# What's atonal?



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

We have a few members who are more than willing to share their definitions. But I'm kind of fond of the society lady who said to composer Bill, who objected to this description: "Mr. Schuman, in Macon your music is atonal."

Is "atonal" a technical thing or a matter of perception? Your thoughts?


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

I always thought "atonal" meant something that was not in a particular key; a piece where there is no identifiable tonic. But after coming on this site, I am more confused than ever about what it means.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

It's a technical thing. You will have "Atonal" music when some systematic mechanism is devised in order to avoid any kind of hierarchy of chords, notes, etc., since in that way you are negating the essence of "Tonal".


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

"Science fiction is what we point to when we say it." -- Damon Knight

“I shall not today attempt further to define obscenity and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it.” -- Justice Potter Stewart

Atonality may be like that.


----------



## Guest (Feb 15, 2013)

Since it was first coined, by a journalist, "atonal" has been an extremely useful way to identify music you don't like while seeming to be saying something "technical" about the music.

You wait, from now until this thread is either locked or dies a natural death, most if not all of the definitions of "atonal" that you see here will be barely concealed versions of "music I don't like."


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Atonal as a music term has been defined by many reference sources some of them are as follows:

-marked by avoidance of traditional musical tonality; especially: organized without reference to key or tonal center and using the tones of the chromatic scale impartially.

- Music having no established key 

- Atonal music is a generalizing term used to define music that seems to lack a clear tonal center.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

There you have it. By definition, it is music that is lacking. 

(It's a joke. Lighten up!)


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Weston said:


> "Science fiction is what we point to when we say it." -- Damon Knight
> 
> "I shall not today attempt further to define obscenity and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it." -- Justice Potter Stewart
> 
> Atonality may be like that.


Harsh very harsh but not boring so that is good  anything that's not considered boring is good in my books....


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Weston said:


> There you have it. By definition, it is music that is lacking.
> 
> (It's a joke. Lighten up!)


Lacking central tonality (which is a good thing) and boredom - that's a joke to0


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Atonal....meh

I prefer to call it _pan-_tonal meaning "the synthesis of all tonalities."


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Atonal....meh
> 
> I prefer to call it _pan-_tonal meaning "the synthesis of all tonalities."


I prefer selective tonal center over pan-tonal then. Not that I don't get the urge to listen to some pan-tonal every now and then. Mainly of Schnittke and *Ligeti*. And maybe someday, CoAG as well.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

A topic reminder: Is "atonal" best defined by expert statements, or by listemer perception?


----------



## Ravndal (Jun 8, 2012)

Not sure if i like the word "Atonal". It is very negative, and it doesn't really describe the music.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Why?. "Atonal" simply means "non-tonal" and it refers to music which has no tonal center. I really don't see why all the fuss about it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

*"What's atonal?"*

It's a perception. This thread is really concerned with labeling _people,_ and not with music per se.



EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Atonal as a music term has been defined by many reference sources some of them are as follows:
> 
> -marked by avoidance of traditional musical tonality; especially: organized without reference to key or tonal center and using the tones of the chromatic scale impartially.
> 
> ...


Weston is correct in observing that this definition is stated in terms of what atonal music "lacks." The definition is further flawed in asserting that serial music "uses the tones of the chromatic scale impartially."

Another flaw of this definition is the assertion that atonality "seems to lack a clear tonal center." This is based on the wrong assumption, both technically and to the "ear." All serial music has a harmonic dimension to varying degrees, and Bartók's music has temporary, localized tone centers.



KenOC said:


> A topic reminder: Is "atonal" best defined by *expert* statements, or by* listener perception*?


Ahh, the *people *suddenly appear in the question!

The implication here is that serial-derived music is for ivory-tower "experts" as opposed to "normal" listeners. This is simply a falsehood.

Listeners who feel a need to go along with the peculiar perception that "atonal" music should be distinguished from conservative "tonal" music reveals that they need stereotyping/branding to separate themselves and their mindset as an elite which represents tradition, success, popularity, winning, and conformity. Such listeners are *hiding behind music as a way of promoting their own mindset/agenda.* Anyone who rejects modern music is not interested in listening, and should not involve themselves in espousing definitions of "atonal" music.

"Atonal" or any kind of experimental music does not need "defining." It is simply music to be enjoyed. Attempts at defining, separating, labeling, stereotyping, and separating it are inherently flawed.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

"Atonal" was first coined in the first half of the 20th century to refer to then-contemporary music that didn't revolve around a clear tonal center (as music had, mainly, up until then) and was thusly viewed as "dissonant". Bartok, for instance, was one of the first beneficiaries of the term. It did NOT refer to, and was kept separate from Schoeberg's "twelve note" music (and it's successor -- serialism), which was considered a separate kind of music, deserving it's own name and definition. Nowadays, atonal is used rather indiscriminately -- often, as joked about above, to refer to music you don't like. 

(A few years ago, asked about the difference between pornographic and erotic art, I said "Erotic art is what I like, pornography is what _you_ like.)


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

> "Atonal" or any kind of experimental music does not need "defining." It is simply music to be enjoyed. Attempts at defining, separating, labeling, stereotyping, and separating it are inherently flawed.


Funny, I thought that was actually the point underlying KenOC's question:



> Is "atonal" a technical thing or a matter of perception?


I read this as "Can we give a "dictionary definition" to "atonal" or is it just a word different people use to mean different things?"


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

If it is a word that depends on listener perception, then stop using it to condemn a wide swath of music. You cannot say "atonality is bad for music" if what atonality _is_ depends on the individual.

If it is a word with a technical definition, then you should have a clear idea of what you mean by it. I have seen Shostakovich's 5th Symphony, Schoenberg's Transfigured Night, and Messiaen's Trois Petites Liturgies called atonal. No matter what definition one uses, I am sure that those would fall outside of it.

At this juncture, writing atonal music is not in and of itself avant-garde, experimental, or edgy in any real way. It's just another method to be used.


----------



## rrudolph (Sep 15, 2011)

I've always gone with the traditional definition as decribed above by GGluek; serial music is not atonal. There's always a pitch class 0 to which the other tones in a given series relate even if that particular tone is not heard by the listener as a "tonic".

What I'd like to know is this: do we define music that doesn't use pitch at all (e.g. nonpitched percussion works, noise music, etc) as atonal? it seems to fit the definition, but I never hear such music described that way.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

rrudolph said:


> What I'd like to know is this: do we define music that doesn't use pitch at all (e.g. nonpitched percussion works, noise music, etc) as atonal? it seems to fit the definition, but I never hear such music described that way.


Depends on the person. Some people describe it that way, and from a technical perspective it probably is.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

While the term "atonal" has a technical sounding meaning (e.g. music without a tonal center), I think the vast majority of people do not use it that way. They use it to refer to music that _sounds_ a certain way. So in response to the OP I would say "atonal" can be a technical thing _or_ a matter of perception.

I first started using "atonal" thinking I knew roughly what it meant. After many "discussions" on TC I asked my daughter, who is a music student, if professors use "atonal" to refer to music in theory or music history classes. She said they did not. I believe my daughter feels that "atonal" is not so useful amongst musicians even if they agree on the meaning. So I have tried to stop using the term outside of discussions such as these.

But is "atonal" a useful term for people in general? Words are made up to refer to things people want to talk about. Since many people use "atonal", apparently there is _something_ that people do want to discuss. The real question is, "What _is_ that thing?"

In another thread I described the term "organic food" as being useless in a technical sense (i.e. _all_ food is organic to scientists) and problematic in a general sense since "organic" can have many meanings. When I hear the term, I don't know exactly what people mean. But many people use the term, and society doesn't have a problem with it. Why not? Because it does refer to _something_. Consider the two definitions:

organic food: Food grown under a wide set of conditions that many people believe is healthier for them (perception is important here).

atonal music: music sounding _enough_ different from earlier music (Baroque, Classical, and Romantic) that many listeners feel is cognitively distinctly different. NOTE: they don't have to believe it's better or worse - just distinctly different.

