# Atonal/Tonal: THE POLL - squabbling!!!



## Guest (Mar 30, 2016)

Don't kill my child! 

http://www.talkclassical.com/42961-atonal-tonal-poll-7.html#post1045650


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Haydnman's comment at #3 of the first thread:



> Oh great! Another chance to start the same debate/insult thread.
> I smell infraction time approaching


What did you think was going to happen?


----------



## Guest (Mar 30, 2016)

GreenMamba said:


> Haydnman's comment at #3 of the first thread:
> 
> What did you think was going to happen?


I know I can rely on a good squabble, I just hoped to get a decent poll response before the solids hit the air con.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

You made it further than I thought you would.


----------



## Dr Johnson (Jun 26, 2015)

dogen said:


> *Don't kill my child!*
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/42961-atonal-tonal-poll-7.html#post1045650


Do we get a vote on this?


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Tonal? 



Atonal?


----------



## Guest (Mar 30, 2016)

Dr Johnson said:


> Do we get a vote on this?


As long as the subsequent jury can too!


----------



## Guest (Mar 30, 2016)

Dim7 said:


> Tonal?
> 
> 
> 
> Atonal?


Let me know if there's unanimous agreement.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Dim7 said:


> Tonal?
> 
> 
> 
> Atonal?


Dunno, but thanks for reminding me to go back to the Bartók SQs.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Crudblud said:


> Dunno, but thanks for reminding me to go back to the Bartók SQs.


The correct answer is: Both/neither are (a)tonal, what-the-****-ever.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Dim7 said:


> The correct answer is: Both/neither are (a)tonal, what-the-****-ever.


If we're going to get technical, this thread should probably be moved to the "Music Theory" sub-forum.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Dim7 said:


> The correct answer is: Both/neither are (a)tonal, what-the-****-ever.


I've found the distinction to be pretty meaningless for a while now as well, be enraged and/or miffed not.


----------



## Guest (Mar 30, 2016)

Blancrocher said:


> If we're going to get technical, this thread should probably be moved to the "Music Theory" sub-forum.


But then I couldn't contribute to my own thread!

(Stop cheering  )


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Squabble? I love squabble!

View attachment 83090


----------



## Guest (Mar 30, 2016)

Although I don't know what atonal means, I was able to vote both because I know that, regardless of the meaning, I am an inclusive listener.


----------



## Guest (Mar 30, 2016)

nathanb said:


> Although I don't know what atonal means, I was able to vote both because I know that, regardless of the meaning, I am an inclusive listener.


That's a very succinct way of saying what I was going to say.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Dim7 said:


> Tonal?
> 
> 
> 
> Atonal?


Semi-Tonal?


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Art Rock said:


> Squabble? I love squabble!
> 
> View attachment 83090


Just look at how low-scoring that word is. Another reason to reject it.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Microtonal!


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

Does this also describe how fast that thread escalated?


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

Supertonal? Antitonal? R-tonal? S-tonal? Tonal or atonal enantiomers? Diastereomers? 
What is going on?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Weston said:


> Microtonal!


In the 'life isn't fair category', I had to watch 5 seconds of a commercial to listen to that.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

I suggest that 'tonal' be replaced with 'tune-all'


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

I suggest "atonal" be replaced with "I'll have something more specific and less vague to say about this individual and unique work after I've actually heard it".


----------



## Guest (Mar 31, 2016)

Snap shot.

March 31, 2016
(Poll opened March 28)

“Never mind what the words mean, or whether or not they even mean anything, just damn well vote! Which type of music do you like?”

(Voters: 91.)


•	Atonal 
(3 votes)
3.30% 


•	Tonal 
(32 votes)
35.16% 


•	Both 
(56 votes)
61.54%


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

dogen said:


> Snap shot.
> 
> March 31, 2016
> (Poll opened March 28)
> ...


Just like real life, never agreeing on anything


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

nathanb said:


> I am an inclusive listener.


Does this mean you like to listen to everything? Everything considered _important_? Things from every style?

