# Tonality is Unnatural



## Guest

Is Tonality based on Nature?

No. 

(that's the tl;dr for those who can't be bothered reading a long post)

Go outside, listen to the birds, the crickets, a croaking frog, a barking dog, the wind rustling the leaves in the trees or the sound of the waves crashing against the rocks on the shore. Sounds of nature.

Now take those sounds inside with you (with the help of a microphone/recording device) and analyse the sound spectrum using AudioSculpt or a similar software. You will see a sound spectrum, the physical qualities of the sound, the *truth* or the sound, the sound as it exists in *nature.* You will find that these spectra are all different, all unique and all complex, bearing little to no resemblance to the Harmonic Overtone Series.

Now clap your hands, stamp your feet, click your fingers. These are sounds we can make quite naturally.

Record and analyse them too. Their spectra are also complex, bearing little to no resemblance to the Harmonic Series.

Now sing. Just one pitch, any pitch.

Record it, analyse it. Aha! Now we get to something which we can safely say is more or less similar to the Harmonic Series! Is this where Tonality As We Know It comes from? Is this the binding truth that Tonality is Natural, despite all the previous analyses of 'natural sounds' that _didn't_ bear this resemblance???

No. 

Let's take a look at the Harmonic Series a little more closely, shall we?









Looks pretty rooted in Tonality to me, doesn't it? Looks like the closest we can get to the scientific/natural 'proof' that the intervals, chords and harmonic progressions that are at the heart of Tonality are 'based on nature,' wouldn't you say?

Except that it isn't.

Look at the Harmonic Series again and you will notice that above every note that isn't in the pitch-class C is coloured and has a +_n_ or -_n_ above it. That shows how far removed from the approximate pitch in equal temperament (the tuning system we use today) each overtone is in hundredths of a semitone (aka *cents*). We use equal temperament to combat the inequalities of the Harmonic Series, to alter its Natural Properites so that we can *adjust them to our taste, to our culture.* Historically, western music adjusted the intervals of the harmonic series in different ways, resulting in unequal keys with unequally distributed 'pure intervals' (intervals the closest to how they could be found in the lower end of the harmonic series) that gave different keys a certain quality to them, or an *affect* (see: Doctrine of the Affections).

These *adjustments* to the _natural order_ is what makes tonality so interesting, so rich and so diverse in its usage through time. One such adjustment, equal temperament (which we know and love today) even paved the way for the development of non-tonal harmonic languages! Harmonic progressions in the Common Practice Era (the kind of tonality that flourished in western music from the mid 17th to the late 19th centuries) resulted after centuries of musical development, stylistic change, adjustments and alterations of the tuning of intervals and chords and, with the world in perspective, only _one way of doing things_ with music.

All this in mind, take a listen to some traditional music from non-western cultures to experience and appreciate totally different histories to how human beings have always (and always will) take the *Natural* and make it *Unnatural* to create *Art.*



Pierre Boulez said:


> It would even be possible to write a history of music based on the different theoretical 'corrections' of acoustical data employed by different cultures


----------



## Fredx2098

I agree with this mostly. However, there are some bases of tonality in physics, due the complementary oscillations of certain frequencies. Just because there is some physical reason for tonality doesn't make it ideal though. I think quite the opposite. I find dissonance much more interesting than consonance, if you haven't guessed by now.

Tonal music is like representative art. It creates something familiar and harmonious, but there is a limit to how creative it can be. I don't think art should be about recreating what is known to sound pleasant to the majority of people. It reminds me of The Fountainhead, how Roark does not want to create architecture in a Greek style or Renaissance style or Victorian style, but instead wants only to create in his own style. I think that is the way art should be. That's part of why I like Feldman so much. It doesn't sound like he is inspired by many other composers. He does what he wants to do, with no concern for the silly arbitrary "rules" that people have made up before him.

Not to say that 12-tone atonal serialism is ideal either. Feldman made tonal sounds sometimes as well. I think one of the most prevalent natural "rules" of art is the balance of repetition or familiarity with variation and new creativity.


----------



## Logos

It's one thing to say tonality viewed as a complete system is natural. It's another to say that those _features_ of tonality that make a particularly powerful appeal to the human brain have a basis in our evolutionary inheritance. Others may be reflections of (non-musical) sound expressions in ordinary human behavior.


----------



## Phil loves classical

I disagree with the OP. Tonality is natural to humans, and also in nature. The harmonic series is perfect, but equal temperament is an approximation of the harmonic series, rather than "We use equal temperament to combat the inequalities of the Harmonic Series". Tonality is based on the perfect fifth interval which divides the octave in the golden ratio, and also the Fibonacci series for the major 3rd and 7ths. But the tritone which is the root of all evil in music is also natural, being 1/2 way between the octave, and also forms a series with the octave. All mathematical sequences are just as natural as the other, but some are more natural with humans.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

I agree with the OP.​


----------



## Fredx2098

Phil loves classical said:


> I disagree with the OP. Tonality is natural to humans, and also in nature. The harmonic series is perfect, but equal temperament is an approximation of the harmonic series, rather than "We use equal temperament to combat the inequalities of the Harmonic Series". Tonality is based on the perfect fifth interval which divides the octave in the golden ratio, and also the Fibonacci series for the major 3rd and 7ths. But the tritone which is the root of all evil in music is also natural, being 1/2 way between the octave, and also forms a series with the octave. All mathematical sequences are just as natural as the other, but some are more natural with humans.


Tonality may be based on mathematical perfection, but I think that the mindset of sticking to tonality and eschewing chromaticism is toxic and not conducive to creativity, leading rather to a formulaic view of music.


----------



## KenOC

Tonality is not only unnatural, it is a purposeful fraud foisted on an unsophisticated public in order to sell more recordings. Without tonality, we would all spend far more time in pursuits better promoting the general welfare, to the benefit of all of us. :devil:


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Is eating Popcorn Tonal or Atonal?


----------



## Larkenfield

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Is eating Popcorn Tonal or Atonal?


If it's buttered it will sound tonal like Bach; if not, it'll probably sound more like a 12-tone row by Berg or Birtwistle.


----------



## DaveM

KenOC said:


> Tonality is not only unnatural, it is a purposeful fraud foisted on an unsophisticated public in order to sell more recordings. Without tonality, we would all spend far more time in pursuits better promoting the general welfare, to the benefit of all of us. :devil:


Now you tell me!


----------



## Phil loves classical

Fredx2098 said:


> Tonality may be based on mathematical perfection, but I think that the mindset of sticking to tonality and eschewing chromaticism is toxic and not conducive to creativity, leading rather to a formulaic view of music.


But uncreativity and the formulaic is natural. Look at all the Taylor Swift fans, and minimalistic pop out there. That is where the money is. We need to stretch out of our boundaries in music to appreciate the more unnatural music.


----------



## Guest

I highly doubt that *Taylor Swift* is indicative of music derived from _nature....................._ 

The point I am really trying to make is that no style of music is actually derived from nature, but rather is a result of aesthetic alterations of the natural properties of sound and how these change historically and geographically. Whether something is more 'natural' or not is certainly no indicator as to whether something is better, worse, liked or hated.


----------



## Fredx2098

Phil loves classical said:


> But uncreativity and the formulaic is natural. Look at all the Taylor Swift fans, and minimalistic pop out there. That is where the money is. We need to stretch out of our boundaries in music to appreciate the more unnatural music.


I believe that is because we are conditioned to like music like that by repeated exposure. This is why other countries have different styles of music and different ideas of "tonality".

I like almost every kind of music except that which is made for commercial purposes. Commercial pop is formulaic because it is the easiest and most people have been conditioned to like it. Genres I like include harsh noise, drone, techno, etc., which are not very complex or objectively creative, but they are interesting to me.

I think all art should be subjective, and that discussing whether something about art is right or wrong is debasing, except when it comes to music that is not made for artistic purposes but rather for commercial purposes.


----------



## Logos

It doesn't help the clarity of this discussion that 'nature' is one of the most protean of words. It means as much or as little as one wishes to suit one's argument in the moment.


----------



## MarkW

Is Tonality based on Nature?

No, but neither is baseball.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

MarkW said:


> Is Tonality based on Nature?
> 
> No, but neither is baseball.


That fits, as I like cricket not Baseball


----------



## Woodduck

This subject always loses itself in a swamp of definitional conflicts. No one should attempt to opine here without stating the definitions of "tonality" and of "natural" they are assuming.

My definitions are:

_Tonality:_ a system of musical organization in which the tones of a scale (the sequenced array of tones used in a given type of music) are perceived to have particular systemic relationships to one another, and in which those relationships are exploited according to some hierarchy of importance or prevalence in which one tone of the scale (the "tonic") is felt as centrally important and functions as a point of gravitation, finality, resolution, or repose. Our Western, or "common practice" system of harmonic relationships is one of many possible tonal systems.

_Natural:_ in an evolutionary context, a phenomenon of human behavior is "natural" if it emerges spontaneously as a result of an innate inclination characteristic of the human species. (In the broadest sense, anything that occurs is "natural," and in the narrowest sense nothing that humans create is "natural," but both of these senses make discussion of this topic impossible and pointless.)

By the above definitions, tonality, which in various forms appears to have arisen independently all over the world in widely dissimilar circumstances and cultures, indeed seems to merit the term "natural." Considering how tonality functions cognitively in the apprehension of musical form in light of the way human cognition (perception and concept formation) works, and looking at the expressive functions of tonally informed structures in terms of their analogous relationship to dynamic patterns of human affect, we can begin to understand the general human preference for organizing tones on tonal principles. Study of this has been under way across a number of disciplines (music theory, ethnomusicology, psychology, neuroscience, evolutionary biology, etc.).

P.S. For those who may be alarmed by these thoughts, I'm not suggesting that music "ought" to be tonal, or anything else. I just think it's useful and fascinating to consider why most music is. Understanding this is, I think, one key to the ultimate mysteries of why music is so important to humans and how it affects us so powerfully. But only one key.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

shirime said:


> I highly doubt that *Taylor Swift* is indicative of music derived from _nature....................._
> 
> The point I am really trying to make is that no style of music is actually derived from nature, but rather is a result of aesthetic alterations of the natural properties of sound and how these change historically and geographically. Whether something is more 'natural' or not is certainly no indicator as to whether something is better, worse, liked or hated.


Where as, if we were talking Britney Spears on the other hand Milton Babbitt would come into play


----------



## Fredx2098

Woodduck said:


> This subject always loses itself in a swamp of definitional conflicts. No one should attempt to opine here without stating the definitions of "tonality" and of "natural" they are assuming.
> 
> My definitions are:
> 
> _Tonality:_ a system of musical organization in which the tones of a scale (the sequenced array of tones used in a given type of music) are perceived to have particular systemic relationships to one another, and in which those relationships are exploited according to some hierarchy of importance or prevalence in which one tone of the scale (the "tonic") is felt as centrally important and functions as a point of gravitation, finality, resolution, or repose. Our Western, or "common practice" system of harmonic relationships is one of many possible tonal systems.
> 
> _Natural:_ in an evolutionary context, a phenomenon of human behavior is "natural" if it emerges spontaneously as a result of an innate inclination characteristic of the human species. (In the broadest sense, anything that occurs is "natural," and in the narrowest sense nothing that humans create is "natural," but both of these senses make discussion of this topic impossible and pointless.)
> 
> By the above definitions, tonality, which in various forms appears to have arisen independently all over the world in widely dissimilar circumstances and cultures, indeed seems to merit the term "natural." Considering how tonality functions cognitively in the apprehension of musical form in light of the way human cognition (perception and concept formation) works, and looking at the expressive functions of tonally informed structures in terms of their analogous relationship to dynamic patterns of human affect, we can begin to understand the general human preference for organizing tones on tonal principles. Study of this has been under way across a number of disciplines (music theory, ethnomusicology, psychology, neuroscience, evolutionary biology, etc.).


By those definitions, it seems like any human invention would be natural. From my knowledge, Western tonality did not arise spontaneously, it was created like a manifesto based on what was popular at the time.

Anyways, talking about whether or not tonality is natural and implying that natural means good is debasing. I believe the point of this post is to say that whether or not something is "natural", regardless of the definition, doesn't have a bearing on how good something is subjectively. It may be related to how accessible and popular something is, but I believe that should be irrelevant to the enjoyment of art.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> This subject always loses itself in a swamp of definitional conflicts. No one should attempt to opine here without stating the definitions of "tonality" and of "natural" they are assuming.
> 
> My definitions are:
> 
> _Tonality:_ a system of musical organization in which the tones of a scale (the sequenced array of tones used in a given type of music) are perceived to have particular systemic relationships to one another, and in which those relationships are exploited according to some hierarchy of importance or prevalence in which one tone of the scale (the "tonic") is felt as centrally important and functions as a point of gravitation, finality, resolution, or repose. Our Western, or "common practice" system of harmonic relationships is one of many possible tonal systems.
> 
> _Natural:_ in an evolutionary context, a phenomenon of human behavior is "natural" if it emerges spontaneously as a result of an innate inclination characteristic of the human species. (In the broadest sense, anything that occurs is "natural," and in the narrowest sense nothing that humans create is "natural," but both of these senses make discussion of this topic impossible and pointless.)
> 
> By the above definitions, tonality, which in various forms appears to have arisen independently all over the world in widely dissimilar circumstances and cultures, indeed seems to merit the term "natural." Considering how tonality functions cognitively in the apprehension of musical form in light of the way human cognition (perception and concept formation) works, and looking at the expressive functions of tonally informed structures in terms of their analogous relationship to dynamic patterns of human affect, we can begin to understand the general human preference for organizing tones on tonal principles. Study of this has been under way across a number of disciplines (music theory, ethnomusicology, psychology, neuroscience, evolutionary biology, etc.).


This is certainly a sensible stance to take.

A lot of music that has been described as 'non-tonal' takes on characteristics of what you describe as 'tonal' whether it be through harmonic languages derived through things like pitch sets, spectrograms of sound or anything else, but with an establishment of what is a 'resting place' and what is not over the course of time. Establishing any music language will result in this, as it is part of human nature to recognise such patterns anyway.

Curiously, have you read _The Time of Music_ by Jonathan D. Kramer? He goes into a lot of detail in unpacking how Common Practice Era tonality (a very strict definition, where yours is very broad) functions through time in a very goal oriented fashion, with _linearity_ through time. He points out that different cultures also have different understandings and relationships with time; where Europe/the West has been very linear and goal oriented (and CPE tonality, and even your definition of tonality to some extent, are example of this), another culture's philosophy on time might be cyclic, with their music and the pitch/rhythmic/timbral language/patterns/tendencies within their music reflecting that.


----------



## Phil loves classical

shirime said:


> I highly doubt that *Taylor Swift* is indicative of music derived from _nature....................._
> 
> The point I am really trying to make is that no style of music is actually derived from nature, but rather is a result of aesthetic alterations of the natural properties of sound and how these change historically and geographically. Whether something is more 'natural' or not is certainly no indicator as to whether something is better, worse, liked or hated.


I'd agree with you that it is no indicator whether something is better or worse, but I do think tonality, being more natural and sweet, is more liked and atonal is more hated in general. But some of us do get sick being fed sugary foods all the time.


----------



## Fredx2098

In my opinion, a great example of music from a country with different ideas of tonality is Indian music.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Phil loves classical said:


> I'd agree with you that it is no indicator whether something is better or worse, but I do think tonality, being more natural and sweet, is more liked and atonal is more hated in general. But some of us do get sick being fed sugary foods all the time.


Exactly, its unhealthy and makes you fat............


----------



## Fredx2098

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Exactly, its unhealthy and makes you fat............


I like this metaphor. It goes along with something I believe, that a main goal of art is to create a balance between familiarity and formula and creativity and uniqueness.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Fredx2098 said:


> I believe that is because we are conditioned to like music like that by repeated exposure. This is why other countries have different styles of music and different ideas of "tonality".
> 
> I like almost every kind of music except that which is made for commercial purposes. Commercial pop is formulaic because it is the easiest and most people have been conditioned to like it. Genres I like include harsh noise, drone, techno, etc., which are not very complex or objectively creative, but they are interesting to me.
> 
> I think all art should be subjective, and that discussing whether something about art is right or wrong is debasing, except when it comes to music that is not made for artistic purposes but rather for commercial purposes.


Many countries use the pentatonic scale, which is more consonant than the 7 note scale. So it is proof that basic consonance is generally preferred.


----------



## Fredx2098

Phil loves classical said:


> Many countries use the pentatonic scale, which is more consonant than the 7 note scale. So it is proof that basic consonance is generally preferred.


Again, that's irrelevant and debasing. I don't think that the prevalence and popularity of something should be considered when judging something's quality. The common mindset does not seem to be the best one, quite the opposite in my opinion, not just in regards to art.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Fredx2098 said:


> I like this metaphor. It goes along with something I believe, that a main goal of art is to create a balance between familiarity and formula and creativity and uniqueness.


I tend to agree with this.  Too much repetition and predictable consonance can become a drug and damage creativity. I know a lot of musical diabetics.


----------



## Fredx2098

Phil loves classical said:


> I tend to agree with this.  Too much repetition and predictable consonance can become a drug and damage creativity. I know a lot of musical diabetics.


Would commercial pop music be musical insulin?


----------



## Woodduck

shirime said:


> This is certainly a sensible stance to take.
> 
> A lot of music that has been described as 'non-tonal' takes on characteristics of what you describe as 'tonal' whether it be through harmonic languages derived through things like pitch sets, spectrograms of sound or anything else, but with an establishment of what is a 'resting place' and what is not over the course of time. Establishing any music language will result in this, as it is part of human nature to recognise such patterns anyway.
> 
> Curiously, have you read _The Time of Music_ by Jonathan D. Kramer? He goes into a lot of detail in unpacking how Common Practice Era tonality (a very strict definition, where yours is very broad) functions through time in a very goal oriented fashion, with _linearity_ through time. He points out that different cultures also have different understandings and relationships with time; where Europe/the West has been very linear and goal oriented (and CPE tonality, and even your definition of tonality to some extent, are example of this), another culture's philosophy on time might be cyclic, with their music and the pitch/rhythmic/timbral language/patterns/tendencies within their music reflecting that.


I don't know the Kramer book, but the identification of Western harmonic practice with the West's strong goal-orientedness makes perfect sense.


----------



## Gordontrek

I have to question why the OP would be motivated to make this argument in the first place. I thought that music was basically unnatural. I also thought _art_ as a whole was unnatural, because nature cannot create art; art is, by definition, created by humans. Humanity's entire musical evolution has basically been to take the tools nature gives us (i.e. the harmonic series) and _build on them ourselves_ (i.e. by developing tonality, equal temperament, and even serialism) to get as close to perfection as we can. Of course it's unnatural. Anything we compose and play back is basically unnatural. We tweak nature to our liking and organize its elements in a way that would never occur naturally. Don't we do this elsewhere too? Somehow we are capable of creating spheres more perfect than the sun, the most perfect sphere in nature we know of, and we can also define a perfect one even if it is just an abstraction. 
This is why the medieval church wouldn't let anyone use anything other than perfect 4ths, 5ths, and octaves. Everything else was unnatural. Of course, we know better nowadays, and the joke was on them anyway- those Gregorian chants are every bit as unnatural as the Helicopter Quartet.


----------



## Fredx2098

Gordontrek said:


> I have to question why the OP would be motivated to make this argument in the first place. I thought that music was basically unnatural. I also thought _art_ as a whole was unnatural, because nature cannot create art; art is, by definition, created by humans. Humanity's entire musical evolution has basically been to take the tools nature gives us (i.e. the harmonic series) and _build on them ourselves_ (i.e. by developing tonality, equal temperament, and even serialism) to get as close to perfection as we can. Of course it's unnatural. Anything we compose and play back is basically unnatural. We tweak nature to our liking and organize its elements in a way that would never occur naturally. Don't we do this elsewhere too? Somehow we are capable of creating spheres more perfect than the sun, the most perfect sphere in nature we know of, and we can also define a perfect one even if it is just an abstraction.
> This is why the medieval church wouldn't let anyone use anything other than perfect 4ths, 5ths, and octaves. Everything else was unnatural. Of course, we know better nowadays, and the joke was on them anyway- those Gregorian chants are every bit as unnatural as the Helicopter Quartet.


I think it is because people argue that avant-garde and Modernist music is unnatural and improper as a reason why they don't like it.


----------



## Guest

Gordontrek said:


> I have to question why the OP would be motivated to make this argument in the first place. I thought that music was basically unnatural. I also thought _art_ as a whole was unnatural, because nature cannot create art; art is, by definition, created by humans. Humanity's entire musical evolution has basically been to take the tools nature gives us (i.e. the harmonic series) and _build on them ourselves_ (i.e. by developing tonality, equal temperament, and even serialism) to get as close to perfection as we can. Of course it's unnatural. Anything we compose and play back is basically unnatural. We tweak nature to our liking and organize its elements in a way that would never occur naturally. Don't we do this elsewhere too? Somehow we are capable of creating spheres more perfect than the sun, the most perfect sphere in nature we know of, and we can also define a perfect one even if it is just an abstraction.
> This is why the medieval church wouldn't let anyone use anything other than perfect 4ths, 5ths, and octaves. Everything else was unnatural. Of course, we know better nowadays, and the joke was on them anyway- those Gregorian chants are every bit as unnatural as the Helicopter Quartet.


For some reason it isn't uncommon to hear my favourite works described as being of lesser value, or will appeal to fewer people than Tonal music because of something inherently unnatural about the music I love, or that Tonal music is 'derived from nature' or 'science' and therefore must have some kind of more universal quality to it.

My argument is that the science of sound is universal and exists in nature, but no style of music is inherently 'more natural' than any other style.


----------



## Fredx2098

shirime said:


> For some reason it isn't uncommon to hear my favourite works described as being of lesser value, or will appeal to fewer people than Tonal music because of something inherently unnatural about the music I love, or that Tonal music is 'derived from nature' or 'science' and therefore must have some kind of more universal quality to it.
> 
> My argument is that the science of sound is universal and exists in nature, but no style of music is inherently 'more natural' than any other style.


I can't understand why someone would want to argue against someone liking something. That's a purely vindictive act if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## Guest

Fredx2098 said:


> I can't understand why someone would want to argue against someone liking something. That's a purely vindictive act if I'm not mistaken.


Welcome to Talk Classical! I hope you enjoy your stay. :tiphat:


----------



## Taggart

We have a problem with temperament. Equal or meantone temperament is used to allow for groups of instruments to play together in any key.

If you use a natural (or Pythagorean) scale then you get consonant harmonies only in certain specific keys. However, the harmonies are "better" or richer because they use the full range of overtones in that key. a capella or barbershop singers who tend to use a natural scale to get richer harmonies. The Scottish bagpipes also use a natural scale to get the full effect of the drones. The A on the bagpipe scale is slightly sharper than a concert A and all the other notes are tuned relative to that. See http://publish.uwo.ca/~emacphe3/pipes/acoustics/pipescale.html for more detail.


----------



## Guest

Taggart said:


> We have a problem with temperament. Equal or meantone temperament is used to allow for groups of instruments to play together in any key.
> 
> If you use a natural (or Pythagorean) scale then you get consonant harmonies only in certain specific keys. However, the harmonies are "better" or richer because they use the full range of overtones in that key. a capella or barbershop singers who tend to use a natural scale to get richer harmonies. The Scottish bagpipes also use a natural scale to get the full effect of the drones. The A on the bagpipe scale is slightly sharper than a concert A and all the other notes are tuned relative to that. See http://publish.uwo.ca/~emacphe3/pipes/acoustics/pipescale.html for more detail.


Very cool info, Taggart! Thanks for this.


----------



## millionrainbows

Scales are "harmonic models," and are unnatural creations, but they are _derived from the natural principles _of the harmonic series.

In this sense, "tonality is natural" in that it:

1. A tonal scales has a "fundamental" or starting tone, as scales do;

2. Scales consist of other tones which are "subservient" or refer to this starting note (like harmonics do to a fundamental)

3. "Functions" of triads can be built on these scale steps, which correspond to the relative dissonance of each scale step to the root

So, the natural harmonic series is rather limiting, in a musical sense. We need to be able to create "harmonic models" based on the harmonic series' relationships, without copying it literally. It's art, who needs it to be slavishly natural, or adhere rigidly to the harmonis series? Not I.


----------



## Woodduck

Gordontrek said:


> I have to question why the OP would be motivated to make this argument in the first place. I thought that music was basically unnatural. I also thought _art_ as a whole was unnatural, because nature cannot create art; art is, by definition, created by humans. Humanity's entire musical evolution has basically been to take the tools nature gives us (i.e. the harmonic series) and _build on them ourselves_ (i.e. by developing tonality, equal temperament, and even serialism) to get as close to perfection as we can. Of course it's unnatural. Anything we compose and play back is basically unnatural.


This is a perfect example of defining a topic out of existence. It's one thing to reject the use of the term "natural," but another thing to use that rejection to obscure or dismiss as insignificant the phenomenon to which the term was intended to refer. You've done both in a single sweep.

To define everything produced by humans as unnatural is as useless as to define everything in the universe as natural. Neither definition is wrong, but both are beside the point. Neither gets us anywhere in understanding tonality: what it is, how and why it exists, what forms it takes, and what human purposes (cognitive and expressive) it serves. That last question is the fundamental one, and it's the one that quibbles over "natural" and "unnatural" are bound to obfuscate and are, I think, intended to suppress.


----------



## DaveM

The premise of the OP is that Tonality is Unnatural. IMO, the important question is not what is natural or unnatural, it is how sounds affect humans physiologically. For instance, the OP lists these sounds of nature: birds, the crickets, a croaking frog, a barking dog, the wind rustling the leaves in the trees or the sound of the waves crashing against the rocks on the shore. As it happens, all of these sounds are 'natural', but one of them is unsettling, as it is meant to be: a barking dog.

Thus, while the argument might be made that atonality exists in nature, what is more important is how it affects us. In a recent study with the title *Non-expert listeners show decreased heart rate and increased blood pressure (fear bradycardia) in response to atonal music*, the listeners had no experience with classical music and played no instruments. The study was well-controlled: none of the listeners even knew the purpose of the study.

These were the findings:

"Listening to instrumental atonal music (independent of the piece's emotional characteristics) was associated with reduced heart rate (bradycardia) and increased blood pressure (both diastolic and systolic) compared to the tonal condition. ...bradycardia changes and increased blood pressure are associated with anxiety, tension and lack of relaxation.

It is therefore possible that listening to atonal music might induce a parasympathetic response whose peripheral effects are sensed by the listener to be psychological tension and agitation. Indeed, according the esthetic assessment made by professional conductors and composers, the atonal repertoire is by definition more agitating.

This interpretation fits very well with the findings commonly reported of a deceleration of the cardiac activity during perception of scary, threatening or noxious sounds. This defensive response is called fear-induced bradycardia, and is observable also in newborns (Anderssen et al).

Our hypothesis is that the autonomic modulation found here is specifically related to the fearful aspects of atonal music, which was lacking in the music stimulation usually provided in previous psychophysiological studies."

These were inexperienced listeners. It is conceivable that accommodation to atonal music would result in a change to the autonomic response. In fact, a number of posters here talk about the need to expose oneself over time to atonal music in order to appreciate and understand it. That would imply that listening to highly dissonant music does not come easily to the common man/woman.

So the question I ask is: since the appreciation of tonal classical music can be a challenge to the musically uneducated/unexposed, is the additional need to accommodate to atonal music to overcome a natural but unsettling autonomic response a bridge too far for the average person?


----------



## Fredx2098

DaveM said:


> The premise of the OP is that Tonality is Unnatural. IMO, the important question is not what is natural or unnatural, it is how sounds affect humans physiologically. For instance, the OP lists these sounds of nature: birds, the crickets, a croaking frog, a barking dog, the wind rustling the leaves in the trees or the sound of the waves crashing against the rocks on the shore. As it happens, all of these sounds are 'natural', but one of them is unsettling, as it is meant to be: a barking dog.
> 
> Thus, while the argument might be made that atonality exists in nature, what is more important is how it affects us. In a recent study with the title *Non-expert listeners show decreased heart rate and increased blood pressure (fear bradycardia) in response to atonal music*, the listeners had no experience with classical music and played no instruments. The study was well-controlled: none of the listeners even knew the purpose of the study.
> 
> These were the findings:
> 
> "Listening to instrumental atonal music (independent of the piece's emotional characteristics) was associated with reduced heart rate (bradycardia) and increased blood pressure (both diastolic and systolic) compared to the tonal condition. ...bradycardia changes and increased blood pressure are associated with anxiety, tension and lack of relaxation.
> 
> It is therefore possible that listening to atonal music might induce a parasympathetic response whose peripheral effects are sensed by the listener to be psychological tension and agitation. Indeed, according the esthetic assessment made by professional conductors and composers, the atonal repertoire is by definition more agitating.
> 
> This interpretation fits very well with the findings commonly reported of a deceleration of the cardiac activity during perception of scary, threatening or noxious sounds. This defensive response is called fear-induced bradycardia, and is observable also in newborns (Anderssen et al).
> 
> Our hypothesis is that the autonomic modulation found here is specifically related to the fearful aspects of atonal music, which was lacking in the music stimulation usually provided in previous psychophysiological studies."
> 
> These were inexperienced listeners. It is conceivable that accommodation to atonal music would result in a change to the autonomic response. In fact, a number of posters here talk about the need to expose oneself over time to atonal music in order to appreciate and understand it. That would imply that listening to highly dissonant music does not come easily to the common man/woman.
> 
> So the question I ask is: since the appreciation of tonal classical music can be a challenge to the musically uneducated/unexposed, is the additional need to accommodate to atonal music to overcome a natural but unsettling autonomic response a bridge too far for the average person?


That's why it should be done quietly and subtlety. Go with Feldman.


----------



## Thomyum2

DaveM said:


> These were inexperienced listeners. It is conceivable that accommodation to atonal music would result in a change to the autonomic response. In fact, a number of posters here talk about the need to expose oneself over time to atonal music in order to appreciate and understand it. That would imply that listening to highly dissonant music does not come easily to the common man/woman.
> 
> So the question I ask is: since the appreciation of tonal classical music can be a challenge to the musically uneducated/unexposed, is the additional need to accommodate to atonal music to overcome a natural but unsettling autonomic response a bridge too far for the average person?


An interesting post and interesting question - I wonder if similar results would be obtained historically using newly introduced music in other eras.

A bridge too far for the average person? I would assert that the answer is 'no'. People in society will become exposed to the new sounds over time, and it does not necessarily have to require efforts as it can happen subconsciously. For example, I think the use of atonality in film scores has exposed people to music that they might not have sought out as listening material (I notice on TC's Post-1950 list that Ligeti's Requiem is #2 - I can't help but think that _2001: A Space Odyssey _had at least something to do with that), and I think the general population has become more accepting over time of many things that once sounded radical. As new music gradually works its way into more and more performances, it becomes less objectionable. When I was in university in the 1980s, much of Bartok's and Prokofiev's music was considered by many to be challenging and dissonant, but now it's accepted by concert audiences without a second thought.


----------



## Woodduck

^^^ More information is needed to evaluate the findings of that study. What specific examples of tonal and atonal music were used? What does "independent of the piece’s emotional characteristics" mean? What kinds of music were the participants used to hearing prior to the experiment? How might they respond to other unfamiliar kinds of music (say, Indian classical music)? 

Regarding the "need to accommodate to atonal music to overcome a natural but unsettling autonomic response" being "a bridge too far for the average person," I think it needs to be shown that "an unsettling autonomic response" is necessarily a barrier to enjoyment of music, or enjoyment of anything.


----------



## Logos

Thomyum2 said:


> A bridge too far for the average person? I would assert that the answer is 'no'. People in society will become exposed to the new sounds over time, and it does not necessarily have to require efforts as it can happen subconsciously.


Napoleon became used to the sound of guns and was scarcely startled by them at all. The question is, Are such sounds naturally appealing? In those few hollywood films where avant-garde music is employed, it provides accompaniment to an atmosphere of bizarre foreboding, weirdness, ambiguity or existential horror--_ 2001_ being a perfect example.


----------



## amfortas

Taggart said:


> We have a problem with temperament.


At first I thought you were shutting down the thread.


----------



## Thomyum2

Logos said:


> Napoleon became used to the sound of guns and was scarcely startled by them at all. The question is, Are such sounds naturally appealing? In those few hollywood films where avant-garde music is employed, it provides accompaniment to an atmosphere of bizarre foreboding, weirdness, ambiguity or existential horror--_ 2001_ being a perfect example.


'Naturally appealing' I think probably not. But our minds learn to assign context and meaning to those sounds and they become part of our everyday vocabulary. Over time that meaning occupies our full attention and, as you say, we scarcely notice the lack of 'appeal'. You're right, the music is used to set a certain mood, and I think that's what listeners take away with them. The next time the music is heard, it's no longer an abstract dissonance but now has become a memory of an event - an association that carries and evokes a feeling, in essence a new word in our musical language.


----------



## Logos

Thomyum2 said:


> 'Naturally appealing' I think probably not. But our minds learn to assign context and meaning to those sounds and they become part of our everyday vocabulary. Over time that meaning occupies our full attention and, as you say, we scarcely notice the lack of 'appeal'. You're right, the music is used to set a certain mood, and I think that's what listeners take away with them. The next time the music is heard, it's no longer an abstract dissonance but now has become a memory of an event - an association that carries and evokes a feeling, in essence a new word in our musical language.


The difference I observe between traditional classical music and avant-garde music is that in the case of the latter, one may become completely familiar with the music itself but the atmosphere or mood that it projects is remains one of unfamiliarity, strangeness, horror, or ambiguity. It seems unable to evoke the range of distinct moods that traditional music is able to achieve.

For example, what avant-garde music is there that evokes a mood of idyllic safety, familiarity and perfect comfort? This doesn't seem to be in its musical vocabulary. It's inability to convey this to the human mind may indicate a less "natural" musical basis.


----------



## Enthusiast

DaveM said:


> These were inexperienced listeners.


Most of this thread is interesting to me but goes way beyond my own technical knowledge or understanding of music or the physics of sound. But I do know that it must be nearly impossible to find subjects for an experiment who are inexperienced listeners. Have they never watched a film or heard a pop song? Have they never shopped in one of those stores that have music playing in the background? We can all guess how tonal the music they have been bathed in will have been, with even the odd discord in a film soundtrack only being used to signal something fearful.


----------



## Enthusiast

Logos said:


> The difference I observe between traditional classical music and avant-garde music is that in the case of the latter, one may become completely familiar with the music itself but the atmosphere or mood that it projects is remains one of unfamiliarity, strangeness, horror, or ambiguity. It seems unable to evoke the range of distinct moods that traditional music is able to achieve.
> 
> For example, what avant-garde music is there that evokes a mood of idyllic safety, familiarity and perfect comfort? This doesn't seem to be in its musical vocabulary. It's inability to convey this to the human mind may indicate a less "natural" musical basis.


There is plenty of gentle avant garde music, Logos. I'm not so sure about modern music that evokes familiarity but comfort, idyllic safety ... there is much that evokes these things.


----------



## DaveM

Enthusiast said:


> Most of this thread is interesting to me but goes way beyond my own technical knowledge or understanding of music or the physics of sound. But I do know that it must be nearly impossible to find subjects for an experiment who are inexperienced listeners. Have they never watched a film or heard a pop song? Have they never shopped in one of those stores that have music playing in the background? We can all guess how tonal the music they have been bathed in will have been, with even the odd discord in a film soundtrack only being used to signal something fearful.


They were inexperienced classical music listeners. The subject involved atonal classical music.


----------



## Logos

Enthusiast said:


> There is plenty of gentle avant garde music, Logos.


Gently mysterious and ambiguous, or familiarly gentle? I've heard plenty of the former, scarcely any of the latter. It's hard to imagine any music evoking idyllic comfort without being able to evoke familiarity since the two states are so closely linked in a feeling of definite "homeness".


----------



## DaveM

Woodduck said:


> ^^^ More information is needed to evaluate the findings of that study. What specific examples of tonal and atonal music were used? What does "independent of the piece's emotional characteristics" mean? What kinds of music were the participants used to hearing prior to the experiment? How might they respond to other unfamiliar kinds of music (say, Indian classical music)?


There is a lot of information in this study. One can easily google it for more answers. As far as the music selection goes, there is this (which is only one part that addressed this):

"A total of 207 suggestions was received: 147 tonal pieces and 60 atonal pieces. Similarly to Kallinen (2005), who asked composers and Conservatory teachers to nominate musical works that expressed specific emotions, we found that a higher proportion of tonal works were selected than non-tonal works. As expected, the music professionals suggested more music based on the diatonic major/minor than the amodal/atonal or dodecaphonic system (i.e., Renaissance, 21th-century).The corpus of suggestions was re-submitted to judges, asking them to identify the most touching, joyful, or agitating pieces among the ones listed (if any, and according to their esthetic preference). Unlike in Kallinen (2005) study, in which suggestions for typical basic emotional music excerpts overlapped minimally (i.e., there were only a few pieces that were mentioned more than once or twice), many pieces received a coherent categorization from the judges, in our study."



> Regarding the "need to accommodate to atonal music to overcome a natural but unsettling autonomic response" being "a bridge too far for the average person," I think it needs to be shown that "an unsettling autonomic response" is necessarily a barrier to enjoyment of music, or enjoyment of anything.


As far as 'anything' goes, the combination of raised blood pressure and bradycardia (fear bradycardia) is a parasympathetic response which is sensed as tension and agitation. The very nature of it, along with the similar fight or flight response are long known to be, by their very nature, things that people tend to avoid unless perhaps they are planning for it by going to an action or horror movie or amusement park.

On the other hand, music is a more difficult matter which is why I raised the question I did. Obviously, some people don't find there to be a barrier even though, by their own accounts, it requires more effort, but is it enough of a barrier that a significant majority aren't interested enough to make an effort to overcome feelings that are naturally unsettling?


----------



## Mandryka

Logos said:


> Gently mysterious and ambiguous, or familiarly gentle? I've heard plenty of the former, scarcely any of the latter. It's hard to imagine any music evoking idyllic comfort without being able to evoke familiarity since the two states are so closely linked in a feeling of definite "homeness".


Have a listen to Stockhausen's Freude.


----------



## Logos

Mandryka said:


> Have a listen to Stockhausen's Freude.


If it were called Grauen would anybody tell the difference?


----------



## Thomyum2

Logos said:


> Gently mysterious and ambiguous, or familiarly gentle? I've heard plenty of the former, scarcely any of the latter. It's hard to imagine any music evoking idyllic comfort without being able to evoke familiarity since the two states are so closely linked in a feeling of definite "homeness".


Or the 6th movement of Messiaen's _Turangalila Symphonie_?


----------



## Logos

Thomyum2 said:


> Or the 6th movement of Messiaen's _Turangalila Symphonie_?


That could just as easily be the soundtrack to a horror movie. Maybe something that might accompany Peter Lorre prowling around as he stalks people in _M_.


----------



## Mandryka

Logos said:


> If it were called Grauen would anybody tell the difference?


Or maybe Luc Ferrari's presque Rien


----------



## Logos

Mandryka said:


> Or maybe Luc Ferrari's presque Rien


Where is the idyllic comfort and familiarity in that? That's utterly terrifying and blood curdling. I feel as if I've been reading a schizoid's journal.


----------



## amfortas

Logos said:


> That could just as easily be the soundtrack to a horror movie. Maybe something that might accompany Peter Lorre prowling around as he stalks people in _M_.


And yet somehow, Lorrie whistling Edvard Grieg creates the mood just as well.


----------



## Logos

amfortas said:


> And yet somehow, Lorrie whistling Edvard Grieg creates the mood just as well.


Right, but Grieg was capable of evoking all sorts of moods, of which barbaric foreboding and clamoring was only one.


----------



## Thomyum2

Logos said:


> Right, but Grieg was capable of evoking all sorts of moods, of which barbaric foreboding and clamoring was only one.


Just goes to show how differently we all hear the same thing. Like the three blind men trying to describe an elephant.


----------



## Logos

Thomyum2 said:


> Just goes to show how differently we all hear the same thing. Like the three blind men trying to describe an elephant.


Some hear some things differently, but we don't _all_ hear _all_ things differently in _all_ respects. What's remarkable to me is the degree of general agreement among persons as to what music sounds joyful, tragic, etc. On the other hand, it would be an interesting experiment to mix up the titles of avant-garde works and see if listeners could reassign them with any accuracy. Maybe "Flowers by a Brook" and "Ghastly Wasteland" would prove interchangeable.


----------



## KenOC

Is this tonal? To my ear, yes. Dissonant? Probably. But it sure is good!


----------



## Guest

Logos said:


> Some hear some things differently, but we don't _all_ hear _all_ things differently in _all_ respects. What's remarkable to me is the degree of general agreement among persons as to what music sounds joyful, tragic, etc. On the other hand, it would be an interesting experiment to mix up the titles of avant-garde works and see if listeners could reassign them with any accuracy. Maybe "Flowers by a Brook" and "Ghastly Wasteland" would prove interchangeable.


I'm not sure what constitutes avante-garde in your book, but I can't say that when I am listening to music it causes images to manifest themselves in my mind, whether a brook, a wasteland or whatever.


----------



## Logos

dogen said:


> I'm not sure what constitutes avante-garde in your book, but I can't say that when I am listening to music it causes images to manifest themselves in my mind, whether a brook, a wasteland or whatever.


I was speaking of descriptive titles and their correspondence to the mood actually evoked by the musical works to which they are applied, not images.


----------



## Guest

Logos said:


> Some hear some things differently, but we don't _all_ hear _all_ things differently in _all_ respects. What's remarkable to me is the degree of general agreement among persons as to what music sounds joyful, tragic, etc. On the other hand, it would be an interesting experiment to mix up the titles of avant-garde works and see if listeners could reassign them with any accuracy. Maybe "Flowers by a Brook" and "Ghastly Wasteland" would prove interchangeable.


Even if it were true, all that really proves is that common practice tonality has readily recognizable tropes. That can easily become a crutch, rather than a resource.

I generally don't find myself drawn to explicitly program music. I find it more interesting to fit a piece of nominally absolute music to a program I have formed in my own mind. Music which portrays very explicit things such as babbling brooks, thunderstorms, funeral dirges seems so restrictive, in contrast.

And music called "flowers by a brook" which sounds like "ghastly wasteland" sounds interesting to me. The contrast between a work's title and the impression it makes can heighten interest.


----------



## EdwardBast

Logos said:


> That could just as easily be the soundtrack to a horror movie. Maybe something that might accompany Peter Lorre prowling around as he stalks people in _M_.


No, that was "Hall of the Mountain King." Grieg. You've seen the movie, right?

I see I was not the first to point this out.


----------



## Logos

> Even if it were true, all that really proves is that common practice tonality has readily recognizable tropes. That can easily become a crutch, rather than a resource.


My test would include only the most experienced connoisseurs of avant-garde music. Five pieces would be composed atonally for solo piano, with the aim of suggesting joy, anger, horror, sadness, and confusion. Among 300 _experienced_ listeners, how often would the intended psychological/emotional state be correctly identified in all five cases?

I contend that when presented with five corresponding pieces of tonal music, a much larger percentage of the listeners would correctly identify all 5 of the intended emotional states. Remember, my test is only using those most familiar with atonal music, so that tonal "tropes" should have no advantage.



> I generally don't find myself drawn to explicitly program music. I find it more interesting to fit a piece of nominally absolute music to a program I have formed in my own mind. Music which portray babbling brooks, thunderstorms, funeral dirges seems so restrictive, in contrast.


I'm not discussing word painting or program music, but rather the composer's capacity to evoke the general mood he desires in the listener's mind. The inability to achieve that, in my estimation, brings into question either his own mastery or the merit of the musical forms he has elected to employ.


----------



## Logos

EdwardBast said:


> No, that was "Hall of the Mountain King."


Yes, he whistles that in the movie. But what's your point? I'm saying that that music would fit the atmosphere of a grim tale of crime.


----------



## Guest

Logos said:


> My test would include only the most experienced connoisseurs of avant-garde music. Five pieces would be composed atonally for solo piano, with the aim of suggesting joy, anger, horror, sadness, and confusion. Among 300 _experienced_ listeners, how often would the intended psychological/emotional state be correctly identified?
> 
> I contend that in the case of five corresponding pieces of tonal music, a much larger percentage of the listeners would correctly identify all 5 of the intended emotional states. Remember, my test is only using those most familiar with atonal music, so that tonal "tropes" should have no advantage.
> 
> I'm not discussing word painting or program music, but rather the composer's capacity to evoke the general mood he desires in the listener's mind. The inability to achieve that, in my estimation, brings into question either his own mastery or the merit of the musical forms he has elected to employ.


The test that you are describing doesn't sound remotely interesting. If the 'atonal' music were composed specifically to garner correct answers from listeners it would be easy to include the necessary markers of joy, sadness, anger, etc. Tonal music which evokes an unambiguous mood is equally stereotypical and can be manufactured to order.

The tonal music that I enjoy most (Brahms, Sibelius, Chopin, Saygun, Faure) contains ambiguity and I experience the same in good atonal music (Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Messiaen).


----------



## Logos

Baron Scarpia said:


> If the 'atonal' music were composed specifically to garner correct answers from listeners it would be easy to include the necessary markers of joy, sadness, anger, etc.