If you worry about the relative nature of "distinctly different", you probably also worry about the relative nature of "loud". What I consider loud is likely not considered loud by many people here.

So is "atonal" useful? Maybe.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

^^ Usually at uni we will say something sounds 'avant-garde', to a greater or lesser degree, in much the same way as atonal is used here. It's just a matter of jargon. We only use 'atonal' occasionally, but 'tonal' very often.

It strikes me that the question the OP raises is more one of, if I dare say it, linguistics than music - about how we use or misuse words. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing of course!


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> In another thread I described the term "organic food" as being useless in a technical sense (i.e. _all_ food is organic to scientists) and problematic in a general sense since "organic" can have many meanings. When I hear the term, I don't know exactly what people mean. But many people use the term, and society doesn't have a problem with it. Why not? Because it does refer to _something_. Consider the two definitions:
> 
> organic food: Food grown under a wide set of conditions that many people believe is healthier for them (perception is important here).
> 
> ...


The definition of organic food used here is fine so long as it is understood that some food item's being organic does not in and of itself make it healthy or "natural", and nor does its not being organic make it unhealthy or unnatural.

Same goes for atonal. If people use it to mean a general class of very chromatic music not adhering to traditional common practice tonal rules, that's fine, but arguing that music (Schoenberg, Boulez, Babbitt) is bad _because_ it doesn't adhere to CPT rules while praising other music (Debussy, pretty much anything post-1920) that also doesn't adhere to CPT rules is ridiculous.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> Same goes for atonal. If people use it to mean a general class of very chromatic music not adhering to traditional common practice tonal rules, that's fine, but arguing that music (Schoenberg, Boulez, Babbitt) is bad _because_ it doesn't adhere to CPT rules while praising other music (Debussy, pretty much anything post-1920) that also doesn't adhere to CPT rules is ridiculous.


Anyone who makes such an argument obviously either does not understand what CPT rules are or doesn't know how to tell which music adheres to those rules. The argument would stem from ignorance of the definitions or inexperience in listening to music. I'm not sure how many people make such an argument, but it must be rather uncommon.

People may argue that the music of Schoenberg, Boulez, and Babbitt is bad/unpleasant/ugly/etc. while liking Debussy. If they use the term "atonal" to distinguish between the two, they're probably using it to refer to a particular type of sound rather than in a technical sense.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> Anyone who makes such an argument obviously either does not understand what CPT rules are or doesn't know how to tell which music adheres to those rules. The argument would stem from ignorance of the definitions or inexperience in listening to music. I'm not sure how many people make such an argument, but it must be rather uncommon.


The argument usually runs as follows:

Before 1907, music was one and monolithic.
Then an evil man came from Vienna and, not having any talent, wrote music without any melody or sense to it.
This is because it is atonal music, music without a key.
[Potential statement conflating serial and atonal music, with added jibes about how mechanical the earlier is.]
This doesn't work because it breaks the laws of nature.
[Cue discussion of the overtone series and the circle of fifths.]
Therefore it is only of academic interest.
This academic music took over the conservatories and orchestra programs and replaced beautiful good music with noise that nobody really enjoys.
That's why we need new tonal music!

If you haven't seen variations on this before, you haven't looked around enough.



mmsbls said:


> People may argue that the music of Schoenberg, Boulez, and Babbitt is bad/unpleasant/ugly/etc. while liking Debussy. If they use the term "atonal" to distinguish between the two, they're probably using it to refer to a particular type of sound rather than in a technical sense.


That's fine, of course, so long as they don't try to elevate their dislike into a blanket condemnation or, worse, some sort of aesthetic credo.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> If you haven't seen variations on this before, you haven't looked around enough.


Oh, sorry, of course I've seen *that* argument repeatedly here at TC. I thought you were referring to arguments specifically using the term "CPT rules" and differentiating Debussy from the others on that basis. I think many people here don't know what CPT rules are (I certainly did not).

I think people use the term "atonal" to refer to a type of music that sounds (to them) significantly different. Some like it, others don't, and yet others like some of the sounds (music) and not others.

I think if people could simply view "atonal" music as different in the way that Classical is different from Baroque or heavy metal is different from soul, they still might not like it, but perhaps they could just view it as a style they don't enjoy rather than a world ending horror.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

KenOC - your head is making my spin - you must run out of heads soon....

An Atonal example Youtube piece is an explanation and definition of *one type *of atonal music.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> Before 1907, music was one and monolithic. Then an evil man came from Vienna and, not having any talent, wrote music without any melody or sense to it...
> 
> That's fine, of course, so long as they don't try to elevate their dislike into a blanket condemnation or, worse, some sort of aesthetic credo.


Uh, I don't think that's what this thread is about...


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Besides, I don't think there _is_ a blanket condemnation -- not in this crowd anyway. If we look for ill will hard enough, we will surely find it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> Funny, I thought that was actually the point underlying KenOC's question:
> 
> I read this as "Can we give a "dictionary definition" to "atonal" or is it just a word different people use to mean different things?"


Well, then, he'd better get off the fence and stop being so vague.:lol:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> I think people use the term "atonal" to refer to a type of music that sounds (to them) significantly different. Some like it, others don't, and yet others like some of the sounds (music) and not others.
> 
> I think if people could simply view "atonal" music as different in the way that Classical is different from Baroque or heavy metal is different from soul, they still might not like it, but perhaps they could just view it as a style they don't enjoy rather than a world ending horror.


That sounds like "musical xenophobia" to me. Please refer to the "Musical Disorders" thread. Here are the criteria:

Paranoid (scared to death of Schoenberg)
Schizoid (likes Berg, hates Webern)
Schizotypal (likes Schoenberg, Webern, Berg, but hates Boulez and Ferneyhough)
Antisocial (listens only to Milton Babbitt)
Borderline (likes Debussy and Bartók)
Histrionic (likes Wagner, Brahms)
Narcissistic (likes only Debussy, Fauré, Ravel, Mozart)
Avoidant (likes music up to Mahler, but no further)
Dependent (likes Bach, Haydn, Mozart, some Beethoven, early music)
Obsessive-Compulsive 86% (likes Minimalism and Gregorian chant only):lol:


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> Oh, sorry, of course I've seen *that* argument repeatedly here at TC. I thought you were referring to arguments specifically using the term "CPT rules" and differentiating Debussy from the others on that basis. I think many people here don't know what CPT rules are (I certainly did not).


You're right that it is never stated explicitly. No, most arguments acknowledge that music in the 20th century, "tonal" and "atonal", is different from what came before. But they will separate the one from the other without any understanding that "tonal" 20th century music is often just as divergent from CPT as "atonal", if not more.



> I think people use the term "atonal" to refer to a type of music that sounds (to them) significantly different. Some like it, others don't, and yet others like some of the sounds (music) and not others. I think if people could simply view "atonal" music as different in the way that Classical is different from Baroque or heavy metal is different from soul, they still might not like it, but perhaps they could just view it as a style they don't enjoy rather than a world ending horror.


That would be fine. Most of these discussions boil down to personal taste anyway.



KenOC said:


> Uh, I don't think that's what this thread is about...


This thread is about definitions. My entire post was about an argument based on a particular definition.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

"The expression 'tonal' has itself been wrongly used, exclusively instead of inclusively. It can mean only this: everything that results from a series of tones, whether its cohesion is the result of a direct relationship to a single tonic or from links of *a more complex kind,* forms tonality...A piece of music will always have to be tonal at least insofar as, from one tone to the next, there is bound to be a relationship by which all the tones, successive or simultaneous, produce a progression that can be recognized as such." 
-Arnold Schoenberg, from Malcolm MacDonald's book, p. 128

One can easily deduce from this, as Allen Shawn already did in his book, that *Schoenberg heard everything "tonally," and we all do as well:* that's the way the ear hears harmonic intervals in relation to a fundamental (not necessarily a *root*).