It is an interesting concept, but I'm not sure I really understand the meaning.


----------



## Guest (Apr 2, 2016)

tdc said:


> Does this mean you like to listen to everything? Everything considered _important_? Things from every style?
> 
> It is an interesting concept, but I'm not sure I really understand the meaning.


I cannot think of a style of music that I wholly reject; everything is case by case. This is obviously applicable in my classical world, although the world of pop music offers up some interesting anomalies like "Teen Pop".


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

tdc said:


> Does this mean you like to listen to everything? Everything considered _important_? Things from every style?
> 
> It is an interesting concept, but I'm not sure I really understand the meaning.


Really? tdc is a smart member. It appears that he is asking a question he already knows the answer to.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Would it not be true to say that when you ask a question you should already have an idea of what the answer is? Unless of course you wish enlightenment!!:lol:


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

nathanb said:


> I cannot think of a style of music that I wholly reject; everything is case by case. This is obviously applicable in my classical world, although the world of pop music offers up some interesting anomalies like "Teen Pop".


So inclusive - but it depends on the piece essentially, and the style of music. So not _really_ inclusive.



arpeggio said:


> Really? tdc is a smart member. It appears that he is asking a question he already knows the answer to.


No, I honestly wanted to clarify because I was fairly certain that nathanb's definition of inclusive, did not include all music - for example Glazunov.

The inclusive argument is similar to some of the points someguy made back in the day as well, and it still doesn't actually make a lot of sense to me. Things are not always so simple as pro contemporary or against it. I for one agree with a lot of things someguy said, and disagree with others.

Ultimately I think most people want to expand the amount of music they like, and to find more composers that they enjoy. But I don't think it is really reflective of reality to suggest that people simply become more inclusive and decide to like more music.

If one takes a look through history at some of the most brilliant musical minds - the composers and musicians in the classical world, I don't see a lot of evidence that very many of them are 'inclusive listeners.' Do you think Boulez was an inclusive listener?

Again this query has nothing to do with being for or against contemporary music (most people that post here know I like a fair bit of it), it is simply questioning the logic and line of thinking I've seen in the approach taken at times in the past by someguy, and now in this thread by nathanb.

I would argue that the vast majority of people are not inclusive listeners - especially in the case of the actual creators of music that have been influential throughout the classical tradition. I don't think it is really reflective of reality to suggest that people becoming inclusive listeners is a way to help them appreciate contemporary music. To me this line of thinking comes too close to 'lower your standards' or 'accept anything'. If I was an individual looking to expand my current tastes this kind of approach would only increase my skepticism.


----------



## Guest (Apr 3, 2016)

tdc said:


> So inclusive - but it depends on the piece essentially, and the style of music. So not _really_ inclusive.


As I said, barring some of the strangest anomalies of contemporary commercialism, and certainly not barring any variety of art music, style does not matter. So, fairly inclusive.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

nathanb said:


> As I said, barring some of the strangest anomalies of contemporary commercialism, and certainly not barring any variety of art music, style does not matter. So, fairly inclusive.


Nothing wrong with that.

Boulez liked about two composers I think - Debussy and Webern. Xenakis did not like Serialism, Reich does not like Romantic music etc.

Different approaches for different people. I like what I like based on whether or not I like it, not on trying to be inclusive or to expand what I listen to.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Expanding our likes is a way to dislike less, surely a desirable state.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Weston said:


> Expanding our likes is a way to dislike less, surely a desirable state.


I don't think disliking less is necessarily a desirable state if its based on simply wanting to be inclusive and not actually doing what we feel is true to ourselves. There are plenty of things we could start disliking less that would actually be very harmful. Not everyone enjoys all music equally. If you do that's great - I definitely don't and there is a limited amount of time to spend listening to music in life. Do you spend a lot of time eating food you do not like or watching television shows you do not like out of a desire to be 'inclusive' or 'dislike less'? Sometimes there are good reasons why we do not like things. Sometimes its more important to use discernment and critical thinking.


----------