Then you honestly think there would be no difference between the percentages of tonal and atonal pieces correctly matched with the intended emotional states?


----------



## Fredx2098

If someone says that chromaticism, atonality, avant-gardism, etc. can only evoke negative emotions, then I can say with relative certainty that they have never listened to Feldman in a serious way. His is the most beautiful, warm, and welcoming music I have ever heard.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Fredx2098 said:


> If someone says that chromaticism, atonality, avant-gardism, etc. can only evoke negative emotions, then I can say with relative certainty that they have never listened to Feldman in a serious way. His is the most beautiful, warm, and welcoming music I have ever heard.


Every modern/postmodern fan's got a favourite, and maybe some tough nuts. Mine was Ferneyhough until today. I thought I had given up on him.


----------



## Woodduck

Fredx2098 said:


> If someone says that chromaticism, atonality, avant-gardism, etc. can only evoke negative emotions, then I can say with relative certainty that they have never listened to Feldman in a serious way. His is the most beautiful, warm, and welcoming music I have ever heard.


There's a problem with that word "evoke." It can mean either what music portrays or how we feel about it, but those are two different things. Musical sounds and forms have power to mimic or suggest, in their patterns and energies, emotional states, moods and atmospheres in a generalized way, but specifically enough that the possible ways we can "read" them are not unlimited. We are not likely to confuse a love song, a lullaby, a celebration, a call to war, a lamentation, a pastoral reverie, and a religious service, and we can often distinguish much finer grades of meaning in music than even such broad categories. However, whether we find a piece "beautiful" and "welcoming" - or ugly and repellent - is a personal matter.


----------



## Fredx2098

Feldman is not a whimsical favorite of mine. I am not a whimsical person. It may seem a little silly the way I go on about Feldman, but I am passionate about him because I believe his music is extremely special and the ideal direction of classical music. Unlike most people whose favorite composers are the traditional, conservative ones, I can describe exactly why I believe his music to be perfect and why it should be appreciated by others.

A defining trait of 99.999...% of classical music, really all except Feldman from my very extensive listening, is that it goes back and forth between loud and soft, a trope which I find to be boring. Feldman's music allows for the appreciation of consonant and dissonant intervals in a fairly neutral setting, with the focus of the piece being on the beauty of each note rather that relative intensity. A piece that is labeled pianissimo the entire time does not create a bland, boring atmosphere. A human can't play at exactly pianissimo the same way twice. The piece becomes about how softly and beautifully the performer(s) play the notes. A piece with extensive dynamicism lends itself to exaggeration and misinterpretation I believe, especially in pieces which are too popular for their own good.

I do not only listen to Feldman. I do not only listen to classical music. Believing that classical music should always try to approximate Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Mahler, Sibelius, et al. can only lead to stagnation. I believe instead that we should want it to evolve into different diverse forms that are not all based on the same ideals.


----------



## Fredx2098

Woodduck said:


> whether we find a piece "beautiful" and "welcoming" - or ugly and repellent - is a personal matter.


Precisely. That is why it is uncouth to assert that one style of music is better than another or more proper.


----------



## Logos

Woodduck said:


> We are not likely to confuse a love song, a lullaby, a celebration, a call to war, a lamentation, a pastoral reverie, and a religious service, and we can often distinguish much finer grades of meaning in music than even such broad categories.


Exactly, and I'm suggesting that it's much easier, even for an audience very familiar with atonal music, to confuse the composer's intended musical genre or mood when that music is atonal.

Did Feldman intend his music to sound warm and welcoming, and if so would that mood be replicated with any consistency in the minds of other knowledgeable listeners when presented with the same music? I suspect that there would be little consistency.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> There's a problem with that word "evoke." It can mean either what music portrays or how we feel about it, but those are two different things. Musical sounds and forms have power to mimic or suggest, in their patterns and energies, emotional states, moods and atmospheres in a generalized way, but specifically enough that the possible ways we can "read" them are not unlimited. We are not likely to confuse a love song, a lullaby, a celebration, a call to war, a lamentation, a pastoral reverie, and a religious service, and we can often distinguish much finer grades of meaning in music than even such broad categories. However, whether we find a piece "beautiful" and "welcoming" - or ugly and repellent - is a personal matter.


The fact that you have a problem with the word evoke is a problem. Music is not a language, it does not communicate. I can say "the bowl is on the table" and an idea is conveyed to another person without ambiguity. This is the nature of language. I can play a passage from Chopin and it may convey a feeling sadness to you, but it might convey an entirely different impression to someone else, and both of these may be different from the impression that Chopin had when he created the music. Music can evoke different emotion responses in different people without any of those responses being demonstrably right or wrong.


----------



## DaveM

Fredx2098 said:


> I do not only listen to Feldman. I do not only listen to classical music. Believing that classical music should always try to approximate Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Mahler, Sibelius, et al. can only lead to stagnation. I believe instead that we should want it to evolve into different diverse forms that are not all based on the same ideals.


Not if it evolves into something that is totally unrecognizable from what it (allegedly) evolved from. In that case, best to call it something else.


----------



## Fredx2098

Logos said:


> Exactly, and I'm suggesting that it's much easier, even for an audience very familiar with atonal music, to confuse the composer's intended musical genre or mood when that music is atonal.
> 
> Did Feldman intend his music to sound warm and welcoming and if so would that mood be replicated with any consistency in the minds of other knowledgeable listeners when presented with the same music? I suspect that there would be little consistency.


Feldman's music isn't fully atonal. The warmth comes from a balance of consonant and dissonant harmonies and from being played very quietly. It's certainly warmer than any intensely dynamic and strict minor key symphonic piece.


----------



## Fredx2098

DaveM said:


> Not if it evolves into something that is totally unrecognizable from what it (allegedly) evolved from. In that case, best to call it something else.


It's not unrecognizably different. What I would consider Feldman's serious pieces are composed very deliberately using entirely standard music notation. Would you say the same thing about Ferneyhough, Cage, etc.?


----------



## Logos

Baron Scarpia said:


> I can play a passage from Chopin and it may convey a feeling sadness to you, but it might convey an entirely different impression to someone else, and both of these may be different from the impression that Chopin had when he created the music.


Yes, _some_ tonal music will elicit inconsistent emotional states in an audience. But will many people exit a performance of Mozart's Jupiter symphony with an impression that the composer intended it to be sad or horrifying? In the case of atonal music the inability to elicit a consistent response from the audience seems to be both universal and inherent, whereas in the case of tonal music ambiguity is a choice that the composer may put on or throw off at will.

No one is saying that music communicates exact statements in the manner of language, but tonal music is capable of communicating _general_ emotional states with some consistency.


----------



## DaveM

Fredx2098 said:


> It's not unrecognizably different. What I would consider Feldman's serious pieces are composed very deliberately using entirely standard music notation. Would you say the same thing about Ferneyhough, Cage, etc.?


The use of standard music notation does not define it as classical music.


----------



## Fredx2098

Logos said:


> Yes, _some_ tonal music will elicit inconsistent emotional states in an audience. But will many people exit a performance of Mozart's Jupiter symphony with an impression that the composer intended it to be sad? In the case of atonal music the inability to elicit a consistent response from the audience seems to be both universal and inherent, whereas in the case of tonal music ambiguity is a choice that the composer may put on or throw off at will.
> 
> No one is saying that music communicates exact statements in the manner of language, but tonal music is capable of communicating _general_ emotional states with some consistency.


That's true but irrelevant. It seems to me that tonal music communicates consistent emotions because of repeated exposure and mnemonic association.

You guys are talking about notes and missing the point. Dynamics have more to do with the tonal voice of a piece than notes. Compare a lion's roar to birds chirping, or someone yelling to a whisper.


----------



## Fredx2098

DaveM said:


> The use of standard music notation does not define it as classical music.


What does define it then? Feldman uses standard music notation and standard acoustic instruments, and most of you seem to appreciate "classical music" that uses things such as indeterminate alternative notation and electronics, even helicopters.


----------



## Logos

> It seems to me that tonal music communicates consistent emotions because of repeated exposure and mnemonic association.


To test that notion, I posited an experiment with a few hundred _experienced_ listeners of atonal music to see whether they could consistently assign atonal works to the general moods intended by the composer at the same rate that they would correctly assign tonal pieces. You make a good point about dynamics but I would also include instrumentation; Blaring brass for example is associated with war and anger, while harps are associated with peace, joy etc. In my test, only the piano would used and all notes should be played at the same volume.


----------



## Guest

Consistent emotional responses are more likely due to association and familiarity within cultural expectations of a work.

I get a lot of joy from listening to non-tonal music; the pleasure, for me, is in the sound of it.

If everyone 100% agrees that _x_ music evokes _x_ emotion, then we have lost our sense of individuality and we have lost our appreciation of music according to our own individual terms. It would make, I am sure, for a very very _very_ dull experience on a music forum...........


----------



## Fredx2098

Logos said:


> To test that notion, I posited an experiment with a few hundred _experienced_ listeners of atonal music to see whether they could consistently assign atonal works to the general moods intended by the composer at the same rate that they would correctly assign tonal pieces. You make a good point about dynamics but I would also include instrumentation; Blaring brass for example is associated with war and anger, while harps are associated with peace, joy etc. In my test, only the piano would used and all notes should be played at the same volume.


The thing is, there is not a middle ground. A piece can either be dynamic or not dynamic. If a piece has an hour of pianissimo and then one blaring fortissimo passage, that makes the fortissimo all the more obnoxious and alarming. A piece has to be entirely pianissimo to fully appreciate every single note.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

What's the big deal, music is artificial and not a natural phenomenon


----------



## Logos

Fredx2098 said:


> The thing is, there is not a middle ground. A piece can either be dynamic or not dynamic. If a piece has an hour of pianissimo and then one blaring fortissimo passage, that makes the fortissimo all the more obnoxious and alarming. A piece has to be entirely pianissimo to fully appreciate every single note.


How does this pertain to what I wrote?


----------



## DaveM

Fredx2098 said:


> What does define it then? Feldman uses standard music notation and standard acoustic instruments, and most of you seem to appreciate "classical music" that uses things such as indeterminate alternative notation and electronics, even helicopters.


'most of you'? What gave you that impression? There's been no poll that I know of. In any event, 'you' doesn't include me.


----------



## Fredx2098

Logos said:


> How does this pertain to what I wrote?


If you're suggesting something like traditional classical music being played at pianissimo on a piano back to back with modern music played the same way, that would be rather silly. That would certainly lead to people to be biased based on familiarity, no matter how "experienced" they are with atonal music. Do you think that Mozart, Beethoven, Mahler, Strauss, etc. are just moving because of the notes? I would challenge someone to listen to Beethoven's 5th or 9th, Swan Lake, Also Sprach Zarathustra, a Mahler symphony, etc. without dynamics and say that it is as moving as it's meant to be. The difference with Feldman is that it's meant to be mellow and relaxing, not loud, boisterous, and intense. Why would you want to go against a composer's intentions?


----------



## Fredx2098

DaveM said:


> 'most of you'? What gave you that impression? There's been no poll that I know of. In any event, 'you' doesn't include me.


The thing is it doesn't matter. No poll is going to make me like one of the old traditional composers more than Feldman, so why bother arguing about it?


----------



## Guest

Sometimes ignoring the composers intentions allows us to consider different viewpoints, different potential interpretations. It allows us to consider things in a different way and learn more about a piece of music and what it could possibly mean to us.


----------



## Fredx2098

shirime said:


> Sometimes ignoring the composers intentions allows us to consider different viewpoints, different potential interpretations. It allows us to consider things in a different way and learn more about a piece of music and what it could possibly mean to us.


It's certainly an interesting thought experiment, but it should have no bearing on how objectively talented a composer is considered or how seriously they should be regarded.


----------



## Logos

Fredx2098 said:


> If you're suggesting something like traditional classical music being played at pianissimo on a piano back to back with modern music played the same way, that would be rather silly. That would certainly lead to people to be biased based on familiarity, no matter how "experienced" they are with atonal music. Do you think that Mozart, Beethoven, Mahler, Strauss, etc. are just moving because of the notes? I would challenge someone to listen to Beethoven's 5th or 9th, Swan Lake, Also Sprach Zarathustra, a Mahler symphony, etc. without dynamics and say that it is as moving as it's meant to be. The difference with Feldman is that it's meant to be mellow and relaxing, not loud, boisterous, and intense. Why would you want to go against a composer's intentions?


The test music would be newly composed strictly for the purposes of the test, for solo piano. The composer's only objective would be to elicit five different general emotions in the listeners. Then we would test whether he succeeds in getting knowledgeable listeners to recognize his intended general emotion in the five different works. Five atonal pieces, and five tonal pieces.


----------



## Fredx2098

Logos said:


> The test music would be newly composed strictly for the purposes of the test, for solo piano. The composer's only objective would be to elicit five different general emotions in the listeners. Then we would test whether he succeeds in getting knowledgeable listeners to recognize his intended general emotion in the five different works. Five atonal pieces, and five tonal pieces.


That would be completely biased. Your argument has no point. Atonal music can be just as rigid and structured as tonal music. It's not a matter of the tonality. In your hypothetical situation, people would be drawn toward tonal music because it is more common.

How about I suppose another situation. Have a person listen to tonal and atonal pieces who has never heard a moment of music in their life. See if they are more alarmed by sudden changes in dynamics of consonant passages or by gentle dissonance.


----------



## Logos

> That would be completely biased. Your argument has no point. Atonal music can be just as rigid and structured as tonal music. It's not a matter of the tonality. In your hypothetical situation, people would be drawn toward tonal music because it is more common.


Why would it be biased if the listeners in the test group were experienced connoisseurs of atonal music? I'm not testing rigidity or structure. I'm testing the capacity of atonal music to consistently convey general emotional states intended by the composer to persons highly familiar with it as compared with tonal music. I'm not testing whether the music is good, bad, structured, unstructured, beautiful, ugly, appealing or anything else.



> How about I supposed another situation. Have a person listen to tonal and atonal pieces who has never heard a moment of music in their life. See if they are more alarmed by sudden changes in dynamics of consonant passages or by gentle dissonance.


That may be an interesting question; But since dynamics are common to both atonal and tonal music, and this is a discussion centered on the differences between them, why should we discuss dynamics?


----------



## Woodduck

Baron Scarpia said:


> The fact that you have a problem with the word evoke is a problem. Music is not a language, it does not communicate. I can say "the bowl is on the table" and an idea is conveyed to another person without ambiguity. This is the nature of language. I can play a passage from Chopin and it may convey a feeling sadness to you, but it might convey an entirely different impression to someone else, and both of these may be different from the impression that Chopin had when he created the music. Music can evoke different emotion responses in different people without any of those responses being demonstrably right or wrong.


This familiar argument leaves out of consideration the critical questions of how music is felt to express anything at all, and why there are such broad areas of agreement on what it is expressing.

No one would argue that music is a literal language the terms of which have fixed denotative meaning. But music is very clearly a system of symbolic signs and gestures which must be, and are, perceived as analogous to patterns of cognitive, physical and affective activity. This concept is nothing new, although you speak as if it's unfamiliar to you, and cognitive psychologists with an interest in music and the other arts - or musicians with an interest in the psychology of musical perception - are busy exploring it. A concept much discussed in recent years is "cross-domain mapping" (google it), which refers to the way in which patterns abstracted from perceptions in one sense modality are intuitively recognized, through a kind of metaphorical consciousness, as belonging also to phenomena perceived through other sense modalities. As I said, "musical sounds and forms have power to mimic or suggest, in their patterns and energies, emotional states, moods and atmospheres in a generalized way, but specifically enough that the possible ways we can read them are not unlimited." Music isn't denotative, but its associative power is neither unbounded nor random. This of course doesn't prevent anyone from bringing to it any associations and values they may, and thus having a virtually unlimited range of personal reactions.

On this subject I recommend an oldie but goodie, Leonard B. Meyer's "Emotion and Meaning in Music."

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_...d-keywords=meyer+emotion+and+meaning+in+music


----------



## Guest

Fredx2098 said:


> It's certainly an interesting thought experiment, but it should have no bearing on how objectively talented a composer is considered or how seriously they should be regarded.


Not only is it an interesting thought experiment, but the whole idea of removing the author from a creation is an entirely valid part of analysis and it done quite often. How 'objectively talented a composer is' is no longer part of the equation, and therefore the music's meaning can become new again, contextualised in brand new ways so that we can expand our understanding of art and meaning more generally. We can't, and don't want to measure a composer by 'how seriously they should be regarded' either.


----------



## Fredx2098

Logos said:


> Why would it be biased if the listeners in the test group were experienced connoisseurs of atonal music? I'm not testing rigidity or structure. I'm testing the capacity of atonal music to consistently convey general emotional states intended by the composer to persons highly familiar with it as compared with tonal music. I'm not testing whether the music is good, bad, structured, unstructured, beautiful, ugly, appealing or anything else.
> 
> That may be an interesting question; But since dynamics are common to both atonal and tonal music, and this is a discussion centered on the differences between them, why should we discuss dynamics?


A connoisseur is not an unbiased person. It seems the opposite would be true. Someone who prefers atonal music would prefer an atonal piece and someone who prefers tonal music would prefer a tonal piece. I would rank a Webern or Marin piece as more pleasant than a Mozart or Beethoven piece. Saying that it would be newly composed music has no bearing on the subject, because the rules of tonality presuppose the existence and popularity of traditional composers.

The three aspects of music are time, pitch, and dynamics. I would rather consider it all at once than separately and theoretically when talking about personal opinions. Art is always subjective, and it doesn't matter if someone disagrees with that because all that matters is each person's own opinion.


----------



## Fredx2098

shirime said:


> We can't, and don't want to measure a composer by 'how seriously they should be regarded' either.


It's hard to believe that when everywhere on this site the most common words are ~20 composers' names.


----------



## Logos

Fredx2098 said:


> Someone who prefers atonal music would prefer an atonal piece and someone who prefers tonal music would prefer a tonal piece.


Once again, that isn't what's being tested. _I'm testing the capacity of atonal music to consistently convey general emotional states intended by the composer to persons highly familiar with it as compared with tonal music._ I'm not asking whether they like the music or not, only whether they can match the general emotions to the one the composer intended.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Yeah like Cage and Wagner..........


----------



## Woodduck

Fredx2098 said:


> Feldman is not a whimsical favorite of mine. I am not a whimsical person. It may seem a little silly the way I go on about Feldman, but I am passionate about him because I believe his music is extremely special and the ideal direction of classical music. Unlike most people whose favorite composers are the traditional, conservative ones, I can describe exactly why I believe his music to be perfect and why it should be appreciated by others.
> 
> A defining trait of 99.999...% of classical music, really all except Feldman from my very extensive listening, is that it goes back and forth between loud and soft, a trope which I find to be boring. Feldman's music allows for the appreciation of consonant and dissonant intervals in a fairly neutral setting, with the focus of the piece being on the beauty of each note rather that relative intensity. A piece that is labeled pianissimo the entire time does not create a bland, boring atmosphere. A human can't play at exactly pianissimo the same way twice. The piece becomes about how softly and beautifully the performer(s) play the notes. A piece with extensive dynamicism lends itself to exaggeration and misinterpretation I believe, especially in pieces which are too popular for their own good.
> 
> I do not only listen to Feldman. I do not only listen to classical music. *Believing that classical music should always try to approximate Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Mahler, Sibelius, et al. can only lead to stagnation. I believe instead that we should want it to evolve into different diverse forms that are not all based on the same ideals.*


Feldman's music is very distinctive and it does what it sets out to do very well. At least it seems so to me, when I'm in the mood for it. But isn't it really a very limited and personal world that he creates? I don't mean that as a criticism, but as a question of Feldman's aesthetic range. In light of that, your last paragraph, in which you lump together Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Mahler, Sibelius, and someone named "et al." as "based on the same ideals," is absolutely incomprehensible to me. It's about as meaningful as saying that all "modern" music is ugly.


----------



## Fredx2098

Logos said:


> Once again, that isn't what's being tested. _I'm testing the capacity of atonal music to consistently convey general emotional states intended by the composer to persons highly familiar with it as compared with tonal music._ I'm not asking whether they like the music or not, only whether they can match the general emotions to the one the composer intended.


You want them to be extremely familiar with the styles but not have preconceptions of what causes the emotions? That doesn't seem possible. Something that is completely atonal in a 12-tone serialist way can be random and in a way not natural, but so can rigidly tonal music, when a composer establishes one melody and then shifts it up and down and slightly and makes slight variations with obvious structure. That is why composers like Berg or Feldman or even Brahms are more interesting and convey emotions better, because they don't deliberately avoid using intervals that are physically more consonant but still use dissonance to convey emotions.


----------



## Guest

Fredx2098 said:


> It's hard to believe that when everywhere on this site the most common words are ~20 composers' names.


The way we think about composers comes largely down to several factors including (but not bound by):

1. Publication of their works in their own time/immediately after.
2. Influence on other composers.
3. Canonisation in the concert repertoire of the 19th century, and in some cases also the 20th century.
4. Reference in other [popular] media.

Beethoven, whose music is quite popular here, had comparatively good success in getting his music published and performed. When public concert series became a norm in the 19th century there was an early effort to get his symphonies in particular into the mainstream repertoire, where they have stayed and become part of a 'canon' of symphonic repertoire. Composers after his time used aspects of his music as influence for their own. Down the track, his music and influence has become so widely known that it even gets referenced in different contexts.

A different example: Bach had an enormous influence on other composers, despite the interest in his music being generally quite limited until the 19th century, but complete editions of his work were certainly of interest in the 19th century onwards.

A different example: Lachenmann has a very wide following amongst those interested in New Music and has a very big influence on composers of the generations younger than him.

Certainly, these influences are interesting as much as they are undeniable, but to regard one composer as 'more serious' sounds like an extremely petty comparison to make when we. If around 20 different composers are talked about with more frequency than other composers, coming to the conclusion that those composers should be regarded 'more seriously' and others should not completely disregards the potential for any interesting discussion about the influence and context of their music.

I'm listening to music by *Joanna Wozny* at the moment, whose music is (I'm sure) discussed with very little frequency here, but whose teachers have included *Beat Furrer* who conducts a lot of New Music with Klangforum Wien, has an ever-growing compositional oeuvre and has his own sphere of influence in the music world himself. I care very little about comparing or ranking different composers as my personal enjoyment of their music is certainly *not* determined by ranking their ability to compose and 'how seriously they should be regarded' because of it. These composers work hard, studied music way more than I have, and have a better grasp on their own style and technique than I have with mine when it comes to composing.


----------



## Fredx2098

Woodduck said:


> Feldman's music is very distinctive and it does what it sets out to do very well. At least it seems so to me, when I'm in the mood for it. But isn't it really a very limited and personal world that he creates? I don't mean that as a criticism, but as a question of Feldman's aesthetic range. In light of that, your last paragraph, in which you lump together Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Mahler, Sibelius, and someone named "et al." as "based on the same ideals," is absolutely incomprehensible to me. It's about as meaningful as saying that all "modern" music is ugly.


I don't think it's limited. If you pay close attention to it, you can hear extremely complex and moving things happening.

And I never implied that I don't like those composers. I do like them (except Beethoven, in general). I wasn't saying that tonal music is bad. However, I do think it's bad to think that humanity as a whole should like tonal music more, which severely limits musical possibilities, for hundreds and hundreds of years until the end of time.


----------



## Logos

Fredx2098 said:


> You want them to be extremely familiar with the styles but not have preconceptions of what causes the emotions?


Imagine for hypothetical purposes that the listeners are equally familiar with, and equally enjoy all forms of tonal and atonal music. In any case, I don't think their preconceptions of the causes of the emotions would affect the test in the slightest.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Feldman's music is very distinctive and it does what it sets out to do very well. At least it seems so to me, when I'm in the mood for it. But isn't it really a very limited and personal world that he creates? I don't mean that as a criticism, but as a question of Feldman's aesthetic range. In light of that, your last paragraph, in which you lump together Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Mahler, Sibelius, and someone named "et al." as "based on the same ideals," is absolutely incomprehensible to me. It's about as meaningful as saying that all "modern" music is ugly.


I agree with this..........a plurality of styles and niches has always existed and always will exist even when there are shared elements between them.

I think I have an idea of what you mean by 'aesthetic range'............would I be correct in taking it to mean that Feldman's own musical aesthetic is estbalished and distinctive enough in his works through similarities in the 'exterior sound' across all of his music? Sort of like how much of Philip Glass' music follows very similar chord progressions and ostinati, yet he does it differently in each piece?


----------



## Fredx2098

shirime said:


> The way we think about composers comes largely down to several factors including (but not bound by):
> 
> 1. Publication of their works in their own time/immediately after.
> 2. Influence on other composers.
> 3. Canonisation in the concert repertoire of the 19th century, and in some cases also the 20th century.
> 4. Reference in other [popular] media.
> 
> Beethoven, whose music is quite popular here, had comparatively good success in getting his music published and performed. When public concert series became a norm in the 19th century there was an early effort to get his symphonies in particular into the mainstream repertoire, where they have stayed and become part of a 'canon' of symphonic repertoire. Composers after his time used aspects of his music as influence for their own. Down the track, his music and influence has become so widely known that it even gets referenced in different contexts.
> 
> A different example: Bach had an enormous influence on other composers, despite the interest in his music being generally quite limited until the 19th century, but complete editions of his work were certainly of interest in the 19th century onwards.
> 
> A different example: Lachenmann has a very wide following amongst those interested in New Music and has a very big influence on composers of the generations younger than him.
> 
> Certainly, these influences are interesting as much as they are undeniable, but to regard one composer as 'more serious' sounds like an extremely petty comparison to make when we. If around 20 different composers are talked about with more frequency than other composers, coming to the conclusion that those composers should be regarded 'more seriously' and others should not completely disregards the potential for any interesting discussion about the influence and context of their music.
> 
> I'm listening to music by *Joanna Wozny* at the moment, whose music is (I'm sure) discussed with very little frequency here, but whose teachers have included *Beat Furrer* who conducts a lot of New Music with Klangforum Wien, has an ever-growing compositional oeuvre and has his own sphere of influence in the music world himself. I care very little about comparing or ranking different composers as my personal enjoyment of their music is certainly *not* determined by ranking their ability to compose and 'how seriously they should be regarded' because of it. These composers work hard, studied music way more than I have, and have a better grasp on their own style and technique than I have with mine when it comes to composing.


You seem to be contradicting yourself here. You seem to suggest that appreciation of composers here is based almost entirely on popularity and chance of their becoming famous. That sounds very depressing and not like an interesting goal for a forum. But you certainly don't seem to be biased towards the most famous composers from previous conversation, so I'm confused. If people think I'm insulting more traditional music, that's incorrect. Tonal and modern music both have different purposes and intents, both are good I believe. I personally believe that modern is more interesting, but I'm fine with people thinking otherwise, as long as their don't try to insinuate that one is better than the other based on how famous and important they are. That's like saying the most famous commercial pop acts are the most important and worthy of discussion because they are the most prevalent in the culture.


----------



## Fredx2098

Logos said:


> Imagine for hypothetical purposes that the listeners are equally familiar with, and equally enjoy all forms of tonal and atonal music. In any case, I don't think their preconceptions of the causes of the emotions would affect the test in the slightest.


I'm imagining it. Some composers like Beethoven or Mozart could sound like warm up scales without dynamics.


----------



## Logos

Fredx2098 said:


> I'm imagining it. Some composers like Beethoven or Mozart could sound like warm up scales without dynamics.


Then let dynamics be included in the test, by all means--so long as both the tonal and atonal compositions would be allowed to include it, if the composer thought that that would aid in conveying the desired general emotion to the audience. And once again, preexisting music will not be used in the test. That certainly includes Mozart and Beethoven.


----------



## DaveM

Fredx2098 said:


> The thing is it doesn't matter. No poll is going to make me like one of the old traditional composers more than Feldman, so why bother arguing about it?


No one is arguing about what music you should prefer. If you adore Feldman's music, knock yourself out. This will keep you going for 5 1/2 hours.


----------



## Logos

DaveM said:


> No one is arguing about what music you should prefer. If you adore Feldman's music, knock yourself out.


Fred is doing quite a bit of shadow boxing.


----------



## Fredx2098

Logos said:


> Then let dynamics be included in the test, by all means--so long as both the tonal and atonal compositions would be allowed to include it, if the composer thought that that would aid in conveying the desired general emotion to the audience. And once again, preexisting music will not be used in the test. That certainly includes Mozart and Beethoven.


Tonality is specifically limiting your tonal and therefore emotional palette. A piece that is strictly tonal with one accidental note sounds more interesting and easier to interpret to my ears than without a single chromatic note. Berg achieved Romantic emotion while using Modern ideas, so it is possible. It's an area that is regretfully unexplored in my opinion.


----------



## Guest

Fredx2098 said:


> You seem to be contradicting yourself here. You seem to suggest that appreciation of composers here is based almost entirely on popularity and chance of their becoming famous. That sounds very depressing and not like an interesting goal for a forum. But you certainly don't seem to be biased towards the most famous composers from previous conversation, so I'm confused. If people think I'm insulting more traditional music, that's incorrect. Tonal and modern music both have different purposes and intents, both are good I believe. I personally believe that modern is more interesting, but I'm fine with people thinking otherwise, as long as their don't try to insinuate that one is better than the other based on how famous and important they are. That's like saying the most famous commercial pop acts are the most important and worthy of discussion because they are the most prevalent in the culture.


The reasons a composer becomes famous are always slightly different. The composers that have become famous are indicative of the kind of climate that exists to allow certain composers and styles to flourish in various parts of the world. Plurality of styles and tastes is interesting. You are correct in you assessment that it would be a depressing world were 'how famous' music is is equal to 'how good/how appreciated' the music is. It does exist on some level, for sure. A composer whose highly original voice has had a wide influence would start being performed more and more, making their music ever more familiar, famous and more *marketable.* It's not the only way music works, because there is an extraordinarily diverse range of styles and composers and listeners in existence. What I am saying is this: it's useless to try to _seriously_ rank one composer as _objectively_ better than another because it ignores context, it ignores the reality of diverse taste and interest, and it downplays what makes all music interesting to anyone.


----------



## Logos

Fredx2098 said:


> Tonality is specifically limiting your tonal and therefore emotional palette. A piece that is strictly tonal with one accidental note sounds more interesting and easier to interpret to my ears than without a single chromatic note. Berg achieved Romantic emotion while using Modern ideas, so it is possible. It's an area that is regretfully unexplored in my opinion.


How does any of that have to do with what I wrote?


----------



## Fredx2098

Logos said:


> Fred is doing quite a bit of shadow boxing.


You seem to be misinterpreting my words because I'm not trying to box with anyone. I don't see how what I'm saying is any less valid than appreciating older, more famous composers except that what I'm saying is not supported by hundreds of years and millions of people saying that the traditional way is the right way.


----------



## Guest

Fredx2098 said:


> Tonality is specifically limiting your tonal and therefore emotional palette. A piece that is strictly tonal with one accidental note sounds more interesting and easier to interpret to my ears than without a single chromatic note. Berg achieved Romantic emotion while using Modern ideas, so it is possible. It's an area that is regretfully unexplored in my opinion.


This is an odd way to phrase it.

I would say that a piece of music which establishes a particular pattern has the potential to become all the more interesting when break to that pattern is introduced.

I think the *entirely diatonic* _Os Justi_ by Bruckner is divine and slightly more interesting than the ever slightly more chromatic _Locus Iste_ to give a contrary example just for the hell of it (even though it's just my taste)


----------



## Fredx2098

shirime said:


> This is an odd way to phrase it.
> 
> I would say that a piece of music which establishes a particular pattern has the potential to become all the more interesting when break to that pattern is introduced.
> 
> I think the *entirely diatonic* _Os Justi_ by Bruckner is divine and slightly more interesting than the ever slightly more chromatic _Locus Iste_ to give a contrary example just for the hell of it (even though it's just my taste)


I never said I don't like completely tonal music. I thought we were talking about averages and theories here. I love those pieces. I prefer quiet and slow music, and I think dissonance is more objectively interesting than consonance, and when the three come together it's perfect in my opinion.


----------



## Woodduck

Fredx2098 said:


> Tonality is specifically limiting your tonal and therefore emotional palette. A piece that is strictly tonal with one accidental note sounds more interesting and easier to interpret to my ears than without a single chromatic note. Berg achieved Romantic emotion while using Modern ideas, so it is possible. It's an area that is regretfully unexplored in my opinion.


I must admit to not understanding your ideas on tonal music. Tonality has been a characteristic of most of the music of most of the world's cultures for most of recorded time. The idea of utilizing tones _in the absence of _some sort of tonal reference point and hierarchy of relationships which govern listener expectations and allow composers and performers to play with those expectations is the invention of a couple of 20th-century Western Europeans, and is barely a blip on time's continuum. The variety of music which has been produced on tonal assumptions has been great enough to include styles of music which have almost nothing in common. Even in the Western "classical tradition" (a term of convenience), the variety to be heard between the Middle Ages and the 20th century is staggering and probably unapproached by the music of any other geo-cultural region. Tonality allows for a virtual infinity of musical expression - and yet you call tonal music "severely limited," while saying that you don't think Feldman's peculiar personal style is limited. What could this possibly mean?

I also don't understand why you think that using "modern" ideas to achieve "Romantic" emotion is so unexplored. I find Romantic expressive ideals carrying well into the 20th century and beyond in the works of innumerable composers. Does a composer have to use tone rows to prove he's "modern"?


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> I must admit to not understanding your ideas on tonal music. Tonality has been a characteristic of most of the music of most of the world's cultures for most of recorded time. *The idea of utilizing tones in the absence of some sort of tonal reference point and hierarchy of relationships which govern listener expectations and allow composers and performers to play with those expectations is the invention of a couple of 20th-century Western Europeans, and is barely a blip on time's continuum.* The variety of music which has been produced on tonal assumptions has been great enough to include styles of music which have almost nothing in common. Even in the Western "classical tradition" (a term of convenience), the variety to be heard between the Middle Ages and the 20th century is staggering and probably unapproached by the music of any other geo-cultural region. Tonality allows for a virtual infinity of musical expression - and yet you call tonal music "severely limited," while saying that you don't think Feldman's peculiar personal style is limited. What could this possibly mean?


Is what I put in bold a reference to serialism? If so, it might be worth mentioning that even in compositions that employ serial techniques there is still the potential to apply 'reference points' with pitch and harmonic density/levels of dissonance in ways that add a linear direction in time as per *tonal* music............

Most serial compositions I can think of have that quality to them

Like this one:


----------



## Fredx2098

Woodduck said:


> I must admit to not understanding your ideas on tonal music. Tonality has been a characteristic of most of the music of most of the world's cultures for most of recorded time. The idea of utilizing tones _in the absence of _some sort of tonal reference point and hierarchy of relationships which govern listener expectations and allow composers and performers to play with those expectations is the invention of a couple of 20th-century Western Europeans, and is barely a blip on time's continuum. The variety of music which has been produced on tonal assumptions has been great enough to include styles of music which have almost nothing in common. Even in the Western "classical tradition" (a term of convenience), the variety to be heard between the Middle Ages and the 20th century is staggering and probably unapproached by the music of any other geo-cultural region. Tonality allows for a virtual infinity of musical expression - and yet you call tonal music "severely limited," while saying that you don't think Feldman's peculiar personal style is limited. What could this possibly mean?
> 
> I also don't understand why you think that using "modern" ideas to achieve "Romantic" emotion is so unexplored. I find Romantic expressive ideals carrying well into the 20th century and beyond in the works of innumerable composers.


The waveforms created by traditional music usually look very similar. Alternating periods of loud and soft parts, a loud ending, maybe a fade-in at the beginning. The melodies are obviously based on formulas which is what makes them so appealing to the average listener. The waveforms of Feldman pieces all look very unique and interesting, also lacking dramatic changes in volume which is common in other modern music. The waveforms created by consonance are very normal, whereas dissonance has more subtle variation at the purest level of sound.

I really don't care about how long composers have been around and been famous. I don't think it's a good idea to think that the oldest, most traditional ideas are always better.


----------



## Guest

Fredx2098 said:


> I never said I don't like completely tonal music.


It never even went through my mind to even begin to think about a response to the potential idea of you saying that you 'don't like completely tonal music' because I know you did not, as my reply has nothing to do with that. You used 'more interesting' as a comparative adjective, so that is how I replied.



> I thought we were talking about averages and theories here.


We are, which is why when I said *'I would say that a piece of music which establishes a particular pattern has the potential to become all the more interesting when break to that pattern is introduced,'* I decided to phrase it in such a way where it was indeed more general, and more applicable to a wider range of compositions and styles.



> I love those pieces. I prefer quiet and slow music, and I think dissonance is more objectively interesting than consonance, and when the three come together it's perfect in my opinion.


I love them too. When we start to talk about what is 'interesting' then we cease to use objective language, as what interests people is different for everyone.


----------



## Fredx2098

shirime said:


> It never even went through my mind to even begin to think about a response to the potential idea of you saying that you 'don't like completely tonal music' because I know you did not, as my reply has nothing to do with that. You used 'more interesting' as a comparative adjective, so that is how I replied.
> 
> We are, which is why when I said *'I would say that a piece of music which establishes a particular pattern has the potential to become all the more interesting when break to that pattern is introduced,'* I decided to phrase it in such a way where it was indeed more general, and more applicable to a wider range of compositions and styles.
> 
> I love them too. When we start to talk about what is 'interesting' then we cease to use objective language, as what interests people is different for everyone.


I meant interesting in a way like how a higher resolution picture is more interesting, shows more details, and has more potential, including things only requiring low resolution, than a low resolution photo. Like using a microscope to create and interpret music.


----------



## Woodduck

Fredx2098 said:


> The waveforms created by traditional music usually look very similar. *Alternating periods of loud and soft parts, a loud ending, maybe a fade-in at the beginning. The melodies are obviously based on formulas which is what makes them so appealing to the average listener.* The waveforms of Feldman pieces all look very unique and interesting, also lacking dramatic changes in volume which is common in other modern music. The waveforms created by consonance are very normal, whereas dissonance has more subtle variation at the purest level of sound.


I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but these descriptions of tonal music wouldn't even be made by a space alien, who wouldn't have to be here very long to realize that tonal music need be nothing like your idea of it. Vast quantities of tonal music do not alternate periods of loud and soft, don't end loudly, don't have "fade-ins" (huh?), don't have melodies based on "formulas," and don't lack dissonance. Tonal music can be as dissonant as a composer wants to make it so long as enough centricity and hierarchy exists to play with listener's expectations. If you haven't noticed that then you just don't know what tonality is and will not be able to identify tonal music when you hear it. It has infinite variety.

I just got through, God help me, with a fanatical Mahlerian on the Mahler-Sibelius thread who simply wouldn't let go of his off-the-wall ideas about Mahler's music and couldn't see Sibelius as coming anywhere within a hundred miles of his idol, and now here's someone who seems to have no idea what tonal music can be or why humanity has been creating and enjoying it since time began. I can assure you, it isn't because of "melodies based on formulas" and "loud-soft waveforms." Amid all the confused folderol uttered on this subject right here on TC, there are a few perceptive remarks to be found. Keep paying attention and some of them might get through. But perhaps too much immersion in a single eccentric composer has made you deaf to what nonfeldmanian music is actually like. It's a big musical world out there!


----------



## Woodduck

shirime said:


> Is what I put in bold a reference to serialism? If so, it might be worth mentioning that even in compositions that employ serial techniques there is still the potential to apply 'reference points' with pitch and harmonic density/levels of dissonance in ways that add a linear direction in time as per *tonal* music............
> 
> Most serial compositions I can think of have that quality to them
> 
> Like this one:


Actually, no, I wasn't referring to serialism, but to atonality, which preceded serialism. "Reference points" and changing harmonic tensions are indeed possible without tonal hierarchy. The line at which tonal music becomes atonal by undermining tonal expectations is blurred, but that doesn't make the distinction meaningless. Berg, for example, often walks that blurred line. That Dallapiccola piece has plenty of tonal suggestiveness, partly because of its use of triads. Many other atonal works, serial or otherwise, don't.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Actually, no, I wasn't referring to serialism, but to atonality, which preceded serialism. "Reference points" and changing harmonic tensions are indeed possible without tonal hierarchy. The line at which tonal music becomes atonal by undermining tonal expectations is blurred, but that doesn't make the distinction meaningless. Berg, for example, often walks that blurred line. That Dallapiccola piece has plenty of tonal suggestiveness, partly because of its use of triads. Many other atonal works, serial or otherwise, don't.


Theoretically I guess it's possible that a freely atonal composition could completely abandon any sense of pitch hierarchy.........but I am yet to hear a composition where the musical judgements of the composer actually does abandon hierarchy in a way where it isn't even _referenced..........._

Tonal suggestiveness is one thing, but I think there is a lot that can be said about other ways composers can create a sense of *hierarchy,* or (better yet) *tension and release* harmonically through establishing certain patterns or tendencies in their music. One very simple example: tension from chords that are more dense and chromatic versus release from chords which are less dense and more diatonic. That has probably even become common enough to generalise that it effectively replaces tertian harmony in terms of function in many freely atonal (and serial) pieces of music.


----------



## Woodduck

shirime said:


> Theoretically I guess it's possible that a freely atonal composition could completely abandon any sense of pitch hierarchy.........but I am yet to hear a composition where the musical judgements of the composer actually does abandon hierarchy in a way where it isn't even _referenced..........._
> 
> Tonal suggestiveness is one thing, but I think there is a lot that can be said about other ways composers can create a sense of *hierarchy,* or (better yet) *tension and release* harmonically through establishing certain patterns or tendencies in their music. One very simple example: *tension from chords that are more dense and chromatic versus release from chords which are less dense and more diatonic. That has probably even become common enough to generalise that it effectively replaces tertian harmony in terms of function in many freely atonal (and serial) pieces of music.*


I agree that there are different ways of creating harmonic dynamism, but I wouldn't say that any of them are effective replacements for tonality, in that tonality is _systemic;_ it designates functions for the different tones in a scale and the chords built on them, so that listeners who "know the language" come to the music with certain _a priori_ expectations which the individual work then plays with and against. Various techniques for creating and releasing tension may be shared by tonal and non-tonal music, but tonality establishes an underlying set of presumptions which is not identical to any such techniques but is rather served by them. Even the most complex, unstable and ambiguous chromaticism in, say, late Wagner still plays off of those presumptions in a way that Schoenberg's Piano Suite carefully avoids doing.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> I agree that there are different ways of creating harmonic dynamism, but I wouldn't say that any of them are effective replacements for tonality, in that tonality is _systemic;_ it designates functions for the different tones in a scale and the chords built on them, so that listeners who "know the language" come to the music with certain _a priori_ expectations which the individual work then plays with and against. The various techniques for creating and releasing tension may be shared by tonal and non-tonal music, but tonality establishes an underlying set of presumptions which is not identical to any such techniques but is rather served by them. Even the most complex, unstable and ambiguous chromaticism in, say, late Wagner still plays off of those presumptions in a way that Schoenberg's Piano Suite carefully avoids doing.


Ah right, I see what you mean. *Systemic,* it is so. 

I would still argue that (depending on what kind of music we are familiar with) there's no real need to 'know the language' to be able to intuitively recognise points of tension and release or growing and decreasing levels of dynamic intensity and textural activity in something like this:






But, perhaps I could be wrong, and what makes us all interesting as people is that music will affect us all in slightly (or vastly) different ways.

As an aside (and because I find this so interesting as well), there are two music students I have crossed paths with who have some level of autism. One finds pieces like that Ligeti example (and especially slow moving, cluster-dominant works like _Atmosphères_) very unsettling and the other prefers this kind of music (and other highly experimental works that deal primarily with instrumental timbre) to all others due to the different ways that music impacts them psychologically.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Fredx2098 said:


> Tonality is specifically limiting your tonal and therefore emotional palette. A piece that is strictly tonal with one accidental note sounds more interesting and easier to interpret to my ears than without a single chromatic note. Berg achieved Romantic emotion while using Modern ideas, so it is possible. It's an area that is regretfully unexplored in my opinion.


It is more the opposite for most people, tonality can represent more emotions. Atonal music can't build structurally like tonal music, as Prokofiev points out. I don't always agree with this in every case, but for the most part is true.


----------



## Fredx2098

Woodduck said:


> I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but these descriptions of tonal music wouldn't even be made by a space alien, who wouldn't have to be here very long to realize that tonal music need be nothing like your idea of it. Vast quantities of tonal music do not alternate periods of loud and soft, don't end loudly, don't have "fade-ins" (huh?), don't have melodies based on "formulas," and don't lack dissonance. Tonal music can be as dissonant as a composer wants to make it so long as enough centricity and hierarchy exists to play with listener's expectations. If you haven't noticed that then you just don't know what tonality is and will not be able to identify tonal music when you hear it. It has infinite variety.
> 
> I just got through, God help me, with a fanatical Mahlerian on the Mahler-Sibelius thread who simply wouldn't let go of his off-the-wall ideas about Mahler's music and couldn't see Sibelius as coming anywhere within a hundred miles of his idol, and now here's someone who seems to have no idea what tonal music can be or why humanity has been creating and enjoying it since time began. I can assure you, it isn't because of "melodies based on formulas" and "loud-soft waveforms." Amid all the confused folderol uttered on this subject right here on TC, there are a few perceptive remarks to be found. Keep paying attention and some of them might get through. But perhaps too much immersion in a single eccentric composer has made you deaf to what nonfeldmanian music is actually like. It's a big musical world out there!