The ear/brain has a natural tendency to hear interval relations in terms of their relation to a fundamental tone (not "root"), so your acuity (or lack) at perceiving more abstruse harmonic meanings (meanings which shift constantly) is similar to the ability of "experts" who have learned (and have inherent propensities) to perceive other types of perceptual meanings, like seeing visual meaning in abstract art, the ability to draw, to dance, throw a football, a master chef's sense of smell/taste, and other areas.

What I'm saying is that you either hear it, or you don't. The people who can hear meaning in abstruse music are the ones who like it, and have a natural visceral propensity; the ones who say that they "reject" it are more often than not unable to hear it, based mainly on an inherently lower visceral propensity. These people are "crippled" from the start.

If a person has demonstrated that they do have a good ear/brain connection (by playing an instrument, singing, etc) and they still can't penetrate more abstruse music, then this is more likely to be from willful choice, due to unfamiliarity or refusal to explore, not an inherent inability. This type of "refusal" is much more credible than the run-of-the mill criticisms of those listeners who are inherently unable to hear and understand, from both a vicseral and cognitive standpoint.

What I'm saying is that "your ear" (visceral) is the stimulus that "draws you in" to more difficult music. This is a very natural ability, and some folks have it, while others don't. This translates (after the fact) into "preference."

This preference is not "debatable" or even definable on a credible level by those who are unable to hear it on a visceral level, because this boils down to degrees of inherent ability, not will. It's like some people don't enjoy dancing because they can't do it well (comparatively).

I'm re-kindling the argument that *much "modern" music is more complex than earlier tonal music,* and that *the ability to enjoy modern music is based largely on the listener's inherent, God-given ability to hear it, and only secondarily on willful "taste." *

"Taste" for atonal music is largely determined not by simple willful preference, but by *a good inherent ear/brain connection,* supplemented by some effort, belief in (trust in, faith in, confidence in, giving of credence to), and expertise.

This shouldn't be too surprising, since, as in many other areas of life, *people are naturally drawn to what their natural abilities enable them to engage with,* in productive, identity-reinforcing ways. Sports, business, politics, carreers, etc. are like this, and so is music.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

> I'm re-kindling the argument that much "modern" music is more complex than earlier tonal music, and that the ability to enjoy modern music is based largely on the listener's inherent, God-given ability to hear it, and only secondarily on willful "taste."


This is an intriguing idea, but how "inherent" do you think this ability is? Genetically determined, or something that can be ingrained early in life (or at some other receptive period during development)?

One thing - I think you have this backward:


> This type of "refusal" is much more credible than the run-of-the mill criticisms of those listeners who are inherently unable to hear and understand, from both a vicseral and cognitive standpoint.


Surely an _inherent_ inability to understand is more credible than a _wilful_ inability? Just as - with reference to your use of the term "crippled" - if a person will not walk, a lack of legs would be a more credible reason than a refusal to use them?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> This is an intriguing idea, but how "inherent" do you think this ability is? Genetically determined, or something that can be ingrained early in life (or at some other receptive period during development)?
> 
> One thing - I think you have this backward:
> 
> Surely an _inherent_ inability to understand is more credible than a _wilful_ inability? Just as - with reference to your use of the term "crippled" - if a person will not walk, a lack of legs would be a more credible reason than a refusal to use them?


No, I didn't say "an inherent inability." I said *NOT* an inherent inability.

Here's the quote, edited for more clarity:

"If a person has demonstrated that *they do have a good ear/brain connection* and *they still can't "penetrate" or accept more abstruse music,* then *this is more likely to be from willful choice,* due to unfamiliarity or refusal to explore, *not an inherent inability to hear.* This type of "refusal" is much more credible..."

I think a good ear/brain connection is *primarily inherited (nature),* then *secondarily developed (nurture) after this fact* by early exposure to music and other identity-forming factors. I don't think it can be singularly "ingrained early during receptive forming" in the womb, etc, because I think music ability is more than simply "identity," and primarily involves the actual ear and brain, and depends largely on these certain genetic factors.

Of course, the Beethoven-in-the-womb-playing yuppie soccer-mothers don't want to hear this; they'd like to think that they can completely control the way their precious baby turns out. Music is like every other human endeavor, like sports, or modeling, or having natural business acumen. People are drawn to what they can do well. In competition, this natural ability trumps any other equivalent learned abilities gained without this natural advantage.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

> Here's the quote, edited for more clarity:
> 
> "If a person has demonstrated that they do have a good ear/brain connection and they still can't "penetrate" or accept more abstruse music, then this is more likely to be from willful choice, due to unfamiliarity or refusal to explore, not an inherent inability to hear. This type of "refusal" is much more credible..."


I think we're talking at cross-purposes here.
My reading of this is that you're saying that a refusal to explore abstruse music is _more_ credible in someone with a good ear/brain connection who makes a "willful choice" than it is in someone without a good ear/brain connection.
Is this what you mean?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> I think we're talking at cross-purposes here.
> My reading of this is that you're saying that a refusal to explore abstruse music is _more_ credible in someone with a good ear/brain connection who makes a "willful choice" than it is in someone without a good ear/brain connection.
> Is this what you mean?


Yes, exactly.

Just as a trim, muscular 7-foot tall person who refuses to play basketball is more credible than a fat, out-of shape person who is 5'1".

The short person probably never got into the game enough to credibly dislike it on it's aesthetic appeal only; we surmise that they tried and failed because they are unsuited for playing the game. We take the 7-footer's refusal more seriously, because we all know that this body-type is more suited.

We could draw a line on the wall, and say "You cannot comment credibly on modern music unless your height exceeds this line. Otherwise, stay off this ride, or you will end up getting puke all over the other riders."


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

^Bloody hell, strewth even- In ocher (Ozzie) land we have words for statements like that - that can't be repeated here - not in polite society anyway.

To clarify: 

The 7 foot non basketballer is ? 
a) Classical music listen of cultured ear who dissapproves of Atonal music?
b) Something else?

The fat, out-of 5'1" person is?
a) Rap Artist/ Busker who like tonal music?
b) Tone deaf Mutant?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> We could draw a line on the wall, and say "You cannot comment credibly on modern music unless your height exceeds this line. Otherwise, stay off this ride...


I agree a test should be required, not just to comment on music but even to listen to it. Makes a lot of sense! Height doesn't seem a likely criterion though. Perhaps you could suggest some more reasonable criteria?

Perhaps then TC could require passing such a test before signing on as a member! What do you think?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

KenOC said:


> I agree a test should be required, not just to comment on music but even to listen to it. Makes a lot of sense! Height doesn't seem a likely criterion though. Perhaps you could suggest some more reasonable criteria?
> 
> Perhaps then TC could require passing such a test before signing on as a member! What do you think?


The test is as follows, in two parts :

The 7 foot non basketballer is ? 
a) Classical music listener of cultured ear who dissapproves of Atonal music?
b) Something else?

The fat, out-of 5'1" person is?
a) Rap Artist/ Busker who like tonal music?
b) Tone deaf Mutant?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Tonal refers to the Tonic, _specifically of common practice harmonic practice._ Along with that common practice period harmony, the Dominant V and Sub-Dominant IV chords also are enough to imply and make the listener expect "Tonic."

Atonal is an assiduous avoidance (systematic or more freewheeling) of establishing a Tonic, or the tonic triad, and also an equally assiduous of an avoidance of IV and V, and therefore, 'chord function' as was used in the common practice era. _[Properly broken down from its Latin word parts, "Atonal" means "Without Tonic."]_ The technique itself does not automatically abolish triads, or 'basic chord structures, though often enough, along with modernism in general, less of traditional Tertian (based on thirds) chords are used or wanted.

Since the early Serial methodology of Schoenberg, et alia, there have come about many ways to skin the Tonal Cat, not all of them twelve-tone, or serial.

