013)

Or you could do as I have recommended, refer to it as Ravel's _Daphnis et Chloé._

I learned a lesson some years ago, when I called a colleague of mine "dear." _Not_ a close friend or anything.

When she objected, I said, covering my embarrassment, "Well, at least I didn't say 'doll' or 'darling'." (Yes, you can probably tell how long ago this was, just by the diction.)

Her response? "How about just call me 'Debbie'?"

I think discussions of music would improve exponentially if we started talking about Lachenmann's _Gran Torso_ or Boulez's _Dérives_ or Tchaikovsky's _Francesco di Rimini_ or Schumann's _Manfred._ And so forth.

It would at the very least mean no more hiding behind generalizations. (Which is why it will never in a thousand years ever happen.)


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

some guy said:


> Or you could do as I have recommended, refer to it as Ravel's _Daphnis et Chloé._
> 
> I learned a lesson some years ago, when I called a colleague of mine "dear." _Not_ a close friend or anything.
> 
> ...


You mean you actually listen to that atonal crap?:lol:


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2013)

:tiphat:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

some guy said:


> Or you could do as I have recommended, refer to it as Ravel's _Daphnis et Chloé._
> 
> I learned a lesson some years ago, when I called a colleague of mine "dear." _Not_ a close friend or anything.
> 
> ...


_None of this would be necessary if critics of modernism didn't "hide behind generalizations" of an even broader category. They never mention specific works, and it's always blanket generalizations. That was the sarcasm of my first response to you. _:tiphat:


----------



## Wandering (Feb 27, 2012)

I love Ravel's ballet, didn't the Ballet Russe Meister get upset that it was taking Ravel so long to complete it? Was Le Sacre premiered and Ravel wanted to make some altercations?


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2013)

Hmmm. It seems you guys like to argue!

The word a-relevant springs to mind.

[shrugs shoulders, closes window, and walks off to do something useful]


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

BPS said:


> Hmmm. It seems you guys like to argue!
> 
> The word a-relevant springs to mind.
> 
> [shrugs shoulders, closes window, and walks off to do something useful]


After you get through washing the dishes, we'll continue our explorations.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Clovis said:


> I love Ravel's ballet, didn't the Ballet Russe Meister get upset that it was taking Ravel so long to complete it? Was Le Sacre premiered and Ravel wanted to make some altercations?


I don't think Ravel was out to make any _altercations_. I'm not sure if he really wanted to make any revision or _alterations_, but do recall reading that after completing the first half of the ballet, Ravel was completely 'stumped' / in a writer's block, about what to write, and for at least a bit of time, thought he could not / would not finish it.

I think it a good thing Ravel, somehow or other -- perhaps out of the determination to simply finish the piece in order to deliver that which he had been commissioned to deliver (and get paid for it, often a great enough 'inspiration') -- did complete the score.

Since it stands as one of his four or so major masterpieces....


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

some guy said:


> Tonality is a system. It is a way of manipulating pitches. It is a way of managing pitches both in their horizontal (melody) and vertical (harmony) dimensions.
> 
> Serialism is a system. It is a way of manipulating pitches and other musical elements. It is a way of managing them horizontally and vertically.
> 
> ...


I don't agree with the general trajectory of this view. Although "atonality" is a misused term, In its most basic sense it means "not tonal," which by implication means "that which avoids tonality."



> Atonality in its broadest sense is music that lacks a tonal center, or key.


That is a reference which includes serialism, so the argument that "atonality" is "not a system" is a distraction.



> Atonality in its broadest sense is music that lacks a tonal center, or key. Atonality, in this sense, usually describes compositions written from about 1908 to the present day where a hierarchy of pitches focusing on a single, central tone is not used, and the notes of the chromatic scale function independently of one another. More narrowly, the term atonality describes music that does not conform to the system of tonal hierarchies that characterized classical European music between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries. "The repertory of atonal music is characterized by the occurrence of pitches in novel combinations, as well as by the occurrence of familiar pitch combinations in unfamiliar environments".
> 
> More narrowly still, the term is sometimes used to describe music that is neither tonal nor serial, especially the pre-twelve-tone music of the Second Viennese School, principally Alban Berg, Arnold Schoenberg, and Anton Webern. *However, "as a categorical label, 'atonal' generally means only that the piece is in the Western tradition and is not 'tonal'; "serialism arose partly as a means of organizing more coherently the relations used in the preserial 'free atonal' music. ... Thus many useful and crucial insights about even strictly serial music depend only on such basic atonal theory".*


Thus, we see that the term "atonality" is tied to serialism in a fundamental sense.

If we accept a broad definition of tonality as meaning "reference to a tonic," then "atonality" (in its broadest sense) is its diametric opposite, referring, among other things, to the use of 12-tone rows, which by their very nature avoid the repetition of any specific pitch, thus avoiding any reference to a single tonic note. Even the basic WIK definition tells us this:



> *Twelve-tone technique-*also known as dodecaphony, twelve-tone serialism, and (in British usage) twelve-note composition-is a method of musical composition devised by Austrian composer Arnold Schoenberg (1874-1951). 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 *through the use of tone rows, an ordering of the 12 pitches. *All 12 notes are thus given more or less equal importance, and the music avoids being in a key. *The technique was influential on composers in the mid-20th century.


It seems simple to me; "atonality" includes all music which has no tonal center. In serialism, the "system" is the ordered row, which accomplishes this avoidance; it is therefore under thr blanket of "atonality" in its broadest sense.

A "scale" is unordered, like an index, and refers all its member-notes to a specific tonic, as its starting and ending note, encompassing an octave, then recurring.


----------