You're attacking my character and opinions without giving arguments against them except that tonality has been around longer and is more popular. You mistake my mentioning a physical fact as using that as a reason why I like modernism, or dislike traditional music, or think that other people are wrong for liking traditional music.

Obviously there are plenty of pieces that are not like I described. I didn't say that all pieces are like that. The average classical piece regardless of era is like that. Formulaic does not mean bad, and I don't know what to say if you don't hear or know about the formulas that strict tonal and strict atonal music are based on.

I don't know how many times I have to say that I am not "too immersed" in Feldman. If you won't respect a composer based on them being "eccentric" then your opinion is invalid to me. I believe that music took a deliberate step backwards during the Baroque and Classical eras as a whole. A strict common practice piece arose less spontaneously and naturally than a Feldman piece. Feldman often has a tonal center. His music is not concerned with how tonal or how atonal it is. He uses whatever notes and intervals he wants to get the point across. My praising of Feldman is in no way belittling other composers. I have only said that Feldman is my personal favorite composer, certainly not the only composer I like, and that he is no less worthy of appreciation than any other composer regardless of how unpopular or recent he is.

From what you and other traditionalists have said, I would guess that you only like representative art. It takes skill to represent something that exists, but I believe it takes more creativity and spontaneity to represent something that doesn't exist. If you do like abstract art, then I believe you have contradicted yourself. I believe that Rothko and Pollock (whom I am not particularly fond of) both accurately portray different ideas of calm order and sporadic chaos respectively, but the Mona Lisa is just a nice picture of a woman.

If you have a problem with me having a favorite composer who is not "canon" and want to argue with me about it, then I'm not interested in participating in that type of degrading and debasing conversation.


----------



## Fredx2098

Phil loves classical said:


> It is more the opposite for most people, tonality can represent more emotions. Atonal music can't build structurally like tonal music, as Prokofiev points out. I don't always agree with this in every case, but for the most part is true.


And most people like commercial pop music. That is very good at conveying emotional ideas on the surface. It's not a measure of how good something is.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

I really don't want to get into the tonal VS atonal stuff, but can I just say that the "natural/unnatural" argument is a really stupid one when it comes to art. There's a reason that "artificial" shares the same root word with "art" and that's because all art is unnatural and artificial. I guess by "natural" some may be meaning "has something in common with nature" or "has something in common with my natural feelings/emotions/intuitions/proclivities/affinities," but I'm not sure if either of those meanings is a very useful one.


----------



## Fredx2098

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I really don't want to get into the tonal VS atonal stuff, but can I just say that the "natural/unnatural" argument is a really stupid one when it comes to art. There's a reason that "artificial" shares the same root word with "art" and that's because all art is unnatural and artificial. I guess by "natural" some may be meaning "has something in common with nature" or "has something in common with my natural feelings/emotions/intuitions/proclivities/affinities," but I'm not sure if either of those meanings is a very useful one.


I don't really think it's supposed to be about tonal vs. atonal, rather that music that isn't strictly tonal isn't any less natural than tonal music, and without an implication that being natural is good or bad. It's possible to make both tonal and atonal music based on contrived formulas and common tropes, and both of those are less creative than something created in a more abstract way in my opinion. And like I said before, something being more or less creative isn't related to how much a subject enjoys something. I don't like commercial pop music, but I wouldn't argue against someone liking it or that it's unnatural. I can totally see why it's prevalent, just like I can see why traditional classical music styles are prevalent.


----------



## DaveM

Fredx2098 said:


> You're attacking my character and opinions without giving arguments against them except that tonality has been around longer and is more popular...
> 
> ...If you have a problem with me having a favorite composer who is not "canon" and want to argue with me about it, then I'm not interested in participating in that type of degrading and debasing conversation.


No one is attacking your character and there is nothing there that is degrading and debasing. You have some controversial opinions. Controversial opinions often bring strong reactions and you have to assume that when you express a controversial opinion -or state what is really an opinion as fact- you have to be prepared to defend it rather than being defensive.



> I believe that music took a deliberate step backwards during the Baroque and Classical eras as a whole. A strict common practice piece arose less spontaneously and naturally than a Feldman piece.


This is an example of a highly controversial opinion that is likely to result in major blowback. It infers that the music that evolved from those periods is somehow 'less than' compared with what might have been if Feldman's approach had been followed. It is such an extreme perspective that it does call into question whether an infatuation with a present day composer is clouding one's perspective of traditional music of the past.

P.S. There is nothing wrong with an infatuation with a composer (i.e. his/her music) per se. Happens to me all the time.


----------



## Fredx2098

DaveM said:


> No one is attacking your character and there is nothing there that is degrading and debasing. You have some controversial opinions. Controversial opinions often bring strong reactions and you have to assume that when you express a controversial opinion -or state what is really an opinion as fact- you have to be prepared to defend it rather than being defensive.
> 
> This is an example of a highly controversial opinion that is likely to result in major blowback. It infers that the music that evolved from those periods is somehow 'less than' compared with what might have been if Feldman's approach had been followed. It is such an extreme perspective that it does call into question whether an infatuation with a present day composer is clouding one's perspective of traditional music of the past.
> 
> P.S. There is nothing wrong with an infatuation with a composer (i.e. his/her music) per se. Happens to me all the time.


I know my opinions are controversial. If someone disagrees with me, I wish they would do so in a respectful dialectical way. I am defending my opinions and beliefs. If someone wants to suggest something different from what I believe then they're free to do so.

I'm not infatuated. I may have just joined this forum, but I've been listening to classical music my entire life and Feldman for several years. I am intimately familiar with his music and have 2 scores by him.

I enjoy most styles of classical music, but the style of Feldman is one that I find interesting and one that I believe should be expanded upon.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> This familiar argument leaves out of consideration the critical questions of how music is felt to express anything at all, and _why there are such broad areas of agreement on what it is expressing._
> 
> _...music is very clearly a system of symbolic signs and gestures which must be, and are, perceived as analogous to patterns of cognitive, physical and affective activity._


Yes, music is a two-way symbolic language, from composer to listener, with agreed-on general meanings which have become established through tradition. This is what I mean when I say that *tonality is an ideology.*


----------



## millionrainbows

In Morton Feldman's music, much of it is isolated tones. This uncluttered approach invites introspection, and the pondering of one note and what might happen next (expectation, as in tonality). A lot of John Cage's work is like this, very quiet isolated tones.


----------



## Fredx2098

millionrainbows said:


> In Morton Feldman's music, much of it is isolated tones. This uncluttered approach invites introspection, and the pondering of one note and what might happen next (expectation, as in tonality). A lot of John Cage's work is like this, very quiet isolated tones.


Get up till I embrace you!


----------



## millionrainbows

shirime said:


> Is what I put in bold a reference to serialism? If so, it might be worth mentioning that even in compositions that employ serial techniques there is still the potential to apply 'reference points' with pitch and harmonic density/levels of dissonance in ways that add a linear direction in time as per *tonal* music............
> 
> Most serial compositions I can think of have that quality to them...


I agree. Furthermore, there is a 'momentary' harmonic dimension to some serial music which gives it momentary meaning and color and suggestions of a root (in that moment).

I think that Woodduck is using the term 'tonality' too freely. His argument is based on a supposed "ubiquitousness" of tonality, but he is confounding 'tonality' (which develops horizontally in time) with 'harmonic sound' which suggests tonal centers but is purely vertical in the way it does this.

The true meaning of 'tonal' is tone-centeredness, which occurs vertically. All 'tonality' which is suggested by horizontal movement in time is contrived and derived from the vertical 'givens' of vertical scales and tones.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> ...The variety of music which has been produced on tonal assumptions has been great enough to include styles of music which have almost nothing in common.


Suffice it to say that "if there is one note, there is tonality" in this broad definition.



Woodduck said:


> ...yet you call tonal music "severely limited," while saying that you don't think Feldman's peculiar personal style is limited. What could this possibly mean?


A reference to a single fundamental note is what defines "tonality" in its broadest sense. The fundamental must be referred to and made dominant in some way, by being the 'starting note' of a scale, usually. A scale, then, divides the octave into parts which are subordinate to this fundamental starting note.

This in itself is going to make 'tonality' immediately recognizable to the ear, since it's all based on the natural way we hear, as either actual harmonics such as the fifth, or as 'harmonic models' (scales not based on actual overtones, but which are altered "models" of the harmonic series, as in exotic scales). This reflexive "immediacy of recognition" is itself "limiting" in that it allows for habits to form, like pushing buttons, instead of true hearing.

Feldman's music, whose tones are not related in a "tonal" way based on harmonic models or assumptions, thus escapes this trap. All "ideological" habits of tonal recognition are thus bypassed. This gives it free possibility. It is free of assumptions.



Woodduck said:


> ...I also don't understand why you think that using "modern" ideas to achieve "Romantic" emotion is so unexplored. I find Romantic expressive ideals carrying well into the 20th century and beyond in the works of innumerable composers. Does a composer have to use tone rows to prove he's "modern"?


Conversely, I see "modern" ideas going back to well before the Romantic. This includes many ideas which have nothing to do with tone rows or atonality.

So let's not confuse the issue by opposing "tonality" with "modernity."


----------



## Razumovskymas

shirime said:


> Is Tonality based on Nature?
> 
> No.
> 
> (that's the tl;dr for those who can't be bothered reading a long post)
> 
> Go outside, listen to the birds, the crickets, a croaking frog, a barking dog, the wind rustling the leaves in the trees or the sound of the waves crashing against the rocks on the shore. Sounds of nature.
> 
> Now take those sounds inside with you (with the help of a microphone/recording device) and analyse the sound spectrum using AudioSculpt or a similar software. You will see a sound spectrum, the physical qualities of the sound, the *truth* or the sound, the sound as it exists in *nature.* You will find that these spectra are all different, all unique and all complex, bearing little to no resemblance to the Harmonic Overtone Series.
> 
> Now clap your hands, stamp your feet, click your fingers. These are sounds we can make quite naturally.
> 
> Record and analyse them too. Their spectra are also complex, bearing little to no resemblance to the Harmonic Series.
> 
> Now sing. Just one pitch, any pitch.
> 
> Record it, analyse it. Aha! Now we get to something which we can safely say is more or less similar to the Harmonic Series! Is this where Tonality As We Know It comes from? Is this the binding truth that Tonality is Natural, despite all the previous analyses of 'natural sounds' that _didn't_ bear this resemblance???
> 
> No.
> 
> Let's take a look at the Harmonic Series a little more closely, shall we?
> 
> View attachment 105061
> 
> 
> Looks pretty rooted in Tonality to me, doesn't it? Looks like the closest we can get to the scientific/natural 'proof' that the intervals, chords and harmonic progressions that are at the heart of Tonality are 'based on nature,' wouldn't you say?
> 
> Except that it isn't.
> 
> Look at the Harmonic Series again and you will notice that above every note that isn't in the pitch-class C is coloured and has a +_n_ or -_n_ above it. That shows how far removed from the approximate pitch in equal temperament (the tuning system we use today) each overtone is in hundredths of a semitone (aka *cents*). We use equal temperament to combat the inequalities of the Harmonic Series, to alter its Natural Properites so that we can *adjust them to our taste, to our culture.* Historically, western music adjusted the intervals of the harmonic series in different ways, resulting in unequal keys with unequally distributed 'pure intervals' (intervals the closest to how they could be found in the lower end of the harmonic series) that gave different keys a certain quality to them, or an *affect* (see: Doctrine of the Affections).
> 
> These *adjustments* to the _natural order_ is what makes tonality so interesting, so rich and so diverse in its usage through time. One such adjustment, equal temperament (which we know and love today) even paved the way for the development of non-tonal harmonic languages! Harmonic progressions in the Common Practice Era (the kind of tonality that flourished in western music from the mid 17th to the late 19th centuries) resulted after centuries of musical development, stylistic change, adjustments and alterations of the tuning of intervals and chords and, with the world in perspective, only _one way of doing things_ with music.
> 
> All this in mind, take a listen to some traditional music from non-western cultures to experience and appreciate totally different histories to how human beings have always (and always will) take the *Natural* and make it *Unnatural* to create *Art.*


First define "natural"

then a discussion can folow


----------



## Logos

Razumovskymas said:


> First define "natural"
> 
> then a discussion can folow


Look at Woodduck's definition then:



> This subject always loses itself in a swamp of definitional conflicts. No one should attempt to opine here without stating the definitions of "tonality" and of "natural" they are assuming.
> 
> My definitions are:
> 
> Tonality: a system of musical organization in which the tones of a scale (the sequenced array of tones used in a given type of music) are perceived to have particular systemic relationships to one another, and in which those relationships are exploited according to some hierarchy of importance or prevalence in which one tone of the scale (the "tonic") is felt as centrally important and functions as a point of gravitation, finality, resolution, or repose. Our Western, or "common practice" system of harmonic relationships is one of many possible tonal systems.
> 
> Natural: in an evolutionary context, a phenomenon of human behavior is "natural" if it emerges spontaneously as a result of an innate inclination characteristic of the human species. (In the broadest sense, anything that occurs is "natural," and in the narrowest sense nothing that humans create is "natural," but both of these senses make discussion of this topic impossible and pointless.)
> 
> By the above definitions, tonality, which in various forms appears to have arisen independently all over the world in widely dissimilar circumstances and cultures, indeed seems to merit the term "natural." Considering how tonality functions cognitively in the apprehension of musical form in light of the way human cognition (perception and concept formation) works, and looking at the expressive functions of tonally informed structures in terms of their analogous relationship to dynamic patterns of human affect, we can begin to understand the general human preference for organizing tones on tonal principles. Study of this has been under way across a number of disciplines (music theory, ethnomusicology, psychology, neuroscience, evolutionary biology, etc.).
> 
> P.S. For those who may be alarmed by these thoughts, I'm not suggesting that music "ought" to be tonal, or anything else. I just think it's useful and fascinating to consider why most music is. Understanding this is, I think, one key to the ultimate mysteries of why music is so important to humans and how it affects us so powerfully. But only one key.


----------



## millionrainbows

Ever since the Pythagoran notion of dividing the octave into 12 notes, music has been unnatural. 

There is only one 'natural' thing, and that is one note and its overtones. 

And that might get boring after a while. 

So the artifice of "scales" came into being, artificial constructs consisting of five to twelve notes.

Thus, many unnatural things followed.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> ...Considering how tonality functions cognitively in the apprehension of musical form in light of the way human cognition (perception and concept formation) works, and looking at *the expressive functions of tonally informed structures in terms of their analogous relationship to dynamic patterns of human affect,* we can begin to understand the general human preference for organizing tones on tonal principles.


I agree with your definition of tonality, but the above conclusion that it is the preferred system for reflecting human emotions I disagree with.

One listen to "Vergangenes" proves this.






Music can express many different "states of being."

To call these "emotions" is one-dimensional and sentimental. Go listen to Tchaikovsky for that sort of valentine-card emotion.


----------



## Haydn70

millionrainbows said:


> I agree with your definition of tonality, but the above conclusion that it is the preferred system for reflecting human emotions I disagree with.


Tonality is the preferred system for reflecting the *entire range* of human emotions.

Atonality is completely incapable of reflecting joy, ebullience, happiness, uplift, etc. It is only good for reflecting dark and negative emotions...and tonality can do that too.

The emotional palette of atonality is extremely limited.


----------



## Logos

That must be the face MJ makes when people say Kobe is just as good as he was.


----------



## Haydn70

Logos said:


> That must be the face MJ makes when people say Kobe is just as good as he was.


Or the face he makes when people say Baron Scarpia knows what he is talking about.


----------



## DaveM

millionrainbows said:


> Ever since the Pythagoran notion of dividing the octave into 12 notes, music has been unnatural.
> 
> There is only one 'natural' thing, and that is one note and its overtones.
> 
> And that might get boring after a while.
> 
> So the artifice of "scales" came into being, artificial constructs consisting of five to twelve notes.
> 
> Thus, many unnatural things followed.


You mean what happens when composers try to ignore these constructs?


----------



## Haydn70

"When I think of the avant-garde, I have this image in my head: I am sitting in an airplane, the sky is blue and I see a landscape. And then the plane flies into a cloud: everything is grey-white. At first the grey seems interesting if you compare it to the earlier landscape, but soon becomes monotonous. I then fly out of the cloud and again see the landscape, which has completely changed in the meantime.

"I believe we have flown into such a cloud of high entropy and great disorder…. The instant I emerge out of the cloud, I see, and this is being very critical, that the music we wrote was in fact rather ugly."

Gyorgy Ligeti

Atonality: various shades of gray...monotonous...*ugly*...


----------



## Logos

ArsMusica said:


> Atonality: various shades of gray...monotonous...*ugly*...


I think there is much truth in what you state. It's occurred to me that this monotonous grayness is precisely the thing about atonal music that appeals to some persons. It's ambiguous nature allows them to project into it anything they desire.


----------



## Guest

ArsMusica said:


> Tonality is the preferred system for reflecting the *entire range* of human emotions.
> 
> Atonality is completely incapable of reflecting joy, ebullience, happiness, uplift, etc. It is only good for reflecting dark and negative emotions...and tonality can do that too.
> 
> The emotional palette of atonality is extremely limited.


You are projecting your own limitations on the music itself. Atonal music is not the majority of music that I listen to, but I have certainly encountered atonal music which evoked joy, ebullience, happiness, etc. (Schoenberg Suite Op 29, Chamber Symphony No 2, most recently) It is not the most popular music in the world, but many people love it.

For the life of me, I cannot imagine what would motivate someone to make such pronouncements about the value of music that they don't get.


----------



## Logos

Baron Scarpia said:


> Atonal music is not the majority of music that I listen to, but I have certainly encountered atonal music which evoked joy, ebullience, happiness, etc.


No doubt people experience all sorts of emotions when listening to atonal music, but does an audience experience them with any consistency? Atonal music, because of its inherent atmospheric ambiguity, is a Rorschach test to a degree that tonal music is not.

Tonal music much more easily evokes in a listener the emotional impression that the composer desires to elicit because, rather than simply providing a background for projection or reflection, it _communicates_ (at least in a general way).


----------



## Woodduck

Fredx2098 said:


> You're attacking my character and opinions without giving arguments against them except that tonality has been around longer and is more popular. You mistake my mentioning a physical fact as using that as a reason why I like modernism, or dislike traditional music, or think that other people are wrong for liking traditional music.
> 
> Obviously there are plenty of pieces that are not like I described. I didn't say that all pieces are like that. *The average classical piece regardless of era is like that. Formulaic does not mean bad*, and I don't know what to say if you don't hear or know about *the formulas that strict tonal and strict atonal music are based on.*
> 
> I don't know how many times I have to say that I am not "too immersed" in Feldman. If you won't respect a composer based on them being "eccentric" then your opinion is invalid to me. *I believe that music took a deliberate step backwards during the Baroque and Classical eras* as a whole. *A strict common practice piece arose less spontaneously and naturally than a Feldman piece*. Feldman often has a tonal center. His music is not concerned with how tonal or how atonal it is. He uses whatever notes and intervals he wants to get the point across. My praising of Feldman is in no way belittling other composers. I have only said that Feldman is my personal favorite composer, certainly not the only composer I like, and that he is no less worthy of appreciation than any other composer regardless of how unpopular or recent he is.
> 
> *From what you and other traditionalists have said, I would guess that you only like representative art.* It takes skill to represent something that exists, but I believe it takes more creativity and spontaneity to represent something that doesn't exist. *If you do like abstract art, then I believe you have contradicted yourself.* I believe that Rothko and Pollock (whom I am not particularly fond of) both accurately portray different ideas of calm order and sporadic chaos respectively, but *the Mona Lisa is just a nice picture *of a woman.
> 
> *If you have a problem with me having a favorite composer* who is not "canon" and want to argue with me about it, then I'm not interested in participating in that type of degrading and debasing conversation.


This thread is about tonality. If you insist on arguing about characteristics of music that have nothing to do with tonality as if they somehow did, people are likely to assume that you don't understand the subject at hand. Similarly, if you're going to be critical of tonal music but represent it in a crude, simplistic manner, people are going to object and wonder if you really know what you're up to.

The word "formulaic," embedded in a list of characteristics you say you dislike, is going to be interpreted as a criticism. Some music is indeed formulaic. But nearly all music relies on conventions. Conventions, which are what you seem now to want to mean, are not "formulas." Only mediocre music is described as "formulaic."

The "average classical piece regardless of era" does not match your simplistic description. "Classical music" begins with Gregorian chant. Music has covered a lot of stylistic ground since then. There is no "average classical piece," not even if you (gratuitously) narrow the discussion to common practice tonality, which is only one species of tonality.

Music does not take "deliberate steps backward" - or forward, although Modernism typically thought it was doing the latter. Obviously you agree with the Modernist stance, which I'd have thought fully discredited at this point in history, and think that Feldman took a step forward. Well, he took that step some time ago now, and - what?

How "strict" is a "strict common practice piece"? And how do you know how "spontaneously and naturally" any music arises from its creator's imagination? As one who made a living improvising at the piano in ballet studios where there is little time for deliberation, I can assure you that common practice tonal music, like any other kind of music, can arise with stunning and unbroken spontaneity. It's just a matter of what musical "language" one "speaks," and with how much assurance.

You have no reason to draw any conclusions about my taste in the visual arts, and no reason to say that if I like abstract art I'm contradicting myself (I do like some abstract art, and I am not contradicting myself). You don't even have standing to decide that I'm a "traditionalist." But there's also no good reason to call the Mona Lisa "just a nice picture" - unless of course you're telling us once again that there are things about pre-Modern art that you don't understand, and are therefore resorting to simplistic dismissals, exactly as you did in describing tonal music's supposed deficiencies.

I have no problem with anyone having a favorite composer, no matter who it is. I do have a problem with people misrepresenting and caricaturing what they don't like and then getting huffy when people who do like it take offense at the distortion.


----------



## Haydn70

Baron Scarpia said:


> For the life of me, I cannot imagine what would motivate someone to make such pronouncements about the value of music that they don't get.


And for the life of me, I cannot imagine what would motivate someone to make such a pronouncement about me, i.e, a person about whom they know absolutely nothing. Your response is all too typical.

Here's my story, Baron:

I have my B.M., M.A. and Ph.D. in music…all in composition. My two main composition teachers (one undergraduate, one graduate) were composers who composed atonally. I myself composed atonally. I studied and listened to and admired the music of Schoenberg, Webern, Berg, Boulez, Stockhausen, Ligeti, Lutoslawski, Crumb, et. al.

And about 20 years ago I rejected atonality, as a composer and as a listener.

As I wrote above, your response is typical, i.e., if someone doesn't like atonality, they don't get it. Well, I studied with atonalists, deeply studied and listened to the music of many leading atonalists and composed atonally. Believe me, Baron, *I get atonality completely*, at the very least as well as you do…and I hate it.

Are we clear on this now?


----------



## Woodduck

ArsMusica said:


> "When I think of the avant-garde, I have this image in my head: I am sitting in an airplane, the sky is blue and I see a landscape. And then the plane flies into a cloud: everything is grey-white. At first the grey seems interesting if you compare it to the earlier landscape, but soon becomes monotonous. I then fly out of the cloud and again see the landscape, which has completely changed in the meantime.
> 
> "I believe we have flown into such a cloud of high entropy and great disorder…. The instant I emerge out of the cloud, I see, and this is being very critical, that the music we wrote was in fact rather ugly."
> 
> Gyorgy Ligeti
> 
> Atonality: various shades of gray...monotonous...*ugly*...


Aaron Copland, who wrote a few 12-tone works, noted this about the continuous dissonance of atonal harmony, remarking that perhaps "atonal music sounds too much like itself." Obviously he wasn't dismissing it as without merit, but simply pointing to the perceived limitations of a certain kind of harmony. His own serial works have his personal stamp on them; in their rhythms and textures they sound like Copland, as his friend Leonard Bernstein noted, and not like Schoenberg or Webern. I suspect he wanted to see what he could do with atonal serialism while avoiding the oppressive, anxious hyperintensity of the Second Viennese School and its long, wearisome line of descent into the "political correctness" of the mid-century academy.


----------



## Logos

> Mona Lisa is just a nice picture of a woman.


A bit stingy with your praise. I suppose _King Lear_ is just a nice play about an old man.


----------



## Guest

ArsMusica said:


> As I wrote above, your response is typical, i.e., if someone doesn't like atonality, they don't get it. Well, I studied with atonalists, deeply studied and listened to the music of many leading atonalists and composed atonally. Believe me, Baron, *I get atonality completely*, at the very least as well as you do…and I hate it.
> 
> Are we clear on this now?


From the fact that some people love "atonal" music and others hate "atonal" music, I can only conclude that the music has value, but not everyone appreciates it. Similarly, from the fact that I generally hate Tchaikovsky, but that many others greatly enjoy Tchaikovsky, I conclude that the music of Tchaikovsky has value, despite my inability to appreciate it. I do not follow your reasoning that the fact that you hate the music reflects the intrinsic value of the music, your understanding of it notwithstanding.


----------



## Logos

Baron Scarpia said:


> From the fact that some people love "atonal" music and others hate "atonal" music, I can only conclude that the music has value, but not everyone appreciates it.


There's someone to love almost everything. Does everything therefore have value? That's a very permissive canon of art. And why put atonal in scare quotes?


----------



## Guest

Logos said:


> There's someone to love almost everything. Does everything therefore have value? That's a very permissive canon of art. And why put atonal in scare quotes?


I judge by who does the loving. Atonal music is apparently loved by Herbert von Karajan, Christoph von Dohnanyi, Giuseppi Sinopoli, Claudio Abbado, Maurizio Pollini, Alfred Brendel, Pierre-Laurent Aimard, Arthur Grumiaux, and many others. On the other hand, it is not loved by Ernest Ansermet, Fritz Reiner, George Szell, Aldo Ciccolini, and many others. It seems to me the roster of people who love atonal music has some credibility.

I put atonal in quotes just because the term is somewhat controversial, and some composers to whom the term is typically applied did not approve of it.


----------



## Gordontrek

Woodduck said:


> This is a perfect example of defining a topic out of existence. It's one thing to reject the use of the term "natural," but another thing to use that rejection to obscure or dismiss as insignificant the phenomenon to which the term was intended to refer. You've done both in a single sweep.
> 
> To define everything produced by humans as unnatural is as useless as to define everything in the universe as natural. Neither definition is wrong, but both are beside the point. Neither gets us anywhere in understanding tonality: what it is, how and why it exists, what forms it takes, and what human purposes (cognitive and expressive) it serves. That last question is the fundamental one, and it's the one that quibbles over "natural" and "unnatural" are bound to obfuscate and are, I think, intended to suppress.


I have no idea how you managed to read all of that into what I wrote. My understanding of the original post is that our modern system of tonality is based on a tweaking of what occurs in nature, such as in the case of the harmonic series, which we adjust to our liking. As such, it is basically "unnatural," and I essentially agreed with the OP on that. What exactly have I rejected, obscured, or dismissed? If anything, this is what makes art become art, and phenomena such as tonality anything BUT insignificant. Is it so hard to see it as rising _above_ nature in this context?
Perhaps we are operating on different wavelengths. You point out that arguing about whether or not tonality is natural only hinders the exploration of tonality. Why must it? The discussions "what cognitive/expressive purposes does tonality serve" and "our tonal system is not naturally occurring" really have nothing to do with each other. The former explores why we use tonality, the latter how we came up with it and use it. In fact, when used side-by-side, I think they might complement each other quite nicely.


----------



## Guest

Gordontrek said:


> I have no idea how you managed to read all of that into what I wrote. My understanding of the original post is that our modern system of tonality is based on a tweaking of what occurs in nature, such as in the case of the harmonic series, which we adjust to our liking. As such, it is basically "unnatural," and I essentially agreed with the OP on that. What exactly have I rejected, obscured, or dismissed? If anything, this is what makes art become art, and phenomena such as tonality anything BUT insignificant. Is it so hard to see it as rising _above_ nature in this context?
> Perhaps we are operating on different wavelengths. You point out that arguing about whether or not tonality is natural only hinders the exploration of tonality. Why must it? The discussions "what cognitive/expressive purposes does tonality serve" and "our tonal system is not naturally occurring" really have nothing to do with each other. The former explores why we use tonality, the latter how we came up with it and use it. In fact, when used side-by-side, I think they might complement each other quite nicely.


Thanks, *Gordontrek,* I think you've hit the nail on the head in terms of my position on the matter.

*Woodduck* does bring up some interesting points to consider, of course.


----------



## EdwardBast

One way to conceive the term natural in this context might be in reference to the mental capacities and the perceptual and expressive apparatus by which music is conceived and organized. If, for example, one believes musical abilities and proclivities are parasitic on or symbiotic with verbal ones—a curious and fortuitous byproduct of the evolution of the verbal capacities that drove the ascendancy of the species and its cultures—then it might be reasonable to say that musical organization into recursive structures like phrases, sentences, paragraphs, and the like is a natural human phenomenon in the same sense that speech is. A tonal syntax that allows abstract musical utterances to be structured and understood by analogy to verbal ones, with equivalents of full stops and commas, main and subsidiary clauses, parallel sequences and the like, might also be considered natural in an important sense; It is just the sort of thing with which one might expect a verbal species to amuse itself after it has solved the basic problems of survival and has time for frivolity and speculation.


----------



## Phil loves classical

On the subject of emotion, I think it is clear that tonal music elicits a larger range of emotion than atonal with more people (why? because it is more natural with most humans, I still stick by that statement). I wouldn't go as far as saying it can represent the whole emotional range, for example Penderecki's Threnody is more unsettling than any tonal music (at least to me), some effects you can achieve better without tonality. But emotion itself doesn't necessarily need to be the most important trait in music anyway. It is still possible to build motivically and other means structurally on a piece, without tonality, and without traditional harmonic progression. I can see this having less appeal to most, but I don't think it supports one over the other in value.


----------



## Woodduck

EdwardBast said:


> *One way to conceive the term natural in this context might be in reference to the mental capacities and the perceptual and expressive apparatus by which music is conceived and organized.* If, for example, one believes musical abilities and proclivities are parasitic on or symbiotic with verbal ones-a curious and fortuitous byproduct of the evolution of the verbal capacities that drove the ascendancy of the species and its cultures-then it might be reasonable to say that *musical organization into recursive structures like phrases, sentences, paragraphs, and the like is a natural human phenomenon in the same sense that speech is.* A tonal syntax that allows abstract musical utterances to be structured and understood by analogy to verbal ones, with equivalents of full stops and commas, main and subsidiary clauses, parallel sequences and the like, might also be considered natural in an important sense; It is just the sort of thing with which one might expect a verbal species to amuse itself after it has solved the basic problems of survival and has time for frivolity and speculation.


Those "recursive structures like phrases, sentences, paragraphs, and the like" are employed in language because they represent and communicate relationships between thoughts. But music parallels conceptual thought not only in the outward structure of forms, but in the deep structure of tonal relationships, which are hierarchical just as concepts are.

The thinking brain constructs complex ideas out of simpler ones, and comprehends by looking for the basic concepts, the premises, on which complex ideation depends for its existence and credibility: it builds, and seeks, a hierarchy of concepts which rests ultimately on basic premises or axioms which are intuited as certain, needing no further support. The listening ear seeks, and senses in tonality, the fundamental concept, premise or axiom which makes the details of melodic and harmonic deployment comprehensible. Musical structures are thus hierarchical just as structures of ideas are; they depend on still deeper (more fundamental) structures, which rest ultimately on basic premises.

Given that conceptual thought is our most essentially human characteristic, it's unsurprising, but still marvelous, that it should find a parallel - an analogue, a metaphor, and an expression - in the deep structure of music. Tonality, with unique thoroughness, establishes that deep structure, the basic premises of harmonic "logic," and tonicity is the irreducible axiom on which the superstructure of harmony rests and which allows harmonic and melodic motion and subordinate formal structures to proliferate comprehensibly.

That the human ear - the hearing organ of a conceptual mind - intuitively seeks hierarchy in the tones of music is absolutely natural.


----------



## DaveM

Personally, I think that the whole subject of whether tonality is natural or not is pointless. Let’s say tonality isn’t natural and atonality is natural, then one has to answer why the latter has failed.


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> Personally, I think that the whole subject of whether tonality is natural or not is pointless. Let's say it isn't natural and atonality is natural, then one has to answer why the latter has failed.


Why what has failed?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

12 pages in 2 days, hardly a failure.

Anyway how does one define failure in this context ?- that should provide other 12 pages of debate.....


----------



## DaveM

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> 12 pages in 2 days, hardly a failure.
> 
> Anyway how does one define failure in this context ?- that should provide other 12 pages of debate.....


There's only one thing that 'the latter' can refer to (in 'the latter has failed') in the sentence and it isn't the thread.


----------



## Guest

*DaveM* is proudly missing the point of the thread.


----------



## Woodduck

DaveM said:


> Let's say tonality isn't natural and atonality is natural, then one has to answer why the latter has failed.


Atonality "fails" only if you think it's equivalent to tonality and that it's trying to do what tonality does. But that's like a religious believer saying that atheism fails. Tonality and religion are actual things which serve actual purposes. Atonality and atheism are merely terms indicating the absence of something; they don't tell us anything about what's present, or for what purpose, or to what effect.


----------



## DaveM

shirime said:


> *DaveM* is proudly missing the point of the thread.


Oh I don't think so. Your OP starts out 'Is tonality based on nature? Take a look at how quickly the original point of the thread is lost. That's not a slam at the thread. It is what happens to virtually every thread that goes on for more than 2 pages. It's actually been pretty interesting, but IMO the point at which the adjective 'natural' was applied, the point of the thread was lost.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Woodduck said:


> Atonality "fails" only if you think it's equivalent to tonality and that it's trying to do what tonality does. But that's like a religious believer saying that atheism fails. Tonality and religion are actual things which serve actual purposes. Atonality and atheism are merely terms indicating the absence of something; they don't tell us anything about what's present.


Does this mean I'm going to hell


----------



## Woodduck

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Does this mean I'm going to hell


Only if it feels natural to you.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Woodduck said:


> Only if it feels natural to you.


Oh good, I'm less concerned now


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> Oh I don't think so. Your OP starts out 'Is tonality based on nature? Take a look at how quickly the original point of the thread is lost. That's not a slam at the thread. It is what happens to virtually every thread that goes on for more than 2 pages. It's actually been pretty interesting, but IMO the point at which the adjective 'natural' was applied, the point of the thread was lost.


Actually I used the adjective *'natural'* (which I derived from the noun *'nature'*) in the OP to refer to something objectively existing in nature, as opposed to how human beings have altered it according to cultural and historical preferences.

The adjective 'natural' has been used by me since the OP to refer specifically to that.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Only if it feels natural to you.


:lol: 

.........................................


----------



## Woodduck

DaveM said:


> Oh I don't think so. Your OP starts out 'Is tonality based on nature? Take a look at how quickly the original point of the thread is lost. That's not a slam at the thread. It is what happens to virtually every thread that goes on for more than 2 pages. It's actually been pretty interesting, but IMO the point at which the adjective 'natural' was applied, the point of the thread was lost.


Threads wander, and this one has a perfect excuse in that its terms can be taken a number of ways. Some of us won't let it stray far. Just look at what EdwardBast and I have just contributed in posts #165 and #167. Are we off-topic in trying to turn different facets of the idea of "naturalness" toward the light?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

I like my nature in a cave, better acoustic tonality


----------



## DaveM

Woodduck said:


> Atonality "fails" only if you think it's equivalent to tonality and that it's trying to do what tonality does. But that's like a religious believer saying that atheism fails. Tonality and religion are actual things which serve actual purposes. Atonality and atheism are merely terms indicating the absence of something; they don't tell us anything about what's present.


Actually, it's too late at night for me to be posting anything profound, but ignoring the fact that neurons are slowing and synapses are failing: during the Classical era, concert venues and salons were filled with music. During the early Romantic period, concert venues and salons were filled with the music and publishers were eager to publish it. During the late Romantic period, concert venues and salons were filled with the music and publishers were eager to publish it.

Then in the very early 20th century, along comes atonal music. It didn't fill concert halls and salons. Recordings didn't fly off the shelves. After 100 years, nothing has changed except that there seems, if anything, to be evidence of a return to tonality. Shoot the messenger.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

So your advocating André Rieu as the answer...................


----------



## DaveM

shirime said:


> Actually I used the adjective *'natural'* (which I derived from the noun *'nature'*) in the OP to refer to something objectively existing in nature, as opposed to how human beings have altered it according to cultural and historical preferences.
> 
> The adjective 'natural' has been used by me since the OP to refer specifically to that.


Well, now you're missing my point. No matter how you used it, the adjective 'natural' did not continue to refer specifically to that by other posters. It's not your fault. It's what happens as threads take on a life of their own.


----------



## DaveM

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> So your advocating André Rieu as the answer...................


I was thinking Yanni...


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> Well, now you're missing my point. No matter how you used it, the adjective 'natural' did not continue to refer specifically to that by other posters. It's not your fault. It's what happens as threads take on a life of their own.


I don't have a problem with that. I have learnt quite a few things and learnt of other perspectives from this thread. 

However, trying to find any argument to delegitimise any style of music is probably not much a constructive way to discuss music........

But I have already mentioned that in response to a post asking why I made this thread in the first place.


----------



## Enthusiast

DaveM said:


> Actually, it's too late at night for me to be posting anything profound, but ignoring the fact that neurons are slowing and synapses are failing: during the Classical era, concert venues and salons were filled with music. During the early Romantic period, concert venues and salons were filled with the music and publishers were eager to publish it. During the late Romantic period, concert venues and salons were filled with the music and publishers were eager to publish it.
> 
> Then in the very early 20th century, along comes atonal music. It didn't fill concert halls and salons. Recordings didn't fly off the shelves. After 100 years, nothing has changed except that there seems, if anything, to be evidence of a return to tonality. Shoot the messenger.


I have less excuse (it is mid-morning) but I'm afraid this post is a bit rambling.

The view you express is one that just won't go away. It is legitimate (of course) as an observation but it really is not an argument for or against any style of music. It is about what a significant number of people like in music. Far greater numbers love the most inane pop music (I acknowledge that there is pop music that is not inane). So if popularity tells us anything it seems to be that there is an inverse correlation with how rewarding the music can be.

Also, the trends in popularity that you note don't really track the emergence of atonal music as a dominant force. Most modern (say those who were prominent between 1915-1950) composers did not write atonal music. Atonality slowly gained influence over the generation of composers who became active towards the end of that period.

Today there is, indeed, a good market for contemporary music that looks backwards to a more tonal tradition and some of that music is very accomplished and enjoyable. For me, though, too much (not all) is enjoyable to listen to ... but ultimately disappointing and unmemorable. I can listen to it and get it straight away (no work or familiarity required) but after a few hearings it seems to be going nowhere in my mind. It is like an ornament on my mantelpiece - after a while I barely notice it. Much of it is disposable: a bit like a lot of pop. And, commercially, that is important: it wears out quickly so you need to buy some more.

I think it would be interesting to ask where the market for this sort of music comes from. I don't really mean sociologically so much as what most of that audience wants from their music. I can imagine that for many attending a classical concert that has an uncompromising contemporary piece plonked in among some, say, Mahler or Brahms the experience of the contemporary piece will be more of an ordeal than an experience of wonder. In such a concert it probably makes sense to use modern music that speaks in a language close to what the audience knows. So contemporary music is becoming something more specialised and this is partly because so much of the classical audience have not yet got to an understanding of Schoenberg and Webern. I acknowledge that is true. But I don't understand it.


----------



## Phil loves classical

tonality is as natural as adolescents experience puppy love, and Hollywood Blockbusters achieve their box office numbers


----------



## arpeggio

*So What?*

This debate has been going on for years and has accomplished nothing.

I have mentioned this before in other threads that addressed this issue and I am hesitant to repeat myself.

Is tonal music more natural than atonal music? So what if it is? There is still atonal music that most of us listen to and we enjoy both. A few years ago there was a poll which asked members which they liked the most: atonal, tonal or both: Atonal/Tonal: THE POLL. The winner by over 60% was both.


----------



## DaveM

I played some scales this morning and feel better -particularly C major: C natural, D natural, E natural...


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> This subject always loses itself in a swamp of definitional conflicts. No one should attempt to opine here without stating the definitions of "tonality" and of "natural" they are assuming.
> 
> My definitions are:
> 
> _Tonality:_ a system of musical organization in which the tones of a scale (the sequenced array of tones used in a given type of music) are perceived to have particular systemic relationships to one another, and in which those relationships are exploited according to some hierarchy of importance or prevalence in which one tone of the scale (the "tonic") is felt as centrally important and functions as a point of gravitation, finality, resolution, or repose. Our Western, or "common practice" system of harmonic relationships is one of many possible tonal systems.
> 
> _Natural:_ in an evolutionary context, a phenomenon of human behavior is "natural" if it emerges spontaneously as a result of an innate inclination characteristic of the human species. (In the broadest sense, anything that occurs is "natural," and in the narrowest sense nothing that humans create is "natural," but both of these senses make discussion of this topic impossible and pointless.)
> 
> By the above definitions, tonality, which in various forms appears to have arisen independently all over the world in widely dissimilar circumstances and cultures, indeed seems to merit the term "natural." Considering how tonality functions cognitively in the apprehension of musical form in light of the way human cognition (perception and concept formation) works, and looking at the expressive functions of tonally informed structures in terms of their analogous relationship to dynamic patterns of human affect, we can begin to understand the general human preference for organizing tones on tonal principles. Study of this has been under way across a number of disciplines (music theory, ethnomusicology, psychology, neuroscience, evolutionary biology, etc.).
> 
> P.S. For those who may be alarmed by these thoughts, I'm not suggesting that music "ought" to be tonal, or anything else. I just think it's useful and fascinating to consider why most music is. Understanding this is, I think, one key to the ultimate mysteries of why music is so important to humans and how it affects us so powerfully. But only one key.


Ah, Woodduck, there you go, taking us back into definition-land. I must concede you do a very good job of it, especially with "tonality". As for "natural", however, I think the OP was trying to draw a distinction between sounds produced by human beings (at least those produced intentionally), that one could call synthetic in the broad sense of that word, or artificial or man-made, and those from non-human sources. I also think that is an interesting distinction to make in the context of classical music. The industrial revolution resulted in a large increase in the non-natural sounds we hear on a daily basis, at the expense of the natural sounds. Outside, the sound of automobile traffic is usually constant and pervasive in any urban or suburban environment. Inside, there is often a constant hum of lighting, heating, air conditioning or computer equipment. Birds are still singing and leaves are still rustling, but often they are drowned out by the louder, man-made sounds.
I think this change has had a profound impact on Western music, both classical and non-classical. It is behind many of the developments of "modern" music, another word we struggle to define. Organizing pitches into a recognizable hierarchy, as many species of birds do, is still a basic, central concept. But other concepts, I think largely inspired by our modern soundscape, and some more consistent with tonality than others, have entered the musical lexicon. I don't understand why people here want so badly to make broad-brush condemnations of or embrace this entire phenomenon.


----------



## Thomyum2

ArsMusica said:


> And about 20 years ago I rejected atonality, as a composer and as a listener.
> 
> As I wrote above, your response is typical, i.e., if someone doesn't like atonality, they don't get it. Well, I studied with atonalists, deeply studied and listened to the music of many leading atonalists and composed atonally. Believe me, Baron, *I get atonality completely*, at the very least as well as you do…and I hate it.
> 
> Are we clear on this now?


This isn't intended to provoke or prolong an argument, but I sympathize with Baron Scarpia here. In your previous post, you didn't say you hated atonality, you said it was 'ugly'. Some of us cherish our music the way we would cherish a spouse or a child so naturally we'd react as you probably would too if we said someone in your family was ugly. That said, I would give you the benefit of the doubt that you meant that it's ugly to you, which is OK and I value your opinion, but I would also give Baron Scarpia the benefit of the doubt by assuming that in saying 'don't get', that he (or she) meant that people 'don't get' why atonality is valued by others and not that others simply are incapable of understanding? Let's try to keep the peace here - we all love music and have much to share.


----------



## Woodduck

arpeggio said:


> This debate has been going on for years and has accomplished nothing.
> 
> I have mentioned this before in other threads that addressed this issue and I am hesitant to repeat myself.
> 
> Is tonal music more natural than atonal music? So what if it is? There is still atonal music that most of us listen to and we enjoy both. A few years ago there was a poll which asked members which they liked the most: atonal, tonal or both: Atonal/Tonal: THE POLL. The winner by over 60% was both.


I wonder why some people enter discussions for the sole purpose of expressing contempt for them. How do you know what discussing this subject has accomplished, and for whom? If indeed you've expressed your scorn for this topic before, yet people still seem to want to discuss it, why not take your feeling of hesitation seriously and refrain from repeating yourself?