Many atonal works, however, do not throw the baby out with the bathwater; they establish, by frequency of occurrence of one or more pitches or intervals as a sort of constant -- those functioning as the 'compositional glue' to keep the ear on track -- a device wherein the piece has a constancy and logic of its own. (These are very similar in principle to the older common practice devices.)

So much listening, especially to an extended piece, relies upon listener memory, conscious or unconscious... that the presence of one pitch sounding more and more regularly than the others -- or one or more intervals occurring throughout the length of a piece -- are enough to give the listener a present 'constant' via some sort of repetition... enough to not require a completely new way of listening.

Fundamentally, the most basic semiotic elements of general expectations of 'what music is and how it goes' have been met by almost every composer of any sort who has ever lived. That is why, to me, it is rather astonishing so many people seem to have 'trouble' listening to atonal music... other than a bit of a difference in the harmonies resulting, the 'way to listen' to it remains exactly the same.

Some people just love to know where home is, even a year out and thousands of miles away at any particular moment: it is for them a comfort zone. Other listeners think music is only music if it is about harmony, and those vertical chords, and they are conservative about the harmonic content. Atonal music, then, is Not for them, not because it is 'against natural acoustic law,' or any of the other patently rationalized arguments against, but a matter of tastes and psychological comfort.


----------



## Guest (Feb 22, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> *"What's atonal?"*
> 
> It's a perception. This thread is really concerned with labeling _people,_ and not with music per se.
> 
> ...


That's reading an awful lot into the OP. I don't see it that way.



Nereffid said:


> Funny, I thought that was actually the point underlying KenOC's question:
> 
> I read this as "Can we give a "dictionary definition" to "atonal" or is it just a word different people use to mean different things?"


The word can be given technical definition, but the extent to which something is deemed atonal depends on the listener.



mmsbls said:


> atonal music: music sounding _enough_ different from earlier music (Baroque, Classical, and Romantic) that many listeners feel is cognitively distinctly different. NOTE: they don't have to believe it's better or worse - just distinctly different.


Quite.



millionrainbows said:


> Well, then, he'd better get off the fence and stop being so vague.:lol:


Was the OP vague? Not if you take it, and Ken's second post, at face value.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

> I think a good ear/brain connection is primarily inherited (nature), then secondarily developed (nurture) after this fact by early exposure to music and other identity-forming factors. I don't think it can be singularly "ingrained early during receptive forming" in the womb, etc, because I think music ability is more than simply "identity," and primarily involves the actual ear and brain, and depends largely on these certain genetic factors.





> We could draw a line on the wall, and say "You cannot comment credibly on modern music unless your height exceeds this line. Otherwise, stay off this ride, or you will end up getting puke all over the other riders."


Shorter version: Some people's opinions are worthless because of their genetic makeup.


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Atonal....meh
> 
> I prefer to call it _pan-_tonal meaning "the synthesis of all tonalities."


Well, I prefer chromotonal...


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Let's Tone It Down*

Come on guys. Let's tone down the "negative waves". Even in jest such rhetoric can get a thread shut down.

Recently a thread on Mozart got out of hand and was shut down.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

I agree with millions almost entirely, except for what I didn't know before I read these posts :lol: Although I'm not sure that musical talent and appreciation of modern music are quite so strongly linked as he seems to be suggesting. I think it is more of a talent in itself, correlated to musicality.

Using atonal as avoiding common-practice harmony, which as PetrB points out is its true meaning, actually I think modal music is more 'accessible' than tonal music. Just look at most popular music forms. I am told that younger children do not enjoy music so much which is _harmonically based_. Harmony is a _system_. However much the triad may or may not be ordained by Nature, I am less sure that iib-Ic-V7-I is integral to the fabric of the universe.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> The fat, out-of 5'1" person is?
> a) Rap Artist/ Busker who like tonal music?
> b) Tone deaf Mutant?


Yeah, something along those lines. I like the "tone-deaf mutant.":lol:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> Shorter version: Some people's opinions are worthless because of their genetic makeup.


No, I said *some people's opinions are more credible. * You have to accen-tuate the positive.:lol:

Hey, man, I can't help it if short people can't play basketball well. People are born with certain propensities.

_Sarcastically: _Of course, looking at things this way is okay if they're trying to predict who will be a rampage-shooter, based on inherent brain structure.

I see this as a positive, because I can hear well. I was the only person in my college theory class who could name every note in a tone-cluster played on the piano. And in a high-school preparatory music theory class, which I had to get special permission to be in since I couldn't read music at that time, I could name intervals instantly, competing with one of the top musicians in the band.

That's life; people are drawn to be successful in those things they are "gifted" to do. No use complaining; it is what it is. Try to discover your own unique talents instead of cursing the hand you were dealt.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

arpeggio said:


> Come on guys. Let's tone down the "negative waves". Even in jest such rhetoric can get a thread shut down.
> 
> Recently a thread on Mozart got out of hand and was shut down.


I have no idea what or who you are referring to.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

It's much better to discuss and question the meaning of seemingly clear concepts than not to do that. I think this thread is an indicator of how good a site and community TalkClassical is.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Xaltotun said:


> It's much better to discuss and question the meaning of seemingly clear concepts than not to do that. I think this thread is an indicator of how good a site and community TalkClassical is.


I agree, I think. What's Bassoon scared of? We can't go around being controlled by fear and guilt. If they decide to shut the thread down, it won't be the first time somebody got offended. That's life.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Ramako said:


> Using atonal as avoiding common-practice harmony, which as PetrB points out is its true meaning, actually I think modal music is more 'accessible' than tonal music. Just look at most popular music forms. I am told that younger children do not enjoy music so much which is _harmonically based_. Harmony is a _system_. However much the triad may or may not be ordained by Nature, I am less sure that iib-Ic-V7-I is integral to the fabric of the universe.


The word atonal is not just something that avoids common practice harmony, though. The music also has to be chromatic in nature, or it's generally not heard as atonal.

The triad is more or less a representation of the first few notes of the overtone series (temperament aside), but to people reared on popular music and/or jazz, the seventh chord may sound more "complete", or perhaps the major triad with added sixth. As mentioned in the dissonance thread, the acoustics of a chord are not as important as our recognizing its function within the music.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Long Live the Thread*



millionrainbows said:


> I agree, I think. What's Bassoon scared of? We can't go around being controlled by fear and guilt. If they decide to shut the thread down, it won't be the first time somebody got offended. That's life.


If am wrong then I am being a paranoid jerk.

Actually in this case would be glad if I was a paranoid jerk. I am reading a lot of interesting stuff here and I hope it continues.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Ramako said:


> I agree with millions almost entirely, except for what I didn't know before I read these posts :lol: Although I'm not sure that musical talent and appreciation of modern music are quite so strongly linked as he seems to be suggesting. I think it is more of a talent in itself, correlated to musicality.


Having a good ear is key to everything musical. RE: modern music, if you can't hear it, your opinion of it is rendered impotent. That's not an all-inclusive determinant, but it makes the opinion 99% credible, whichever way the thumb points.

Using atonal as avoiding common-practice harmony, which as PetrB points out is its true meaning, actually I think modal music is more 'accessible' than tonal music. Just look at most popular music forms. I am told that younger children do not enjoy music so much which is _harmonically based_. Harmony is a _system_. However much the triad may or may not be ordained by Nature, I am less sure that iib-Ic-V7-I is integral to the fabric of the universe.[/QUOTE]

True, I agree. Harmony, as in CP, is a system, but it's based on harmonic principles.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> Shorter version: Some people's opinions are worthless because of their genetic makeup.


I can see the basic mis-assumption here. I say that music is an ability, more than it is an "identity." It becomes an identity if properly nurtured. Nereffid seems to be confusing the two, because they are often confused.

Also, let's not confuse genetics which give us racial characteristics with genetics which give us abilities or propensities. There is some overlap, as well, so don't condemn this as racial stereotyping because of "basketball."

"Some people's opinions are worth more because they are based on innate ability to perceive pitch and intervals instantaneously," not because of any identity.

Genetics give us abilities; they also made the black man dark-skinned, which became "his identity" in America. But a man is more than his "identity brand" conferred from without, or inflicted, and his color does not crucially create his "identity," although a cluster of genetic characteristics (such as muscularity, height, low fat/muscle ratio) might make him more suited for basketball than our short, fat person.

There is the other side, "nurture," which allows the environment to reinforce or erode "nurture" or true inner identity; this can be negative as well as positive. Thus, two brothers from the same family can be subjected to basically the same environmental stresses, yet one will succeed and one will fail, because the failed one was subjected to an isolated stress-incident which deflated the "nurture" aspect necessary to succeed in a highly competitive world.

But music is an inner perception, and perceptual ability; and perception is more hidden, less obvious than a physical ability such as making a basketball goal at 30 yards away, and also more inherently substantial than superficial characteristics, which include superficial "identities" or personas which people confer on others, or adopt and create for themselves.

Beethoven went deaf, so this says that the ear/brain ability begins viscerally, but becomes "inner," beyond the senses, as a true "identity" which emanates from within, connected to God, not to Man.

This is what Man needs to do; to develop his own unique, inherent abilities and talents, and stop concentrating on areas in which he is ill-suited.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> The word atonal is not just something that avoids common practice harmony, though. The music also has to be chromatic in nature, or it's generally not heard as atonal.


I hear atonal music as rapidly-changing harmonic meanings. Not functions, but firstly as harmonic "meanings" which relate in some way to some fundamental. Sometimes they go by too fast, or the meaning is ambiguous.



Mahlerian said:


> The triad is more or less a representation of the first few notes of the overtone series (temperament aside), but to people reared on popular music and/or jazz, the seventh chord may sound more "complete", or perhaps the major triad with added sixth. As mentioned in the dissonance thread, the acoustics of a chord are not as important as our recognizing its function within the music.


You can't separate the vertical "acoustic" meaning of a chord from its "function across time," since both are derived in relation to a fundamental (root) and both are important.

But there is a cerebral caveat to hearing function: Once the tonic is established, you can see the functions, *but this must be established across time, with a few chords before this becomes clear.* Thus, "function across time" is more cerebral and less visceral than harmonic quality. We hear chords instantaneously, as "harmonic entities."
This does not always have to be tied to function (Debussy's use of parallel major chords).

With the vertical aspect, harmony and triads, this also exists as a relation-in-time to some degree, as a simple major triad might be functioning as a I, IV, or V; with a simple triad (with no 7th), we have no way of knowing until we hear some other chords to relate it to.

But, as Debussy knew, the vertical "harmonic" aspect of a chord is a more *independent* entity than its "function in time." It exists as a "harmonic entity," as his use of parallel minor chords shows.

So what does this do to your statement:



Mahlerian said:


> As mentioned in the dissonance thread, the acoustics of a chord are not as important as our recognizing its function within the music.


Hmm, is that right? Mahlerian, you're stuck in that box again. Debussy didn't seem to think so. The same with atonality: the best way is to hear it as "harmonic entities."


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Hmm, is that right? Mahlerian, you're stuck in that box again. Debussy didn't seem to think so. The same with atonality: the best way is to hear it as "harmonic entities."


I'm using the word function here in a non-technical way meaning "the way it works", not "tonal harmonic function".


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> I'm using the word function here in a non-technical way meaning "the way it works", not "tonal harmonic function".


Gotcha. 10-4.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Atonal....meh
> 
> I prefer to call it _pan-_tonal meaning "the synthesis of all tonalities."


The pop genre PR spinsters prefer to call one genre of pop Neoclassical. 
You prefer to call Atonal music Pan Tonal.

Trouble is, both _Neoclassical_ and _Pan tonal_ are officially taken -- defined and in use since the 1920's.

So, it does not matter "what we prefer." The definitions for Neoclassical, Pan Tonal and Atonal are done deals.

We are 'stuck' with Atonal (= without Tonic) which one could think is simple and quite clear enough, though -- using massive understatement here -- "Atonal" is widely misunderstood, to say the least.)


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

*Atonal music is music in which the person who is using the word cannot hear tonal centers.*
:lol:

I criticize not just the word, but the very *concept* of "atonality." "Atonal" implies that the music is "harmonically meaningless," which is not true to a listener with good ears, and a developed sense of hunting down "harmonic meanings."


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> "Atonal" implies that the music is "harmonically meaningless," which is not true to a listener with good ears, and a developed sense of hunting down "harmonic meanings."


That's why I love this forum -- so I can learn what to aspire to!


----------



## Guest (Feb 24, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> "Atonal" implies that the music is "harmonically meaningless,"


According to whom?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> According to whom?


According to me, the way it strikes me, and the way other people use the term.


----------



## Guest (Feb 25, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> According to me, the way it strikes me, and the way other people use the term.


Ah, that's alright then. I thought for a minute you meant that 'harmonically meaningless' was an interpretation that _everyone _who isn't in love with atonal uses.

Are there particular 'other people' you have in mind? Or is it just anyone not as gifted as you? (ie, those who are impotent because they can't 'hear it' - post #54).


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

MacLeod, you're being quite naughty you know.


----------



## Guest (Feb 25, 2013)

KenOC said:


> MacLeod, you're being quite naughty you know.


No more or less naughty than you when you started the thread in the first place, apparently!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Ah, that's alright then. I thought for a minute you meant that 'harmonically meaningless' was an interpretation that _everyone _who isn't in love with atonal uses.
> 
> Are there particular 'other people' you have in mind? Or is it just anyone not as gifted as you? (ie, those who are impotent because they can't 'hear it' - post #54).


See post #60.

Atonal music is music in which the person _who is using the word_ *cannot hear* tonal centers.

The use of the word "atonal" goes hand in hand with the inability to hear harmonically on a higher, more heuristic level.

I can hear tonal centers appearing then disappearing, then reappearing in this music, so for me the very concept of "atonal music" (suggesting harmonic meaninglessness) is questionable; thus, my dissatisfaction with the term and all its baggage.


----------



## Guest (Feb 26, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Atonal music is music in which the person _who is using the word_ *cannot hear* tonal centers.


So, you're claiming that in all the debates that have raged on in one thread or another about tonal vs atonal, _anyone _(and _everyone_?) who has used the term 'atonal' cannot hear 'tonal centres'? (As opposed to the idea that 'tonal centres' do not exist?)

That's quite a few tonally deaf classical enthusiasts you're sweeping up there!

I suppose you might have superhero-hearing. Then again, it could just be that the common or garden use of the term 'atonal' has a common or garden meaning that most ordinary folk are happy to share, whatever its technical shortcomings.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Dear McLeod: It should be apparent by now that those who don't care for atonal (or serial) music suffer from deficiencies in hearing or understanding, or perhaps -- more politely -- from "category errors." They can only hope to rise over time, through diligent effort, to the levels of their betters. Thus they will be improved, which is of course devoutly to be wished.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> A topic reminder: Is "atonal" best defined by expert statements, or by listemer perception?


Oh, by ALL MEANS, let us leave the re-definition of every and any thing having to do with the highly refined skills of the high craftsmen to the inner perceptions of the casual users and consumers of same.

It is a technical thing, of course.

Otherwise, you have to lend credence to a listener's perception that Ravel is 'very dissonant,' and that most or all of Prokofiev is 'atonal.' [roflmao. -- I did not invent either one of those perceptions!]

Or we could toss in the towel with those in the pop industry who have misappropriated 'neoclassical,' and let them redefine everything as per their guess on people's perceptions of 'what is what.'