The interesting bit of information you offer is the fact that over 60% of members who responded to a survey said they enjoy both tonal and atonal music. That statistic would be more meaningful if we knew what they mean by "atonal music," and what percentage of the music they enjoy falls into either of these categories.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> I wonder why some people enter discussions for the sole purpose of expressing contempt for them. How do you know what discussing this subject has accomplished, and for whom? If indeed you've expressed your scorn for this topic before, yet people still seem to want to discuss it, why not take your feeling of hesitation seriously and refrain from repeating yourself?
> 
> The interesting bit of information you offer is the fact that over 60% of members who responded to a survey said they enjoy both tonal and atonal music. That statistic would be more meaningful if we knew what they mean by "atonal music," and what percentage of the music they enjoy falls into either of these categories.


FWIW, your definition of tonality, which you discuss here and have discussed in other threads, is useful, at least to me, because you are careful and explicit about extending it beyond the equal-tempered, diatonic Western scale. Unfortunately, many listeners, especially those who have little experience with or interest in the music of different eras and non-Western cultures, might have a much more narrow concept of tonality. That leads to a lot of misunderstanding and acrimonious debate here.
Your comment about the tonal v. atonal music poll is well taken, but I would go further and suggest such polls are inevitably limited in significance and usefulness.
I say better to examine what music is actually getting played in our society today, and I respectfully suggest that has to include on TV, radio, the internet, bars, coffee shops, and these days even video games as well as in the concert hall, to judge the impact of modern concepts that involve different approaches to tonal hierarchies, or are unrelated to the idea of tonal hierarchies altogether, on today's Western music. Yes, much of that material can't be considered "classical" or art music, but it ends up filtering into the classical canon. If you do that, imho you'll find that tonality, even in the narrow sense, is still a central feature, but other concepts, some inconsistent with conventional Western tonality, have filtered in, and are here to stay.


----------



## arpeggio

Woodduck said:


> I wonder why some people enter discussions for the sole purpose of expressing contempt for them. How do you know what discussing this subject has accomplished, and for whom? If indeed you've expressed your scorn for this topic before, yet people still seem to want to discuss it, why not take your feeling of hesitation seriously and refrain from repeating yourself?
> 
> The interesting bit of information you offer is the fact that over 60% of members who responded to a survey said they enjoy both tonal and atonal music. That statistic would be more meaningful if we knew what they mean by "atonal music," and what percentage of the music they enjoy falls into either of these categories.


I refuse to believe that a member of your intelligence does not already know the answers to all of your questions. You have been a member and a veteran of these debates for over four years.

The bottom line is again so what? So what if you are correct? So what if I am wrong.? No matter how you want to define atonal most of the members have very diverse tastes and enjoy tonal and atonal music. It is not my problem if some of our members are unable to deal with those of us who like Carter as well as Beethoven.

I have been following this entire thread. One can see that from all of the likes that I have made. I show up and make one remark and I have no business being here. Well excuse me. Maybe some can see why I have been hesitant to say anything.


----------



## millionrainbows

ArsMusica said:


> Tonality is the preferred system for reflecting the *entire range* of human emotions.
> 
> Atonality is completely incapable of reflecting joy, ebullience, happiness, uplift, etc. It is only good for reflecting dark and negative emotions...and tonality can do that too.
> 
> The emotional palette of atonality is extremely limited.


What about Schoenberg's "Vergangenes" above? to me, it has all sorts of emotions, not all fearful. The recurring ostinato figure on the celeste is extremely moving to me, esp. when the strings come in. It's like a childhood memory which resurfaces.

Plus, music should do and be more than just evoke emotion. "Emotion" is a one-dimensional term. I prefer "states of being".


----------



## millionrainbows

DaveM said:


> You mean what happens when composers try to ignore these constructs?


No; I mean that all art is "artifice."


----------



## millionrainbows

ArsMusica said:


> "When I think of the avant-garde, I have this image in my head: I am sitting in an airplane, the sky is blue and I see a landscape. And then the plane flies into a cloud: everything is grey-white. At first the grey seems interesting if you compare it to the earlier landscape, but soon becomes monotonous. I then fly out of the cloud and again see the landscape, which has completely changed in the meantime.
> 
> "I believe we have flown into such a cloud of high entropy and great disorder…. The instant I emerge out of the cloud, I see, and this is being very critical, that the music we wrote was in fact rather ugly."
> 
> Gyorgy Ligeti
> 
> Atonality: various shades of gray...monotonous...*ugly*...


Then, conversely, you are saying that the pondering of ONE NOTE is the most interesting thing in the world, and LaMont Young would agree.

Also, North Indian masters of raga say that "understanding of music comes from the understanding of one note."


----------



## Haydn70

Thomyum2 said:


> This isn't intended to provoke or prolong an argument, but I sympathize with Baron Scarpia here. In your previous post, you didn't say you hated atonality, you said it was 'ugly'. Some of us cherish our music the way we would cherish a spouse or a child so naturally we'd react as you probably would too if we said someone in your family was ugly. That said, I would give you the benefit of the doubt that you meant that it's ugly to you, which is OK and I value your opinion, but I would also give Baron Scarpia the benefit of the doubt by assuming that in saying 'don't get', that he (or she) meant that people 'don't get' why atonality is valued by others and not that others simply are incapable of understanding? Let's try to keep the peace here - we all love music and have much to share.


Baron's first response to my original post was a video clip of Michael Jordan laughing…at me and my opinion. I didn't get a reasoned response but a silly one of that nature. You sympathize with him in that?

Don't worry about giving me the benefit of the doubt…I'll remove the doubt: I meant it is ugly…period. I am not a relativist.

As for the "don't get" thing:

I used to post on the Amazon Classical Music site. Both there and here I have read scores of posts from pro-atonalists accusing anti-atonalists of disliking/hating atonality because they "just don't understand it" or they "are close-minded" or they "need to open their ears" or they "haven't given it chance". In short, it is always the fault of anti-atonalists, not the music.

If you read my post in this thread which explains my background, you will see I did much more than give it a chance and I 'got it' and 'get it' completely. And while most anti-atonalists may not have a similar background I would wager that most have given atonality a chance.

We get it and we don't like it.


----------



## Fredx2098

Arguing about whether tonality or atonality is more natural or efficient in conveying ideas seems about as useful as arguing about which language is more natural or efficient in conveying ideas. There may be languages that are older, I understand why people speak them, and I like the way they sound, but English is the most efficient way for me to comprehend ideas because it is the language I am most fluent in using.


----------



## DaveM

shirime said:


> Actually I used the adjective *'natural'* (which I derived from the noun *'nature'*) in the OP to refer to something objectively existing in nature, as opposed to how human beings have altered it according to cultural and historical preferences.
> 
> The adjective 'natural' has been used by me since the OP to refer specifically to that.


I responded to this post earlier, but it has became apparent to me this morning that there is a cross-pollination going on between this thread and the *Classical Music came to an end 60 years ago* and the word 'natural' has been bandied about there which influenced my comment in this thread on the adjective 'natural'. So the use of the word 'natural' has gone beyond that in the OP partly because of its use in the other thread by a poster or posters who are also posting here. For example:



millionrainbows said:


> I define "tonality" even more broadly.
> 
> ...Thus, Western tonal practices, which "spread this vertical phenomena out" over longer spans of time, into "logical progressions" which become formulae for *Western tonality, and much pop and even folk music, is a construct, and artifice, which is really not natural in itself*. In fact, these practices and formulae become, in essence, an "ideology" of sorts.





millionrainbows said:


> I think the reason avante-garde music fails for most listeners is that they are disconnected from the immediacy of their being-in-time. They are unable to "be here now" and hear the pitches *without the "unnatural" intellectual constructions of Western tonality*, namely, the "spreading out over time" of these harmonic principles.


----------



## fluteman

arpeggio said:


> I refuse to believe that a member of your intelligence does not already know the answers to all of your questions. You have been a member and a veteran of these debates for over four years.
> 
> The bottom line is again so what? So what if you are correct? So what if I am wrong.? No matter how you want to define it most of the members have very diverse tastes and enjoy tonal and atonal music. It is not my problem if some of our members are unable to deal with those of us who like Carter as well as Beethoven.
> 
> I have been following this entire thread. One can see that from all of the likes that I have made. I show up and make one remark and I have no business being here. Well excuse me. Maybe some can see why have been hesitant to say anything.


I for one have appreciated your posts here at TC, and always welcome your opinions. I will say with regard to your most recent post, for me the whole idea of trying to put all music under either the "tonal" or the "atonal" banner and then having the two sides battle it out just isn't a useful exercise. As I said above, in my opinion certain concepts other than, and sometimes inconsistent with, traditional tonality play a more significant role in today's Western music than they did before the early 20th century. Sometimes those modern concepts have a very subtle influence, and sometimes a very dramatic and obvious influence, on the proceedings.
I don't see how a blanket statement can be applied to all of that incredible variety of music and be of any use.


----------



## SONNET CLV

shirime said:


> Is Tonality based on Nature?
> 
> No.


Am _I_ disappointed!
Here I thought tonality came from the same natural source as Internet Music Forums. Shucks! I feel I've been snookered!


----------



## amfortas

ArsMusica said:


> I used to post on the Amazon Classical Music site. Both there and here I have read scores of posts from pro-atonalists accusing anti-atonalists of disliking/hating atonality because they "just don't understand it" or they "are close-minded" or they "need to open their ears" or they "haven't given it chance". In short, it is always the fault of anti-atonalists, not the music.
> 
> If you read my post in this thread which explains my background, you will see I did much more than give it a chance and I 'got it' and 'get it' completely. And while most anti-atonalists may not have a similar background I would wager that most have given atonality a chance.
> 
> We get it and we don't like it.


And the "pro-atonalists" get it and like it. May as well leave it at that.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> Ah, Woodduck, there you go, taking us back into definition-land. I must concede you do a very good job of it, especially with "tonality". As for "natural", however, I think the OP was trying to draw a distinction between sounds produced by human beings (at least those produced intentionally), that once could call synthetic in the broad sense of that word, or artificial or man-made, and those from non-human sources.


If we take "natural" to mean "not produced by human beings," there's not much to discuss, is there? But, as has long been known and as the OP points out, the harmonic series provides raw material for tonal systems and scales; the fundamental pitch and the first and second overtones - the octave and the fifth - are basic components of tonal systems all over the world, and provide our system with its tonic and dominant (the fact that men's and women's voices are about an octave apart neatly reinforces this tonal model). Millionrainbows is fond of discussing the acoustical basis of tonality, and I needn't go farther into it here. But yes, tonality obviously has an acoustical source in non-human nature, and man's perception of the innate qualities of pitched sounds seems to be one factor that "naturally" inclines him toward tonal thinking. But it's only one factor.

My personal interest is less in acoustics, which provides no more than a static hierarchy of pitch relationships, and more in music itself as an expressive art - in what humanly significant things are achieved by organizing musical gestures and forms according to tonal principles. There's much more to it than acoustical perception - our perception of the relative consonance and dissonance of intervals and of which tones are "fundamental" - and I feel that one fertile approach to the question of the "naturalness" of tonal thinking is to understand the general nature of human cognition. EdwardBast's post #165, and my response in post #167, take this approach. But there are also emotional and physical functions and activities of the human organism which provide dynamic patterns that music represents, and exploring which of these functions might be represented by specifically tonal activity does, I think, provide further justification for viewing tonality as a natural part of the human urge to musical expression.

The more I consider the subject along all these dimensions of existence - acoustics (the nature of sound), physiology (the nature of our physical processes and movements), psychology (patterns of emotion), cognition (the processes and structures of perception and conceptual thought), and even physics (pervasive patterns in physical nature) - the more inevitable it seems that music would evolve structures that represent and express them and their meaning for human beings. I believe that if music were to vanish from the earth and from human memory tomorrow, it would soon arise again and quickly begin to establish tonicity and hierarchy among its tones. So, rather than say vaguely that tonality is "natural," I would make the more precise, but also more radical, assertion that tonality is a microcosm of the ordering principles in nature as man perceives them and seeks to understand and harness them for the sustenance of his physical, mental, and emotional life.


----------



## millionrainbows

I think "tonality" should be distinguished as an artifice: as a certain way of manifesting harmonic principles of tone-centricity which is created by Man as a music-maker.

Before that, the (vertical and timeless) 'primordial' state of a single fundamental tone and its component harmonics, from which tonality (horizontal thru time) springs, is the 'egg' which I call "the harmonic singularity" (instead of 'tonality' in the broader sense). Perhaps this will clear up some confusion.

Thus, every tone which occurs, and every interval combination, will manifest a centricity within itself, before it "moves" through time or "does" anything in relation to other events in time.

Any "progression" of root movement or narrative change which occurs is _after that fact of the singularity_. This _movement of music through time is what creates the experience of tone-centricity which can be broadly called "tonality," _(although this term used in such a broad sense confuses many academics)_._ Thus, it occurs naturally and is ubiquitous thru many different cultures and folk musics, as a natural consequence of Man's "being-in-time."

The pentatonic scale is a good example of this "universal sense of centricity." (see the Bobby MacFerrin video link). This is because the harmonic content of a pentatonic scale is based on the projection of fifths (C-G-D-A-E)=(C-D-E-G-A), which is the most prominent and consonant harmonic of the fundamental tone.

Thus, "tonality" is the manifestation of time, and of Man's "being-in -time." It's relations and centricity are based on the harmonic singularity from which it springs, and which it tries to manifest as musical meaning and patterns of relations.


----------



## Fredx2098

amfortas said:


> And the "pro-atonalists" get it and like it. May as well leave it at that.


That would be nice.

It doesn't seem like any "pro-atonalists" are trying to argue that atonal music is inherently better than tonal music, including myself. It seems like people who prefer tonal music are interpreting the OP as implying that tonal music is less natural and should be liked less. That's certainly not my point, but the opposite seems to be the point of people opposing my ideas.

A common trait among people who prefer traditions seems to be aggressively arguing that their traditions are the only logical way to think and feigning offense at anyone who thinks differently.


----------



## Thomyum2

ArsMusica said:


> Baron's first response to my original post was a video clip of Michael Jordan laughing…at me and my opinion. I didn't get a reasoned response but a silly one of that nature. You sympathize with him in that?


Well, no, I don't sympathize with that, but I didn't see that post when I responded.



ArsMusica said:


> As for the "don't get" thing:
> 
> I used to post on the Amazon Classical Music site. Both there and here I have read scores of posts from pro-atonalists accusing anti-atonalists of disliking/hating atonality because they "just don't understand it" or they "are close-minded" or they "need to open their ears" or they "haven't given it chance". In short, it is always the fault of anti-atonalists, not the music.
> 
> If you read my post in this thread which explains my background, you will see I did much more than give it a chance and I 'got it' and 'get it' completely. And while most anti-atonalists may not have a similar background I would wager that most have given atonality a chance.
> 
> We get it and we don't like it.


I know the feeling - I've also become infuriated when people have accused me of 'not be open' or used other similar derogatory terms to suggest that if I just didn't like something, it was due to my own deficiency, and my post was not intended in that spirit. But at the same time, I've had the experience over and over in my life of returning to some of that music many years later and finding that I now hear it in new ways that I didn't before. So when I hear that someone loves something that I didn't like, rather than disagree, I usually take that as an opportunity to try to find out what it is they hear in it, and give it another try and listen to it again and try to hear it in a new way. And it often opens up new worlds of music for me. (But not always - sometimes it still sounds ugly.)  In any case, like I said, not trying to provoke an argument here, just again saying it's hard not to feel hurt when someone disparages something you value, as we both seem to agree. So I guess we can also agree to disagree on whether or not 'atonality' is ugly, that's OK.


----------



## millionrainbows

The reason I make the distinction between the "harmonic singularity" and "tonality through time" is to emphasize that, generally speaking, "modern" or atonal music is still viable harmonically, and effective as music, and has musical meaning, even though it does not try to "manifest" the harmonic principle (like tonality does) that all pitched sound originates from. This fact _should not_ make any difference to a listener who is listening freely, without prejudice or unrealistic/misplaced expectations.

Serial music's progression through time nonetheless manifests other principles such as harmonic density and lesser and greater dissonance/consonance; also purely melodic themes, motives, and melodies which are not harmonically derived.

I think the OP's "moral" should be that NO music is completely "natural,' even tonal music.

Even CP tonal music uses an "unnatural" scale, like the major scale with its inherent instability caused by the tritone B-F. Thus, scales are not natural in themselves, but are, at best, "harmonic models."


----------



## Larkenfield

Does this example by John Corigliano have its roots in the musical language of Johann Sebastian Bach or the new vocabulary of Arnold Schoenberg and the 2nd Vienesse School that liberated music from its traditional values? Both are now accepted by the general public, and yet the music purists are still arguing about it. Within the right context it's perfectly normal, natural, appropriate and acceptable. In fact, it's perfectly necessary to convey the strange, the uncomfortable, the abnormal, the unconscious forces of life and it's darker side. Both sides are needed to express the full range of human emotion and the imagination because people are interested in both. The context makes all the difference in the world.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> I would make the more precise, but also more radical, assertion that tonality is a microcosm of the ordering principles in nature as man perceives them.


I think that is a good and true observation, though perhaps not radical or new. And you could say something similar about numbers, basic geometric shapes, both two and three dimensional, colors, and the non-tonal sounds and inflections used to create language. Humans base their ordering principles on what they perceive in nature. Non-natural industrial and post-industrial sounds, at least the way I've defined them, only began to play a major role in the mid to late 19th century. And I suppose you could argue that even those are as natural as bird songs in a way. But our new sound environment has had an impact on our traditional ordering principles.


----------



## millionrainbows

Speaking in response to "Altered States" (and this might be a subject better discussed in the religion forum), tonal music (like Bach) seems to manifest the lighter side of Man's psyche, while atonal and dissonant music (and art like Otto Dix) seems to express darker aspects. If one accepts that one has a dark side, then this should not pose a problem...unless you're "one of those people who doesn't have a dark side." :lol:


----------



## arpeggio

fluteman said:


> I for one have appreciated your posts here at TC, and always welcome your opinions. I will say with regard to your most recent post, for me the whole idea of trying to put all music under either the "tonal" or the "atonal" banner and then having the two sides battle it out just isn't a useful exercise. As I said above, in my opinion certain concepts other than, and sometimes inconsistent with, traditional tonality play a more significant role in today's Western music than they did before the early 20th century. Sometimes those modern concepts have a very subtle influence, and sometimes a very dramatic and obvious influence, on the proceedings.
> I don't see how a blanket statement can be applied to all of that incredible variety of music and be of any use.


Thanks. One of the reasons I try to stay out of discussions is that many other members do a better job of explaining me than me.


----------



## Fredx2098

Larkenfield said:


> Does this have its roots in the musical language of Johann Sebastian Bach or the new vocabulary of Arnold Schoenberg and the 2nd Vienesse School that liberated music from its traditional values? Both are now accepted by the general public, and yet the music purists are still arguing about it. Within the right context it's perfectly normal, natural, appropriate and acceptable. In fact, it's perfectly necessary to convey the strange, the uncomfortable, the abnormal, the unconscious forces of life and it's darker side. Both sides are needed to express the full range of human life and the imagination because people are interested in both. The context makes all the difference in the world.


Depending on what you mean by roots, it sounds like the style traces back to both of those people. In terms of who it's directly inspired by, the first half sounds more like Xenakis and Marin, and the second half like very chromatic Romantic music.

Like I said, I do not believe that 12-tone serialism is a liberation from traditional values; it's just another ideology for thinking of and composing music. In my opinion, strict tonality and strict atonality are both limiting in similar ways and to a similar extent, which is why I favor a more or less evenly balanced chromaticism. The piece you linked to is evenly balanced as a whole, but it is divided into a more atonal and a more tonal half. As to how it conveys ideas, I believe the emotions conveyed by that piece are extremely obvious.


----------



## millionrainbows

Fredx2098 said:


> ...In my opinion, strict tonality and strict atonality are both limiting in similar ways and to a similar extent, which is why I favor a more or less evenly balanced chromaticism.


This is how I define "modern musical thought," not as "tonal or atonal" but as new ways of approaching the chromatic collection.


----------



## Fredx2098

millionrainbows said:


> This is how I define "modern musical thought," not as "tonal or atonal" but as new ways of approaching the chromatic collection.


This is why Modern (excluding serialism, though I do love many serial composers/pieces), Romantic, and pre-Baroque are my favorite kinds of classical music. They seem to be less limited by common practice ideals as well as atonal ideals. The "Modernism" of Schoenberg is certainly not a liberation from ideology, just another, new ideology. Like you said, atonality is not the definition of modernism, it is simply one method of thought under the umbrella term of modernism.


----------



## Larkenfield

Fredx2098 said:


> Depending on what you mean by roots, it sounds like the style traces back to both of those people. In terms of who it's directly inspired by, the first half sounds more like Xenakis and Marin, and the second half like very chromatic Romantic music.
> 
> Like I said, I do not believe that 12-tone serialism is a liberation from traditional values; it's just another ideology for thinking of and composing music. In my opinion, strict tonality and strict atonality are both limiting in similar ways and to a similar extent, which is why I favor a more or less evenly balanced chromaticism. The piece you linked to is evenly balanced as a whole, but it is divided into a more atonal and a more tonal half. As to how it conveys ideas, I believe the emotions conveyed by that piece are extremely obvious.


People are welcome to think of all music as being the expression of an ideology of some kind. But all ideologies are of the mind, and music has a visceral quality that can go beyond the mind--people can just react without thinking or believing anything--and this kind of an instinctive reaction is too often forgotten or ignored by those who want to pin everything down to a fixed ideology and logic. It ignores the reality of the unconscious mind. If someone comes at you with a knife, are you afraid because you think you should be afraid because of the ideology of fear, or because it's an actual fearful situation? One is imaginary, the product of thought, and the other is real. One is a thinking state and the other a feeling state.

Schoenberg's music was normal in its inevitability of coming into existence, but it was still a radical departure from how music had been composed up to then and a shock to the system of many listeners. Leonard Bernstein describe it as "feeling the air from another planet, " and in my opinion, it still is.


----------



## Fredx2098

Larkenfield said:


> People are welcome to think of all music as being the expression of an ideology of some kind. But all ideologies are of the mind, and music has a visceral quality that can go beyond the mind--people can just react without thinking or believing anything--and this kind of an instinctive reaction is too often forgotten or ignored by those who want to pin everything down to a fixed ideology and logic. It ignores the reality of the unconscious mind. If someone comes at you with a knife, are you afraid because you think you should afraid because of the ideology of fear, or because it's an actual fearful situation? One is imaginary, the product of thought, and the other is real. One is a thinking state and the other a feeling state.


All music and art is of the mind. No art is as direct as someone coming to stab you or to give you money, or whatever the opposite situation would be. It seems just as likely for someone to like tonal music in an academic way as it is to like atonal music in the same way, and just as likely for someone to like either because of how it makes them feel. The music I like is in no way based on academic or intellectual reasons, not the tonal music, not the atonal music, not the chromatic music, not the drone music, not the noise music. It seems much more likely for someone to feel drawn to the famous tonal composers simply because it's what people are exposed to the most and it's what is lauded most often, than for someone to like atonal music for intellectual reasons.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Fredx2098 said:


> I agree with this mostly. However, there are some bases of tonality in physics, due the complementary oscillations of certain frequencies. Just because there is some physical reason for tonality doesn't make it ideal though. I think quite the opposite. I find dissonance much more interesting than consonance, if you haven't guessed by now.
> 
> Tonal music is like representative art. It creates something familiar and harmonious, but there is a limit to how creative it can be. I don't think art should be about recreating what is known to sound pleasant to the majority of people. It reminds me of The Fountainhead, how Roark does not want to create architecture in a Greek style or Renaissance style or Victorian style, but instead wants only to create in his own style. I think that is the way art should be. That's part of why I like Feldman so much. It doesn't sound like he is inspired by many other composers. He does what he wants to do, with no concern for the silly arbitrary "rules" that people have made up before him.
> 
> Not to say that 12-tone atonal serialism is ideal either. Feldman made tonal sounds sometimes as well. I think one of the most prevalent natural "rules" of art is the balance of repetition or familiarity with variation and new creativity.


I just want to comment that I love "The Fountainhead", and "Anthem" too. I'm no Objectivist and think it's highly flawed, but I the reason I loved The Fountainhead is exactly for the ideas you stated it represents; that art should be expressive and honest and not rehashed and unoriginal.


----------



## Fredx2098

Captainnumber36 said:


> I just want to comment that I love "The Fountainhead", and "Anthem" too. I'm no Objectivist and think it's highly flawed, but I the reason I loved The Fountainhead is exactly for the ideas you stated it represents; that art should be expressive and honest and not rehashed and unoriginal.


I'm only halfway through The Fountainhead, but I love it so far. It's quite an intense read and requires careful concentration to pick up on the subtle ideas she's talking about (similar to a Feldman piece). I feel like I should read Anthem before I continue on in The Fountainhead, reasons being that it came first and is much shorter.

I feel like her ideas have been misconstrued due to the word libertarian being associated with right-libertarianism nowadays. I feel like if someone claims to be inspired by Rand and is a right-libertarian, then they were inspired by the antagonists in her stories. I could be wrong though.

The Fountainhead doesn't seem to be some kind of political manifesto to me. It seems mostly to do with the arts and rights of self-expression. Again I could be wrong because I'm not extremely familiar with her work/ideas. From the little I know about her ideas, it seems like her mentioning of laissez-faire capitalism is more about what would be ideal in a utopian society rather than what should be done in the real world. It's likely that my interpretation is a bit off though.


----------



## Bulldog

Fredx2098 said:


> The Fountainhead doesn't seem to be some kind of political manifesto to me. It seems mostly to do with the arts and rights of self-expression.


I feel it has little to do with the arts; individuality is the book's foundation.


----------



## Fredx2098

Bulldog said:


> I feel it has little to do with the arts; individuality is the book's foundation.


I meant more how individuality pertains to the arts, with more emphasis on it not being a political philosophy like how most people seem to interpret it.


----------



## Woodduck

Not to get diverted by the controversial Ms. Rand, but she'd have done better to quit with The Fountainhead's independent hero and crazy heroine and not gone on to create a so-called "rational" ethics and politics based on pure egoism. Selfishness is a too-seductive idea for the alienated young, the hurt and the angry, and sociopaths (a frighteningly large proportion of Americans, it seems).


----------



## Fredx2098

Woodduck said:


> Not to get diverted by the controversial Ms. Rand, but she'd have done better to quit with The Fountainhead's independent hero and crazy heroine and not gone on to create a so-called "rational" ethics and politics based on pure egoism. Selfishness is a too-seductive idea for the alienated young, the hurt and the angry, and sociopaths (a frighteningly large proportion of Americans, it seems).


You seem to enjoy dismissing others' ideas but not giving helpful alternative thoughts. You talk about how certain ideas cause young people to become infatuated without saying anything constructive. From what I have read by and about her, it does not seem like she advocates egoism, rather a utilitarian attitude.


----------



## amfortas

Yeah, well, Ayn Rand . . . another instance of how markedly our views can differ. But back to music . . .


----------



## Woodduck

Fredx2098 said:


> You seem to enjoy dismissing others' ideas but not giving helpful alternative thoughts. You talk about how certain ideas cause young people to become infatuated without saying anything constructive. From what I have read by and about her, it does not seem like she advocates egoism, rather a utilitarian attitude.


Not at all. I just didn't think it wise to sidetrack the thread into a complex, irrelevant topic. But if you go on to read Rand's later work, especially her nonfiction, you'll see that she was no utilitarian but a stern ideologue who advocated uncompromising self-interest in every aspect of life, while unfortunately leaving out of consideration aspects of life that didn't support her way of being. The Fountainhead is a terrific, original novel, but it's an early work and only hints (though strongly) at her increasingly rigid and, IMO, dangerous worldview. If you want to appreciate this you must read her yourself.


----------



## Logos

Rand's reaction against Communism was so rabid that she sometimes seems to advocate things simply because the Soviets were against them--almost like an anti-fascist who is strictly carnivorous on the grounds that Hitler was a vegetarian. _Atlas Shrugged_ does however make an excellent doorstop or blunt weapon.


----------



## Woodduck

Larkenfield said:


> People are welcome to think of all music as being the expression of an ideology of some kind. *But all ideologies are of the mind, and music has a visceral quality that can go beyond the mind--people can just react without thinking or believing anything--and this kind of an instinctive reaction is too often forgotten or ignored by those who want to pin everything down to a fixed ideology and logic.* It ignores the reality of the unconscious mind. If someone comes at you with a knife, are you afraid because you think you should afraid because of the ideology of fear, or because it's an actual fearful situation? One is imaginary, the product of thought, and the other is real. One is a thinking state and the other a feeling state.
> 
> Schoenberg's music was normal in t's inevitability of coming into existence, but it was still a radical departure from how music had been composed up to then and a shock to the system of many listeners. Leonard Bernstein describe it as "feeling the air from another planet, " and in my opinion, it still is.


I agree. Music and musical style are not normally the products of ideology. Composers don't compose to the dictates of intellectual theories or books of rules, and listeners don't judge what they hear in terms of them. When art has to appeal to theory in order to be understood or justify itself, that is a problem for someone, whether the artist, the audience, or both.

Music developed slowly over eons in cultures worldwide, and it seems unlikely that for most of that time any general need was felt to explain or justify the forms it took. Its development would have been driven by what people thought sounded good and what spoke to them, and unfamiliar sounds were incorporated when people found them meaningful. Aesthetic philosophy, music theory, and arguments over what music "ought" to sound like came after the fact and are products of advanced civilizations practicing complex art forms. But even such "ideologies" are generally commentaries on music, not sources of or constraints upon musical practice, and audiences are unfamiliar, and mainly and rightfully unconcerned, with them in any case.

In short, music, its composition and enjoyment, is primarily an intuitive experience, and it's the intuitive understanding of a musical style or idiom that allows people to find it expressive of their feelings and values, while providing a context for the enlargement of those values through the incremental assimilation of new musical ideas and sounds. I believe this was still the normal order of things up to the 20th century, and it remained so for most forms of music, even in the "classical" tradition, for much longer.

It did not remain so for Schoenberg and other leading lights of the Modernist period. Chromaticism may have been driving some composers to loosen those tonal constraints Bernstein speaks of, but when Schoenberg decided to break from tonality the move came loaded with justifying ideology from his fertile Teutonic brain. His elaborately rationalized "solution" to music's so-called "crisis," the "method of composing with twelve tones," was to my knowledge the first instance in history of a personally invented principle for structuring music designed to replace an organically evolved but now deliberately rejected one previously felt as a fundamental basis of musical comprehensibility. The idea that serialism and tonality are both "ideologies" and are somehow equally "artificial" inventions just doesn't stand scrutiny. The twelve-tone system has no basis in nature - which is to say, it is not a representation of, abstraction of, or metaphor for any human experience or natural phenomenon. It's a geeky contrivance intended to rescue music - specifically, Schoenberg's music, since most music seems not to have needed rescuing - from the fearful swamp of hyperchromaticism.

Whatever we think of the work of Schoenberg or of the influence he had on music, we have to acknowledge that his "method," and the rationale behind it, helped to move music and the arts generally into an era of unprecedented intellectualization corresponding to, and both feeding off of and reinforcing, the increasing alienation of audiences. In a culture where the meaning of art is no longer intuitive, ideologies and manifestos thrive, until new art movements with new justifications come along to replace them.


----------



## Room2201974

Logos said:


> Rand's reaction against Communism was so rabid that she sometimes seems to advocate things simply because the Soviets were against them


Yes and she seems to have had the opposite reaction to personal immorality!


----------



## Minor Sixthist

Could I ask what OP's objective was in posting this topic? Putting aside the slightly patronizing tone of the emotes and boldface, what are they seeking to prove/disprove?



Woodduck said:


> Considering how tonality functions cognitively in the apprehension of musical form in light of the way human cognition (perception and concept formation) works, and looking at the expressive functions of tonally informed structures in terms of their analogous relationship to dynamic patterns of human affect, we can begin to understand the general human preference for organizing tones on tonal principles.


I'm hoping this wasn't yet another front page TC attempt to smugly sway people away from tonality by presenting rather dilute points (eg, 'what is natural') under the guise of a new sophisticated argument, sprinkled with just enough condescension. Grunting and babbling are surely the most natural, accessible terms of human expression. should we scorn and abandon fluent speech?


----------



## Woodduck

Minor Sixthist said:


> Could I ask what OP's objective was in posting this topic? Putting aside the slightly patronizing tone of the emotes and boldface, what are they seeking to prove/disprove?
> 
> I'm hoping this wasn't yet another front page TC attempt to smugly sway people away from tonality by presenting rather dilute points (eg, 'what is natural') under the guise of a new sophisticated argument, sprinkled with just enough condescension. Grunting and babbling are surely the most natural, accessible terms of human expression. should we scorn and abandon fluent speech?


Well, since you've included a quote from me; I suppose I'll answer this odd broadside against whomever.

The question of whether tonality and its absence are in any sense natural is frequently raised. Some of us find it interesting. We hope you can live with this - or, if you find it difficult to live with, resign yourself to it with some grace.

As far as your last rhetorical question is concerned, it appears to assume that naturalness implies crudity. I can't imagine where you got that idea.


----------



## Minor Sixthist

Woodduck said:


> Well, since you've included a quote from me; I suppose I'll answer this odd broadside against whomever.
> 
> The question of whether tonality and its absence are in any sense natural is frequently raised. Some of us find it interesting. We hope you can live with this - or, if you find it difficult to live with, resign yourself to it with some grace.
> 
> As far as your last rhetorical question is concerned, it appears to assume that naturalness implies crudity. I can't imagine where you got that idea.


I don't find it difficult to live with.

My question was whether the point was to *favor* the natural over the constructed; whether anyone was implying an obligation to do so, though you chose to dismiss that question. I wasn't trying to liken naturalness to crudity, I was trying to better understand what the original point for or against tonality was. If the original post was simply a set of observations, then maybe it was my fault for assuming anyone was trying to argue for one or the other.

I don't see how the birdsong or frog's croaks mentioned in the analogies of the original post suggest any less 'crudity' than the human sounds I mentioned in my own. I think you could say the crude and the natural suggest basically the same thing, just in opposite connotations.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Is God Atonal?


----------



## Guest

Minor Sixthist said:


> I don't find it difficult to live with.
> 
> My question was whether the point was to *favor* the natural over the constructed; whether anyone was implying an obligation to do so, though you chose to dismiss that question. I wasn't trying to liken naturalness to crudity, I was trying to better understand what the original point for or against tonality was. If the original post was simply a set of observations, then maybe it was my fault for assuming anyone was trying to argue for one or the other.
> 
> I don't see how the birdsong or frog's croaks mentioned in the analogies of the original post suggest any less 'crudity' than the human sounds I mentioned in my own. I think you could say the crude and the natural suggest basically the same thing, just in opposite connotations.


No, I mean this:



shirime said:


> These *adjustments* to the _natural order_ is what makes tonality so interesting, so rich and so diverse in its usage through time.


I like to celebrate human creativity, and when it comes to music it's really interesting to see how over time we have created our own constructed musical languages to suit aesthetic trends. Common Practice Era tonality is one, Ragas are another, and when it comes to individual composers and musicians each have their own aesthetic interests. I am currently really enjoying some music by Lachenmann, for example, which certainly sounds different to the Neuwirth I was listening to yesterday.

This is why I made the thread, (and another statement as to what I find interesting about the way we listen, in response to some earlier posts that link the discussion to psychology):
I have seen arguments that tonal music is 'derived from nature' or that there is something about the _music_ that makes it more universally understood; the way I have come to understand stylistic trends across time and around the world, and stylistic diversity in general whether the music is tonal or not is that human beings will instinctively listen for or express the things they are interested in when they listen to or make music. These things are the result of cultural or historical trends. We live in an increasingly globally connected world, so styles and tastes in music and even the way we listen to music has more diverse influences. Our personality (perhaps trying to understand and find patterns, find breaks to patterns, interesting tone colours, spatialisation or whatever) will mean that music psychologically affects each one of us differently anyway, but it's ultimately down to how we_ listen_ rather than innate qualities of the music itself that allow us to connect with sound in the way we do.


----------



## Minor Sixthist

shirime said:


> No, I mean this:
> 
> I like to celebrate human creativity, and when it comes to music it's really interesting to see how over time we have created our own constructed musical languages to suit aesthetic trends. Common Practice Era tonality is one, Ragas are another, and when it comes to individual composers and musicians each have their own aesthetic interests. I am currently really enjoying some music by Lachenmann, for example, which certainly sounds different to the Neuwirth I was listening to yesterday.
> 
> This is why I made the thread, (and another statement as to what I find interesting about the way we listen, in response to some earlier posts that link the discussion to psychology):
> I have seen arguments that tonal music is 'derived from nature' or that there is something about the _music_ that makes it more universally understood; the way I have come to understand stylistic trends across time and around the world, and stylistic diversity in general whether the music is tonal or not is that human beings will instinctively listen for or express the things they are interested in when they listen to or make music. These things are the result of cultural or historical trends. We live in an increasingly globally connected world, so styles and tastes in music and even the way we listen to music has more diverse influences. Our personality, perhaps trying to understand and find patterns, breaks to patterns, intersting tone colours, spatliasation or whatever, psychologically affect each one of us differently anyway, but it's ultimately down to how we_ listen_ rather than innate qualities of the music itself that allow us to connect with sound in the way we do


Thank you for the clarification. You definitely helped me better understand your argument and more importantly the responses I continue to comb through. I had not previously considered whether tonality rose from nature. It's surely a more complex question than it seems on the surface. Most importantly I appreciate that you thoughtfully considered my question rather than shrug it off as a pointless criticism. It's more than respectable when one is able to level a reasonable response to a potential opposition rather than take the easier route of dismissing it


----------



## Guest

Minor Sixthist said:


> Thank you for the clarification. You definitely helped me better understand your argument and more importantly the responses I continue to comb through. I had not previously considered whether tonality rose from nature. It's surely a more complex question than it seems on the surface. Most importantly I appreciate that you thoughtfully considered my question rather than shrug it off as a pointless criticism. It's more than respectable when one is able to level a reasonable response to a potential opposition rather than take the easier route of dismissing it


No worries!

I slightly hoped that this could be at least a little bit of a provocative thread, because it was formed out of a reaction to provocative statements from others..... :devil:

But there are some wonderful ideas from a great many members who have contributed to the discussion anyway, which is always more interesting to read than a pointless back and forth between members who simply disagree.


----------



## zootMutant

shirime said:


> ... Our personality (perhaps trying to understand and find patterns, find breaks to patterns, interesting tone colours, spatialisation or whatever) will mean that music psychologically affects each one of us differently anyway, but it's ultimately down to how we_ listen_ rather than innate qualities of the music itself that allow us to connect with sound in the way we do.


Very nicely said.


----------



## amfortas

Woodduck said:


> The Fountainhead is a terrific, original novel, but it's an early work and only hints (though strongly) at her increasingly rigid and, IMO, dangerous worldview.


Since we went there anyway . . . I'd be even less charitable toward _The Fountainhead_, though I'll grant its originality.

Different strokes.


----------



## Thomyum2

Woodduck said:


> In short, music, its composition and enjoyment, is primarily an intuitive experience, and it's the intuitive understanding of a musical style or idiom that allows people to find it expressive of their feelings and values, while providing a context for the enlargement of those values through the incremental assimilation of new musical ideas and sounds. I believe this was still the normal order of things up to the 20th century, and it remained so for most forms of music, even in the "classical" tradition, for much longer.
> 
> It did not remain so for Schoenberg and other leading lights of the Modernist period. Chromaticism may have been driving some composers to loosen those tonal constraints Bernstein speaks of, but when Schoenberg decided to break from tonality the move came loaded with justifying ideology from his fertile Teutonic brain. His elaborately rationalized "solution" to music's so-called "crisis," the "method of composing with twelve tones," was to my knowledge the first instance in history of a personally invented principle for structuring music designed to replace an organically evolved but now deliberately rejected one previously felt as a fundamental basis of musical comprehensibility. The idea that serialism and tonality are both "ideologies" and are somehow equally "artificial" inventions just doesn't stand scrutiny. The twelve-tone system has no basis in nature - which is to say, it is not a representation of, abstraction of, or metaphor for any human experience or natural phenomenon. It's a geeky contrivance intended to rescue music - specifically, Schoenberg's music, since most music seems not to have needed rescuing - from the fearful swamp of hyperchromaticism.
> 
> Whatever we think of the work of Schoenberg or of the influence he had on music, we have to acknowledge that his "method," and the rationale behind it, helped to move music and the arts generally into an era of unprecedented intellectualization corresponding to, and both feeding off of and reinforcing, the increasing alienation of audiences. In a culture where the meaning of art is no longer intuitive, ideologies and manifestos thrive, until new art movements with new justifications come along to replace them.


Very thought-provoking post which I largely agree with. I've always found the topic of how Schoenberg altered the course of musical development to be a fascinating one. I mentioned in another post (and which some people didn't necessarily agree with me) that I've always felt that it was more than just a coincidence that the invention of serialism happened in the same era as the development of sound recording. While I do agree that music enjoyment is largely intuitive as you say, I also can't help but feel that prior to widespread availability of recording, music was more 'valued' by listeners because it was simply less available, and I can't help but think that listeners gave it more of their conscious attention when it was something you could get whenever and wherever you wanted by simply turning on a switch - in other words, it was less 'taken for granted' than. In my mind (and maybe only there), Schoenberg picked up on the listening audience's drift away from a habit really listening attentively to music toward a style of listening that was superficial and just for 'enjoyment' or consumption, and he created a form of music that was completely disconnected from tonality and entirely abstract - in a sense a form of music that _couldn't_ be just enjoyed passively but actually _required_ the listener's full conscious attention. Now, of course a music such as this would alienate listeners, but I think it's premature to judge his it just based on that. I've heard that Schoenberg always believed that his music would one day become popular, and though I think that may be a lot farther off than he thought, I do think it says something that his music has persisted and that there has been continued interest in what he did. Perhaps his time has just not yet come, or perhaps it never will.


----------



## EdwardBast

Captainnumber36 said:


> I just want to comment that I love "The Fountainhead", and "Anthem" too. I'm no Objectivist and think it's highly flawed, but I the reason I loved The Fountainhead is exactly for the ideas you stated it represents; that art should be expressive and honest and not rehashed and unoriginal.


I detest Rand's writing. Her characters are cardboard cutouts with ideologies pasted to them. Atlas Shrugged is the worst in this regard. All of the major characters speak with the same voice and interchangeably mouth the same ideas. Her women like it rough. The heroine goes through a string of men looking for the most ideologically pure and dumping the others along the way. When she finds the perfect specimen he throws her on a sack in a tunnel and gives her the best twenty seconds of sex she has ever had.  And the cliches, the cliches!


----------



## Nereffid

amfortas said:


> Since we went there anyway . . . I'd be even less charitable toward _The Fountainhead_, though I'll grant its originality.
> 
> Different strokes.


I've not read any Rand, but I've seen the 1949 King Vidor movie, which is one of the funniest films I've ever seen. The whole notion of good vs evil architects pre-empts Monty Python by some 20 years. :devil:


----------



## Haydn70

In a very interesting article about Pierre Boulez, entitled 'The Blind Spots of Pierre Boulez', Max Raimi, violist with the Chicago Symphony, discusses a choice made by then-music director Daniel Barenboim for the first concert given by the symphony after 9/11/:

"One of Boulez's staunchest allies was my old Music Director, Daniel Barenboim. It was under Barenboim's auspices that Boulez was named Principal Guest Conductor of the Chicago Symphony, and Barenboim frequently programmed the music of Boulez and his acolytes. He never deigned to conduct the 20th century composers Boulez would have described as "useless", unless he was compelled to accompany something along the lines of a Prokofiev concerto. He was pretty open about his disdain for the more tonal currents of our time. But one time, he did condescend to conduct Samuel Barber. It was our first concert in Chicago after 9/11, and he selected Barber's Adagio for Strings to commemorate the tragedy.

I always wanted to ask him why, when it came time to bring people together in a shared emotion (Wasn't this a prime motivation for why humanity has always turned to music in the first place?), his esteemed Schoenberg and Boulez suddenly weren't up to the job and he had to resort to the benighted modal harmonies of Samuel Barber. Doesn't this tell us something profound about the limitations of the "progress" that Pierre Boulez always insisted we had made?"

The article is on a site named *Future Symphony Institute* whose motto is 'Orchestrate a renaissance'.

For those of you here who are, like I am, sick of the ugliness and irrationality of modernism and post-modernism, artistic and otherwise, it is an excellent site.