Name any style from any era, and there will be a short or longer list of _technical terms_ which are present in action in the score, a particular configuration, degree and or type of ornamentation, an idiosyncratically not quite from the page reading of rhythm, a harmonic or structural procedure, premise. Those terms and their 'definitions' are always in the technical realm -- the only other elements up for grabs and debate, huge, slippery, sloppy, ambiguous... and forever up for debate, are all in the arena of aesthetics.

"Atonal" may go along with an aesthetic, but it is a purely technical term.


----------



## Guest (Feb 26, 2013)

_Purely _a technical term?

I'm reminded of school inspections where inspectors must make judgements on 'the quality of teaching.' 'Teaching' is a technical term - at least so far as inspectors are concerned - but there must inevitably be a degree of subjectivity about whether any given activity could fall within the definition.

Or take 'offside' in football. The Football Assocation has a technical definition, but that does not stop the users of the term - including referees themselves - making subjective judgements about whether an offside offence has been caused.

The fact that something may be amenable to technical definition does not mean that it is not also amenable to valid subjective application.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

PetrB said:


> It is a technical thing, of course.


To some "atonal" is a technical term. I believe others do not use it in the proper technical sense. As far as I can tell from asking musicians and people here at TC, people who both understand the technical nature of the term and understand music well tend _not_ to use the word. The majority of people who use the word _seem_ to use it in a less (or non) technical sense.

Words are defined by their use. If "atonal" started out as a technical word and gradually has shifted to mean something somewhat (or significantly) different, that's fine. I have pointed out that "organic" started out as a technical term (and still is in scientific circles). Now "organic food" means something completely different. That's OK as long as the word means something reasonably consistent so that those who use it understand each other.

When I hear "atonal", I assume the person means something like my definition posted earlier:

atonal music: music sounding enough different from earlier music (Baroque, Classical, and Romantic) that many listeners feel is cognitively distinctly different.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

mmsbls said:


> To some "atonal" is a technical term. I believe others do not use it in the proper technical sense. As far as I can tell from asking musicians and people here at TC, people who both understand the technical nature of the term and understand music well tend _not_ to use the word. The majority of people who use the word _seem_ to use it in a less (or non) technical sense.
> 
> Words are defined by their use. If "atonal" started out as a technical word and gradually has shifted to mean something somewhat (or significantly) different, that's fine. I have pointed out that "organic" started out as a technical term (and still is in scientific circles). Now "organic food" means something completely different. That's OK as long as the word means something reasonably consistent so that those who use it understand each other.
> 
> ...


I agree that the precision in the meaning of words is often contextual, otherwise an informal conversation would be imposible. Many terms from science, like energy, dimension, inertia, force, even time, are used colloquially. Almost always the colloquial meaning has some resemblance to the technical definition, in which the main concept is somewhat conserved. That's what I would call a good "colloquialization" of a technical term.
On the other hand, there are words badly translated to the popular speech, like organic, or electromagnetic, etc. Since I prefer coherence in the language, I would try to avoid such things.
For a start, "atonal" _is_ a technical term and it refers to music which lacks of a global tonal structure. It's an accepted technical term and is used by musicians. You will not hear it often from their mouths simply because it is a very specific term, which is useful only when you are talking about harmony, a certain type of harmony. Musicians tend to talk about many other aspects of music, not only harmony.
You mention that the term atonal is used colloquially for describing music which is different from pre-XX century music, i.e., atonal=XX/XXI century music.
I think that's a really misleading way of using the term, even informally. First of all, atonal music, in the technical sense, apart from harmony, does not need to be different from early music. Take Schoenberg considering himself a conservative, for example. On the other hand, you can have tonal music with rather different conceptions of form, rhythm, etc., than early music. Or music that is atonal, but is also different in many other aspects, like integral serialism. Certainly, trying to mark the difference in these cases by using the word atonal is very odd, and incoherent.
Again, I think that this misuse of the word atonal is often made by very naive and amateur people (i.e., people with little experience as classical music listeners), who reduces music to harmony.
I think we should oppose to this misuse. 
If these people want to make a difference between early music and some other music, why not simply say "music different from early music"?, and then specify exactly in which aspects is different...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

When I get the world to use "peruse" the way I think they should, I'll turn my attention to "atonal."

Just now of course I'm busy promoting the Douggie as a legitimate option for older men in nightclubs.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

science said:


> When I get the world to use "peruse" the way I think they should, I'll turn my attention to "atonal."
> 
> Just now of course I'm busy promoting the Douggie as a legitimate option for older men in nightclubs.


Some would say harsh, very harsh and others might say how very atonal of you.... but I say you how about promoting some atonal Hip hop to go with the dougie dance- give it ago, they might go for it in the hood!!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Curious if this would be regarded as "atonal":

"Variations IV is intended for any number of players producing any sounds by any means, 'with or without other activities.' The score consists of seven points and two circles on a transparent sheet. The sheet is cut into nine small sheets. One of the circles is then placed anywhere on a map of the area where the performance is to take place. Then the rest of the sheets are dropped anywhere on the same map, and straight lines are drawn from the first circle to the seven points; if a line intersects or is tangent to another circle, the same procedure is applied to that circle. The explanatory note in the score gives instructions on how to interpret the results; Cage also mentions that performers do not need to confine themselves to a performance of the piece during the entire performance and are free to engage in any other activities at any time."


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

aleazk said:


> Again, I think that this misuse of the word atonal is often made by very naive and amateur people (i.e., people with little experience as classical music listeners), who reduces music to harmony.


First, I agree with essentially everything you said (except perhaps what I quoted above). I am trying to _not_ use the word, "atonal", since I don't feel confident in its proper use. More precisely, I'm not confident that the music I think is atonal is actually atonal.

It seems to me that many people who have significant experience as classical music listeners use the term incorrectly. These people may not be musically trained, but they have listened to much music. Since "experts" use the term so infrequently, the other uses dominate. From a purely language perspective I wonder if the term will essentially change to have a new, non-technical, meaning.

If there were a better word or short phrase that would actually properly refer to the works that sound unpleasant/difficult/"cognitively different" to those who use the term "atonal" improperly, then we could just tell people to use that proper word. Presently they are left with using atonal or using a very lengthy description of works or types of works. When they use "atonal", pretty much everyone knows roughly what they mean. If that were not the case, then these discussions would have been incoherent (I know, some would say they have been ).

Anyway, I have more sympathy for your view, but I also sympathize with those who honestly want to easily refer to music that "sounds to them a specific way - unpleasant/difficult/cognitively different".


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I think "atonal" is a descriptive term, used to describe the experience of the listener. It is a vague descriptor of a vague experience.

Cage's Variations IV is indeterminate.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> To some "atonal" is a technical term. I believe others do not use it in the proper technical sense. As far as I can tell from asking musicians and people here at TC, people who both understand the technical nature of the term and understand music well tend _not_ to use the word. The majority of people who use the word _seem_ to use it in a less (or non) technical sense.
> 
> Words are defined by their use. If "atonal" started out as a technical word and gradually has shifted to mean something somewhat (or significantly) different, that's fine. I have pointed out that "organic" started out as a technical term (and still is in scientific circles). Now "organic food" means something completely different. That's OK as long as the word means something reasonably consistent so that those who use it understand each other.
> 
> ...


Perhaps all words and definitions have the same end fate / goal of a river in geology; a spreading out, dispersion, ultimate stagnation to swamp, and then death, in short, a sort of sequence of vitality to stagnation and the ultimate goal, suicide.

Usage by 'the people' will, eventually, become the standard usage, and the meaning will change.

Our current age, though, has emphasized the individual's perception, extolled personal empirical opinion over cooler and more objective thought, and the vogue is to value, it seems, 'what one feels' over what more clearly 'what one thinks.'

I don't know why so many people are offended that the arts which move them do have a technical (relatively objective) jargon, but if the more idiosyncratic and empirical usage is to be the status quo, about every discussion will involve each individual's apart worlds of perceptions and idiosyncratic usage of what looks and sounds like the same word.

That, imho, is cumbersome, less and less clear, and takes that much more time for either party involved to get WTF the other party is speaking about. The new social sport will be in primarily interpreting each individual's interpretation of basic words and their meanings... comic if it were not so frustrating.


----------



## Guest (Feb 27, 2013)

"Technical" seems to be used to imply a greater degree of validity (never mind accuracy). If music is only about a set of technical descriptions, it loses its validity as something that can be experienced (never mind critically analysed or merely enjoyed). 

So, which came first, the music or the technical terminology? I can listen to a piece of music and like it or dislike it, even use my own non-technical vocabulary to justify my liking, without making any use of the technical vocabulary that is common even in primary school curriculums.

I'm not advocating that language should be used any old how, but I am advocating that the subjective experience of the listener and her attempts to describe what she hears can be as valid an account as any that can be put forward by those with the official language.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> So, you're claiming that in all the debates that have raged on in one thread or another about tonal vs atonal, _anyone _(and _everyone_?) who has used the term 'atonal' cannot hear 'tonal centres'?


No; just read the statement for its obvious meaning:

*Atonal music is music in which the person who is using the word cannot hear tonal centers.*



MacLeod said:


> ...So, you're claiming that in all the debates that have raged on in one thread or another about tonal vs atonal, anyone and everyone who has used the term 'atonal' cannot hear 'tonal centers, *as opposed to the idea that 'tonal centres' do not exist?*


This statement assumes that "If I can't hear tonal centers in this music, then they don't exist, so I'll call it "atonal."
That about sums up your position. :lol:

No one can assert that "tonal centers" are not _heard_ by certain people with acute perception, and since this is really a matter of subjective experience, the assertion that tonal centres _do not exist_ in more difficult 12-tone modern music is unprovable, and seems to confuse the areas of subjectivity and objectivity.



MacLeod said:


> I suppose you might have superhero-hearing.


No, just good ear/brain perception, like most good musicians do.



MacLeod said:


> Then again, it could just be that the common or garden use of the term 'atonal' has a common or garden meaning that most ordinary folk are happy to share, whatever its technical shortcomings.


I can live with that. After all, it agrees with my statment, and identifies the perception of the users of the term as "common and ordinary." I must say you are an eloquent spokesman for this group. :lol:


----------



## Guest (Feb 28, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> No; just read the statement for its obvious meaning:
> 
> *Atonal music is music in which the person who is using the word cannot hear tonal centers.*


OK. As a definition, I can see how that might work: it is certainly dependent on the perception of the subject. However, since it implies a deficit on the part of 'the person', it has its limitations. It assumes that 'tonal centres' are there to be heard.

If a person can't hear TCs, they might not exist. I'm not asserting one way or the other.

As for being a spokesperson for the common or garden, I would be proud to be such!

BTW - I note that your statement is, or could be, a quote from a book cited in wikipedia



> Donald Jay Grout similarly doubted whether atonality is really possible, because "any combination of sounds can be referred to a fundamental root". He defined it as a fundamentally subjective category: "atonal music is music in which the person who is using the word cannot hear tonal centers" (Grout 1960, 647).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonality

Have you read the book, and are you able to elaborate on his ideas?


----------



## Radames (Feb 27, 2013)

If it sounds like noise and gives me a headache then I say it is atonal.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> I read this as "Can we give a "dictionary definition" to "atonal" or is it just a word different people use to mean different things?"


LOL: there are music dictionary definitions, more general dictionary definitions, and then, it seems, as here demonstrated, all sorts of personal and non-dictionary related 'interpretations.'

There are several good 'musical definitions' in this thread; the rest are more revealing about each writer and their personal perception of 'what is atonal.'


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

The cumulative / collective content of this thread so far is analogous to this sort of situation:

A number of people are discussing a color swatch which is *a particular shade of red*: they are coming up with all sorts of angles of personal perception to define_ 'what that red is,'_ many giving it a different word spin depending upon their personal perception and linguistic associations and habits.

Enter the room five trained artists who cursorily glance at the swatch. Each professional artist summarily says, *"alizarin crimson"* and then quits the room (clearly, they are not pedantic or petty academic, wanting recognition for a particular 'spin' on alizarin crimson, letting it just be 'alazarin crimson') -- for them the matter of discussion was not a matter of discussion, and was simply taken care of.

That leaves all the non-professionals thinking, "Alizarin Crimson. Is that all there is to it?"


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Radames said:


> If it sounds like noise and gives me a headache then I say it is atonal.


Have you thought of the effect on the atonal music, that you may have been listening too. If you were getting a headache, have you thought of your effect of being so near to that poor inflicted quality music, and what you may have done to that fine atonal music.

Haven't you heard of the society of prevention of harm to quality music SOPOHTQM.

The message was brought to you by the SOPOHTQM.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> "Technical" seems to be used to imply a greater degree of validity (never mind accuracy). If music is only about a set of technical descriptions, it loses its validity as something that can be experienced (never mind critically analysed or merely enjoyed).
> 
> So, which came first, the music or the technical terminology? I can listen to a piece of music and like it or dislike it, even use my own non-technical vocabulary to justify my liking, without making any use of the technical vocabulary that is common even in primary school curriculums.
> 
> I'm not advocating that language should be used any old how, but I am advocating that the subjective experience of the listener and her attempts to describe what she hears can be as valid an account as any that can be put forward by those with the official language.


Subjective experience is not only valid, it is all. But when you're in a thread in a classical music forum of which the OP is 'what is atonal?' is it surprising that the only concrete answer is technical?

'Technical' on its own has never 'validated,' any work of art 

The fact that all else about music but the technical can only be discussed on the plane of personal (and often empiric) reaction leaves, if following correct definitions, only the technical with which to concretely discuss, or 'nail' if you will, the fact a work is 'atonal' or not.

So many non-trained music lovers seem to unreasonably and unjustly bridle the moment technical matters come up in discussion. Discussing music on a technical front does not automatically include dismissal of the emotional planes of music. (Only the pedant theorist / composer would think that 'technical' would be enough to grant a piece an audience

P.s. see my "Alizarin Crimson" post #85 in this thread.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> BTW - I note that your statement is, or could be, a quote from a book cited in wikipedia
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonality
> 
> Have you read the book, and are you able to elaborate on his ideas?


That's correct, I saw that statement by Donald Grout and immediately resonated with it. I was on to this line of thought after reading Allen Shawn's book on how Schoenberg always "heard" tonally, regardless of what it was.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> That's correct, I saw that statement by Donald Grout and immediately resonated with it. I was on to this line of thought after reading Allen Shawn's book on how Schoenberg always "heard" tonally, regardless of what it was.


My "personal" definition of "Tonal" was given me by my comp teacher. Here was his definition of Tonal.

*"A piece is tonal if it works."*

I hear 'it all' as 'tonal.'


----------



## Guest (Mar 1, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Subjective experience is not only valid, it is all. But when you're in a thread in a classical music forum of which the OP is 'what is atonal?' is it surprising that the only concrete answer is technical?


What's surprising is that this thread, along with its predecessors, continues to mine a seam of disagreement, despite the efforts of the technocrats to tell us that there is a technical definition and the efforts of the anti-technical to tell us that whatever the definition, its horrible! But even your analogy to the debate about colour highlights that whatever term might be applied to a thing, even it is a commonly accepted term, the experience of the thing is more important. If Schoenberg and million and you insist that you hear everything 'tonally', then who can argue with that? If someone wants to tell me that wikipedia summarises the debate about a/tonality poorly, go ahead, but what comes across is that there is disagreement even among those who count themselves the technocrats.

My line of argument is not about what is or is not a/tonal, but about the entitlement of the listener to have a valid personal experience of music that need make no reference to the technical, especially in the face of disagreement among the technocrats about the meanings of terms. Taking the OP at face value, this is exactly what was being asked.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> Taking the OP at face value, this is exactly what was being asked.