Link to the site:
http://www.futuresymphony.org

Link to above-mentioned article:
http://www.futuresymphony.org/the-blind-spots-of-pierre-boulez/


----------



## Guest

ArsMusica said:


> In a very interesting article about Pierre Boulez, entitled 'The Blind Spots of Pierre Boulez', Max Raimi, violist with the Chicago Symphony, discusses a choice made by then-music director Daniel Barenboim for the first concert given by the symphony after 9/11/:
> 
> "One of Boulez's staunchest allies was my old Music Director, Daniel Barenboim. It was under Barenboim's auspices that Boulez was named Principal Guest Conductor of the Chicago Symphony, and Barenboim frequently programmed the music of Boulez and his acolytes. He never deigned to conduct the 20th century composers Boulez would have described as "useless", unless he was compelled to accompany something along the lines of a Prokofiev concerto. He was pretty open about his disdain for the more tonal currents of our time. But one time, he did condescend to conduct Samuel Barber. It was our first concert in Chicago after 9/11, and he selected Barber's Adagio for Strings to commemorate the tragedy.
> 
> I always wanted to ask him why, when it came time to bring people together in a shared emotion (Wasn't this a prime motivation for why humanity has always turned to music in the first place?), his esteemed Schoenberg and Boulez suddenly weren't up to the job and he had to resort to the benighted modal harmonies of Samuel Barber. Doesn't this tell us something profound about the limitations of the "progress" that Pierre Boulez always insisted we had made?"
> 
> The article is on a site named *Future Symphony Institute* whose motto is 'Orchestrate a renaissance'.
> 
> For those of you here who are, like I am, sick of the ugliness and irrationality of modernism and post-modernism, artistic and otherwise, it is an excellent site.
> 
> Link to the site:
> http://www.futuresymphony.org
> 
> Link to above-mentioned article:
> http://www.futuresymphony.org/the-blind-spots-of-pierre-boulez/


It was for the very obvious reason that he was looking for the lowest common denominator that would have resonance with the broadest possible audience, and something sad by an American composer. It is a clear example of [Boulez'] Barenboim's humanity and willingness to put aside his own aesthetic preferences when a higher purpose requires it.


----------



## Thomyum2

Interesting article. The Barber Adagio is indeed a moving work as well as one that I would consider a 'great' piece. It's unfortunate that Boulez would have dismissed it so.

But I'd mention that Barber's music has elements of both modernism as well as tonality - the melody of Barber's _Nocturne for Piano_, in fact, is a 12-tone row. I don't think it's as black and white as that and most modern music doesn't so neatly fall into one or the other of those categories, at least by my ear.


----------



## Woodduck

EdwardBast said:


> I detest Rand's writing. Her characters are cardboard cutouts with ideologies pasted to them. Atlas Shrugged is the worst in this regard. All of the major characters speak with the same voice and interchangeably mouth the same ideas. Her women like it rough. The heroine goes through a string of men looking for the most ideologically pure and dumping the others along the way. When she finds the perfect specimen he throws her on a sack in a tunnel and gives her the best twenty seconds of sex she has ever had.  And the cliches, the cliches!


You old curmudgeon, EB! (I'm one too, so I know whereof I speak.) Rand's novels are ideal fantasy fodder for the American adolescent - technicolor dreams of supercharged sex, stainless steel heroes with angular features, grotesque villains with cartoonish names, surprises around every corner, virtue triumphant, evil vanquished, and a paean to the personal power, wealth, self-righteous grandiosity, and utter contempt for losers (including most of us) that every boy and girl who works hard has an inalienable right to. If you can get through a seventy-page dissertation on the law of identity, what's not to love?


----------



## Enthusiast

ArsMusica said:


> In a very interesting article about Pierre Boulez, entitled 'The Blind Spots of Pierre Boulez', Max Raimi, violist with the Chicago Symphony, discusses a choice made by then-music director Daniel Barenboim for the first concert given by the symphony after 9/11/:
> 
> "One of Boulez's staunchest allies was my old Music Director, Daniel Barenboim. It was under Barenboim's auspices that Boulez was named Principal Guest Conductor of the Chicago Symphony, and Barenboim frequently programmed the music of Boulez and his acolytes. He never deigned to conduct the 20th century composers Boulez would have described as "useless", unless he was compelled to accompany something along the lines of a Prokofiev concerto. He was pretty open about his disdain for the more tonal currents of our time. But one time, he did condescend to conduct Samuel Barber. It was our first concert in Chicago after 9/11, and he selected Barber's Adagio for Strings to commemorate the tragedy.
> 
> I always wanted to ask him why, when it came time to bring people together in a shared emotion (Wasn't this a prime motivation for why humanity has always turned to music in the first place?), his esteemed Schoenberg and Boulez suddenly weren't up to the job and he had to resort to the benighted modal harmonies of Samuel Barber. Doesn't this tell us something profound about the limitations of the "progress" that Pierre Boulez always insisted we had made?"
> 
> The article is on a site named *Future Symphony Institute* whose motto is 'Orchestrate a renaissance'.
> 
> For those of you here who are, like I am, sick of the ugliness and irrationality of modernism and post-modernism, artistic and otherwise, it is an excellent site.
> 
> Link to the site:
> http://www.futuresymphony.org
> 
> Link to above-mentioned article:
> http://www.futuresymphony.org/the-blind-spots-of-pierre-boulez/


Why quote extensively from someone who clearly held a strong grudge. You can get that sort of thing from any sufficiently disgruntled employee after a change that they personally didn't like and that they personally are not big enough to see in context. Nasty stuff, in my opinion. He should get over himself.


----------



## millionrainbows

Although tonality and atonality are not 'literally' ideologies, they are manifestations of ideologies.

For example, tonality is hierarchically structured: with a dominant root tone at the top of the pyramid, to which all other subordinate tones relate. This is a very Western way of thinking, as opposed to 'tribal' thinking, or relativistic/scientific thinking, where all members are equal.

Tonality also reflects Western religion, in the way that "all things are related to God", which is also an hierarchy.

As reflected in our calendar system and measurement of time, tonality also uses "1" and not "zero," as serial thought does. There is no "zero" day or month in calendars, and no "zero" year (it goes back from 1 B.C., and forward from 1 A.D., with no "zero" year. Therefore, tonal music follows an ordinal system, because it deals with pitches as members of an hierarchy, with "1" being the most important. Serial thought does not do this; it uses a number line, and usually by convention, "zero" is the starting quantity of a set. This facilitates addition, subtraction, etc., as serial thought deals with pitch-interval distances as _quantity,_ not _identity.

_This connection of ordinal number with "being" is also reflected in how we say babies are "6 months old" or "1 year old," but are never referred to as being "zero years old" at birth. This is because _being exists in time. _In other words, the passing of time is equated with being.
These two number systems are different ways of thinking, and generally serialism is more scientific and mathematical, dealing with intervals as quantities only without reference to a root or key, whereas tonality deals with pitch as "identity" or "being" as a distinct member-place in an hierarchy, in relation to the key or root note (God).

On a number line, going backwards from 1 towards 0 creates fractions, which get infinitely smaller. Going from 1 to 2, and so on creates ever-increasing quantities toward infinity.

The number "zero" was not allowed for centuries, for religious reasons: if God was the creator of everything, there could be no "zero" or nothingness.

Thus, serialism represents the secular and scientific way of thinking, as opposed to the religious-derived way of tonality. Thus, tonality and atonality clearly reflect two different ideologies.


----------



## Woodduck

Enthusiast said:


> Why quote extensively from someone who clearly held a strong grudge. You can get that sort of thing from any sufficiently disgruntled employee after a change that they personally didn't like and that they personally are not big enough to see in context. Nasty stuff, in my opinion. He should get over himself.


I've read Raimi's article. I don't see anything disgruntled or nasty.


----------



## DeepR

"Unnatural" is a difficult term. Since we're a part of nature any kind of music, or art, or anything else we make, is still produced by nature in the end. In a stupendous chain of events against all the odds spread out over billions of years, there were humans, and then there was music. It took the universe 13,8 billion years to make music through us. Change one little thing in this long chain of events and humans and their music might have never happened. Unless, it has already happened elsewhere....


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> *Although tonality and atonality are not 'literally' ideologies, they are manifestations of ideologies.*
> 
> For example, *tonality is hierarchically structured*: with a dominant root tone at the top of the pyramid, to which all other subordinate tones relate. *This is a very Western way of thinking, as opposed to 'tribal' thinking, or relativistic/scientific thinking, where all members are equal.* Tonality also reflects Western religion, in the way that "all things are related to *God", which is also an hierarchy.
> *
> As reflected in our calendar system and measurement of time, tonality also uses "1" and not "zero," as serial thought does. There is no "zero" day or month in calendars, and no "zero" year (it goes back from 1 B.C., and forward from 1 A.D., with no "zero" year. Therefore, tonal music follows an ordinal system, because it deals with pitches as members of an hierarchy, with "1" being the most important. Serial thought does not do this; it uses a number line, and usually by convention, "zero" is the starting quantity of a set. This facilitates addition, subtraction, etc., as serial thought deals with pitch-interval distances as _quantity,_ not _identity.
> 
> _This connection of ordinal number with "being" is also reflected in how we say babies are "6 months old" or "1 year old," but are never referred to as being "zero years old" at birth. This is because _being exists in time. _In other words, the passing of time is equated with being.
> 
> These two number systems are different ways of thinking, and generally serialism is more scientific and mathematical, dealing with intervals as quantities only without reference to a root or key, whereas tonality deals with pitch as "identity" or "being" as a distinct member-place in an hierarchy, in relation to the key or root note (God).
> 
> On a number line, going backwards from 1 towards 0 creates fractions, which get infinitely smaller. Going from 1 to 2, and so on creates ever-increasing quantities toward infinity.
> 
> The number "zero" was not allowed for centuries, for religious reasons: if God was the creator of everything, there could be no "zero" or nothingness.
> 
> *Thus, serialism represents the secular and scientific way of thinking, as opposed to the religious-derived way of tonality. Thus, tonality and atonality clearly reflect two different ideologies.*


The last time I checked, atonality and serialism were products of Western culture. Only an overly cerebral Westerner could have come up with a pseudo-scientific concept like serialism and imposed it on music, thus initiating the most pretentiously pseudo-scientific era in the whole history of art.

Neither tonality nor God are Western inventions, much less "very Western." There is very little art anywhere, outside of the abstract designs applied to utilitarian objects, which has no hierarchy of importance among its elements and where "all members are equal." That is neither "scientific" nor "tribal" thinking, much less both at once. In any case, art isn't an expression of "thinking" (ideology). Ideologies are superimposed on art after the fact (by people with nothing better to do, I'm tempted to say). Art expresses a sense of life, not a philosophy.

This is just incoherent, pseudo-scientific, ivory-tower fantasy.


----------



## janxharris

DeepR said:


> "Unnatural" is a difficult term. Since we're a part of nature any kind of music, or art, or anything else we make, is still produced by nature in the end. In a stupendous chain of events against all the odds spread out over billions of years, there were humans, and then there was music. It took the universe 13,8 billion years to make music through us. Change one little thing in this long chain of events and humans and their music might have never happened. Unless, it has already happened elsewhere....


Hmmm.


----------



## janxharris

millionrainbows said:


> Although tonality and atonality are not 'literally' ideologies, they are manifestations of ideologies.
> 
> For example, tonality is hierarchically structured: with a dominant root tone at the top of the pyramid, to which all other subordinate tones relate. This is a very Western way of thinking, as opposed to 'tribal' thinking, or relativistic/scientific thinking, where all members are equal.
> 
> Tonality also reflects Western religion, in the way that "all things are related to God", which is also an hierarchy.
> 
> As reflected in our calendar system and measurement of time, tonality also uses "1" and not "zero," as serial thought does. There is no "zero" day or month in calendars, and no "zero" year (it goes back from 1 B.C., and forward from 1 A.D., with no "zero" year. Therefore, tonal music follows an ordinal system, because it deals with pitches as members of an hierarchy, with "1" being the most important. Serial thought does not do this; it uses a number line, and usually by convention, "zero" is the starting quantity of a set. This facilitates addition, subtraction, etc., as serial thought deals with pitch-interval distances as _quantity,_ not _identity.
> 
> _This connection of ordinal number with "being" is also reflected in how we say babies are "6 months old" or "1 year old," but are never referred to as being "zero years old" at birth. This is because _being exists in time. _In other words, the passing of time is equated with being.
> These two number systems are different ways of thinking, and generally serialism is more scientific and mathematical, dealing with intervals as quantities only without reference to a root or key, whereas tonality deals with pitch as "identity" or "being" as a distinct member-place in an hierarchy, in relation to the key or root note (God).
> 
> On a number line, going backwards from 1 towards 0 creates fractions, which get infinitely smaller. Going from 1 to 2, and so on creates ever-increasing quantities toward infinity.
> 
> The number "zero" was not allowed for centuries, for religious reasons: if God was the creator of everything, there could be no "zero" or nothingness.
> 
> Thus, serialism represents the secular and scientific way of thinking, as opposed to the religious-derived way of tonality. Thus, tonality and atonality clearly reflect two different ideologies.


Seriously???????????????


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> The last time I checked, atonality and serialism were products of Western culture.


That's true, but serialism represents a more logical, scientific way of thinking, which arose with the Enlightenment.



Woodduck said:


> ...Only an overly cerebral Westerner could have come up with a pseudo-scientific concept like serialism and imposed it on music, thus initiating the most pretentiously pseudo-scientific era in the whole history of art.


Serialism is indeed more scientific and logical than Western tonality, which is originated and is entrenched and derived from religious thought and the old church power paradigm. We live in a more secular world now.



Woodduck said:


> Neither tonality nor God are Western inventions, much less "very Western."


Compared with a non-deistic religion such as Buddhism, the idea of "God" is very much a Western idea.



Woodduck said:


> ...There is very little art anywhere, outside of the abstract designs applied to utilitarian objects, which has no hierarchy of importance among its elements and where "all members are equal."


That's especially true due to the dominance of Western art of the last few centuries. Most of the music reflects the hierarchy of the church in some form or another.



Woodduck said:


> ...That is neither "scientific" nor "tribal" thinking, much less both at once.


Serialism uses scientific thinking, in the way it deals with quantity rather than identity.

This is demonstrated in the simple procedure of chord inversion. In tonality, the major triad C-E-G, when inverted, becomes G-E-C, and retains its "identity" as a major chord. In serialism, the set C-E-G (expressed mathematically as 0-4-7), when inverted, becomes C-Ab-F, an F minor chord.



Woodduck said:


> ...In any case, art isn't an expression of "thinking" (ideology).


 I think all art reflects the culture and the way that culture thinks.



Woodduck said:


> Ideologies are superimposed on art after the fact (by people with nothing better to do, I'm tempted to say).


This can be true, especially when old paradigms and ways of thinking are becoming unstable, and changing in reaction to new technologies and pressures.


----------



## janxharris

millionrainbows said:


> That's true, but serialism represents a more logical, scientific way of thinking, which arose with the Enlightenment.


Please prove that it is more logical.



> Serialism is indeed more scientific and logical than Western tonality, which is originated and is entrenched and derived from religious thought and the old church power paradigm. We live in a more secular world now.


There nothing about tonal music that is religious per se.



> Serialism uses scientific thinking, in the way it deals with quantity rather than identity.


How so?



> This is demonstrated in the simple procedure of chord inversion. In tonality, the major triad C-E-G, when inverted, becomes G-E-C, and retains its "identity" as a major chord. In serialism, the set C-E-G (expressed mathematically as 0-4-7), when inverted, becomes C-Ab-F, an F minor chord.


This proves nothing.


----------



## Razumovskymas

I think it's silly to compare tonality (as more or less being all western music up to Schoenberg) and atonality (being serial music) as being 2 equal musical systems because like I said before: atonal music is not rooted in our history as tonal music is. The development and evolution of tonal music happened alongside the development of human kind (and more importantly) human language. Atonal music is rooted in an "idea" or an artistic statement. It may be a genius idea and even a milestone in musical history but to put tonal against atonal as if they're 2 equal "concepts" is silly in my eyes. What causes us to always keep "comparing" these two "concepts" is the fact that serial music is called A-tonal (which isn't really a good name in my eyes). What if some monk decided back in the days that all polyphonic music should be called A-tonal (all these voices together can't be tonal can they!!) and al monophonic chant should be called tonal? THEN WHAT--> Same discussions about how natural tonal music is VS atonal music and the same silly conclusions as tonal relates to God and atonal is more scientific.


----------



## millionrainbows

janxharris said:


> Please prove that it is more logical.


I gave an example, using the device of inversion. Why not contribute something of substance to the discussion?



janxharris said:


> There nothing about tonal music that is religious per se.


I never said it was; I simply said it reflected a religious way of thinking, in the same way our measurement of time and calendars does. I've provided plenty of examples to back up my position; I suggest you do the same if you are to have any credibility.



janxharris said:


> How so?


Again, the example using inversion. Serialism is based on intervals as quantities unto themselves, not as members in relation to a key note identity. Webern knew this, Schoenberg knew this; this is basic serial theory.



janxharris said:


> This proves nothing.


Yes it does. It demonstrates that serialism deals with interval distance as literal quantities, without reference to a key note.

Butterworth: Seriously???????????


----------



## janxharris

millionrainbows said:


> I gave an example, using the device of inversion. Why not contribute something of substance to the discussion?


_This is demonstrated in the simple procedure of chord inversion. In tonality, the major triad C-E-G, when inverted, becomes G-E-C, and retains its "identity" as a major chord. In serialism, the set C-E-G (expressed mathematically as 0-4-7), when inverted, becomes C-Ab-F, an F minor chord._

So serialism is more logical because C-E-G inverts to C-Ab-F instead of maintaining major chord identity in tonal music? All you have proven is that said notes under serialism translate to a different sequence under a certain transformation.

Nothing became more logical.



> I never said it was; I simply said it reflected a religious way of thinking, in the same way our measurement of time and calendars does. I've provided plenty of examples to back up my position; I suggest you do the same if you are to have any credibility.


All you have done is make a connection - linking the importance of the tonic with that of God under a hierarchy. You didn't establish that connection.



> Butterworth: Seriously???????????


What do you mean?


----------



## millionrainbows

Razumovskymas said:


> I think it's silly to compare tonality (as more or less being all western music up to Schoenberg) and atonality (being serial music) as being 2 equal musical systems because like I said before: atonal music is not rooted in our history as tonal music is.


It may be silly, and unfair as well, since Western tonality has the advantage of centuries of history and tradition behind it. But history is beginning to move a little faster now, isn't it?



Razumovskymas said:


> ...The development and evolution of tonal music happened alongside the development of human kind (and more importantly) human language.


There is some connection between language and 'musical gesture', but this is true in any culture.



Razumovskymas said:


> ...Atonal music is rooted in an "idea" or an artistic statement. It may be a genius idea and even a milestone in musical history but to put tonal against atonal as if they're 2 equal "concepts" is silly in my eyes.


If you are trying to say that serial music is not based on artistic expression, I think that's not true. Plus, the Greeks considered music as part of the Quadriviium, which included astronomy, arithmetic, and geometry. Most people have a problem with music being treated "scientifically" or mathematically, but this is part of its essential nature. If you can't accept that, it is nonetheless true.


----------



## EdwardBast

Nereffid said:


> I've not read any Rand, but I've seen the 1949 King Vidor movie, which is one of the funniest films I've ever seen. The whole notion of good vs evil architects pre-empts Monty Python by some 20 years. :devil:


Sorry to keep this side thread going but …

Rand had total control over the script for _The Fountainhead_ the movie, so at least we know who to thank for the laughs. If they altered it she got to blow the whole thing up, just the way Howard Roark, the novel's hero, blew up the housing project when they altered his design.


----------



## millionrainbows

janxharris said:


> _This is demonstrated in the simple procedure of chord inversion. In tonality, the major triad C-E-G, when inverted, becomes G-E-C, and retains its "identity" as a major chord. In serialism, the set C-E-G (expressed mathematically as 0-4-7), when inverted, becomes C-Ab-F, an F minor chord._
> 
> So serialism is more logical because C-E-G inverts to C-Ab-F instead of maintaining major chord identity in tonal music? All you have proven is that said notes under serialism translate to a different sequence under a certain transformation.
> 
> Nothing became more logical.


It's not my job to prove anything to your satisfaction. I simply stated my case very clearly, with plenty of examples.



janxharris said:


> ...All you have done is make a connection - linking the importance of the tonic with that of God under a hierarchy. You didn't establish that connection.


Again, all I've done is state my case. It's not my job to prove anything. If you have a view on the matter, why not state it, instead of conducting an inquisition?



janxharris said:


> What do you mean?


That was in reference to something you edited out, as I was composing my response.


----------



## janxharris

millionrainbows said:


> It's not my job to prove anything to your satisfaction. I simply stated my case very clearly, with plenty of examples.


Assertions require proof do they not?



> Again, all I've done is state my case. It's not my job to prove anything. If you have a view on the matter, why not state it, instead of conducting an inquisition?


See above.



> That was in reference to something you edited out, as I was composing my response.


I didn't edit out 'Butterworth'.


----------



## millionrainbows

janxharris said:


> Assertions require proof do they not?


Again, I gave plenty of examples and context. Mine are not empty assretions.



janxharris said:


> See above.


There's not much to say about this.



janxharris said:


> I didn't edit out 'Butterworth'.


I know. You edited out the other part.


----------



## janxharris

millionrainbows said:


> Again, I gave plenty of examples and context. Mine are not empty assretions.


Okay, your assertion that serialism is more logical than tonality isn't upheld. I don't understand why you would wish to pursue such an argument - both serialism and tonality can produce interesting music I would say.


----------



## Phil loves classical

millionrainbows said:


> Although tonality and atonality are not 'literally' ideologies, they are manifestations of ideologies.
> 
> For example, tonality is hierarchically structured: with a dominant root tone at the top of the pyramid, to which all other subordinate tones relate. This is a very Western way of thinking, as opposed to 'tribal' thinking, or relativistic/scientific thinking, where all members are equal.
> 
> Tonality also reflects Western religion, in the way that "all things are related to God", which is also an hierarchy.
> 
> As reflected in our calendar system and measurement of time, tonality also uses "1" and not "zero," as serial thought does. There is no "zero" day or month in calendars, and no "zero" year (it goes back from 1 B.C., and forward from 1 A.D., with no "zero" year. Therefore, tonal music follows an ordinal system, because it deals with pitches as members of an hierarchy, with "1" being the most important. Serial thought does not do this; it uses a number line, and usually by convention, "zero" is the starting quantity of a set. This facilitates addition, subtraction, etc., as serial thought deals with pitch-interval distances as _quantity,_ not _identity.
> 
> _This connection of ordinal number with "being" is also reflected in how we say babies are "6 months old" or "1 year old," but are never referred to as being "zero years old" at birth. This is because _being exists in time. _In other words, the passing of time is equated with being.
> These two number systems are different ways of thinking, and generally serialism is more scientific and mathematical, dealing with intervals as quantities only without reference to a root or key, whereas tonality deals with pitch as "identity" or "being" as a distinct member-place in an hierarchy, in relation to the key or root note (God).
> 
> On a number line, going backwards from 1 towards 0 creates fractions, which get infinitely smaller. Going from 1 to 2, and so on creates ever-increasing quantities toward infinity.
> 
> The number "zero" was not allowed for centuries, for religious reasons: if God was the creator of everything, there could be no "zero" or nothingness.
> 
> Thus, serialism represents the secular and scientific way of thinking, as opposed to the religious-derived way of tonality. Thus, tonality and atonality clearly reflect two different ideologies.


I think your making false connections with science/math and religion with music. The natural number sequence is the same as the whole number sequence from 1 onwards. Natural numbers were used just out of convenience in old times, and has nothing to do with tonality. Tonality does involve integers or ratios of base frequencies. This is still scientifically based. Serialism uses number sequences which are extraneous to the harmonic series to dictate the placement of tones, etc. which may have little correlation with harmonic understanding of the human ear (this is where the debate lies that serialism composition is in general doesn't translate naturally to our human way of hearing harmony). Tonal system is not "religiously-derived", although in Western culture some the early stages originated in churches. Tonality is also prevalent in Oriental music, and even when they infuse some superstitious dogma into the music theory, it is still based in the end on feedback from human hearing.

An crude analogy of some serialism in music may be like engineering a body (instead of music) using serial techniques that males or females would find attractive in a sexual way. I'm sure it can produce interesting shapes, etc. but maybe not for the purposes of reproduction.


----------



## millionrainbows

janxharris said:


> Okay, your assertion that serialism is more logical than tonality isn't upheld. I don't understand why you would wish to pursue such an argument - both serialism and tonality can produce interesting music I would say.


I made this very clear: serialism deals with intervals as literal quantities, which is a more mathematical way of measuring them. Tonality is recursive; after 12 notes, it starts over, and a G is a G is a G.....

...not so in serial thought. G1 is not equivalent to G2 and so on. It's not recursive, it's just an endless line of pitches, expressed as numbers: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 etc.


----------



## millionrainbows

Phil loves classical said:


> I think your making false connections with science/math and religion with music.


Don't take what I say so seriously; I'm like a poet, just probing around for meaning, finding patterns and analogies. I don't have to prove anything. I'm more like an artist than a scientist.

You know, it's funny how people HATE the idea of scientific thinking in music, but then in the same breath they insist that you "scientifically prove" everything you say! :lol:



janxharris said:


> Tonal system is not "religiously-derived", although in Western culture some the early stages originated in churches.


I think music and art reflect the religious paradigm which our culture was based on, and which was dominant for centuries. That's all. Don't take it so literally.

The number zero and the concept of zero was banned in Western thought. Everybody knows that the Arabs invented zero.



janxharris said:


> An crude analogy of some serialism in music may be like engineering a body (instead of music) using serial techniques that males or females would find attractive in a sexual way. I'm sure it can produce interesting shapes, etc. but maybe not for the purposes of reproduction.


HUH?


----------



## millionrainbows

Speaking of Ayn Rand:



__ https://www.pinterest.com/pin/471752129686954708/


----------



## Woodduck

Serialism is not more "scientific" than tonality. That claim is pseudo-scientific. Nor is serialism more "logical." That claim is based on a pseudo-scientific notion of what logic is, one that eliminates logic's intuitive heart. 

If we have to make analogies with science, it's tonality which is more "scientific" and "logical." A tonal work is like a cosmos governed by pervasive forces (or "laws") which operate in entities but are intuited rather than perceived, or like a syllogism in which basic premises - centricity and hierarchy - set up specific expectations and lead to conclusions which are grasped intuitively. Even unsophisticated listeners feel and intuit tonality and its implications and consequences, but experiments have shown that even musicians often can't tell whether a work is serial or not.

It isn't merely fanciful that we speak of tonality's "gravitational" force, and the force of tonality is felt to pervade musical space just as gravity is felt to pervade physical space. Serialism is the artificial constraint that has to be imposed, the seat belt that keeps the astronaut from floating away, when the force of gravity is broken. 

So much for analogies to "science" and "logic." Serialism is non-intuitive, and therefore without real logic.


----------



## Haydn70

Thomyum2 said:


> Interesting article. The Barber Adagio is indeed a moving work as well as one that I would consider a 'great' piece. It's unfortunate that Boulez would have dismissed it so.
> 
> But I'd mention that Barber's music has elements of both modernism as well as tonality - the melody of Barber's _Nocturne for Piano_, in fact, is a 12-tone row. I don't think it's as black and white as that and most modern music doesn't so neatly fall into one or the other of those categories, at least by my ear.


Barber's _Nocturne_ is not relevant to this discussion. What is the point of bringing it up?

Barber use of modernist elements is not relevant to this discussion. Ditto.

What is relevant is why Barenboim selected Barber's _Adagio_…and not an equivalent work by (to mention only American composers to make the Baron happy) Carter, Wuorinen, Babbitt, et al. That is because, of course, there are no equivalent, i.e., beautiful, pieces by those composers. If I have missed any such serial pieces by any American, or non-American for that matter, that would have been appropriate for the occasion, I would be interested in hearing them.

I don't judge a piece by which modernist compositional techniques-if any--are employed…I judge it by what I hear…and with Barber's _Adagio_ my ears hear an extremely beautiful piece of music...one that was completely appropriate for the occasion.


----------



## Lisztian

ArsMusica said:


> What is relevant is why Barenboim selected Barber's _Adagio_…and not an equivalent work by (to mention only American composers to make the Baron happy) Carter, Wuorinen, Babbitt, et al. That is because, of course, there are no equivalent, i.e., beautiful, pieces by those composers. If I have missed any such serial pieces by any American, or non-American for that matter, that would have been appropriate for the occasion, I would be interested in hearing them.
> .


Um, no, it's because Barber's music is much more accessible (and yes, it's a wonderful piece). Boulez, for example, is also wonderful but in different ways. I listened to Pli selon Pli for the first time yesterday, and it struck me as being more sensual than just about anything I've ever heard.

I'm glad we have both!


----------



## Haydn70

Baron Scarpia said:


> You are projecting your own limitations on the music itself. Atonal music is not the majority of music that I listen to, but I have certainly encountered atonal music which evoked joy, ebullience, happiness, etc. (Schoenberg Suite Op 29, Chamber Symphony No 2, most recently) It is not the most popular music in the world, but many people love it.
> 
> For the life of me, I cannot imagine what would motivate someone to make such pronouncements about the value of music that they don't get.


You mention the Suite Op. 29 here in and in a post in Current Listening Vol V. In that post you state in regard to the suite: "I hear a lot of joy and fun in it. Particularly the overture, which alternates between a jaunty fast section and a reposed slow section."

I don't hear a speck of joy in the Overture (the first 8 1/2 minutes of this link):






How about you folks out there in TalkClassical land...you hear any joy?


----------



## KenOC

ArsMusica said:


> You mention the Suite Op. 29 here in and in a post in Current Listening Vol V. In that post you state in regard to the suite: "I hear a lot of joy and fun in it. Particularly the overture, which alternates between a jaunty fast section and a reposed slow section."
> 
> I don't hear a speck of joy in the Overture (the first 8 1/2 minutes of this link):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about you folks out there in TalkClassical land...you hear any joy?


"Today I have discovered something which will assure the supremacy of German music for the next 100 years." -Arnold Schoenberg

That was coincident with the rise of the Russian/Soviet composers and the long twilight of the German school - with only old Richard Strauss offering a final flicker.


----------



## Woodduck

ArsMusica said:


> You mention the Suite Op. 29 here in and in a post in Current Listening Vol V. In that post you state in regard to the suite: "I hear a lot of joy and fun in it. Particularly the overture, which alternates between a jaunty fast section and a reposed slow section."
> 
> I don't hear a speck of joy in the Overture (the first 8 1/2 minutes of this link):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about you folks out there in TalkClassical land...you hear any joy?


Witty or prankish, perhaps. Joyful, no. It's too restless and spasmodic. It reminds me that people often imagine they're happy when they're merely keeping busy and downing plenty of coffee, or something else, in order not to notice that they aren't.


----------



## Guest

shirime said:


> Is Tonality based on Nature?
> 
> No.


Did someone already observe that "based on nature" and "unnatural" are not the same thing?

Tonality and atonality are both 'natural' to the extent that the term has any relevance to an experience of music. And composers of both tonal and atonal drew on 'nature' for the inspiration.

It seems to me that there is no dichotomy here.



Woodduck said:


> Witty or prankish, perhaps.


I think I'd agree. But 'wit' has the capacity to provoke 'joy' - inasmuch as I find Haydn 'witty', I consequently find him joyful. I can therefore see how some listeners might get 'joy'. But not, perhaps, the kind of spiritual/religious, ecstatic 'joy' that might be behind some takes on the word.


----------



## janxharris

ArsMusica said:


> You mention the Suite Op. 29 here in and in a post in Current Listening Vol V. In that post you state in regard to the suite: "I hear a lot of joy and fun in it. Particularly the overture, which alternates between a jaunty fast section and a reposed slow section."
> 
> I don't hear a speck of joy in the Overture (the first 8 1/2 minutes of this link):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about you folks out there in TalkClassical land...you hear any joy?


I don't hear any joy - unless we allow for the joy of someone who is mentally disturbed.


----------



## janxharris

millionrainbows said:


> I made this very clear: serialism deals with intervals as literal quantities, which is a more mathematical way of measuring them. Tonality is recursive; after 12 notes, it starts over, and a G is a G is a G.....
> 
> ...not so in serial thought. G1 is not equivalent to G2 and so on. It's not recursive, it's just an endless line of pitches, expressed as numbers: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 etc.


You are merely stating a *difference* in how the intervals are considered. Since both serialism and tonality may analysed mathematically then speaking of one being more so than the other seems redundant.


----------



## Enthusiast

Woodduck said:


> I've read Raimi's article. I don't see anything disgruntled or nasty.


I haven't read the article but the section quoted is expressed in an over-personalised point-scoring way to be taken seriously as musical criticism. As a memoir it is fine - those interested in the person writing it might enjoy hearing about what he was feeling during that stage in his life - but it is not quoted for that purpose (he is quoted as an authority!) and he does seem to have been feeling pretty negative.

Expressions like "_staunchest allies_", "Boulez _and his acolytes_" and "_never deigned _to conduct the 20th century composers Boulez (didn't like)" all make it read as personal and also belittling to Barenboim - the suggestion that he was so lacking in his own musical character that he just followed the misguided influence of Boulez! So Barenboim - a strong musical character, like him or loathe him (I am no big fan myself) - had his own taste! I should hope he did!

We learn that "under Barenboim's auspices Boulez was named Principal Guest Conductor of the Chicago Symphony" as if that was obviously a bad thing. Leaving aside Boulez own music for a minute, just consider how many really great (i.e. exceptionally so) recordings of established classical masterpieces Boulez made! Few conductors left legacy so worthwhile (nearly always bringing new insights) and, now, the choice of Boulez seems inspired rather than mistaken.

But it is the main point of the quote is such a silly one. We learn that "one time, he did _condescend _to conduct Samuel Barber. It was our first concert in Chicago after 9/11, and he selected Barber's Adagio for Strings to commemorate the tragedy" followed by a snide "_his esteemed _Schoenberg and Boulez _suddenly weren't up to the job and he had to resort to the benighted modal harmonies of Samuel Barber. Doesn't this tell us something profound about the limitations of the "progress" that Pierre Boulez always insisted we had made?_" Somehow the choice of a piece of music that was widely known and loved (and with a sense of nationalism) for the purposes of mass mourning is made to seem like hypocrisy when clearly the choice of music that is not yet widely loved would have been inappropriate. If Barenboim had not recognised this he might have been a more legitimate target for censure.

I found the quote so similar to what I have heard in so many situations from so many disgruntled employees following a change in this or that institution. I always felt "if you don't like it then move on: if you stay and draw your salary and hold your position it should be because you can commit". In other words, I don't read it as a quote which is in essence about art or music at all.

I guess it doesn't help to have the quote followed by the tired old assertion - sorry, ArsMusica - about being "_sick of the ugliness and irrationality of modernism and post-modernism, artistic and otherwise_" doesn't help. How many times must we hear that so many of us and what we enjoy and love, and that what we perceive as beautiful and profound, are just wrong? As we know from so many posts in so many threads, "ugliness" is a subjective word. Irrationality should not be so subjective but when we talk of art we distort language to make it so. Can't we move on? History is filled with the rants of artists who hated what was then new but is now widely loved. If this is not happening any more - Schoenberg's music is after all quite old now - that is interesting but it is not proof that a wrong turn was made. Controversy is there because we, the audience, are still split on the subject. If it was just that Schoenberg had done nothing worthwhile then he would simply have been forgotten.


----------



## Enthusiast

Fredx2098 said:


> I'm only halfway through The Fountainhead, but I love it so far. It's quite an intense read and requires careful concentration to pick up on the subtle ideas she's talking about (similar to a Feldman piece). I feel like I should read Anthem before I continue on in The Fountainhead, reasons being that it came first and is much shorter.
> 
> I feel like her ideas have been misconstrued due to the word libertarian being associated with right-libertarianism nowadays. I feel like if someone claims to be inspired by Rand and is a right-libertarian, then they were inspired by the antagonists in her stories. I could be wrong though.
> 
> The Fountainhead doesn't seem to be some kind of political manifesto to me. It seems mostly to do with the arts and rights of self-expression. Again I could be wrong because I'm not extremely familiar with her work/ideas. From the little I know about her ideas, it seems like her mentioning of laissez-faire capitalism is more about what would be ideal in a utopian society rather than what should be done in the real world. It's likely that my interpretation is a bit off though.


I wasn't following this thread for a while and when I cam back was surprised to see discussions raging about Rand. So I have just gone back to where this started (not with this reasonable and open post but a little before it). I am mindful of Wagner, who held some repulsive views (and acted in repulsive ways on the basis if them) but is "saved" by having written wonderful music, albeit partly on the basis of his views. It has always disturbed me that his sublime and stirring music expresses stuff, some of which is not at all exalted or a fine expression of all that is exalted in our human experience, as great art is "meant" to be. And, of course, it was used to fuel Nazi propaganda. But I still love the music and agreed with Barenboim (him again!) when he took the risk of playing it in Israel after decades during which it was effectively banned.

I guess for a writer, though, the moral responsibility is all the more overt. They don't have to live blameless lives or hold only exalted views - many great writers were, after all, not very nice people - but their art is literal and when they promulgate messages that are essentially cruel and boorish and combine this with stirring art the problem (the danger) is the greater. Utopias are all very well but are fantasies and most great literature that dealt with them has so far tended in the end to show their hollowness. Otherwise, where is truth? Where is a perception of a true reality? It is so much easier with music, even musical drama.

EDIT: A confession! I write this post with a concern about what is happening in "my country" (and how what I had always seen as decades of progress is being undone). We have a new Home Secretary - a position "responsible for the internal affairs of England and Wales, and for immigration and citizenship for the United Kingdom" (Wikipedia) - who is on record as a devoted follower of Rand. So far he has turned out - at least in words - to be a little more humane and "enlightened" than his predecessors. But many of us are concerned that someone who appears to believe in an elitist and social-Darwinian view of the world should hold such a position.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

I'm not sure why people are so obsessed with the harmonic series, but the statement that there is no tonality in the harmonics is wrong - it's easy to derive approximations of the major scale or the modes and the 12 note chromatic scales from the harmonic series of a string instrument.

Modified standard piano to play more consonant whole tone scale - I guess Debussy would have liked it.











https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003682X16302237?via=ihub

Tuning, Timbre, Spectrum, Scale by Sethares is a modern classic in the field of tuning, tonality and scale construction.

The 12 note serial system is basically permutation system of a "degenerate" collection - because all the notes are equal on log scale. I guess that selecting 12 unequal notes out of 24 or some other bigger system can give more interesting (for the listeners) compositional resource. The whole idea of atonality is just a failed experiment, imo, unless the main point is to make boring music. In Eastern Asia people are using close to (I hope that you understand that no orchestra plays equal 12 tuning in the West - it's an approximation - I've read analysis of the actual pitches of a brass orchestra and they were closer to Pythagorean tuning, not 12 or just tuning) equal 7 and 5 note scales (also 9 in some gamelan orchestras), but the scales they play are something like 4 out of 5 notes and 5 or 6 out of 7 (also 5 out of 9 in the gamelan case). If they were playing 7 out of 7, 5 out of 5, or 9/9, the end result would be just as horrible as 12 note music (Debussy usually spices the whole tone scale with extra notes, adds contrasting sections using different pitch collections etc, so his music is not monotonous).

It's funny, but only sampled (edited using audio software) instruments (as used by modern trailer/film/video game etc music composers) and synthesizers can play in perfect 12 note tuning, so they should be perfect for serial music ( we know how lifeless and boring they sound). Imo, older systems like meantone or well-temperament with unequal keys sound way better and are better match for most "natural" instruments.


----------



## Enthusiast

I am not a musician and have possibly less technical knowledge of music than anyone here. It never interested me somehow. Nor am I – despite a general interest in sociology – at all interested in sociological theories for why we like or don’t like the great music of the past. They don’t describe why I like what I like. Music for me is outside of all that. It is an experience, it is what it does to me, in my brain with all its strange chemistry.

But I sometimes feel – although I know it is not entirely true – that I am also on my own here in loving both the classics and the very contemporary. I was raised on the great classics and I both love and, yes, revere a lot of the music of all the big names (to name some: Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, Wagner …) and am convinced that none of them can be named as better than another. And I also love a lot of the music of the last century. I have no hesitation in adding the names of (again just examples) Bartok, Stravinsky and Britten to that list of those who are to me too great to be weighed against others and this seems to me to come out of my love of the earlier great composers. 

I say it despite my celebration of the sheer variety of 20th Century music, but it seems to me that from the time of composers who began to be active after, say, 1950 the music that really comes from the special place that truly great music (excuse the expression) comes from was the music of composers who many here most deride. And it also seems to me that many of those who do love this atonal and less traditional sounding music deride the music of the great masters of the past. I can’t really get my head around either position. 

I do agree with those who feel that the old language (most of it broadly tonal but other qualities also apply) eventually lost its efficacy to express what great music expresses. I enjoy quite a lot of Shostakovich (there is enough of it that does wonderful things to me to persuade me that the reservations I have always had about what he was doing are ill founded). I also love Schnittke and a few other composers who came out of the old Soviet empire: I love Gubaidulina’s music, for example, even though her pieces generally work in a fairly old fashioned way, and I find Kanchelli fascinating. I do loathe Gorecki, however! And I usually find Part to be like a pleasant desert (sorry, a food metaphor). I also enjoy the odd piece from the likes of Thomas Ades and John Adams but, somehow, found that exploring them further led me nowhere that interesting.

There are many more living composers who work in a fairly traditional vein who I enjoy listening to (there is no challenge) but do not find even remotely memorable. But the contemporary music that really engages me, that really gives me an experience equal or equivalent to the music of the masters of the past, are those who are considered avant garde. I have been aware of many of them for quite a while but what I see as my real breakthrough – a breakthrough that has led to me (almost suddenly) hearing composers like Boulez, Feldman and Carter as easily understood in the same way that Schubert and Beethoven are (and just as rewarding) – has come more recently and right now seems to be growing almost daily. That is why I’m writing such a long and drawn out post! 

So many less mainstream (so far) composers who I was aware of and had enjoyed without being bowled over have suddenly become so much more to me. If you have followed any of my recent “what I’m listening to” posts you will have some idea of some of the names I am referring to. 

Before this I was fascinated by “the new” but felt it challenging and something I had to be in the mood for. I felt more in my element with the “more accessible” stuff but it wasn’t working for me. And there was this avant garde stuff that intrigued but hadn’t completely delivered. 

But my point in this post is that my personal point of reference in all my listening is the great music of the past. How I personally take music is conditioned by that. I can’t really understand loving the one and not the other. It seems to me that Schoenberg was right and prophetic (and that Barenboim knows more about what matters in music than a disgruntled violist in the Chicago SO).


----------



## Phil loves classical

ArsMusica said:


> You mention the Suite Op. 29 here in and in a post in Current Listening Vol V. In that post you state in regard to the suite: "I hear a lot of joy and fun in it. Particularly the overture, which alternates between a jaunty fast section and a reposed slow section."
> 
> I don't hear a speck of joy in the Overture (the first 8 1/2 minutes of this link):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about you folks out there in TalkClassical land...you hear any joy?


Nope. Cage had an interesting (some would say heretical) philosophy on emotion and music. I recall he tried to get away from the idea of music on fixed emotional terms since he found that some people found a certain piece of his music 'sad' when he was trying to express joy. 

I couldn't find that bit when I did a quick search but found this. I find it funny how postmodernists find conservatives have a naive understanding of music, and also vice versa.

https://www.hermitary.com/solitude/cage.html


----------



## arpeggio

The bottom line is that members who like Cage or Boulez or Stockhausen or Xenakis have every right to be here as those who believe classical music died sixty years ago. We have members, including some posts in this thread, who imply that any discussions concerning these composers should be prohibited. They have problems with anyone who does not hear music the same way as they do. And whenever we try to stand up to these individuals we are the ones who are disciplined. 

Enthusiast, if one looks at all of the polls that have been generated over the years in attempts to invalidate modern music one finds that most of the members are like you. 

And no matter what artificial definition we come up with for natural or unnatural music some would still considered the above to be bad composers.


----------



## fluteman

ArsMusica said:


> Barber's use of modernist elements is not relevant to this discussion.


it's funny how much our opinions differ there. I'd say that Barber's use of modernist elements is central to this discussion, maybe even the whole point. 
In the 20th century, our increasingly industrial and technological sound environment began to include a whole new array of sounds, first mechanical and electrical, then also electronic. If you open your ears, you can hear it everywhere and in all music. Even the electrical amplification of nearly all music today is a profound and important result of this and changes how music sounds, how it is written and how it is played. You don't have to listen to Honegger's Pacific 231 or Stockhausen's Kontakte to hear this, though those pieces do make a very explicit point of highlighting and focusing on this phenomenon. You can also very clearly hear it in more "traditional" 20th century composers like Samuel Barber.


----------



## christomacin

Larkenfield said:


> If it's buttered it will sound tonal like Bach; if not, it'll probably sound more like a 12-tone row by Berg or Birtwistle.


I like things that feel like buttered popcorn even more than I like Bach (who only sounds like it).:devil:


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> Serialism is not more "scientific" than tonality. That claim is pseudo-scientific. Nor is serialism more "logical." That claim is based on a pseudo-scientific notion of what logic is, one that eliminates logic's intuitive heart.
> 
> If we have to make analogies with science, it's tonality which is more "scientific" and "logical." A tonal work is like a cosmos governed by pervasive forces (or "laws") which operate in entities but are intuited rather than perceived, or like a syllogism in which basic premises - centricity and hierarchy - set up specific expectations and lead to conclusions which are grasped intuitively. Even unsophisticated listeners feel and intuit tonality and its implications and consequences, but experiments have shown that even musicians often can't tell whether a work is serial or not.
> 
> It isn't merely fanciful that we speak of tonality's "gravitational" force, and the force of tonality is felt to pervade musical space just as gravity is felt to pervade physical space. Serialism is the artificial constraint that has to be imposed, the seat belt that keeps the astronaut from floating away, when the force of gravity is broken.
> 
> So much for analogies to "science" and "logic." Serialism is non-intuitive, and therefore without real logic.


Trying to equate musical theories with science/logic makes as much sense to me as equating it with nature (namely: zero), but I would caution against trying to wed intuitions with logic. A great deal that's logical/rational is highly counter-intuitive, especially when we get into mathematical examples; and a great deal of of what's intuitive is highly irrational.


----------



## EdwardBast

Woodduck said:


> Witty or prankish, perhaps. Joyful, no. It's too restless and spasmodic. It reminds me that people often imagine they're happy when they're merely keeping busy and downing plenty of coffee, or something else, in order not to notice that they aren't.


I'd say whimsical, but somehow I'm not inclined to hear this movement as personal expression, at least not the more active sections. Strikes me more as a group dynamic, like an animated party. A more classical aesthetic? Not sure why I feel this way.


----------



## Thomyum2

Enthusiast said:


> But I sometimes feel - although I know it is not entirely true - that I am also on my own here in loving both the classics and the very contemporary. I was raised on the great classics and I both love and, yes, revere a lot of the music of all the big names (to name some: Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, Wagner …) and am convinced that none of them can be named as better than another. And I also love a lot of the music of the last century. ...
> 
> but it seems to me that from the time of composers who began to be active after, say, 1950 the music that really comes from the special place that truly great music (excuse the expression) comes from was the music of composers who many here most deride. And it also seems to me that many of those who do love this atonal and less traditional sounding music deride the music of the great masters of the past. I can't really get my head around either position. ...
> 
> but what I see as my real breakthrough - a breakthrough that has led to me (almost suddenly) hearing composers like Boulez, Feldman and Carter as easily understood in the same way that Schubert and Beethoven are (and just as rewarding) - has come more recently and right now seems to be growing almost daily. That is why I'm writing such a long and drawn out post!
> 
> So many less mainstream (so far) composers who I was aware of and had enjoyed without being bowled over have suddenly become so much more to me. If you have followed any of my recent "what I'm listening to" posts you will have some idea of some of the names I am referring to.
> 
> Before this I was fascinated by "the new" but felt it challenging and something I had to be in the mood for. I felt more in my element with the "more accessible" stuff but it wasn't working for me.


Thank you for your thoughtful post Enthusiast - you are definitely not on your own here - I have followed a similar path in my own musical development over the years - I could not have said it better.

I think we all seek out beautiful or enjoyable music, but experience has taught me that making the effort to also listen to challenging music (which can be of any period, for that matter), or music that I'm not necessarily always in the mood for, more often that not yields the reward of expanding my experience of music and my ability to enjoy it rather than the other way around. Of course there are times where I just want to hear something beautiful and enjoyable, but I try to take the approach of not just 'finding beautiful music', but also 'finding the beauty in music'. For me, that kind of growth sometimes that involves a degree of discomfort initially, but in retrospect it's been so worthwhile. It may sound like a pipedream and be an impossible goal, but what a rich life we would have if we could learn to experience beauty in everything we hear.

I find it very inspiring to hear you say that Boulez, Feldman and Carter could be "understood in the same way that Schubert and Beethoven are (and just as rewarding)". This is where I aspire to go!


----------



## millionrainbows

janxharris said:


> You are merely stating a *difference* in how the intervals are considered.


Yes, there is a difference, which I've stated from the start: Identity vs. Quantity. That's a big difference, and it underscores the recursive nature of tonality (a G is a G is a G...). One has to fully comprehend this to see the difference.

The fact that serial and 'set' thought uses a number line further equates it with scientific or mathematical thinking. The difference between 'scales' and 'ordered sets' is further evidence.

Ah, let me count the ways...



janxharris said:


> ...Since both serialism and tonality may analyzed mathematically then speaking of one being more so than the other seems redundant.


Yes, Allen Forte's book "The Structure of Atonal Music" and its methods can be used to analyze tonal music, but that is not the crux of the differences. I've already stated those.



...but most musicians do not think of a C major scale as an "unordered set." I think Schenker analysis is more suited for tonal analysis. Now ridicule me. :lol:


----------



## Haydn70

fluteman said:


> it's funny how much our opinions differ there. I'd say that Barber's use of modernist elements is central to this discussion, maybe even the whole point.
> In the 20th century, our increasingly industrial and technological sound environment began to include a whole new array of sounds, first mechanical and electrical, then also electronic. If you open your ears, you can hear it everywhere and in all music. Even the electrical amplification of nearly all music today is a profound and important result of this and changes how music sounds, how it is written and how it is played. You don't have to listen to Honegger's Pacific 231 or Stockhausen's Kontakte to hear this, though those pieces do make a very explicit point of highlighting and focusing on this phenomenon. You can also very clearly hear it in more "traditional" 20th century composers like Samuel Barber.


I apologize if I was unclear in my post about the Chicago Symphony and Barenboim's selection of the _Adagio_. I wrote:

"Barber's Nocturne is not relevant to this discussion. What is the point of bringing it up?

Barber use of modernist elements is not relevant to this discussion. Ditto."

I both cases "this discussion" referred specifically to the discussion re: the selection of the _Adagio _NOT the thread topic.

I thought that was clear...if it wasn't I am sorry.

I have thoroughly analyzed the _Adagio _and am looking at the score right now in fact. Technically, and of course aurally, it is a very conservative piece. The only remotely "modern" aspects of the work (and I mean *remotely*) are Barber's extensive use of 7th chords (major and minor) and the occasional meter changes.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Serialism is not more "scientific" than tonality...Nor is serialism more "logical." That claim is based on a pseudo-scientific notion of what logic is, one that eliminates logic's intuitive heart.


Serialism deals with intervals as quantities, while tonality places intervals (and everything else) in reference to a central tone (tonic). That in itself shows that serialism is more mathematically based, since Western tonality's recursive nature, i.e. giving pitches "identity" in an hierarchy reflects the religious paradigm of "everything is being and it is all related to "the one" (God).



Woodduck said:


> ...If we have to make analogies with science, it's tonality which is more "scientific" and "logical." A tonal work is like a cosmos governed by pervasive forces (or "laws") which operate in entities but are intuited rather than perceived, or like a syllogism in which basic premises - centricity and hierarchy - set up specific expectations and lead to conclusions which are grasped intuitively.


The next thing you know, we'll be hearing about "intelligent design."

The "art" (music) that results from serial thought can also be a "cosmos governed by pervasive forces (or "laws") which operate in entities but are intuited rather than perceived," but this needs to be distinguished from the theory and underlying principles of tonality and serialism, which is what I've been talking about in my posts, _not_ the music itself.



Woodduck said:


> ...Even unsophisticated listeners feel and intuit tonality and its implications and consequences, but experiments have shown that even musicians often can't tell whether a work is serial or not.


That's conjecture based on experiments which are not at all scientific, since all resulting music produced is art, not science...and I can tell if a work is serial or not 99% of the time. I've got good ear/brain perception, though...



Woodduck said:


> ...It isn't merely fanciful that we speak of tonality's "gravitational" force, and the force of tonality is felt to pervade musical space just as gravity is felt to pervade physical space.


On a very basic sensual level of the ear, that's the way sound is, and the way we hear it.

...But to suggest that the artificially-derived and strung-out-over-time 'narrative' devices of Western CP tonality are "primordial" or as "pervasive as gravity" is to ignore _the true primordial harmonic phenomenon which pervades all pitched sound, _and attempts to give its credit to the _artificial system_ we call CP tonality.

The "harmonic" sense and nature of pitched sound is what is pervasive; it can be seen manifest in almost all "folk," "ethnic," and "primitive" musics which Mankind has created. This is because the "harmonic" nature of pitched sound is a manifestation of Man's being, and its pervasiveness is due to the universality and commonality of Human experience; not the narrative artifice Western Man calls "the tonal system" or "tonality."



Woodduck said:


> ...Serialism is the artificial constraint that has to be imposed, the seat belt that keeps the astronaut from floating away, when the force of gravity is broken.


Even this Newtonian analogy of gravity reflects the old religious paradigm of pre-Enlightenment Western tonality.



Woodduck said:


> ...So much for analogies to "science" and "logic." Serialism is non-intuitive, and therefore without real logic.


This seems to conveniently confound the _results_ of serial thought (the music), with the underlying thought processes. I think we need to decide what it is we are talking about: 1) Our paradigms of music, or 2) the underlying thought-systems which produce it, or 3) the pure phenomenon of harmonic sound...if anyone is capable of _that_ much abstract thought.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Trying to equate musical theories with science/logic makes as much sense to me as equating it with nature (namely: zero), but I would caution against trying to wed intuitions with logic. A great deal that's logical/rational is highly counter-intuitive, especially when we get into mathematical examples; and a great deal of of what's intuitive is highly irrational.


I'm not sure why you're addressing my remarks. You really should be addressing millionrainbows, to whom I'm merely responding. Please note: I said "IF we have to make ANALOGIES with science." I am not EQUATING anything with anything. You needn't caution me against doing something I have not done.

Dropping into the middle of a conversation can often get us into trouble.


----------



## millionrainbows

To be clear, I am not equating art (the resulting music produced by tonality or serial thought) with science; only their underlying thought-processes and systems (which ultimately result in music, good or bad).


----------



## Guest

I understand serial, indeterminate, stochastic, spectral, concrete, etc. music _and_ its appeal more and more each time I listen to it. If you like and understand a piece of music, whether or not it is "natural" hardly seems relevant.


----------



## millionrainbows

nathanb said:


> I understand serial, indeterminate, stochastic, spectral, concrete, etc. music _and_ its appeal more and more each time I listen to it. If you like and understand a piece of music, whether or not it is "natural" hardly seems relevant.


I agree, and that seems to be true of all music.

Whether or not the musical thought which produced that music is "natural or not" is another matter, and should not impinge on one's enjoyment and listening.


----------



## Haydn70

"It [serialism] was finished, empty, meaningless…"

"Modernism ended up allowing us only a postage-stamp-sized space to stand on. We cut the rest away."

"There is no greater provincialism than that special form of sophistication and arrogance which denies the past."

"I ran in to New York as often as I could to hear concerts, and it all sounded *gray and dull* [bold and italics mine], by people with vast reputations based on what, I'll never know."

"…there can be no justification for music, ultimately,* if it does not convey eloquently and elegantly the passions of the human heart* [bold and italics mine]... the insistence on ignoring the dramatic, gestural character of music, while harping on the mystique of the minutiae of abstract design for its own sake, says worlds about the failure of much new music."

So wrote one of the finest American post-WWII composers, George Rochberg. His story is one of the most interesting in American classical music. In the first part of his career he was a committed serialist who eventually "…took one of the boldest artistic choices made by any 20th-century composer and rejected avant-gardism - thus setting in train the stylistic liberalisation that allows today's composers such a range of musical languages - his modernist colleagues turned on him with rare venom and rancour."

For those interested:

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/01/arts/music/george-rochberg-composer-dies-at-86.html

https://www.firstthings.com/article/1998/06/005-george-rochbergs-revolution-6

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/george-rochberg-295921.html

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2005/jun/02/guardianobituaries.artsobituaries


----------



## Woodduck

Serialism deals with intervals as quantities, while tonality places intervals (and everything else) in reference to a central tone (tonic). That in itself shows that serialism is more mathematically based.

Who cares if it's "mathematically based"? You said it was "logical," I showed why it isn't, and now you're substituting "mathematical." Math is not logic - and being "mathematical" is certainly nothing for art to brag about.

Tonality's recursive nature, i.e. giving pitches "identity" in an hierarchy reflects the religious paradigm of "everything is being and it is all related to "the one" (God).

Tonality is not "recursive" (whatever that means) and "God" (whatever that is) has nothing to do with it.

The next thing you know, we'll be hearing about "intelligent design." 

Not from me. Quasi-religious woo woo is your bailiwick.

That's conjecture based on experiments which are not at all scientific, since all resulting music produced is art, not science...and I can tell if a work is serial or not 99% of the time. I've got good ear/brain perception, though...

Well thank "God" someone, at least, can hear those tone rows.

I am speaking of the theory and underlying principles of tonality and serialism, not the music itself.

_Now_ you tell us...

...But to suggest that the artificially-derived and strung-out-over-time 'narrative' devices of Western CP tonality are "primordial" or as "pervasive as gravity" is to ignore _the true primordial harmonic phenomenon which pervades all pitched sound, _and attempts to give its credit to the _artificial system_ we call CP tonality.

I didn't suggest that "artificially-derived and strung-out-over-time 'narrative' devices of Western CP tonality" are anything at all. I wouldn't even be able to think up a phrase like that.

The "harmonic" sense and nature of pitched sound is what is pervasive; it can be seen manifest in almost all "folk," "ethnic," and "primitive" musics which Mankind has created. 

This is obvious.

This is because the "harmonic" nature of pitched sound is a manifestation of Man's being, and its pervasiveness is due to the universality and commonality of Human experience;

This is _not_ obvious. In fact it's mushy woo woo, like the "God" you keep invoking. So let's get this straight: the harmonic nature of pitched sound is a manifestation of Man's [sic] being, and tonality is a manifestation of God, and serialism is a manifestation of...

Oh never mind.

not the narrative artifice Western Man calls "the tonal system" or "tonality."

No one calls tonality a narrative artifice.

Even this Newtonian analogy of gravity reflects the old religious paradigm of pre-Enlightenment Western tonality.

Don't try to define my analogies for me, and particularly not in terms of bizarre inventions like "the old religious paradigm of pre-Enlightenment Western tonality." Newtonian schmewtonian.

This seems to conveniently confound the _results_ of serial thought (the music), with the underlying thought processes. *I think we need to decide what it is we are talking about*: 1) Our paradigms of music, or 2) the underlying thought-systems which produce it, or 3) the pure phenomenon of harmonic sound...*if anyone is capable of that much abstract thought.*[/QUOTE]

Well, I don't know how much abstract thought "anyone" is capable of, but I agree that _you,_ at least, need to decide what it is _you're_ talking about and make that clear.

I need a walk in the fresh air. Bye.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> To be clear, I am not equating art (the resulting music produced by tonality or serial thought) with science; only their underlying thought-processes and systems (which ultimately result in music, good or bad).


That equation is no good either.


----------



## DaveM

arpeggio said:


> The bottom line is that members who like Cage or Boulez or Stockhausen or Xenakis have every right to be here as those who believe classical music died sixty years ago. We have members, including some posts in this thread, who imply that any discussions concerning these composers should be prohibited. They have problems with anyone who does not hear music the same way as they do. And whenever we try to stand up to these individuals we are the ones who are disciplined.


The OP is titled 'Tonality is Unnatural' which, by any measure, is controversial and would be expected to result in the oft-discussed 'tonality vs. atonality'. Your post is tantamount to someone going into a house where smoke is rising from the roof and being surprised that there's fire.

There are older and newer threads such as, Looking for Composers Similar to Morgan Feldman, Composers Similar to Charles Ives, Exploring Contemporary Composers, going on all the time and you won't find anything but support for the music there. This has been pointed out before, but you continue to ignore it. Why?


----------



## janxharris

millionrainbows said:


> Serialism deals with intervals as quantities, while tonality places intervals (and everything else) in reference to a central tone (tonic). That in itself shows that serialism is more mathematically based, since Western tonality's recursive nature, i.e. giving pitches "identity" in an hierarchy reflects the religious paradigm of "everything is being and it is all related to "the one" (God).


So your assumption is essentially one of science trumping religion? Your conclusions are wild extrapolations and aren't worth dwelling on.


----------



## Lisztian

ArsMusica said:


> "It [serialism] was finished, empty, meaningless…"
> 
> "Modernism ended up allowing us only a postage-stamp-sized space to stand on. We cut the rest away."
> 
> "There is no greater provincialism than that special form of sophistication and arrogance which denies the past."
> 
> "I ran in to New York as often as I could to hear concerts, and it all sounded *gray and dull* [bold and italics mine], by people with vast reputations based on what, I'll never know."
> 
> "…there can be no justification for music, ultimately,* if it does not convey eloquently and elegantly the passions of the human heart* [bold and italics mine]... the insistence on ignoring the dramatic, gestural character of music, while harping on the mystique of the minutiae of abstract design for its own sake, says worlds about the failure of much new music."
> 
> So wrote one of the finest American post-WWII composers, George Rochberg. His story is one of the most interesting in American classical music. In the first part of his career he was a committed serialist who eventually "…took one of the boldest artistic choices made by any 20th-century composer and rejected avant-gardism - thus setting in train the stylistic liberalisation that allows today's composers such a range of musical languages - his modernist colleagues turned on him with rare venom and rancour."
> 
> For those interested:
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/01/arts/music/george-rochberg-composer-dies-at-86.html
> 
> https://www.firstthings.com/article/1998/06/005-george-rochbergs-revolution-6
> 
> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/george-rochberg-295921.html
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/news/2005/jun/02/guardianobituaries.artsobituaries


Cool, more opinions: and we'll keep firing back at you with our opinions -based on honest enjoyment- that a lot of atonal/twelve-tone music is wonderful. What are you trying to accomplish exactly?


----------



## amfortas

ArsMusica said:


> So wrote one of the finest American post-WWII composers, George Rochberg. His story is one of the most interesting in American classical music. In the first part of his career he was a committed serialist who eventually "…took one of the boldest artistic choices made by any 20th-century composer and rejected avant-gardism - thus setting in train the stylistic liberalisation that allows today's composers such a range of musical languages - his modernist colleagues turned on him with rare venom and rancour."


I'm sure it's a compelling story, but I'm not sure how his personal aesthetic journey should have a bearing on mine or anyone else's.


----------



## DaveM

amfortas said:


> I'm sure it's a compelling story, but I'm not sure how his personal aesthetic journey should have a bearing on mine or anyone else's.


We see posts here that infer that atonal supporters are being persecuted. It's interesting to see recurring evidence, starting in the early 20th century, that composers who tried to compose more traditionally absolutely were persecuted.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> I need a walk in the fresh air. Bye.


Woodduck, posts like MR's make perfect sense to me. But that's only because, after years of study of John Cage's music, I have ascended to the astral plane, where I play golf with the Buddha every Saturday (but he does cheat).

If you have no taste for such a regimen of hard study, you might achieve the same results with a bottle or two of schnapps…


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> To be clear, I am not equating art (the resulting music produced by tonality or serial thought) with science; only their underlying thought-processes and systems (which ultimately result in music, good or bad).


"Serial thought".... You're going at full-on trying to make a philosophy out of it aren't you? Sokal/Bricmont would have a field day with this.


----------



## amfortas

DaveM said:


> We see posts here that infer that atonal supporters are being persecuted. It's interesting to see recurring evidence, starting in the early 20th century, that composers who tried to compose more traditionally absolutely were persecuted.


It's just possible that both can be true.


----------



## Lisztian

DaveM said:


> We see posts here that infer that atonal supporters are being persecuted. It's interesting to see recurring evidence, starting in the early 20th century, that composers who tried to compose more traditionally absolutely were persecuted.


It's true, and it's a shame that it happened. However, us liking this music does not mean we align with their views regarding composers who write in more traditional styles. Many of us love both the more 'traditional' 20th century composers as well the radical ones.


----------



## Guest

Lisztian said:


> our opinions -based on honest enjoyment- that a lot of atonal/twelve-tone music is wonderful.


Clearly, your opinions are expected to wilt under the barrage of informed opinions from ex-avantgardists. I wonder you bother with your own when there are experts, experts I say, who can put you right.


----------



## fluteman

ArsMusica said:


> I apologize if I was unclear in my post about the Chicago Symphony and Barenboim's selection of the _Adagio_. I wrote:
> 
> "Barber's Nocturne is not relevant to this discussion. What is the point of bringing it up?
> 
> Barber use of modernist elements is not relevant to this discussion. Ditto."
> 
> I both cases "this discussion" referred specifically to the discussion re: the selection of the _Adagio _NOT the thread topic.
> 
> I thought that was clear...if it wasn't I am sorry.
> 
> I have thoroughly analyzed the _Adagio _and am looking at the score right now in fact. Technically, and of course aurally, it is a very conservative piece. The only remotely "modern" aspects of the work (and I mean *remotely*) are Barber's extensive use of 7th chords (major and minor) and the occasional meter changes.


Sorry, I always read posts with the overall topic of the thread in mind. But even if one limits the discussion to Barber's Adagio for strings, it's worth remembering that it is taken from his String Quartet, Op. 11. Similarly, Barber's ethereal Canzone, often performed alone, is taken from his Piano Concerto, Op. 38. Both of these works as a whole use sharply dissonant intervals, extensive stretches of tonal ambiguity and other modernist features.

The Adagio itself reminds me of the late Beethoven string quartets, especially no. 14 (Op. 131). But Barber's music as a whole is unmistakably post-Stravinsky in style and sensibility. Perhaps it was not to the liking of Boulez. But innovative artists in general often have extreme and vehemently expressed opinions about the superiority of their own ideas and the ideas of those who directly inspired and influenced them. It usually takes that sort of single minded belief in the rightness of one's own path to be able to swim against the tide and reach new shores. Beethoven certainly had it. So I'm not too worried about what Boulez was willing to conduct. As a child in the 70s, I actually saw him in person conducting the New York Philharmonic. A Beethoven symphony, as I recall, perhaps the 4th.


----------



## Thomyum2

DaveM said:


> We see posts here that infer that atonal supporters are being persecuted. It's interesting to see recurring evidence, starting in the early 20th century, that composers who tried to compose more traditionally absolutely were persecuted.


I think perhaps there needs to be a distinction drawn in these discussions -

I'm hearing undercurrents in these posts that suggest there are people in positions of some degree of power (e.g. music directors, professors, competition judges, orchestra board members, publishers, etc.) who perhaps abuse that power to give an advantage to music that they personally prefer or value to give it publicity or promote an audience for it, and thereby put music they don't like at a disadvantage, in spite of what that audience might really want to hear. I do share the concern there - that a powerful orchestral director who thinks serialism should have such priority to the extent that other popular works are excluded is equally unfortunate as a major donor to an orchestra who insists the program include their favorite Beethoven symphony every other year, and there is a legitimate reason to speak out again such things. (Although, in their defense, business decision do often have to be made and they can't always please everyone.) But maybe that's a topic that for another thread - is there a section for the 'politics and economics of music'?

Where I think we should take note of the distinction is that this is a very different thing from the fact that different listeners have different tastes and preferences, and I don't think these discussions rise to the level of being persecution, but perhaps a little more sensitivity and mutual respect for each other's opinions might be in order to avoid some hurt feelings. As is often posted, _de gustibus non est disputandum_ - dispute in these matters serves little constructive purpose.

All that said, I do find that these passionate debates going in so many directions do give me plenty of food for thought!


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Thomyum2 said:


> I think perhaps there needs to be a distinction drawn in these discussions -
> 
> I'm hearing undercurrents in these posts that suggest there are people in positions of some degree of power (e.g. music directors, professors, competition judges, orchestra board members, publishers, etc.) who perhaps abuse that power to give an advantage to music that they personally prefer or value to give it publicity or promote an audience for it, and thereby put music they don't like at a disadvantage, in spite of what that audience might really want to hear. I do share the concern there - that a powerful orchestral director who thinks serialism should have such priority to the extent that other popular works are excluded is equally unfortunate as a major donor to an orchestra who insists the program include their favorite Beethoven symphony every other year, and there is a legitimate reason to speak out again such things. (Although, in their defense, business decision do often have to be made and they can't always please everyone.) But maybe that's a topic that for another thread - is there a section for the 'politics and economics of music'?
> 
> Where I think we should take note of the distinction is that this is a very different thing from the fact that different listeners have different tastes and preferences, and I don't think these discussions rise to the level of being persecution, but perhaps a little more sensitivity and mutual respect for each other's opinions might be in order to avoid some hurt feelings. As is often posted, _de gustibus non est disputandum_ - dispute in these matters serves little constructive purpose.
> 
> All that said, I do find that these passionate debates going in so many directions do give me plenty of food for thought!


Note sure what your saying here but I think I like it


----------



## Haydn70

fluteman said:


> Sorry, I always read posts with the overall topic of the thread in mind. But even if one limits the discussion to Barber's Adagio for strings, it's worth remembering that it is taken from his String Quartet, Op. 11. Similarly, Barber's ethereal Canzone, often performed alone, is taken from his Piano Concerto, Op. 38. Both of these works as a whole use sharply dissonant intervals, extensive stretches of tonal ambiguity and other modernist features.
> 
> The Adagio itself reminds me of the late Beethoven string quartets, especially no. 14 (Op. 131). But Barber's music as a whole is unmistakably post-Stravinsky in style and sensibility. Perhaps it was not to the liking of Boulez. But innovative artists in general often have extreme and vehemently expressed opinions about the superiority of their own ideas and the ideas of those who directly inspired and influenced them. It usually takes that sort of single minded belief in the rightness of one's own path to be able to swim against the tide and reach new shores. Beethoven certainly had it. So I'm not too worried about what Boulez was willing to conduct. As a child in the 70s, I actually saw him in person conducting the New York Philharmonic. A Beethoven symphony, as I recall, perhaps the 4th.


With all due respect fluteman, why do you keep deflecting? The piece under discussion is Barber's _Adagio for Strings_.

You're doing the same thing here that you did in your previous response, i.e., referencing other pieces or, in the case of Barber's String Quartet, other movements of his music that use exhibit modernist features. (And I am very familiar with the quartet…that is, in fact, the score I was referring to in my previous post.) I am fully aware of Barber's use of modernist techniques throughout his body of work.

But there are none in his _Adagio_.

By 20th-century standards there are no dissonances in the piece. Yes, in places there is the occasional minor 2nd (a passing tone, etc.). But structurally speaking there is no dissonance. Even with the build to the climax and the climax itself (the most likely place where a composer like Barber might use some dissonance)…none. The chord progression in the build…straightforward modality/tonality: F - bb - F - bb - F - Gb - eb - f - bb - Gb - c dim 7 -bb - Gb -CbM7….and the glorious climax chord: Fb. No seconds, no sevenths, not tritone, just a pure Fb major chord.

I have no problems at all with dissonance. At times in my own music I use it…and sometimes it is quite biting and harsh. But my music is primarily modal/tonal. I like having a full, unlimited palette of harmonic possibilities. And I like the music of other composers, such as Rochberg, who use a broad, striking, colorful, wide-ranging harmonic palette…something serialists and many non-serial atonalists, with their monotonous, continuous dissonance, their various shades of gray, are not interested in using.


----------



## fluteman

ArsMusica said:


> With all due respect fluteman, why do you keep deflecting? The piece under discussion is Barber's _Adagio for Strings_.


As I said, the Adagio for Strings is an arrangement of the second movement of the B-minor string quartet, Op. 11. How is that not discussing the Adagio for Strings? As I also said, as politely as I could manage to say it, my comment was in the context of the topic of this thread, which is "Tonality is Unnatural", or as the original poster observes in post no. 1, there is generally a human adjustment (I might have said manipulation) of the sounds of nature to serve the artistic purpose of creating music. One might say that you can't take "art" out of "artificial". You seem to be annoyed that I had the nerve to relate something you posted to the topic of this thread. Barber's use of modernist elements may not be relevant to what you were discussing, as you claim, but if so that only indicates to me that what you were discussing is not very relevant to the topic of this thread.


----------



## mmsbls

If natural means "occurring in nature (i.e. reality)", then both tonality and atonality are natural. If natural means not man-made (as I understand the OP's definition), the as far as I know, neither is natural. 

A different question would be whether tonal music is more inherently enjoyable than atonal music. I don't think we have the data necessary to answer that question given the complex environments and development of all people. One could conceivably do an extremely difficult and immoral experiment that might answer the question, but the best we can reasonably do is look at those who have developed under varying musical backgrounds. I'm not sure exactly what we would learn from such an investigation.


----------



## amfortas

mmsbls said:


> A different question would be whether tonal music is more inherently enjoyable than atonal music. I don't think we have the data necessary to answer that question given the complex environments and development of all people. One could conceivably do an extremely difficult and immoral experiment that might answer the question . . .


Oooooh--I like the sound of that. Sign me up!


----------



## fluteman

mmsbls said:


> A different question would be whether tonal music is more inherently enjoyable than atonal music.


That is an inherently unenjoyable question. In fact, as a more general proposition, my posts are inherently more enjoyable than yours. As this is an inherent quality of my posts (and yours), it is not subjective or subject to the vagaries of various other individual observations. Therefore, no polls or requests for input from others is needed. How do I know all this? I am inherently smarter than you are. No need to thank me for this insight, I am also inherently more generous and selfless than you.

To put it a little more seriously, the fact that art is created and exists, and consistently has at least something of an audience over an extended period of time, (say,at least one generation -- 30 or 40 years, maybe?) implies that it addresses some significant desire or need in that audience. If the art is successful enough to have an impact or influence on our culture in a broader sense, then there is an element of permanence to it, and one would have to concede that it did a very good job indeed in addressing a significant desire or need in its audience. I don't think there is anything you can say beyond examining how well and how long an artwork or art form serves the needs of its audience, and how much of a long-term cultural impact it has. There is nothing else "inherent" you can conclusively point to, though you may argue about tonal v. atonal until you are blue in the face.


----------



## DaveM

mmsbls said:


> A different question would be whether tonal music is more inherently enjoyable than atonal music...


Well that is a loaded question!  Perhaps try playing these three (spanning a little more than the first half of the 20th century) for family and friends who have little or no classical music experience and see what they say. I have to admit that after hearing the Carter, I almost developed more appreciation for the Schoenberg.

Elliott Carter Piano Concerto (1964) 'avant-garde':






Schoenberg Piano Concerto (1942) 12 Tone/atonal:






Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto #2 (1901) tonal:


----------



## San Antone

DaveM said:


> Well that is a loaded question!  Perhaps try playing these three (spanning a little more than the first half of the 20th century) for family and friends who have little or no classical music experience and see what they say. I have to admit that after hearing the Carter, I almost developed more appreciation for the Schoenberg.
> 
> Elliott Carter Piano Concerto (1964) 'avant-garde':
> 
> Schoenberg Piano Concerto (1942) 12 Tone/atonal:
> 
> Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto #2 (1901) tonal:


I'd rank them according to my enjoyment like this:

Schoenberg
Carter
Rachmaninoff


----------



## amfortas

I'm not feeling the Rachmaninoff. But I think that's the performance.


----------



## Haydn70

I'd rank them according to my enjoyment like this:

Rachmaninoff


----------



## eugeneonagain

The Schoenberg is by now a classic and has captivated plenty listeners previously uninterested in modern music. The Elliot Carter is just dull; the 'orchestrations' are laughable.


----------



## mmsbls

fluteman said:


> That is an inherently unenjoyable question. ...


The question is not so much enjoyable or not enjoyable but rather potentially fascinating to those intensely curious about the human brain. But I imagine what I think about when I think of the question is almost infinitely different than what you think about. To be fair, the question is probably misleading without some background.



fluteman said:


> To put it a little more seriously, the fact that art is created and exists, and consistently has at least something of an audience over an extended period of time, (say,at least one generation -- 30 or 40 years, maybe?) implies that it addresses some significant desire or need in that audience. If the art is successful enough to have an impact or influence on our culture in a broader sense, then there is an element of permanence to it, and one would have to concede that it did a very good job indeed in addressing a significant desire or need in its audience.


I agree wholeheartedly.



fluteman said:


> I don't think there is anything you can say beyond examining how well and how long an artwork or art form serves the needs of its audience, and how much of a long-term cultural impact it has. There is nothing else "inherent" you can conclusively point to, though you may argue about tonal v. atonal until you are blue in the face.


Here I disagree, but I would generally agree if we are talking about the present and especially on TC. I am thinking more about trying to understand the brain in the way we understand cars. Cars perform differently under differing circumstances, but we can potentially isolate the inputs to understand their effect on the output. I am thinking about understanding the brain to the level where we can understand questions such as:

Why do we enjoy music?
How do various specified aspects of music affect people based on the detailed characteristics of their brain states?

Presently, we can't come close to answering those questions, but I personally find them fascinating. Of course it doesn't matter if one kind of music is more enjoyable for particular brain states. But, for some of us, it would be wonderful to understand brains at that level. I probably (greatly) understated the difficulty of the numerous experiments necessary to get anywhere close to that understanding.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> I'm not sure why you're addressing my remarks. You really should be addressing millionrainbows, to whom I'm merely responding. Please note: I said "IF we have to make ANALOGIES with science." I am not EQUATING anything with anything. You needn't caution me against doing something I have not done.
> 
> Dropping into the middle of a conversation can often get us into trouble.


I've been following the conversation despite not commenting much, and I do think millionrainbows's original comparison with science/logic/God is silly as well. You had said: "Serialism is non-intuitive, and therefore without real logic," and "That claim is based on a pseudo-scientific notion of what logic is, one that eliminates logic's intuitive heart." These two quotes express a connection between intuition and logic, and I'm saying that the two are as often in conflict than in agreement. That's it.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I've been following the conversation despite not commenting much, and I do think millionrainbows's original comparison with science/logic/God is silly as well. You had said: "Serialism is non-intuitive, and therefore without real logic," and "That claim is based on a pseudo-scientific notion of what logic is, one that eliminates logic's intuitive heart." These two quotes express a connection between intuition and logic, and I'm saying that the two are as often in conflict than in agreement. That's it.


I admit that I didn't spell out my point at length. God knows, I'm trying to be terse! The point is not that there's a "connection" between intuition and logic, but that that logic IS intuitive. You can set forth a certain number of facts, but there's no guarantee that I will see that they point to a conclusion. That has to be intuited, whether or not I spell out to myself any or all of the meanings the facts imply. The line between logical thought and intuition is an artificial one. If we can't intuit - if we can't make connections below the level of consciousness - we can't think at all.

How does this apply to music? Tonal music comes with a set of "facts" or "premises," a set of relationships among its component tones and harmonies, which listeners recognize as they approach a piece of music. Depending on how the composer lays out the materials of a work - the harmonies and melodic shapes, the rhythmic patterns and momentum - we, as listeners, knowing the "premises" on which the tonal idiom is based, intuit certain possibilities and likelihoods; we expect that, given what we are hearing, certain things will follow, as a logical conclusion follows from its premises. Often the music reaches the conclusions which satisfy our (mostly unconscious) deductions; often it doesn't, and new "facts" are introduced which set up for us a new set of possibilities and expectations.

Atonal music removes from harmonic progression the "premises" on which we ground our expected "conclusions." The "tone row" of serialism is introduced as a device intended to compensate for some of the coherence lost when tonality is echewed. But only to a limited extent can the template of the row create expectations in the listener, and for the most part expectations of specific harmonic resolutions cannot be generated in atonal music, serial or not. We cannot "intuit" what will come (or surprise us by not coming), because the "logic" of tonality is missing. Atonal music does not say compellingly to us, "THIS, THIS and THIS, therefore THIS," as tonal music does continuously in both the short and the long range.

Millionrainbows has said that atonal music must be listened to moment-by-moment because of this very absence of a directing harmonic syntax. In terms of harmony, there's something to that, although the distribution of relative consonance and dissonance and the employment of textural, melodic and rhythmic patterns can provide continuity and progression (as they also do in tonal music). But if atonal harmony contains no systemic grammar (grammar being the "logic" of language), and if the row is not in fact a substitute or a new grammar, it's illogical to call serialism "logical." Tonal music, by contrast, IS logical precisely because, as with logic itself, we are constantly intuiting its implications, in the moment and long range. A tonal work which successfully and continuously plays with the implications of its own harmonic premises and reaches throughout its progress the conclusions that feel "right" gives us a satisfaction akin to what we feel when we've intuited the solution to a complex logical problem.

"Tonal logic" is more than an analogy.


----------



## Haydn70

Woodduck said:


> I admit that I didn't spell out my point at length. God knows, I'm trying to be terse! The point is not that there's a "connection" between intuition and logic, but that that logic IS intuitive. You can set forth a certain number of facts, but there's no guarantee that I will see that they point to a conclusion. That has to be intuited, whether or not I spell out to myself any or all of the meanings the facts imply. The line between logical thought and intuition is an artificial one. If we can't intuit - if we can't make connections below the level of consciousness - we can't think at all.
> 
> How does this apply to music? Tonal music comes with a set of "facts" or "premises," a set of relationships among its component tones and harmonies, which listeners recognize as they approach a piece of music. Depending on how the composer lays out the materials of a work - the harmonies and melodic shapes, the rhythmic patterns and momentum - we, as listeners, knowing the "premises" on which the tonal idiom is based, intuit certain possibilities and likelihoods; we expect that, given what we are hearing, certain things will follow, as a logical conclusion follows from its premises. Often the music reaches the conclusions which satisfy our (mostly unconscious) deductions; often it doesn't, and new "facts" are introduced which set up for us a new set of possibilities and expectations.
> 
> Atonal music removes from harmonic progression the "premises" on which we ground our expected "conclusions." The "tone row" of serialism is introduced as a device intended to compensate for some of the coherence lost when tonality is echewed. But only to a limited extent can the template of the row create expectations in the listener, and for the most part expectations of specific harmonic resolutions cannot be generated in atonal music, serial or not. We cannot "intuit" what will come (or surprise us by not coming), because the "logic" of tonality is missing. Atonal music does not say compellingly to us, "THIS, THIS and THIS, therefore THIS," as tonal music does continuously in both the short and the long range.
> 
> Millionrainbows has said that atonal music must be listened to moment-by-moment because of this very absence of a directing harmonic syntax. In terms of harmony, there's something to that, although the distribution of relative consonance and dissonance and the employment of textural, melodic and rhythmic patterns can provide continuity and progression (as they also do in tonal music). But if atonal harmony contains no systemic grammar (grammar being the "logic" of language), and if the row is not in fact a substitute or a new grammar, it's illogical to call serialism "logical." Tonal music, by contrast, IS logical precisely because, like logic itself, we are constantly intuiting its implications, in the moment and long range. A tonal work which successfully and continuously plays with the implications of its own harmonic premises and reaches throughout its progress the conclusions that feel "right" gives us a satisfaction akin to what we feel when we've intuited the solution to a complex logical problem.
> 
> "Tonal logic" is more than an analogy.


Yet another superb post, Woodduck!


----------



## Woodduck

ArsMusica said:


> Yet another superb post, Woodduck!


Thanks. I thought you might like that one. :tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck

mmsbls said:


> If natural means "occurring in nature (i.e. reality)", then both tonality and atonality are natural. If natural means not man-made (as I understand the OP's definition), the as far as I know, neither is natural.
> 
> *A different question would be whether tonal music is more inherently enjoyable than atonal music.* I don't think we have the data necessary to answer that question given the complex environments and development of all people. *One could conceivably do an extremely difficult and immoral experiment that might answer the question, but the best we can reasonably do is look at those who have developed under varying musical backgrounds.* I'm not sure exactly what we would learn from such an investigation.


If "more inherently enjoyable" means "more likely to satisfy some human physical/emotional/cognitive need(s)," the question doesn't seem to me all that hard to answer. That doesn't mean we can ever provide the kind of definitive, "scientific" proof some would require; that would involve, at the very least, experiments studying people who have heard little or no music of any kind, and recording their verbal reports and physiological responses to hearing both tonal and atonal music. But this approach would run into the difficulty that there is no such thing as "music" in the abstract but only particular pieces of music, regarding which individual tastes would complicate the study immeasurably. For example, someone might prefer tonal music in general by a large margin, but prefer Schoenberg's _Erwartung_ or Berg's _Lulu_ to Rossini's _Semiramide_ or Puccini's _Tosca._ Any attempt to overcome this problem by using a very large cross-section of musical works and styles would, for purely statistical reasons, bias the study in favor of tonal music.

Nerdy types who don't concede anything that hasn't been proved by double-blind experiments would probably reject the abundant indirect evidence in support of tonal music being more generally enjoyable to humans. Such evidence would include a number of facts: 1.) traditional cultures worldwide have independently developed tonal music; 2.) most music has been tonal since the earliest music we know much about (ancient Greece, I believe); 3.) atonal music was invented only about 100 years ago by someone whose reasons for doing so are musicologically and culturally questionable; 4.) atonal music has been written by only a minority of composers and exclusively by a tiny minority; and 5.) leading composers writing tonal music have lately regained complete "respectability" among their peers, as well as a public following, after a determined effort by an atonalist academic "elite" to discredit them.

If classical music in general is a minority interest, atonal music is the concern of a much smaller minority, although this has undoubtedly changed to some degree as more people have become acquainted with it in the age of recording. But atonal music in general is still much less liked than tonal music even by people with extensive knowledge of classical music, and nothing yet suggests that this will change.

Beyond the above evidence, recent and accumulating studies of the cognitive aspects of musical perception suggest that tonality may be a vehicle of meaning having evolutionary, social, physical, psychological and philosophical implications. While simple observation can tell us that tonality is, and appears always to have been, important to human beings, the more important and interesting inquiry into _why_ that is so is also yielding some answers.

None of this, of course, tells us anything about any particular example of music, tonal or atonal, or why any individual might enjoy it or not. For the record, I _do_ like Schoenberg's _Erwartung_ more than Rossini's _Semiramide._ Apparently I like Rossini only when he's being funny, and Schoenberg mainly when he's going with his gut, pulling out all the post-Wagnerian stops and not diddling around with neo-Brahmsian forms and tone rows. Expressionist creepiness and ecstatic angst are for me the truest home of atonality, and Schoenberg's paintings tell me that deep down he felt that way too.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> ...the abundant indirect evidence in support of tonal music being more generally enjoyable to humans.


It seems to be true that music written by composers of tonal music is more widely accepted than music of their non-tonal brethren. But this doesn't necessarily mean that tonal music is inherently more appealing. It may simply mean that composers of tonal music are more skilled and talented.

Unlikely, granted! But let's keep the escape routes open…


----------



## DaveM

KenOC said:


> It seems to be true that music written by composers of tonal music is more widely accepted than music of their non-tonal brethren. But this doesn't necessarily mean that tonal music is inherently more appealing. It may simply mean that composers of tonal music are more skilled and talented.
> 
> Unlikely, granted! But let's keep the escape routes open…


But still, something to consider. I'm thinking of the incredible pool of composers to pick from during the 19th century when classical music was at its zenith. It would seem that support for composers started to decrease in the 20th century and the First World War must have had a negative impact, particularly in Germany, a previous well-spring of musical talent.


----------



## janxharris

eugeneonagain said:


> The Schoenberg is by now a classic...


I doubt that - but it would apply to the Rachmaninov; you'd have to redefine it for the Schoenberg.


----------



## Lisztian

DaveM said:


> But still, something to consider. I'm thinking of the incredible pool of composers to pick from during the 19th century when classical music was at its zenith. It would seem that support for composers started to decrease in the 20th century and the First World War must have had a negative impact, particularly in Germany, a previous well-spring of musical talent.


Of course, I'd argue there were just as many great composers in the 20th century!


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Depending on how the composer lays out the materials of a work - the harmonies and melodic shapes, the rhythmic patterns and momentum - we, as listeners, knowing the "premises" on which the tonal idiom is based, intuit certain possibilities and likelihoods; we expect that, given what we are hearing, certain things will follow, as a logical conclusion follows from its premises. Often the music reaches the conclusions which satisfy our (mostly unconscious) deductions; often it doesn't, and new "facts" are introduced which set up for us a new set of possibilities and expectations. [...]
> 
> We cannot "intuit" what will come (or surprise us by not coming), because the "logic" of tonality is missing. Atonal music does not say compellingly to us, "THIS, THIS and THIS, therefore THIS," as tonal music does continuously in both the short and the long range.


This is one of the reasons (the main reason, perhaps) why I like the music that I do, and why I return to it frequently. In fact, unless I listen again, I don't also get the pleasure from anticipation - though what we get out of any particular piece partly depends on the level of experience and understanding of the logic that we intuit. My preference overall is for music that is beginning to break down the inevitabilites and introducing the improbable - music from, say, 1880-1950 - though there is still room for the more formal and playfulness of Haydn.

However, what is missing from your analysis is a recognition of the 'enjoyment' factor - which cannot be legislated for - and as you said very early on, without some clarity about what the OP means by 'natural/unnatural' we cannot begin to examine whether music that is more 'intuitively logical' (my construction, not yours I hasten to point out) is also more 'natural'.


----------



## janxharris

Maybe a significant number of us remain sceptical as to whether much atonal music is indeed meritorious - that though it may have some interesting design in terms of serial manipulation, nevertheless, many of the notes are pretty arbitrary and could have been different without significantly changing the effect - especially when tone clusters are employed.

In brief, we remain sceptical as to the actual skill required to produce such works - especially after discovering that many of the pieces end up sounding remarkably similar - dark, tense, tortured, chaotic etc.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

janxharris said:


> Maybe a significant number of us remain sceptical as to whether much atonal music is indeed meritorious - that though it may have some interesting design in terms of serial manipulation, nevertheless, many of the notes are pretty arbitrary and could have been different without significantly changing the effect - especially when tone clusters are employed.
> 
> In brief, we remain sceptical as to the actual skill required to produce such works - especially after discovering that many of the pieces end up sounding remarkably similar - dark, tense, tortured, chaotic etc.


The problem is not in the "skill" - many of the atonal and 12-note classics are pretty interesting to analyse and feature clever mathematical patterns, but they completely fail as music. Analysing serial music is great as a recreational math. activity - more interesting than solving sudoku or puzzles to me, because of my musical training. But I would rather listen to any other kind of music.