Indeed it was. There are various people people here who can pronounce technical definitions of "atonal," but the question is: Do these definitions trump the lady who said, "That's very well, Mr. Schuman, but in Macon, your piece is atonal."


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

In Macon, Georgia, appearances are everything.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

In Gundagai, The Riverina, appearances are also everything.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

While we're here, to resurrect an old conversation, millions, do you still believe that dodecaphony was historically inevitable in that the system was a necessary step forward in the line of development of everything prior to it?



> One trope on 12-tone music is that it was a historical inevitability: the individual motive had supplanted an overriding tonal system as the driving force for composition, and Schoenberg needed a new method to unify music in the absence of tonal structure. But as Jonathan Kramer points out in an upcoming book, the idea that music had become totally motive-driven was a fiction invented by Schoenberg himself to justify his new method, based on a "creative misreading" of Brahms. For Schoenberg to look selectively back to Brahms's motivic technique as precursor to his own method was a natural artistic impulse, but hardly objective; nothing in Mahler, Strauss, Reger, Scriabin, or the other late, late romantics makes the use of a 12-tone row look necessary or inevitable. Quite the contrary, the application of a pitch row as a governing device was a palpably arbitrary move, brilliantly so if you want to look at it that way, but one that patently wrenched music away from its traditional moorings. Following the historical development of harmony through various seventh and ninth chords, one eventually arrives at, not the abstract pitch sets of 12-tone music, but the 11th and 13th chords of bebop, which was the real continuation of harmonic progress from classical principles.
> 
> Another 12-tone trope is that the row provided a completely organic way of composing, in which every measure of the music was drawn from the same cell. But Lerdahl, Kramer, and others have made it clear that the textual unity of a page of notes all being forms of, say, the pitch set [0,1,4] does not at all guarantee perceptual unity. And beyond that, postmodern texts and theories have made it apparent to most college graduates by now that unity and organicism are not inherent in a work of art, nor necessary, nor a universal good. One can still cling to Schoenberg's ideal of total organicism as a matter of taste, but it is an anachronism to claim, in the 21st century, that organicism is a necessary component, or indeed a guarantor, of quality.
> 
> http://www.artsjournal.com/postclassic/2005/03/once_more_into_the_12tone_brea.html


To use your preferred terminology I don't think that B chromaticism was a necessary consequence of A chromaticism, and dodecaphony even less a a necessary consequence of B chromaticism, at least not to the extent that A chromaticism was a natural follow up to early 19th century diatonic harmony, to split hairs with different gradients of "necessary", even if A and B chromaticism and dodecaphony were incidentally tangential in the actual existing works of history, for, after all, pastiches that synthesize styles from disparate periods don't necessarily imply kinship. You said so yourself that there is an a-hierarchical (demotic perhaps?) principle in late Schoenberg the opposite of which was fundamental to CP tonality, of which A chromaticism can be seen as a natural extension. Is Kyle Gann wrong?

You won't bring up the f minor fugue to imply that Bach was a proto-serialist will you? It's a well worn example the refutation of which can be found in obscure corners of the web.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

brianwalker said:


> Is Kyle Gann wrong?


Yes. Not perhaps for the historical inevitability argument, but for the rest of what he says in that article. He claims that the 12-tone works that succeed do so in spite of the technique, not because of it, but his argument for this is that use of 12-tone technique is not any guarantor of success or beauty.

What technique is?

That is a serious question. Can you find a technique that, simply by its use, guarantees successful music, literature, art, anything?

If not, then why bring this up as an argument against 12-tone music, which did indeed help Schoenberg and Webern (Berg approached it quite differently) to unify their extremely chromatic musical material? Even Kyle Gann doesn't argue that there are 12-tone masterpieces.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

brianwalker said:


> While we're here, to resurrect an old conversation, millions, do you still believe that *dodecaphony was historically inevitable in that the system was a necessary step forward in the line of development of everything prior to it*?


Let me re-phrase that:

"Tonality's 'demise' (or expansion) was historically inevitable in that it contained the seeds of its own 'transcendence', which cannot be directly ascribed to dodecaphony, but to tonality's inherent principles of chromaticism."

Serial thinking, along with dodecaphony, were outgrowths of "chromatic thinking" (as opposed to CP tonality "diatonic thinking"), which had already taken hold before Schoenberg, and were seen in Bartók, Stravinsky, and Debussy.

You can look at this as "tonality becoming more chromatic" or as inevitably leading to serial thinking; both are true. The principles which caused tonality to "unravel" (and enabled serial thought to develop) are the same principles which *firstly* allowed CP tonality to become more chromatic: division of the octave symmetrically at the tritone (rather than at the fifth), "set" thinking (hexads, pentads), use of whole-tone and diminished materials (both of which contain the tritone), parallelism, "harmonic units," etc.

The quote by Kyle Gann, "...the application of a pitch row as a governing device...patently wrenched music away from its traditional moorings. Following the historical development of harmony through various seventh and ninth chords, one eventually arrives at, not the abstract pitch sets of 12-tone music, but the 11th and 13th chords of bebop, which was the real continuation of harmonic progress from classical principles"

...is true if the literal "stacking of intervals" and "harmonic principles" are the basis of musical thinking, but this is rather simplistic, and it misses the point that dodecaphony, while basically "melodic" (based on ordered sets rather than a scale index), still has harmonic consequences and effects (although this is not the basis of the system).



brianwalker said:


> To use your preferred terminology I don't think that B chromaticism was a necessary consequence of A chromaticism, and dodecaphony even less a a necessary consequence of B chromaticism, at least not to the extent that A chromaticism was a natural follow up to early 19th century diatonic harmony, to split hairs with different gradients of "necessary", even if A and B chromaticism and dodecaphony were incidentally tangential in the actual existing works of history, for, after all, pastiches that synthesize styles from disparate periods don't necessarily imply kinship.


Whew! That's a convoluted sentence structure. I'm not sure what you mean by "A" and "B" chromaticism. I see it thusly:

1. Common-practice tonality (with tonal functions based on one root). This can be chromatic, as with the Bach Sinfonia No. 9 in F minor, but these chromatic notes are alterations, harbingers of a new key area, or passing notes. I assume you term this as "A" chromaticism.

2. (A) Chromatic music; music in which the chromatic scale is the starting-point, and there is no "one root" hierarchy. I assume you call this "B".

3. (B) Schoenberg and all serialism which followed



brianwalker said:


> You said so yourself that there is an a-hierarchical principle in late Schoenberg the opposite of which was fundamental to CP tonality, of which A chromaticism can be seen as a natural extension. Is Kyle Gann wrong?


Gann states that "...the application of a pitch row as a governing device...that patently wrenched music away from its traditional moorings."

I disagree. Although an ordered set is fundamentally opposed to a non-ordered scale "index," the move away from traditional moorings can be "blamed" on thinking which was already extant, used by the B chromaticists: Debussy, Stravinsky, Bartók, and all the other modernists who used the chromatic scale as their starting-point, rather than the diatonic.

This is really where "symmetry" raised its ugly head. Anyway, the seeds of "tonality's demise" are in the inherent symmetries in the 12-note scale and the "glitches" of tonality: tritones, flat-nine dominants (used by Beethoven), the "chromatic/fifths" idea, diminished and whole-tone triads and principles, the Dorian scale (symmetrical), etc.; *not* ordered sets.

Instead of seeing serial thought as the "culprit" in the dismantling of CP tonality, we need to look at tonality itself more closely, to see that the roots lie within the chromatic scale as a totality, from which diatonic materials are derived,



brianwalker said:


> You won't bring up the f minor fugue to imply that Bach was a proto-serialist will you? It's a well worn example the refutation of which can be found in obscure corners of the web.


The Sinfonia No. 9 in F minor (Three-part Inventions) is the example I always use of the prototype of "A" chromaticism, which led to "B."


----------