There are more than enough relatively unexplored modal resources (ethnic scales) in 12ET, there is no point in composing music based on playing all the notes one after another.


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> This is one of the reasons (the main reason, perhaps) why I like the music that I do, and why I return to it frequently. In fact, unless I listen again, I don't also get the pleasure from anticipation - though what we get out of any particular piece partly depends on the level of experience and understanding of the logic that we intuit. My preference overall is for music that is beginning to break down the inevitabilites and introducing the improbable - music from, say, 1880-1950 - though there is still room for the more formal and playfulness of Haydn.
> 
> However, what is missing from your analysis is a recognition of the 'enjoyment' factor - which cannot be legislated for - and as you said very early on, without some clarity about what the OP means by 'natural/unnatural' we cannot begin to examine whether music that is more 'intuitively logical' (my construction, not yours I hasten to point out) is also more 'natural'.


My intention in my post was really only to address the specific question of harmonic "logic." I would agree that musical enjoyment is not entirely a function of "tonal logic," although sensing that the composer has understood and carried out the implications of his own harmonic scheme is very satisfying. Like you - and like many people in our time, I think - I gravitate toward music which begins to challenge the harmonic conventions of classical tonality, but I would begin that era with the chromatic expansion (not the "breakdown") of tonality by the Romantics in the 19th century, and especially with Wagner, who showed how far the suspension of harmonic expectations, and the expressive tension that could generate, could be pushed. There are things in _Tristan_ (1859) and _Parsifal_ (1882) that still leave me open-mouthed in wonder at the man's ability to maintain a secure footing at the edge of the precipice, making the most astonishing feats of harmonic legerdemain sound natural and inevitable.


----------



## janxharris

BabyGiraffe said:


> The problem is not in the "skill" - many of the atonal and 12-note classics are pretty interesting to analyse and feature clever mathematical patterns, but they completely fail as music. Analysing serial music is great as a recreational math. activity - more interesting than solving sudoku or puzzles to me, because of my musical training. But I would rather listen to any other kind of music.
> 
> There are more than enough relatively unexplored modal resources (ethnic scales) in 12ET, there is no point in composing music based on playing all the notes one after another.


How would describe their failure? Do you agree that many of these type of works seem to express a limited set of related human emotions and phenomena (tension, torture, chaos, the subconscious, mental instability etc).


----------



## janxharris

True or false: by definition, serialism cannot express that which is harmonious?


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> My intention in my post was really only to address the specific question of harmonic "logic."


Quite so. I just felt it important to draw attention to something that might otherwise be inferred by any eager to point to your post as a well-argued rejection of the value of atonality.

As for Wagner, I recognise the features you point out - especially the suspension of harmonic expectation - but as you know, I find his work less enjoyable than some later composers who took even greater liberties (Ligeti, Messiaen for example).


----------



## Lisztian

BabyGiraffe said:


> The problem is not in the "skill" - many of the atonal and 12-note classics are pretty interesting to analyse and feature clever mathematical patterns, but they completely fail as music. Analysing serial music is great as a recreational math. activity - more interesting than solving sudoku or puzzles to me, because of my musical training. But I would rather listen to any other kind of music.
> 
> There are more than enough relatively unexplored modal resources (ethnic scales) in 12ET, there is no point in composing music based on playing all the notes one after another.


Translation: you don't like 12-tone/atonal music.

It doesn't fail as music, and many believe there is a point in composing it. What makes your opinion more important than those of those who genuinely enjoy a lot of this music?

Edit: My 1000th post!


----------



## Enthusiast

janxharris said:


> Maybe a significant number of us remain sceptical as to whether much atonal music is indeed meritorious - that though it may have some interesting design in terms of serial manipulation, nevertheless, many of the notes are pretty arbitrary and could have been different without significantly changing the effect - especially when tone clusters are employed.
> 
> In brief, we remain sceptical as to the actual skill required to produce such works - especially after discovering that many of the pieces end up sounding remarkably similar - dark, tense, tortured, chaotic etc.


When I was a child I used to play with my brother that we were both "foreign children" arguing strongly in our language - in fact random garbage - in the hope of getting passers by to intervene. It didn't often work and I doubt many were convinced. Your view of atonal music seems to be that it is something like our game. This seems to suggest that you think that all the people who like atonal music are falling for a trick that is being played on them. So you must feel they (we!) are really very stupid! And then you say it all sounds the same which is exactly what my friends who don't much like classical music say about Mozart and the other greats. They hear an element of the style and imagine there is nothing else there. But it is even more ignorant because "dark, tense, tortured, chaotic" doesn't remotely fit with all that much of the music you think you are talking about! This is the same scepticism that we have always encountered from people who don't like classical and illustrates only that they don't know it.


----------



## Lisztian

Enthusiast said:


> When I was a child I used to play with my brother that we were both "foreign children" arguing strongly in our language - in fact random garbage - in the hope of getting passers by to intervene. It didn't often work and I doubt many were convinced. Your view of atonal music seems to be that it is something like our game. This seems to suggest that you think that all the people who like atonal music are falling for a trick that is being played on them. So you must feel they (we!) are really very stupid! And then you say it all sounds the same which is exactly what my friends who don't much like classical music say about Mozart and the other greats. They hear an element of the style and imagine there is nothing else there. But it is even more ignorant because "dark, tense, tortured, chaotic" doesn't remotely fit with all that much of the music you think you are talking about! This is the same scepticism that we have always encountered from people who don't like classical and illustrates only that they don't know it.


Indeed. I think the fact that many are arguing for it being meritorious should be enough, unless one is extremely cynical...

I don't see it as a replacement for tonality, and I obviously don't think atonal/twelve-tone is the be all and end all... I just see these techniques as more ways to create good music (or 'enjoyable' music, perhaps it simply depends on the person), whether they are used for a whole work or in certain sections of a largely tonal work.

Works by composers like Xenakis, Stockhausen, Ligeti and, more recently, Cendo, are among the most fascinating, exciting, and flat out enjoyable works imaginable to me. I'm warming up to Boulez too.


----------



## Enthusiast

Lisztian said:


> Indeed. I think the fact that many are arguing for it being meritorious should be enough, unless one is extremely cynical...
> 
> I don't see it as a replacement for tonality, and I obviously don't think atonal/twelve-tone is the be all and end all... I just see these techniques as more ways to create good music (or 'enjoyable' music, perhaps it simply depends on the person), whether they are used for a whole work or in certain sections of a largely tonal work.
> 
> Works by composers like Xenakis, Stockhausen, Ligeti and, more recently, Cendo, are among the most fascinating works imaginable to me. I'm warming up to Boulez too.


I agree.

There are also people who post hear who say that they have listened to atonal music a lot, that they get it, but they just don't like it. I guess that is fair enough. But their position leads to either not liking newer music at all (_classical music died some time back_) or to liking the music that continues to be written in a more or less tonal language. Some people even seem to prefer this to Beethoven and Brahms. I've tried quite a lot of that new music but ultimately it doesn't do much to me. I find it easy but disposable, it is mood music and I just don't get the attraction.

I guess it depends on what you want out of music - or even what you expect it to do for you. I can imagine stopping with Mahler or Bartok or even Shostakovich and thinking "OK, that's as far as music goes for me" - so much that is exciting and wonderful is missed but fair enough - but I can't really understand wanting classical music to stand still and merely repeat the same old ideas in slightly different ways. That seems to me to be classical hell!


----------



## Guest

Not all of us have been on some kind of chronological musical journey. For me, Beethoven and Bartok are equally 'modern' because I'm listening to both of them in the here and now. And Part and Richter and Johansson and Lindberg. It seems I'm expected to move on from the past, just because the history of musical development has moved on. That's not the way it works.


----------



## Enthusiast

MacLeod said:


> Not all of us have been on some kind of chronological musical journey. For me, Beethoven and Bartok are equally 'modern' because I'm listening to both of them in the here and now. And Part and Richter and Johansson and Lindberg. It seems I'm expected to move on from the past, just because the history of musical development has moved on. That's not the way it works.


Yes, I think that is fair. And in a way they (Beethoven and Bartok) are, I think, modern and radical. Even though I followed the route of "the tradition" I still feel that. None of the composers who I really love sit comfortably with me!

We all got into this from different points and have followed different journeys. We probably also want different things from it. Possibly, like most kids, I just trusted my parents' tastes for the first 10 years of my journey so my it may not even have been entirely mine! I have often wondered how those who came to classical music later in life - I am not saying this is you (I don't know if it is) - get into it. Children are so attuned to learning that any sense of it being "work" to "learn to love", say, Beethoven is probably negligible for those who are drawn in (and many aren't even if music is all around them). But I have still been left with the feel that worthwhile art - I broaden it because literature did not come so easily to me - takes some "work" but compensates for that by being somehow more powerfully memorable. I do not trust that music that is totally new to me but comes easily is going to be worth my while.


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> When I was a child I used to play with my brother that we were both "foreign children" arguing strongly in our language - in fact random garbage - in the hope of getting passers by to intervene. It didn't often work and I doubt many were convinced. Your view of atonal music seems to be that it is something like our game. This seems to suggest that you think that all the people who like atonal music are falling for a trick that is being played on them. So you must feel they (we!) are really very stupid! And then you say it all sounds the same which is exactly what my friends who don't much like classical music say about Mozart and the other greats. They hear an element of the style and imagine there is nothing else there. But it is even more ignorant because "dark, tense, tortured, chaotic" doesn't remotely fit with all that much of the music you think you are talking about! This is the same scepticism that we have always encountered from people who don't like classical and illustrates only that they don't know it.


Actually, I remain rather ambivalent with regard to the merits of serial music for me personally. There are some pieces I quite like. I have nothing but respect for those who enjoy it.


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> ...But it is even more ignorant because "dark, tense, tortured, chaotic" doesn't remotely fit with all that much of the music you think you are talking about!


Those descriptions approximately sum up my experience with this type of music. If you would suggest pieces that express something other than I have described then I would be interested.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

janxharris said:


> How would describe their failure? Do you agree that many of these type of works seem to express a limited set of related human emotions and phenomena (tension, torture, chaos, the subconscious, mental instability etc).


Music doesn't express any emotion. We attach emotional interpretation to it. It is easy to understand why harmonious chords and scales can be considered happy and clashing timbres/chords - chaotic, painful etc. (Still I'm not sure why minor chord is considered sad - is it because it's upside down major? Pharrell Williams' song "Happy" is in minor, so I don't think that minor being sad is something 100 % universal, but I've yet to hear a sad major song.)

Check this article about compositinal systems and why modernist music doesn't "work".

http://www.bussigel.com/lerdahl/pdf/Cognitive Constraints on Compositional Systems.pdf

There is a resume here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_Constraints_on_Compositional_Systems


----------



## janxharris

BabyGiraffe said:


> Music doesn't express any emotion. We attach emotional interpretation to it. It is easy to understand why harmonious chords and scales can be considered happy and clashing timbres/chords - chaotic, painful etc. (Still I'm not sure why minor chord is considered sad - is it because it's upside down major? Pharrell Williams' song "Happy" is in minor, so I don't think that minor being sad is something 100 % universal, but I've yet to hear a sad major song.)
> 
> Check this article about compositinal systems and why modernist music doesn't "work".
> 
> http://www.bussigel.com/lerdahl/pdf/Cognitive Constraints on Compositional Systems.pdf
> 
> There is a resume here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_Constraints_on_Compositional_Systems


Will do.

The minor chord has a minor third clashing with the root note's major third harmonic (ie the 5th harmonic). You probably know this.

So a C minor chord of C, Eb, G will have the Eb clashing with the E natural harmonic - hence the dissonance and seemingly 'sadder' perception.


----------



## janxharris

BabyGiraffe said:


> Music doesn't express any emotion. We attach emotional interpretation to it. It is easy to understand why harmonious chords and scales can be considered happy and clashing timbres/chords - chaotic, painful etc. (Still I'm not sure why minor chord is considered sad - is it because it's upside down major? Pharrell Williams' song "Happy" is in minor, so I don't think that minor being sad is something 100 % universal, but I've yet to hear a sad major song.)
> 
> Check this article about compositinal systems and why modernist music doesn't "work".
> 
> http://www.bussigel.com/lerdahl/pdf/Cognitive Constraints on Compositional Systems.pdf
> 
> There is a resume here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_Constraints_on_Compositional_Systems


Williams's song has the chorus in the major (though the chords leading to the F major are not in F major) giving it the lift: Dbmaj7, Cminor7x2, Fmajor. The verses are in F minor.


----------



## fluteman

Yes there we do disagree. Art is not a car. what ultimately matters is not its inner workings but whether and how it communicates with its audience and that depends a great deal on the inner workings of the audience. Each time and place has its unique audiences. The greatest art translates at least in part across time and place but we still need to look into our own makeup our own cultural environment to see why art works for us.


----------



## Thomyum2

janxharris said:


> How would describe their failure? Do you agree that many of these type of works seem to express a limited set of related human emotions and phenomena (tension, torture, chaos, the subconscious, mental instability etc).


I realize your point is more about the limitations rather than the emotions themselves, but just for fun I started trying to think of examples of these emotions in pre-atonal music:

Tension - Mozart _Don Giovanni_
Torture - Chopin _Cm Nocturne_, Tchaikovsky _Romeo and Juliet_
Chaos - harder to find in tonal music to be sure, but maybe Mozart's _Jupiter Symphony_[/I]? Aren't all fugues ordered chaos in a sense? 
Subconsious - Berlioz _Symphonie Fantastique_
Mental instability - Schumann - elements throughout much of his work, I think


----------



## Thomyum2

fluteman said:


> Yes there we do disagree. Art is not a car. what ultimately matters is not its inner workings but whether and how it communicates with its audience and that depends a great deal on the inner workings of the audience. Each time and place has its unique audiences. The greatest art translates at least in part across time and place but we still need to look into our own makeup our own cultural environment to see why art works for us.


I agree completely. Your comment brings to mind a semester abroad in China I made with a group of US college students in the 1980s. As part of our cultural experience, we were taken to see a Peking Opera performance. As anyone here who has any familiarity with this art form knows, much of the music is quite dissonant and percussive to the western ear. While this can sound like a curiosity in short doses, it can become extremely abrasive over time to those not accustomed, and many of the students found that having to sit through this performance for close to two hours to be pure torture and more than they could handle. A number of them eventually left the auditorium and waited outside until it was over. The reaction from the locals could not have been more different. The audience of mostly older Chinese were literally on the edge of their seats the whole time, some even out of their seats to get closer to the stage, and applauding and cheering loudly at various points in the music with a level of enthusiasm I've never seen in any classical music performance back at home. It brought to mind the stories I've heard about audiences' reaction to some of Haydn's premieres when he was at the height of his popularity in Europe. It was quite an experience to see the stark contrast of how the same music could affect people in such different ways.


----------



## arpeggio

Menotti in his opera, _The Last Savage_ (It is rarely performed. My wife and I saw a production at the Sante Fe Opera a few years ago) included a twelve-tone piece that was meant to be humorous. It was.


----------



## Fredx2098

Thomyum2 said:


> I realize your point is more about the limitations rather than the emotions themselves, but just for fun I started trying to think of examples of these emotions in pre-atonal music:
> 
> Tension - Mozart _Don Giovanni_
> Torture - Chopin _Cm Nocturne_, Tchaikovsky _Romeo and Juliet_
> Chaos - harder to find in tonal music to be sure, but maybe Mozart's _Jupiter Symphony_[/I]? Aren't all fugues ordered chaos in a sense?
> Subconsious - Berlioz _Symphonie Fantastique_
> Mental instability - Schumann - elements throughout much of his work, I think


To my ears, tonal, atonal, and otherwise music can elicit any emotions. However, the majority of famous music of each of those categories seem to be about intense, boisterous, contrasting, even clashing themes. Though there are mellow pieces of all styles, they seem to be few and far between, and not the well-known "great" pieces.

To continue being "that crazy Feldman guy", he is my favorite composer because he composes in a very strange, dissonant, and chromatic way, but it is the least intense, most beautiful, creative, unique, warm, and pleasant music I have ever heard in my life (possibly aside from ambient drone music, but I also may find Feldman's music ever more relaxing than that), much more so than any style of music that is focused on contrasting loud and soft sections, tonal, atonal, or otherwise. Not to say that I do not enjoy intense, boisterous music. That's certainly not the case, but when talking about classical music, Feldman is my favorite because he is very different from the majority of composers in those respects that I mentioned (and no, not because I am infatuated with him).


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> Atonal music removes from harmonic progression the "premises" on which we ground our expected "conclusions."


Yes, but there are many elements or "premises" in music not based on harmonic progressions, or on tonal hierarchies at all. One thing de-emphasizing harmonic progressions and tonal hierarchies does is compel the listener to focus more carefully on these other elements, that may include rhythm, timbre, volume, and small and large scale structures. One thing that is very noticeable in music of non-Western cultures, even the most musically sophisticated ones, is that while tonal hierarchies and even harmonic progressions are sometimes present, they often don't dominate the scene the way they did in all Western music from the 15th until the beginning of the 20th century, and in most Western music even now.

For example, consider the raga of traditional Indian music. There are still elements of tonality and harmony, but rather than a constant focus on harmonic progression to an expected resolution or conclusion, there is lengthy repetition without clear progressions or resolutions. In a sense it is therefore less tonal than 15th-19th century Western classical music. This shows there is nothing inevitable about the focus of pre-20th century Western music on harmonic progression and resolution.


----------



## janxharris

Fredx2098 said:


> To my ears, tonal, atonal, and otherwise music can elicit any emotions.


Can you give an example of atonal music expressing joy, happiness and harmony?


----------



## janxharris

fluteman said:


> Yes, but there are many elements or "premises" in music not based on harmonic progressions, or on tonal hierarchies at all. One thing de-emphasizing harmonic progressions and tonal hierarchies does is compel the listener to focus more carefully on these other elements, that may include rhythm, timbre, volume, and small and large scale structures. One thing that is very noticeable in music of non-Western cultures, even the most musically sophisticated ones, is that while tonal hierarchies and even harmonic progressions are sometimes present, they often don't dominate the scene the way they did in all Western music from the 15th until the beginning of the 20th century, and in most Western music even now.
> 
> For example, consider the raga of traditional Indian music. There are still elements of tonality and harmony, but rather than a constant focus on harmonic progression to an expected resolution or conclusion, there is lengthy repetition without clear progressions or resolutions. In a sense it is therefore less tonal than 15th-19th century Western classical music. This shows there is nothing inevitable about the focus of pre-20th century Western music on harmonic progression and resolution.


There are no progressions here - one chord (sounds like Emaj9/6).


----------



## amfortas

Thomyum2 said:


> Chaos - harder to find in tonal music to be sure, but maybe Mozart's Jupiter Symphony? Aren't all fugues ordered chaos in a sense?


Funny, I hear the finale of the Jupiter as about the most joyful music there is. Maybe it's chaotic joy?


----------



## Fredx2098

janxharris said:


> Can you give an example of atonal music expressing joy, happiness and harmony?


Those are not my preferred emotions to be expressed through art, so none spring to mind immediately, but after a short amount of random listening, I find that Schoenberg's atonal Suite for Piano, Op. 25 expresses each of those things. You may disagree, which is fine, as long as you don't argue that my interpretation is wrong. Music is interpreted differently by each person.


----------



## arpeggio

What about 12-tone rags?


----------



## Fredx2098

In a similar way, the art of Kandinsky expresses those things in my eyes, while being completely abstract.


----------



## janxharris

Fredx2098 said:


> Those are not my preferred emotions to be expressed through art, so none spring to mind immediately, but after a short amount of random listening, I find that Schoenberg's atonal Suite for Piano, Op. 25 expresses each of those things. You may disagree, which is fine, as long as you don't argue that my interpretation is wrong. Music is interpreted differently by each person.


I certainly am not about telling anyone their interpretation is wrong. I don't hear joy, happiness or harmony here.


----------



## Fredx2098

janxharris said:


> I certainly am not about telling anyone their interpretations is wrong. I don't hear joy, happiness or harmony here.


That's your opinion and it's valid. I have a different opinion. What's the problem?


----------



## Thomyum2

janxharris said:


> Can you give an example of atonal music expressing joy, happiness and harmony?


The music of Messiaen immediately comes to mind for this - he described many of his pieces as expressing 'ecstasy'. The title of the Turangalila Symphonie has been described as meaning 'love song and hymn of joy'.

Now the extent to which he succeeded at this for many listeners, as well as whether or not his music can neatly fall into the category of 'atonal', I'm sure could be subject to debate.


----------



## Enthusiast

janxharris said:


> Those descriptions approximately sum up my experience with this type of music. If you would suggest pieces that express something other than I have described then I would be interested.


Of the four words you used we can probably dispense with "chaotic" as the perception of chaos is often (always) merely a failure to see the patterns. So we are left with "dark", "tense" and "tortured" and I am not sure I can think of many examples of atonal music that would bring those words to my mind. In fact those words make me immediately think of some Mahler (the 6th, perhaps - especially the last movement)! And when applied to perceptions of music they are still subjective.

But how about: 
George Benjamin - say, Duet for Piano and Orchestra or Palimpsests?
Boulez - perhaps Repons or Sur Incises? 
Elliott Carter - maybe one of the quartets (perhaps the 5th)? 
Peter Eotvos - Psy or Seven or Replica for Viola and Orchestra? 
Gerard Grisey - Les Espaces Acoustiques? 
Jonathon Harvey - Bird Concerto with Pianosong? 
Kurtag - maybe, Signs, Games and Messages
Or even Lachenmann - say, Nun?

These are not really specially selected: I'm just listing pieces that I have listened to recently in alphabetical order and none of them seem to fit the three words you use. I gave up on reaching the letter L because the list would be too long! Maybe you could start with the Harvey or some Eotvos.

By the way, I am assuming that you rule out Morton Feldman from this?


----------



## Haydn70

Thomyum2 said:


> Chaos - harder to find in tonal music to be sure, but maybe Mozart's _Jupiter Symphony_[/I]? Aren't all fugues ordered chaos in a sense?


No, not at all. Quite the opposite. What gives you that idea?


----------



## Fredx2098

I'm assuming Feldman (also Messiaen) is being excluded because it's definitely not purely atonal, but his music is certainly more beautiful, calm, relaxing, and pleasant than any tonal music I have ever heard, in my opinion of course.


----------



## janxharris

Fredx2098 said:


> That's your opinion and it's valid. I have a different opinion. What's the problem?


There isn't a problem. Why did you think there was?


----------



## Haydn70

janxharris said:


> I certainly am not about telling anyone their interpretation is wrong. I don't hear joy, happiness or harmony here.


Neither do I. I hear the usual, gray, monotony of atonality.


----------



## Haydn70

Enthusiast said:


> So we are left with "dark", "tense" and "tortured" and I am not sure I can think of many examples of atonal music that would bring those words to my mind.


You are kidding, right? I can think of hundreds...I have hundreds in my LP connection. I just don't have time to list them.


----------



## Fredx2098

janxharris said:


> There isn't a problem. Why did you think there was?


It seems like you are agreeing that atonal music cannot elicit joy, happiness, or harmony, and I'm saying that it certainly does elicit those feelings to my ear.


----------



## Haydn70

Here is what the French Baroque composer, Jean-Féry Rebel, did to depict the chaos before Creation:


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> Of the four words you used we can probably dispense with "chaotic" as the perception of chaos is often (always) merely a failure to see the patterns.


Well, even when I detect a pattern I still believe that there is much going on around (this pattern) that could be played any which way.



> So we are left with "dark", "tense" and "tortured" and I am not sure I can think of many examples of atonal music that would bring those words to my mind.


This is quite amazing - we totally disagree here. Every serial piece I have heard expresses, for me, such feelings.



> But how about:
> George Benjamin - say, Duet for Piano and Orchestra or Palimpsests?
> Boulez - perhaps Repons or Sur Incises?
> Elliott Carter - maybe one of the quartets (perhaps the 5th)?
> Peter Eotvos - Psy or Seven or Replica for Viola and Orchestra?
> Gerard Grisey - Les Espaces Acoustiques?
> Jonathon Harvey - Bird Concerto with Pianosong?
> Kurtag - maybe, Signs, Games and Messages
> Or even Lachenmann - say, Nun?
> 
> These are not really specially selected: I'm just listing pieces that I have listened to recently in alphabetical order and none of them seem to fit the three words you use. I gave up on reaching the letter L because the list would be too long!


 I was asking for serial music that could express feelings other than those I cited  Since we don't perceive such music in the same way in any case then I guess it probably doesn't matter 



> By the way, I am assuming that you rule out Morton Feldman from this?


I don't know his music.


----------



## janxharris

Fredx2098 said:


> It seems like you are agreeing that atonal music cannot elicit joy, happiness, or harmony, and I'm saying that it certainly does elicit those feelings to my ear.


I accept that it does this for you.


----------



## Enthusiast

ArsMusica said:


> You are kidding, right? I can think of hundreds...I have hundreds in my LP connection. I just don't have time to list them.


Oh go on! List a few - ideally from a few different composers. But it seems clear from your many other posts that your mind is made up that the terms "atonal" and "dark and tortured" are synonymous. Fair enough if that is what you hear - I have read you saying that you have worked at and do "get" atonal music - but can't you accept that a lot of others are hearing a number of very different things? No, in other words, I was not kidding. And I don't really understand why you think I was.


----------



## janxharris

ArsMusica said:


> Here is what the French Baroque composer, Jean-Féry Rebel, did to depict the chaos before Creation:


Baroque meets Stravinsky  Very interesting.


----------



## Enthusiast

janxharris said:


> Well, even when I detect a pattern I still believe that there is much going on around (this pattern) that could be played any which way.
> 
> This is quite amazing - we totally disagree here. Every serial piece I have heard expresses, for me, such feelings.
> 
> I was asking for serial music that could express feelings other than those I cited  Since we don't perceive such music in the same way in any case then I guess it probably doesn't matter
> 
> I don't know his music.


I did spend a little time compiling a list for you (at your request) and don't think it is really so polite to just reject it for the reason that you think I am wrong! Why did you ask, then?


----------



## Enthusiast

ArsMusica said:


> Here is what the French Baroque composer, Jean-Féry Rebel, did to depict the chaos before Creation:


And, of course, Haydn starts The Creation with another effective musical picture of chaos. But these examples are presumably unchaotic types of chaos and not at all like the (alleged) atonal chaos that you and others are complaining of.


----------



## Thomyum2

ArsMusica said:


> No, not at all. Quite the opposite. What gives you that idea?


Which are you saying is the opposite, that chaos is hard to find in tonal music, or that fugues are ordered chaos? It's just the way my mind works, I guess. I think Enthusiast is right on in saying that the perception of chaos comes from a failure to see patterns. My ear has always struggled with fugues and complex counterpoint, so it sounds chaotic to me, but much of the rest tonal music does not seem so at all.

Now some of Charles Ives' music sounds like the very essence of chaos, but I've come to like that.


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> Oh go on! List a few - ideally from a few different composers. But it seems clear from your many other posts that your mind is made up that the terms "atonal" and "dark and tortured" are synonymous. Fair enough if that is what you hear - I have read you saying that you have worked at and do "get" atonal music - but can't you accept that a lot of others are hearing a number of very different things? No, in other words, I was not kidding. And I don't really understand why you think I was.


I hadn't realised that atonal music was perceived so differently; I assumed everyone was hearing tortured angst, mental disturbance, dread and anything distopian...or, if not, something chaotic...

I have been disabused.


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> I did spend a little time compiling a list for you (at your request) and don't think it is really so polite to just reject it for the reason that you think I am wrong! Why did you ask, then?


But Enthusiast, I was asking for examples of atonal works that portray the _opposite_ of those emotions.

Sorry if things have got confused.


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> Oh go on! List a few - ideally from a few different composers. But it seems clear from your many other posts that your mind is made up that the terms "atonal" and "dark and tortured" are synonymous. Fair enough if that is what you hear - I have read you saying that you have worked at and do "get" atonal music - but can't you accept that a lot of others are hearing a number of very different things? No, in other words, I was not kidding. And I don't really understand why you think I was.


I will look through your list.


----------



## Fredx2098

janxharris said:


> I accept that it does this for you.


Then what is the point of contention? If you are not disabused, then how can you accept my opinion?

If you wish to familiarize yourself with Feldman's music, I don't think you would find chaotic, tense, dark, and tortured music, but he is not purely atonal, just very chromatic in an abstract way.

Berg's Violin Concerto is another piece you should try if you wish.


----------



## janxharris

Fredx2098 said:


> Then what is the point of contention? If you are not disabused, then how can you accept my opinion?


What contention? I thought this was a discussion.



> If you wish to familiarize yourself with Feldman's music, I don't think you would find chaotic, tense, dark, and tortured music, but he is not purely atonal, just very chromatic in an abstract way.


I'll have a listen.



> Berg's Violin Concerto is another piece you should try if you wish.


I know this piece. I would describe it as extremely angst-ridden.


----------



## Haydn70

Thomyum2 said:


> Which are you saying is the opposite, that chaos is hard to find in tonal music, or that fugues are ordered chaos? It's just the way my mind works, I guess. I think Enthusiast is right on in saying that the perception of chaos comes from a failure to see patterns. My ear has always struggled with fugues and complex counterpoint, so it sounds chaotic to me, but much of the rest tonal music does not seem so at all.
> 
> Now some of Charles Ives' music sounds like the very essence of chaos, but I've come to like that.


I was referring to fugues. For me they are the opposite of any kind of chaos.

As for Ives' music sounding like the very essence of chaos, I agree.


----------



## Fredx2098

janxharris said:


> I know this piece. I would describe it as extremely angst-ridden.


I would describe many tonal pieces as angst-ridden as well, as well as atonal pieces. The point is that your "negative" descriptors are not solely elicited by atonal music.


----------



## janxharris

Fredx2098 said:


> I would describe many tonal pieces as angst-ridden as well, as well as atonal pieces. The point is that your "negative" descriptors are not solely elicited by atonal music.


That is fair enough - I guess my point is that I don't hear anything but such descriptors when I hear atonal music so I was asking for examples of the opposite. Since I now realise that folk don't hear such works in the same way then - well, it seems I'm asking in vain.

Certainly, tonal music can express light and dark - but I suspect none of us will agree with my perceptions here too.


----------



## Fredx2098

janxharris said:


> What contention? I thought this was a discussion.


The point of the discussion is that atonal music is not less natural to enjoy than tonal music, not that tonal music is ugly because it is unnatural, the way I see it. It's been stated over and over that music that many of us enjoy is ugly.


----------



## janxharris

Fredx2098 said:


> The point of the discussion is that tonal music is not less natural to enjoy than tonal music, not that tonal music is ugly because it is unnatural, the way I see it. It's been stated over and over that music that many of us enjoy is ugly.


You may have missed out an 'a' before 'tonal' there somewhere.


----------



## Fredx2098

janxharris said:


> You may have missed out an 'a' before 'tonal' there somewhere.


I did, I fixed it.


----------



## Haydn70

janxharris said:


> But Enthusiast, I was asking for examples of atonal works that portray the _opposite_ of those emotions.
> 
> Sorry if things have got confused.


Yes, please, Enthusiast, give us an example of just one atonal work that expresses joy, uplift, ebullience, happiness...just one!


----------



## DaveM

Is there an atonal work that can do this?:


----------



## janxharris

Fredx2098 said:


> If you wish to familiarize yourself with Feldman's music, I don't think you would find chaotic, tense, dark, and tortured music, but he is not purely atonal, just very chromatic in an abstract way.


Okay, I'm listening to Feldman's _Rothko Chapel_ and 'chaotic, tense, dark, and tortured' is exactly how I would describe it. That is an observation, not a criticism.

We perceive music very differently Fredx2098.


----------



## Fredx2098

janxharris said:


> We perceive music very differently Fredx2098.


Not entirely differently. I also enjoy tonal music. But why don't we leave it at that?


----------



## janxharris

Fredx2098 said:


> Not entirely differently. I also enjoy tonal music. But why don't we leave it at that?


We can leave it there if you wish. 

'Differently' in our reaction to Feldman.


----------



## janxharris

I love much of this:


----------



## BabyGiraffe

janxharris said:


> Will do.
> 
> The minor chord has a minor third clashing with the root note's major third harmonic (ie the 5th harmonic). You probably know this.
> 
> So a C minor chord of C, Eb, G will have the Eb clashing with the E natural harmonic - hence the dissonance and seemingly 'sadder' perception.


We can play sine wave with no harmonics and minor still sounds minor. No clash. And 5th harmonic is 2786 cents above the root of chord - this is 2 octaves and a pure (5/4= around 385c.) major third (12ET M3 is around 400c. = 3rd root of 2; m3 in 12 et is the 4th root of 2) (so typical pianos should be out of tune too according to "harmonicists" - let's mention that instruments have inherent inharmonicity too and piano tuners use stretched octaves, so even 12ET is just a theoretical idealisation).

Btw, I remember when I was kid and watched Tom and Jerry (and similar shows) usage of octatonic/diminished and 12tone passages as humoristic gestures, so you are not right that these type of techniques bring only horror - they can be used as cheap comedy tricks (maybe because they sound "wrong", not sure).


----------



## Fredx2098

janxharris said:


> We can leave it there if you wish.
> 
> 'Differently' in our reaction to Feldman.


Your reaction is perfectly acceptable as long as you respect mine.



janxharris said:


> I love much of this:


What's different about this? I love it as well, but it sounds very chaotic.


----------



## mmsbls

Woodduck said:


> If "more inherently enjoyable" means "more likely to satisfy some human physical/emotional/cognitive need(s)," the question doesn't seem to me all that hard to answer. That doesn't mean we can ever provide the kind of definitive, "scientific" proof some would require; that would involve, at the very least, experiments studying people who have heard little or no music of any kind, and recording their verbal reports and physiological responses to hearing both tonal and atonal music. But this approach would run into the difficulty that there is no such thing as "music" in the abstract but only particular pieces of music, regarding which individual tastes would complicate the study immeasurably. For example, someone might prefer tonal music in general by a large margin, but prefer Schoenberg's _Erwartung_ or Berg's _Lulu_ to Rossini's _Semiramide_ or Puccini's _Tosca._ Any attempt to overcome this problem by using a very large cross-section of musical works and styles would, for purely statistical reasons, bias the study in favor of tonal music.


Yes, similar (but more extreme) experiments were what I had in mind. One would have to isolate significant groups of people and ensure their environments were essentially identical to present ones throughout the world with the exception that the music (and maybe some other sounds) they heard was carefully selected to properly study the issue. From birth some would hear just tonal music, others atonal, others much dissonance, others just progressive rock, others a mixture, etc.. After a suitable period each group might be exposed to other music to see their response. The experiments would be very (very, very...) difficult and immoral. Honestly I do not know what the results would look like.

I removed much of your post to reduce the size, but I would simply say I'm not sure that we have unbiased samples of listeners to properly evaluate whether people would "enjoy" atonal music as much. I just don't know enough.



Woodduck said:


> ...None of this, of course, tells us anything about any particular example of music, tonal or atonal, or why any individual might enjoy it or not.


I agree.


----------



## janxharris

Fredx2098 said:


> Your reaction is perfectly acceptable as long as you respect mine.


I absolutely do respect your view.



> What's different about this? I love it as well, but it sounds very chaotic.


It does sound rather chaotic. I wasn't saying necessarily that chaotic is always bad - or any of the other descriptors either. This piece seems less about mental disturbance and more about observing chaos but with a degree of organisation. I'm still digesting the work even after hearing it many times.


----------



## Fredx2098

janxharris said:


> I absolutely do respect your view.
> 
> It does sound rather chaotic. I wasn't saying necessarily that chaotic is always bad - or any of the other descriptors either. This piece seems less about mental disturbance and more about observing chaos but with a degree of organisation. I'm still digesting the work even after hearing it many times.


I'm surprised if you didn't like Feldman. To me it sounds like very peaceful, mysterious, contemplative dissonance with gentle, subtle complexity.


----------



## Enthusiast

janxharris said:


> But Enthusiast, I was asking for examples of atonal works that portray the _opposite_ of those emotions.
> 
> Sorry if things have got confused.


And that is what I provided for you. What makes you think I was trying to show you music that is dark and tortured? I even did some thinking based upon what I remember of your likes. I thought you wanted to explore to see if you could get into it. But now I don't really know why you asked except perhaps to hear me say that there is nothing that is not dark and tortured. Try listening to at least one or two of the pieces I suggested. Try the Harvey. You might like it or at least be intrigued ... and what's lost if you don't?


----------



## janxharris

Fredx2098 said:


> I'm surprised if you didn't like Feldman. To me it sounds like very peaceful, mysterious, contemplative dissonance with gentle, subtle complexity.


I didn't actually comment whether I liked the Feldman or not. I was just commenting on my immediate reaction as to whether those descriptors would be appropriate (for me). I will keep listening to it.


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> And that is what I provided for you. What makes you think I was trying to show you music that is dark and tortured? I even did some thinking based upon what I remember of your likes. I thought you wanted to explore to see if you could get into it. But now I don't really know why you asked except perhaps to hear me say that there is nothing that is not dark and tortured. Try listening to at least one or two of the pieces I suggested. Try the Harvey. You might like it or at least be intrigued ... and what's lost if you don't?


Ok - apologies - I completely misread your list post. I thought you had misunderstood me and was posting the opposite of my request.

My bad.

I will have a listen. Thanks.


----------



## mmsbls

fluteman said:


> Yes there we do disagree. Art is not a car. what ultimately matters is not its inner workings but whether and how it communicates with its audience and that depends a great deal on the inner workings of the audience. Each time and place has its unique audiences. The greatest art translates at least in part across time and place but we still need to look into our own makeup our own cultural environment to see why art works for us.


I assume this was aimed at my earlier post. Actually I don't think we disagree about your statements above. Art is not a car. More importantly art is not like a car. But brains are like cars in that they are both complex physical objects comprised of varying internal states that are affected by external inputs such as pressure on the gas pedal or musical sounds.

What matters is not just the art but rather art's interaction with people's brains, and that interaction depends critically on the highly varied internal states. Great art has a significant effect on the brains of people separated in both space and time. A fascinating question is why some art modifies some brain states, which are a function of the environment - cultural and otherwise, to create pleasure/enjoyment and other positive effects.


----------



## Enthusiast

janxharris said:


> Ok - apologies - I completely misread your list post. I thought you had misunderstood me and was posting the opposite of my request.
> 
> My bad.
> 
> I will have a listen. Thanks.


Thank you, too. I do fear you will hear it differently to me given your reaction the Feldman you listened to. But I do think it is kind of wonderful that we all hear such different things in music.


----------



## Larkenfield

Webern's Symphony Op. 21 is like a work of modern Art come to life. It's not dark or anxiety ridden, but just the opposite. It's almost as subtle as Chopin, gentle, and sounds appear and disappear from out of nowhere and combine in unusual ways without any sharp dissonances... Yes, it still takes some getting used to because it can sound like an artist dabbing paint on a canvas of silence... It's a remarkable 20th-century work and I wish more 12-tone or beyond-tonal works had been written in this direction of being more emotionally neutral, even delightful.

.


----------



## Haydn70

Enthusiast said:


> And that is what I provided for you. What makes you think I was trying to show you music that is dark and tortured? I even did some thinking based upon what I remember of your likes. I thought you wanted to explore to see if you could get into it. But now I don't really know why you asked except perhaps to hear me say that there is nothing that is not dark and tortured. Try listening to at least one or two of the pieces I suggested. Try the Harvey. You might like it or at least be intrigued ... and what's lost if you don't?


Let me get this straight: the works on this list you are presenting as ones that do NOT express "dark", "tense" and "tortured"?

George Benjamin - say, Duet for Piano and Orchestra or Palimpsests?
Boulez - perhaps Repons or Sur Incises? 
Elliott Carter - maybe one of the quartets (perhaps the 5th)? 
Peter Eotvos - Psy or Seven or Replica for Viola and Orchestra? 
Gerard Grisey - Les Espaces Acoustiques? 
Jonathon Harvey - Bird Concerto with Pianosong? 
Kurtag - maybe, Signs, Games and Messages
Or even Lachenmann - say, Nun?

OK, let's take a listen to Elliott Carter's Third String Quartet, winner of the 1973 Pulitzer Prize for Music:






Nah, nothing dark, tense or tortured about that music at all. Reminds me of Schubert in fact!


----------



## janxharris

Larkenfield said:


> Webern's Symphony Op. 21 is like a work of modern Art come to life. It's not dark or anxiety ridden, but just the opposite. It's almost as subtle as Chopin, gentle, and sounds appear and disappear from out of nowhere and combine in unusual ways without any sharp dissonances... Yes, it still takes some getting used to because it can sound like an artist dabbing paint on a canvas of silence... It's a remarkable 20th-century work and I wish more 12-tone or beyond-tonal works were written in this direction of being more emotionally neutral, even delightful. It could be done.


I was just listing to this myself. I enjoyed it a lot. Sometimes I can listen to it and not think that much of it - but today it is really working.


----------



## Fredx2098

Larkenfield said:


> Webern's Symphony Op. 21 is like a work of modern Art come to life. It's not dark or anxiety ridden, but just the opposite. It's almost as subtle as Chopin, gentle, and sounds appear and disappear from out of nowhere and combine in unusual ways without any sharp dissonances... Yes, it still takes some getting used to because it can sound like an artist dabbing paint on a canvas of silence... It's a remarkable 20th-century work and I wish more 12-tone or beyond-tonal works were written in this direction of being more emotionally neutral, even delightful. It could be done.


That's wonderful. It sounds a lot like Feldman to me.


----------



## Larkenfield

I think those interested in sincerely exploring the Modern owe it to themselves to understand the upheaval in the Arts that was taking place at the beginning of the 20th century in Paris and elsewhere with people like Stravinsky, Apollinaire, Picasso and others. Also how the first World War affected the art community. There were parallels of radical change that are still being played out today. Psychoanalysis and Sigmund Freud were on the rise in exploring the unconscious; Cubism was breaking down forms in painting; Arnold Schoenberg was breaking down tonality in music; and Stravinsky was unleashing new volcanic forces that were turning the Art world upside down...


----------



## Enthusiast

ArsMusica said:


> Let me get this straight: the works on this list you are presenting as ones that do NOT express "dark", "tense" and "tortured"?
> 
> George Benjamin - say, Duet for Piano and Orchestra or Palimpsests?
> Boulez - perhaps Repons or Sur Incises?
> Elliott Carter - maybe one of the quartets (perhaps the 5th)?
> Peter Eotvos - Psy or Seven or Replica for Viola and Orchestra?
> Gerard Grisey - Les Espaces Acoustiques?
> Jonathon Harvey - Bird Concerto with Pianosong?
> Kurtag - maybe, Signs, Games and Messages
> Or even Lachenmann - say, Nun?
> 
> OK, let's take a listen to Elliott Carter's Third String Quartet, winner of the 1973 Pulitzer Prize for Music:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, nothing dark, tense or tortured about that music at all. Reminds me of Schubert in fact!


When I want Schubert I listen to Schubert. When I want dark and tortured I don't know what I might turn to - Mahler 6 was my suggestion earlier but there are plenty of other pieces that have those qualities and only a few of them are also atonal.

If you feel that this Carter is dark or tortured then I must take you at your word that that is what you hear. And when you tell me you have listened to lots of atonal music and have a good understanding of it I must accept that, too. But when you are unable to grant others the same right to their own aesthetic opinions I just wish it were possible to have a civilised discussion about all this with you. Objectively I can say with some certainty that there is no such a possibility.

I wonder if music perceived as chaotic acts like a Rorschach Test for those who have this perception.


----------



## KenOC

Larkenfield said:


> I think anyone interested in sincerely exploring the Modern owes it to themselves to understand the upheaval in the arts that was taking place at the beginning of the 20th century, such as what was taking place in Paris with people such as Stravinsky, poet Apollinaire, Picasso and others. It can be of great insight to see the parallels of radical change that were taking place in all of them that are still being played out today. Psychoanalysis and Sigmund Freud were on the rise in exploring the unconscious, Cubism was breaking down forms in painting, Arnold Schoenburg was breaking down tonality, and Stravinsky was releasing new forces in music...


I can only say that millions of people have enjoyed the great works of the 19th century, and have for a long time, without knowing or caring anything about the artistic and other forces that influenced them. I am reminded of a poster on another forum who consistently accused those who didn't like "modernist" music of not having read enough books.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Serialism deals with intervals as quantities, while tonality places intervals (and everything else) in reference to a central tone (tonic). That in itself shows that serialism is more mathematically based.
> 
> Who cares if it's "mathematically based"? You said it was "logical," I showed why it isn't, and now you're substituting "mathematical." Math is not logic - and being "mathematical" is certainly nothing for art to brag about.


I think you're splitting hairs. I simply showed the difference between number as "identity" (tonality) and number as "quantity" (serialism). Serialism uses a number line, and does not use pitch names, but numbers.



Woodduck said:


> Tonality's recursive nature, i.e. giving pitches "identity" in an hierarchy reflects the religious paradigm of "everything is being and it is all related to "the one" (God).
> 
> Tonality is not "recursive" (whatever that means) and "God" (whatever that is) has nothing to do with it.


"Recursive" means that in tonality pitches recur over and over throughout the octaves...a G is a G is a G, no mater what register. Not so in serialism, where pitches to not retain an identity (of "G-ness") throughout.



Woodduck said:


> The next thing you know, we'll be hearing about "intelligent design."
> 
> Not from me. Quasi-religious woo woo is your bailiwick.


I'm not religious, but Western music is based on that paradigm and style of thought.



Woodduck said:


> That's conjecture based on experiments which are not at all scientific, since all resulting music produced is art, not science...and I can tell if a work is serial or not 99% of the time. I've got good ear/brain perception, though...
> 
> Well thank "God" someone, at least, can hear those tone rows.


You don't have to "hear pitch identity" in serialism.



Woodduck said:


> I am speaking of the theory and underlying principles of tonality and serialism, not the music itself.
> 
> _Now_ you tell us...


That must make your whole argument invalid now...



Woodduck said:


> ...But to suggest that the artificially-derived and strung-out-over-time 'narrative' devices of Western CP tonality are "primordial" or as "pervasive as gravity" is to ignore _the true primordial harmonic phenomenon which pervades all pitched sound, _and attempts to give its credit to the _artificial system_ we call CP tonality.
> 
> I didn't suggest that "artificially-derived and strung-out-over-time 'narrative' devices of Western CP tonality" are anything at all. I wouldn't even be able to think up a phrase like that.


You've _always_ said that tonality is created by events over time.



Woodduck said:


> This is because the "harmonic" nature of pitched sound is a manifestation of Man's being, and its pervasiveness is due to the universality and commonality of Human experience;
> 
> This is _not_ obvious. In fact it's mushy woo woo, like the "God" you keep invoking.


"Being" is not God. Being is being (existence).



Woodduck said:


> ...not the narrative artifice Western Man calls "the tonal system" or "tonality."
> 
> No one calls tonality a narrative artifice.


Western tonality does depend on a narrative sequence of events to accomplish what it does. You yourself have said the same. And it's an "artifice" in that it is a system imposed on sound, just as serial thought is.



Woodduck said:


> Even this Newtonian analogy of gravity reflects the old religious paradigm of pre-Enlightenment Western tonality.
> 
> Don't try to define my analogies for me, and particularly not in terms of bizarre inventions like "the old religious paradigm of pre-Enlightenment Western tonality." Newtonian schmewtonian.


You are the one who compared tonality to "gravity" (schmavity).



Woodduck said:


> This seems to conveniently confound the _results_ of serial thought (the music), with the underlying thought processes. *I think we need to decide what it is we are talking about*: 1) Our paradigms of music, or 2) the underlying thought-systems which produce it, or 3) the pure phenomenon of harmonic sound...*if anyone is capable of that much abstract thought.*
> 
> Well, I don't know how much abstract thought "anyone" is capable of, but I agree that _you,_ at least, need to decide what it is _you're_ talking about and make that clear.


I've already explained it very clearly. If you disagree, then disagree, but don't pretend that I am not clear.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> That equation is no good either.


A large part of your argument was based on distracting the issue of what thought-processes went into tonality and serial thought, and shifting attention to comments on the music itself produced by those processes, and about how unpopular serial music is, etc.


----------



## millionrainbows

janxharris said:


> So your assumption is essentially one of science trumping religion? Your conclusions are wild extrapolations and aren't worth dwelling on.


The point you should take away from this is that most of Western Classical music has reflected this old religiously-based paradigm for centuries, and that atonal music reflects a completely new way of looking at music. It should also lead you to question your own ideas about "what music should be."


----------



## millionrainbows

Lisztian said:


> Cool, more opinions: and we'll keep firing back at you with our opinions -based on honest enjoyment- that a lot of atonal/twelve-tone music is wonderful. What are you trying to accomplish exactly?


George Rochberg started out as a serialist, then left after his son died. His article about the comprehensibility of serial music is well-written, but it seems to miss the point, and subjects atonal music to the same "narrative pressures" of tonality, which is counterintuitive. He has no idea of 'moment time' or alternative ways of experiencing time, as applied to music. He's of the old paradigm, trapped in an 'ego-consciousness' which depends on the passage of time for its existence; a consciousness which must remain self-aware and oriented in time for its security. In other words, he can't just "let go" and listen. It's very simple.


----------



## fluteman

janxharris said:


> There are no progressions here - one chord (sounds like Emaj9/6).


Right, and it isn't even quite that chord, as Indian tuning is not to the traditional western scale, and there is a lot of microtonal wavering about, so the tonal "center of gravity" isn't absolutely established. I'm not arguing this is "atonal" in any sense, just that it is less tonal than a Beethoven symphony, say. It lacks the clear harmonic progression and resolution that is fundamental to nearly all Western music from the 15th to the 19th centuries. The listener must approach it in an entirely different way, and listen to different things. But as traditional or classical Indian music has at least as long a track record with at least a large an audience as Western classical music, I wouldn't be too fast to dismiss it simply because it is "semi-tonal" or partially tonal, or whatever term you want to use.


----------



## janxharris

millionrainbows said:


> The point you should take away from this is that most of Western Classical music has reflected this old religiously-based paradigm for centuries, and that atonal music reflects a completely new way of looking at music. It should also lead you to question your own ideas about "what music should be."


If it is merely reflecting hierarchy then why do you need to specify religion? Presumably you would agree that there is nothing inherent in tonality that speaks specifically of religion?


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Tonal music comes with a set of "facts" or "premises," a set of relationships among its component tones and harmonies, which listeners recognize as they approach a piece of music. Depending on how the composer lays out the materials of a work - the harmonies and melodic shapes, the rhythmic patterns and momentum - we, as listeners, knowing the "premises" on which the tonal idiom is based, intuit certain possibilities and likelihoods; we expect that, given what we are hearing, certain things will follow, as a logical conclusion follows from its premises. Often the music reaches the conclusions which satisfy our (mostly unconscious) deductions; often it doesn't, and new "facts" are introduced which set up for us a new set of possibilities and expectations.


This is largely what makes tonality so predictable, and often-times clichéd.



Woodduck said:


> Atonal music removes from harmonic progression the "premises" on which we ground our expected "conclusions." The "tone row" of serialism is introduced as a device intended to compensate for some of the coherence lost when tonality is echewed. But only to a limited extent can the template of the row create expectations in the listener, and for the most part expectations of specific harmonic resolutions cannot be generated in atonal music, serial or not. We cannot "intuit" what will come (or surprise us by not coming), because the "logic" of tonality is missing. Atonal music does not say compellingly to us, "THIS, THIS and THIS, therefore THIS," as tonal music does continuously in both the short and the long range.


You are largely correct, but atonal music doesn't do so as overtly or as directly as tonality, but it still can create such events, especially the music of the Second Viennese School. Elliot Carter's music can do this as well.



Woodduck said:


> Millionrainbows has said that atonal music must be listened to moment-by-moment because of this very absence of a directing harmonic syntax. In terms of harmony, there's something to that, although the distribution of relative consonance and dissonance and the employment of textural, melodic and rhythmic patterns can provide continuity and progression (as they also do in tonal music). But if atonal harmony contains no systemic grammar (grammar being the "logic" of language), and if the row is not in fact a substitute or a new grammar, it's illogical to call serialism "logical."


Tone rows are not melodic entities; George Rochberg made a similar error in assuming that we must be able to comprehend them as melodic entities. They're not, although they can provide strictly 'melodic' and thematic material which is not based on harmony (sort of like Gregorian chant is); tone rows are also relationships between notes, and you can hear them in terms of intervals. This might be difficult for listeners who can't instantly recognize a fourth from a minor third.

Intervals are vertical simultanities, which derive their meaning in the moment of their occurence. In this sense, the tone row not only provides 'melodic' material, but harmonic material as well. I think this is a 'systemic grammar' since the tone row's relationships permeate the entire composition. It's just not as obvious to the ear, since this is by nature chromatic music, and these relationships (tone rows) can be transposed in twelve possible ways. But this, too, can be limited, and made to be more comprehensible.



Woodduck said:


> Tonal music, by contrast, IS logical precisely because, as with logic itself, we are constantly intuiting its implications, in the moment and long range. A tonal work which successfully and continuously plays with the implications of its own harmonic premises and reaches throughout its progress the conclusions that feel "right" gives us a satisfaction akin to what we feel when we've intuited the solution to a complex logical problem.


But this has a caveat; this can make tonality seemed "trapped in the box." This is demonstrated by the frequently recurring complaints we hear about listeners "not getting" Mozart. For me to appreciate Mozart, I have to look past the harmonic aspects, and into the _novel devices_ that he uses which seem like deviations, as well as the expressive gestures he manifests in the way he writes. Some of these "novel devices" are definitely based on "modern thought" outside the box of tonality, verging on chromaticism.

Tonality, as such, is unsatisfying to me unless it demonstrates this "outside the box" thinking.


----------



## DaveM

Enthusiast said:


> When I want Schubert I listen to Schubert. When I want dark and tortured I don't know what I might turn to - Mahler 6 was my suggestion earlier but there are plenty of other pieces that have those qualities and only a few of them are also atonal.
> 
> If you feel that this Carter is dark or tortured then I must take you at your word that that is what you hear. And when you tell me you have listened to lots of atonal music and have a good understanding of it I must accept that, too. But when you are unable to grant others the same right to their own aesthetic opinions I just wish it were possible to have a civilised discussion about all this with you. Objectively I can say with some certainty that there is no such a possibility.


The OP is Tonality is Unnatural which has lead to different strong opinions on tonality, atonality, avant-garde etc. If such discussions ended with, 'Okay, I hear such and such and you hear such and such. All is well. Kumbaya.', they would be incredibly short and boring.

Claiming that this interchange is uncivilized is the sort of lame self-righteousness that occurs when one can't think of anything more profound to say.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> 1.) traditional cultures worldwide have independently developed tonal music; 2.) most music has been tonal since the earliest music we know much about (ancient Greece, I believe); 3.) atonal music was invented only about 100 years ago by someone whose reasons for doing so are musicologically and culturally questionable; 4.) atonal music has been written by only a minority of composers and exclusively by a tiny minority; and 5.) leading composers writing tonal music have lately regained complete "respectability" among their peers, as well as a public following, after a determined effort by an atonalist academic "elite" to discredit them.


I have to disagree with these conclusions, since there is a lot of music which is not harmonic; i.e., it is strictly melodic and has no "harmony" or tonality. Thai music divides the octave into seven equally-spaced parts, and has no chords. Japanese Noh music contains a like of just plain "noise" and clattering. Japanese Gagaku music is not 'harmonic' as we know the term, but uses melodic 'entities' not unlike Gregorian chant.

Atonal music, and the 12-tone method, is a uniquely Western invention which uses tone rows (ordered sets) to create both 'melodic' _and _harmonic relationships which are determined by the row.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> George Rochberg started out as a serialist, then left after his son died. His article about the comprehensibility of serial music is well-written, but it seems to miss the point, and subjects atonal music to the same "narrative pressures" of tonality, which is counterintuitive. He has no idea of 'moment time' or alternative ways of experiencing time, as applied to music. He's of the old paradigm, trapped in an 'ego-consciousness' which depends on the passage of time for its existence; a consciousness which must remain self-aware and oriented in time for its security. In other words, he can't just "let go" and listen. It's very simple.


The only thing that's very simple here - simple and unbelievably presumptuous - is a mentality that imagines it can and should lecture us all on what George Rochberg "has no idea of," what "paradigm" George Rochberg is "of," what sort of "consciousness" George Rochberg has, and what George Rochberg is able and unable to do when he listens to music.

You do not know George Rochberg. You have no business analyzing his mind on a public forum. It offends me to see you do it.

There are boundaries to acceptable discourse. Slandering people who are not present with made-up attributions to bolster your made-up fantasies of what music is about is outside those boundaries.


----------



## millionrainbows

janxharris said:


> Maybe a significant number of us remain sceptical as to whether much atonal music is indeed meritorious - that though it may have some interesting design in terms of serial manipulation, nevertheless, many of the notes are pretty arbitrary and could have been different without significantly changing the effect - especially when tone clusters are employed.
> 
> In brief, we remain sceptical as to the actual skill required to produce such works - especially after discovering that many of the pieces end up sounding remarkably similar - dark, tense, tortured, chaotic etc.


I don't know about that...sometimes Boulez sounds mystical and mysterious, even religious...

Messiaen definitely sounds mystical...by the way, Messiaen is not tonal music. He's not atonal, either. His music consists of vertical "events" and harmonic 'entities' he has invented, which are attempts to mimic the "timelessness" of God and mystical experience of being-in-time...

So what do we do about Messiaen? It seems that the tonal/atonal argument fails when applied to him, and even anti-serialists seem to be able to get into his music.

But we must realize the influence of non-Western music (Bali, Java, the orient) on his music.

I feel it's mean spirited to characterize my pointing out these non-Western verticalities and ways of listening as some sort of "buddhistic ballyhoo."


----------



## millionrainbows

janxharris said:


> Okay, I'm listening to Feldman's _Rothko Chapel_ and 'chaotic, tense, dark, and tortured' is exactly how I would describe it. That is an observation, not a criticism.
> 
> We perceive music very differently Fredx2098.


I hear "mystery" in Rothko Chapel, and also this quasi-religious 'sense of being' that might be described as 'existential.' It also seems to convey an awareness of our own mortality. These are the sensations I get.


----------



## millionrainbows

fluteman said:


> Right, and it isn't even quite that chord, as Indian tuning is not to the traditional western scale, and there is a lot of microtonal wavering about, so the tonal "center of gravity" isn't absolutely established. I'm not arguing this is "atonal" in any sense, just that it is less tonal than a Beethoven symphony, say. It lacks the clear harmonic progression and resolution that is fundamental to nearly all Western music from the 15th to the 19th centuries. The listener must approach it in an entirely different way, and listen to different things. But as traditional or classical Indian music has at least as long a track record with at least a large an audience as Western classical music, I wouldn't be too fast to dismiss it simply because it is "semi-tonal" or partially tonal, or whatever term you want to use.


This underscores the inadequacy of the tonal/atonal dialectic. A lot of music is not tonal, but it has harmonic color and meaning. Messiaen is like this. He uses harmonic constructs (scales and chords) which stand alone as entities, being just color. There is not tonal reference except as we hear these entities as "chords" with perhaps a root note in the bass. This demonstrates my contention that 'vertical' constructs are perceivable as suggesting momentary tone-centricity, but not tonality in the usual sense.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> The only thing that's very simple here - simple and unbelievably presumptuous - is a mentality that imagines it can and should lecture us all on what George Rochberg "has no idea of," what "paradigm" George Rochberg is "of," what sort of "consciousness" George Rochberg has, and what George Rochberg is able and unable to do when he listens to music.
> 
> You do not know George Rochberg. You have no business analyzing his mind on a public forum. It offends me to see you do it.
> 
> There are boundaries to acceptable discourse. Slandering people who are not present with made-up attributions to bolster your made-up fantasies of what music is about is outside those boundaries.


I'm commenting on Rochberg's mindset, because his treatise on atonal music (and its supposed incomprehensibility) is the product of that mindset. I'm not slandering his character; I just happen to disagree with his politics. His position and defection from the serial camp was motivated by the death of his son, he has said as much, and I see it as being emotionally-based.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> I'm commenting on Rochberg's mindset, because his treatise on atonal music (and its supposed incomprehensibility) is the product of that mindset. I'm not slandering his character; I just happen to disagree with his politics. His position and defection from the serial camp was motivated by the death of his son, he has said as much, and I see it as being emotionally-based.


You'll always find an excuse, won't you? There's always a rationalization handy. Why don't you just talk about music and refrain from characterizing other people and their "mindsets" and "worldviews" and "paradigms"?


----------



## DaveM

millionrainbows said:


> I'm commenting on Rochberg's mindset, because his treatise on atonal music (and its supposed incomprehensibility) is the product of that mindset. I'm not slandering his character; I just happen to disagree with his politics. His position and defection from the serial camp was motivated by the death of his son, he has said as much, and I see it as being emotionally-based.


I was familiar with the name George Rochberg, but did not know the backstory. From my reading, his turning to tonality was not emotionally based, but was because he couldn't musically express, atonally or serially, the feelings and emotions related to the loss of his son. There's a big difference. It certainly suggests the limitations of atonality as has been mentioned in this thread and it comes from a rather credible source.

It's not too difficult to hear sadness and grief in this movement from SQ #3 that marked his 'return' to tonality:


----------



## Woodduck

Millionrainbows said (post #291): "*To be clear,* I am not equating art (the resulting music produced by tonality or serial thought) with science; only their underlying thought-processes and systems (which ultimately result in music, good or bad)."

I responded (post #296): "That equation is no good."

So now its:



millionrainbows said:


> A large part of your argument was based on distracting the issue of what thought-processes went into tonality and serial thought, and shifting attention to comments on the music itself produced by those processes, and about how unpopular serial music is, etc.


A clumsy pivot, it must be said.

"To be clear," then, equating the "underlying thought processes and systems" of serialism with science is as nonsensical as calling them logical. Composing music is not in any way or to any degree a scientific process. Serial composition is not more scientific - or more logical - than tonal composition. Am I "clear"?

I expect you'll explain now what you REALLY meant by "scientific" and "logical," and then tell me again that you're being perfectly clear and that I'm just "pretending" that you're not.

I tell you, all this perfect clarity is beginning to depress me. Thank goodness I can turn to enjoying the decline of American democracy and our precipitous slide into isolationism, xenophobia, racism, nepotism, self-dealing, mendacity, cruelty, single-party rule and fascist dictatorship to take my mind off it.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> atonal music was invented only about 100 years ago by someone whose reasons for doing so are musicologically and culturally questionable;


Here I think is the source of a lot of the rancor in debates like this here. Respectfully, the first part of this just isn't true. Arnold Schoenberg did not invent atonal music unless one defines that term in an exceedingly narrow way. He did invent a formal system under which the traditional western 12-tone equal tempered chromatic scale can be used in a way in which no one note is given priority over another. Atonal music has been around long, long before the western 12-tone scale existed, much less Schoenberg.

To me, the irony of Schoenberg's innovation is that in most other ways he was an arch conservative and very much a follower of Brahms and Dvorak. Also to me, the biggest long-term contribution Schoenberg made to Western music was to remind us that there is nothing necessary or inevitable in music about having harmonic progressions resolving to a tonal center, or even having a tonal center at all, even though those ideas dominated Western music from the 15th through the 19th centuries. (Note the African example below.)

As Millionrainbows correctly notes, harmony only gradually reached the exalted position it reached in Western music by the end of the 19th century, starting from scratch. Schoenberg did not succeed in abolishing it, if that was his goal, but in suggesting it need not dominate so thoroughly, he cleared the way for many innovations that followed.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Larkenfield said:


> I think those interested in sincerely exploring the Modern owe it to themselves to understand the upheaval in the arts that was taking place at the beginning of the 20th century in Paris and elsewhere with people like Stravinsky, Apollinaire, Picasso and others. Also how the first World War affected the art community. There were parallels of radical change that are still being played out today. Psychoanalysis and Sigmund Freud were on the rise in exploring the unconscious, Cubism was breaking down forms in painting, Arnold Schoenberg was breaking down tonality in music, and Stravinsky was releasing dynamic new forces that were turning the world upside down...


One shouldn't leave out the literary innovations of Joyce and Eliot either, the former breaking down the continuity and coherency of narrative; the latter breaking down the typically monophonic, personal mode and forms of poetry.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Thomyum2 said:


> Chaos - harder to find in tonal music to be sure, but maybe Mozart's _Jupiter Symphony_[/I]? Aren't all fugues ordered chaos in a sense?


When I think of musical chaos I tend to think of the works that actually attempted to depict it, such as Wagner's Das Rheingold's Prelude and the opening of Haydn's The Creation. Outside that, I think more of unstructured improvisational music (eg, free jazz) more than any classical. Mozart's Jupiter (and fugues in general) make me think of the opposite of chaos, namely a kind of deterministic, logical clockwork with disparate pieces working together in harmony.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> I admit that I didn't spell out my point at length. God knows, I'm trying to be terse! *The point is not that there's a "connection" between intuition and logic, but that that logic IS intuitive.* You can set forth a certain number of facts, but there's no guarantee that I will see that they point to a conclusion. That has to be intuited, whether or not I spell out to myself any or all of the meanings the facts imply. The line between logical thought and intuition is an artificial one. If we can't intuit - if we can't make connections below the level of consciousness - we can't think at all.


And my point is that this is not always--perhaps even usually--the case. Logic is the study of valid inferences, of how we reach conclusions from a set of propositions. That we have large lists of logical fallacies, or INvalid ways of reasoning from propositions to conclusion, is the hint that the intuitive is not always logical (irrationality is quite intuitive to us). Further, much that is logical is not always intuitive, some of it is even counter-intuitive. In logic, the litmus test for validity isn't whether something's intuitive, but whether or not it corresponds with reality.

With music, I get your argument that with tonality we have intuited expectations of the "possibilities and likelihoods" of what we'll hear, but this is based more on pattern recognition. One might say that it's logical that once we perceive patterns that the recognition itself will create expectations of what might come next based on previous experiences with the patterns, but it's not the intuition that makes it logical; it's the fact that reality tends to repeat itself. It's probably just the ease at intuiting tonality--its "rules" and "expectations"--that makes it so aesthetically appealing. On the flip-side, atonal music may have removed the intuitive understanding and expectations, but I don't think this is tantamount to having removed the logic. If anything, the concept of a tone row seems pretty logical to me, regardless of whether or not its patterns are intuitively graspable (and based on my experience, I would agree with you that they are not).

Finally, this: "The line between logical thought and intuition is an artificial one. If we can't intuit - if we can't make connections below the level of consciousness - we can't think at all" makes no sense to me. There is no "line" between logic and intuition; logic is about correct modes of reasoning, and intuitions is a type of unconscious reasoning or understanding. Intuition can be logical or illogical depending on what we're talking about. I have no idea why you think we'd be incapable of thinking without making intuitive "below the level of consciousness" connections. Intuition is helpful and handy when quick decisions must be made, but it's incredibly fallible and the biggest source of irrationality and invalid logic we have; and we are more than capable of countering it with conscious thought (often with the hope that enough conscious logical thought will eventually become intuitive).


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> And my point is that this is not always--perhaps even usually--the case. Logic is the study of valid inferences, of how we reach conclusions from a set of propositions. That we have large lists of logical fallacies, or INvalid ways of reasoning from propositions to conclusion, is the hint that the intuitive is not always logical (irrationality is quite intuitive to us). Further, much that is logical is not always intuitive, some of it is even counter-intuitive. In logic, the litmus test for validity isn't whether something's intuitive, but whether or not it corresponds with reality.
> 
> With music, I get your argument that with tonality we have intuited expectations of the "possibilities and likelihoods" of what we'll hear, but this is based more on pattern recognition. One might say that it's logical that once we perceive patterns that the recognition itself will create expectations of what might come next based on previous experiences with the patterns, but it's not the intuition that makes it logical; it's the fact that reality tends to repeat itself. It's probably just the ease at intuiting tonality--its "rules" and "expectations"--that makes it so aesthetically appealing. On the flip-side, atonal music may have removed the intuitive understanding and expectations, but I don't think this is tantamount to having removed the logic. If anything, the concept of a tone row seems pretty logical to me, regardless of whether or not its patterns are intuitively graspable (and based on my experience, I would agree with you that they are not).
> 
> Finally, this: "The line between logical thought and intuition is an artificial one. If we can't intuit - if we can't make connections below the level of consciousness - we can't think at all" makes no sense to me. There is no "line" between logic and intuition; logic is about correct modes of reasoning, and intuitions is a type of unconscious reasoning or understanding. Intuition can be logical or illogical depending on what we're talking about. I have no idea why you think we'd be incapable of thinking without making intuitive "below the level of consciousness" connections. Intuition is helpful and handy when quick decisions must be made, but it's incredibly fallible and the biggest source of irrationality and invalid logic we have; and we are more than capable of countering it with conscious thought (often with the hope that enough conscious logical thought will eventually become intuitive).


You're taking this into the philosophical weeds and geting away from the subject I dealt with: musical perception.

The difference between a logical choice and an intuitive one lies in whether we have all the information we need to make a correct choice, or whether we have to "go with our gut" in the absence of some key information. Millionrainbows called the process of 12-tone composition "logical" (as well as "scientific"). I argued in response that the perception of tonal music is more analogous to logic than the perception of serial music, in that we are given an abundance, a constant flow, of information which leads to certain expectations, analogous to the process of drawing conclusions from premises in solving a logical problem.

I have no idea what you mean when you suggest that the concept of a tone row is "logical." But in any case I wasn't talking about the concept, but about how the music is perceived.

The fact that tonal expectations require "pattern recognition" is not any sort of objection. Music is just patterns of sound, isn't it? Our experience of the world and the conclusions we draw about it are fundamentally and constantly dependent on pattern recognition. That's the basic mechanism of perception and conceptualization. Conscious thought depends on unconscious processes; far more information goes into thinking than we can hold consciously. Obliterate those processes and conscious thought would be impossible. See Rudolf Arnheim's _Visual Thinking._


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> When I think of musical chaos I tend to think of the works that actually attempted to depict it, such as Wagner's Das Rheingold's Prelude and the opening of Haydn's The Creation. Outside that, I think more of unstructured improvisational music (eg, free jazz) more than any classical. Mozart's Jupiter (and fugues in general) make me think of the opposite of chaos, namely a kind of deterministic, logical clockwork with disparate pieces working together in harmony.


The prelude to _Rheingold_ doesn't depict chaos but rather an evolutionary principle working at the heart of nature. What does the music consist of? A deep unison in the bass, followed by the fifth immediately above it, then the octave and the major third to form the triad of Eb Major, which sounds unchanged for 136 bars and slowly grows and glows in waves of arpeggios. It's the creation of tonal music from its basic elements, symbolizing the birth of the cosmos of the _Ring_ in the depths of the primordial waters, where myth and science suggest that life began. How profoundly different from Haydn's _Creation,_ where wandering chromaticism depicts chaos until the Sky God of Israel steps down from his throne and imposes diatonic order in a burst of light!

We might say that music has gone from Genesis to Darwin in half a century.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

Wyschnegradsky was using a (dissonant, but somewhat tonal) 13 note quartertone scale and still managed to make music that is mostly listenable (unlike the overrated atonal composers). The problem with listenability of 12note music is in the idiotic idea that most people (obviously some of the posters here can do it ) can appreciate permutations and transformation of note rows. Composing atonal/serial music can be done with ease in any equal system like 6 tones (whole tone scales), 12 notes, 7 notes (the Thai/ancient chinese scale - but people there used 5 out of 7 notes, creating pentatonic style, not atonal 7 note style ) etc.


----------



## Guest

BabyGiraffe said:


> Wyschnegradsky was using a (dissonant, but somewhat tonal) 13 note quartertone scale and still managed to make music that is mostly listenable (unlike the overrated atonal composers). The problem with listenability of 12note music is in the idiotic idea that most people (obviously some of the posters here can do it ) can appreciate permutations and transformation of note rows. Composing atonal/serial music can be done with ease in any equal system like 6 tones (whole tone scales), 12 notes, 7 notes (the Thai/ancient chinese scale - but people there used 5 out of 7 notes, creating pentatonic style, not atonal 7 note style ) etc.


I don't think anyone can actually hear the permutations and transformations of each row. As I understand it, serialism has been used very effectively as a tool to allow composers find a consistent pitch-language or harmonic content to a piece of music. The more interesting stuff are the things we can actually hear, like the colours, rhythms, attacks, the density of chords and textures and melodic contour. There's a hell of a lot of stuff we can listen to in something like Boulez's _Messagesquisse_ or Lutosławski's _Musique funèbre_ without solely trying to pick out where what row/transformation/permutation is.


----------



## Enthusiast

DaveM said:


> The OP is Tonality is Unnatural which has lead to different strong opinions on tonality, atonality, avant-garde etc. If such discussions ended with, 'Okay, I hear such and such and you hear such and such. All is well. Kumbaya.', they would be incredibly short and boring.
> 
> Claiming that this interchange is uncivilized is the sort of lame self-righteousness that occurs when one can't think of anything more profound to say.


Fair enough - I can see why you read it that way. But there's another way that the discussion can falter and that is when there is when one can only ridicule what another hears. Even _'Okay, I hear such and such and you hear such and such. All is well. Kumbaya.'_ is better than _"if you don't hear x - where x is the the same for huge swathes of music - you must be a fool"_.

I didn't post in the early part of this thread because I am not a musician and the early posts were too technical for me to engage with (I found them interesting, though). I got involved when music that seems to me to be the most profoundly moving (in various ways) being written now was being dismissed as meaningless and all the same. A sensitive subject, I know, but we aren't going to get anywhere by just rudely rubbishing the aesthetic experience of anyone who is lifted to great heights by this or that music. To get somewhere we might need to pick apart what we experience when listening to music. Without mutual respect that is not going to be possible.

My contribution to the debate can't be that great (because much of the discussion relies on technical understandings of what music is doing) but I do at least span the divide in that I regularly enjoy a wide variety of "peak experiences" (as in Maslow) with works on either side of it. But when someone calls anyone does not see all atonal music as possessing the same dull qualities a fool ... that's when any chance of profundity in the discussion is lost. And if they seem to know so much about this music that they hate, all you can do is accept that they are entitled to their view and, perhaps, wonder why they contribute to the discussion at all.


----------



## Enthusiast

shirime said:


> I don't think anyone can actually hear the permutations and transformations of each row. As I understand it, serialism has been used very effectively as a tool to allow composers find a consistent pitch-language or harmonic content to a piece of music. The more interesting stuff are the things we can actually hear, like the colours, rhythms, attacks, the density of chords and textures and melodic contour. There's a hell of a lot of stuff we can listen to in something like Boulez's _Messagesquisse_ or Lutosławski's _Musique funèbre_ without solely trying to pick out where what row/transformation/permutation is.


I agree. The thing is, for me - with my lack of knowledge and interest in the technical side of music - this is also true of tonal music. I am happy that many can hear what the composer is doing - maybe they get more than me out of the music - but personally I don't think I give a fig about that stuff. I just care about what the music does to me. So I probably don't even see the divide between the tonal and the atonal as being so very great.


----------



## Guest

Enthusiast said:


> I agree. The thing is, for me - with my lack of knowledge and interest in the technical side of music - this is also true of tonal music. I am happy that many can hear what the composer is doing - maybe they get more than me out of the music - but personally I don't think I give a fig about that stuff. I just care about what the music does to me. So I probably don't even see the divide between the tonal and the atonal as being so very great.


I'm pretty much the same as you when it comes to listening to music.

Aside from the most obvious, surface level chord progressions and phrase structures, I am pretty much aware of none of the technical details of a composition when I am just listening to music for pleasure. Doesn't matter how the pitches have been organised. If it sounds good to me, then I am happy.

Other times I have to study a score for my course (THAT is different).


----------



## Phil loves classical

Enthusiast said:


> I agree. The thing is, for me - with my lack of knowledge and interest in the technical side of music - this is also true of tonal music. I am happy that many can hear what the composer is doing - maybe they get more than me out of the music - but personally I don't think I give a fig about that stuff. I just care about what the music does to me. So I probably don't even see the divide between the tonal and the atonal as being so very great.


I agree there are elements similar in both tonal and atonal music like rhythm, colour, timbres, textures. What separates tonality and atonality is the importance of tone relationships. With tonality there is an extra dimension in harmony. It builds on harmony, not just motivically. With atonality you can't build harmonically. And is not restricting the palette in tonality as I heard before, or thought earlier. You can use all 12 notes in tonality as well without sacrificing rhythmic fluidity.

When I listen to atonal, I feel I'm blindfolding myself to the riches in harmony. Atonal music devalues by normalizing its use of harmonic relationships ie. consonance and disonannce


----------



## arpeggio

No comment. I have given up on this thread. It has become so long winded that I have no idea what anyone is trying to accomplish. It is easier to listen to Carter then for me to try to understand most of these posts


----------



## Guest

arpeggio said:


> No comment. I have given up on this thread. It has become so long winded that I have no idea what anyone is trying to accomplish. It is easier to listen to Carter then for me to try to understand all of these posts


+1
(apparently I can't post something less than 15 characters, so this)


----------



## arpeggio

Baron Scarpia said:


> +1
> (apparently I can't post something less than 15 characters, so this)


Try this (…………………………)


----------



## Guest

arpeggio said:


> Try this (…………………………)


Ingenious! (...............)


----------



## mmsbls

Enthusiast said:


> I agree. The thing is, for me - with my lack of knowledge and interest in the technical side of music - this is also true of tonal music. I am happy that many can hear what the composer is doing - maybe they get more than me out of the music - but personally I don't think I give a fig about that stuff. I just care about what the music does to me. So I probably don't even see the divide between the tonal and the atonal as being so very great.





shirime said:


> I'm pretty much the same as you when it comes to listening to music.
> 
> Aside from the most obvious, surface level chord progressions and phrase structures, I am pretty much aware of none of the technical details of a composition when I am just listening to music for pleasure. Doesn't matter how the pitches have been organised. If it sounds good to me, then I am happy.
> 
> Other times I have to study a score for my course (THAT is different).


I am in a very similar situation to Enthusiast. When I first came to TC, I thought I had a sense of what music was atonal, but fairly quickly I realized that I could not (and presently can not) differentiate between atonal and other tonal music. Now I never even think about the issue when listening to music. As Berg said, "Music is music." I may like it or dislike it. I may be very interested or not. I may want to listen further to get a better sense of it. But I never ever question whether the music is tonal or not.

shirime, I'd be interested in knowing whether your study of music can sometimes increase the aesthetic pleasure you receive. Specifically, do you sometimes see a fascinating perhaps intellectually beautiful part in the score, and then listen differently to that part eventually getting more aesthetic pleasure from that part? NOTE: I'm not saying the intellectual knowledge directly gives you more aesthetic pleasure, but rather it could alert you to a part that ultimately increases your aesthetic pleasure.


----------



## arpeggio

*i Understand This One*



mmsbls said:


> I am in a very similar situation to Enthusiast. When I first came to TC, I thought I had a sense of what music was atonal, but fairly quickly I realized that I could not (and presently can not) differentiate between atonal and other tonal music. Now I never even think about the issue when listening to music. As Berg said, "Music is music." I may like it or dislike it. I may be very interested or not. I may want to listen further to get a better sense of it. But I never ever question whether the music is tonal or not.
> 
> shirime, I'd be interested in knowing whether your study of music can sometimes increase the aesthetic pleasure you receive. Specifically, do you sometimes see a fascinating perhaps intellectually beautiful part in the score, and then listen differently to that part eventually getting more aesthetic pleasure from that part? NOTE: I'm not saying the intellectual knowledge directly gives you more aesthetic pleasure, but rather it could alert you to a part that ultimately increases your aesthetic pleasure.


I understand this one :tiphat:


----------



## RamonC

Returning to the initial question posed in this thread, I give my opinion:

The correspondence between the _tonal music / atonal music_ binomial on _the unnatural / natura_l binomial I think is not correct.
The two types of music are equally unnatural in the same sense: they are produced by the ingenuity, imagination and intelligence of man through techniques of the same rank that manipulate sound resources.

To understand the essential difference between these two types of music, I believe that music must be considered as an act of human communication. As such, the code that regulates this communication is of crucial importance. Code understood as the system of laws and rules that allow the composer to create the message and the listener to decode it. The greater the coincidence between the two codes that both subjects use, the better the efficiency of the musical communication will be. We could say that tonal music uses a simpler code in the sense that less elements and references are needed to build it, while the code of atonal music is more complex and, therefore, requires more learning activity to achieve the deciphering of the musical code used by the issuer

Perhaps it is for this reason that one is tempted to say that the tonal music is more natural, but in reality one would have to say that it has a more direct communicative code.

There are many ideas exposed in this thread, and very interesting.


----------



## Phil loves classical

arpeggio said:


> No comment. I have given up on this thread. It has become so long winded that I have no idea what anyone is trying to accomplish. It is easier to listen to Carter then for me to try to understand most of these posts


It is like this, I don't know if you like rap music, and while I do, I feel I'm listening to 30% of the potential in music. When I listen to true atonal (I'm actually a fan, but just hear certain limitations that some maybe don't), I feel it is 80% of the potential, but when I listen to tonal music as harmonically advanced and rhythmically intense as the Rite of Spring, and Prokofiev's Piano Sonata 6 it is 100%.

To elevate atonal music to the level of tonal music seems to me to deny what makes tonal music tonal in the first place.


----------



## millionrainbows

DaveM said:


> I was familiar with the name George Rochberg, but did not know the backstory. From my reading, his turning to tonality was not emotionally based, but was because he couldn't musically express, atonally or serially, the feelings and emotions related to the loss of his son.


Sounds like the same thing in different words.



DaveM said:


> There's a big difference. It certainly suggests the limitations of atonality as has been mentioned in this thread and it comes from a rather credible source.


If Rochberg didn't feel he could express his grief in atonal terms, that's his responsibility, and not on the music.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Millionrainbows said (post #291):
> 
> "To be clear," then, equating the "underlying thought processes and systems" of serialism with science is as nonsensical as calling them logical. Composing music is not in any way or to any degree a scientific process. Serial composition is not more scientific - or more logical - than tonal composition. Am I "clear"?


You'll have to explain your counter-assertion and back it up with examples. I've already demonstrated with my example of simple inversion why serial thought deals with quantity, which is more purely mathematical, instead of identity, like tonality.


----------



## millionrainbows

Originally Posted by *Larkenfield* 
_I think those interested in sincerely exploring the Modern owe it to themselves to understand the upheaval in the arts that was taking place at the beginning of the 20th century in Paris and elsewhere with people like Stravinsky, Apollinaire, Picasso and others. Also how the first World War affected the art community. There were parallels of radical change that are still being played out today. Psychoanalysis and Sigmund Freud were on the rise in exploring the unconscious, Cubism was breaking down forms in painting, Arnold Schoenberg was breaking down tonality in music, and Stravinsky was releasing dynamic new forces that were turning the world upside down..._


Eva Yojimbo said:


> One shouldn't leave out the literary innovations of Joyce and Eliot either, the former breaking down the continuity and coherency of narrative; the latter breaking down the typically monophonic, personal mode and forms of poetry.


I agree with this approach; technology like photography was changing the role of art, as well as the increasing secularization of society and the weakening of religion's grip. In this light, my observations and musings about Western tonality being based on an older paradigm of God and religion seem perfectly appropriate, in spite of Woodduck's protests.


----------



## fluteman

millionrainbows said:


> Originally Posted by *Larkenfield*
> _I think those interested in sincerely exploring the Modern owe it to themselves to understand the upheaval in the arts that was taking place at the beginning of the 20th century in Paris and elsewhere with people like Stravinsky, Apollinaire, Picasso and others. Also how the first World War affected the art community. There were parallels of radical change that are still being played out today. Psychoanalysis and Sigmund Freud were on the rise in exploring the unconscious, Cubism was breaking down forms in painting, Arnold Schoenberg was breaking down tonality in music, and Stravinsky was releasing dynamic new forces that were turning the world upside down..._
> 
> I agree with this approach; technology like photography was changing the role of art, as well as the increasing secularization of society and the weakening of religion's grip. In this light, my observations and musings about Western tonality being based on an older paradigm of God and religion seem perfectly appropriate, in spite of Woodduck's protests.


But there is no need to put things in such a provocative way. Suffice it to say, music, visual art, literature, poetry, theater, and even architecture need to be put in the cultural, social, political, and yes, even religious context of their time and place to be fully understood. Sometimes great art addresses themes that are so profound and universal in such a compelling way that its impact continues beyond its own time and place. But even then, it makes sense to put the art of former eras in its proper historical perspective rather than simply concluding it's no good, or incomprehensible, or making other dismissive judgments.

And make no mistake, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Picasso, Joyce and Eliot are all distant historical figures at this point, though Stravinsky and Picasso had long lives and artistic careers. I guess the history and cultural anthropology student in me keeps coming out here, but the easy access we all now have to any kind of music doesn't imply the analysis or even just the listening is equally easy.


----------



## DaveM

millionrainbows said:


> If Rochberg didn't feel he could express his grief in atonal terms, that's his responsibility, and not on the music.


Presumably an experienced composer such as Rochberg would know what format can be used to best express his grief. Apparently, he chose tonality which is interesting after years of composing atonally.


----------



## Tallisman

To suggest that 'tonality is unnatural' is to suggest a harsh categorical bifurcation of tonality and atonality which doesn't exist in any strict sense. Either both are natural, or both are unnatural. The latter option, I hope we all recognise, is the more absurd. 

Any charges of 'natural' and 'unnatural' are always dubious in any situation, too; even pathological.


----------



## fluteman

DaveM said:


> Presumably an experienced composer such as Rochberg would know what format can be used to best express his grief. Apparently, he chose tonality which is interesting after years of composing atonally.


I've played Rochberg's music in addition to listening to it, but I'm not such a big fan, tonal, atonal or otherwise. I guess what Millionrainbows was trying to say was, if Rochberg was unable or unwilling to express his grief through atonal music, that may say something about Rochberg's abilities or preferences, but it doesn't say anything about atonal music generally. Schoenberg, Varese and Cage certainly wrote fine tonal music early in their careers, just as early on Picasso painted portraits that were much more easily recognizable as people than many paintings he made in later years, such as Nude Descending A Staircase. I even once saw early, non-abstract art by the famous abstract artist Mark Rothko at a museum exhibit. None of that establishes much.


----------



## millionrainbows

Tallisman said:


> To suggest that 'tonality is unnatural' is to suggest a harsh categorical bifurcation of tonality and atonality which doesn't exist in any strict sense. Either both are natural, or both are unnatural. The latter option, I hope we all recognise, is the more absurd.
> 
> Any charges of 'natural' and 'unnatural' are always dubious in any situation, too; even pathological.


This suggests to me that the premise of the OP is flawed in that it assumes "tonality" to mean "harmonic sound" or "harmonic centricity."

Harmonic centricity is the primordial state of pitched sound, in which one pitch, or a stack of pitches and intervals is perceived to be 'centric'. This is easy enough to understand with one note: it is centric unto itself, and is heard to be its own center. LaMont Young has exploited this sensation all his career, and is also interested in the tamboura, the accompanying instrument in Indian raga which creates the underlying 'drone' which centers the music.

The natural harmonic series, which is a fundamental tone and its "overtones," is the basic model for this.

Harmonic centricity occurs in all pitched sound, so it is universally present in all ethnic, primitive, folk, and all music. But it is an error to call this 'harmonic centricity "tonality" or to use that as a way of saying that "tonality is natural and ubiquitous in all cultures" as a way of pitting the Western tonal system against atonality. The Western CP system of tonality is a system derived from scales, which are "models" of the harmonic stack. Since we divide the octave into 12 pitches, which is arbitrary, CP tonality is further seen as 'artificial', and just as 'contrived' as atonality.

The tonal/atonal argument is thus flawed, and further confused by the defenses that people come up with to "defend" or bolster Western tonality as a "primordial sense of tone centricity" and a "natural" way to make music. It simply copies the natural, by using the "models" of major/minor scales. It is further revealed as 'artificial' in the way that chromatic pitches were gradually introduced into "CP" tonality, which destabilize tone-centricity to the point it can almost be considered "modern." The chromatic devices are certainly "modern" in the way that they use the chromatic collection.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> I am in a very similar situation to Enthusiast. When I first came to TC, I thought I had a sense of what music was atonal, but fairly quickly I realized that I could not (and presently can not) differentiate between atonal and other tonal music. Now I never even think about the issue when listening to music. As Berg said, "Music is music." I may like it or dislike it. I may be very interested or not. I may want to listen further to get a better sense of it. But I never ever question whether the music is tonal or not.
> 
> shirime, I'd be interested in knowing whether your study of music can sometimes increase the aesthetic pleasure you receive. Specifically, do you sometimes see a fascinating perhaps intellectually beautiful part in the score, and then listen differently to that part eventually getting more aesthetic pleasure from that part? NOTE: I'm not saying the intellectual knowledge directly gives you more aesthetic pleasure, but rather it could alert you to a part that ultimately increases your aesthetic pleasure.


Hmmm to answer your second paragraph, I would say I doesn't. Even though I might be able to do a schenkerian analysis of a piece of music doesn't mean it changes the aesthetic experience for me, for example. Or coming up with a harmonic analysis for the prelude to Tristan und Isolde, the sound of the Tristan chord remains the same and so the aesthetic remains the same for me. I ink anyone who listens to music can use their ears and their mind to find different things that are beautiful about the music. Personally, I don't think learning anything 'intellectual' or 'analytical' about the score is important unless it's information that can be applied to a musical interpretation. I think Furtwängler drew a lot of interpretative ideas for his Beethoven symphonies from schenkerian analysis.


----------



## millionrainbows

fluteman said:


> ... I guess what Millionrainbows was trying to say was, if Rochberg was unable or unwilling to express his grief through atonal music, that may say something about Rochberg's abilities or preferences, but it doesn't say anything about atonal music generally.


I think religion is linked with death and out thoughts on death, as a way of dealing. It seems that Rochberg needed to "go back to God" after the death of a loved one. This simply bolsters my idea that Western tonality and its paradigm/mindset is closely linked with the belief in God.

Even Wagner's music shows this: as new philosophical ideas began to emerge in the nineteenth century, ideas which questioned the divinity of Christ, questioned the virgin birth and miracles, etc, a corresponding weakening of tonality was taking place in music.



fluteman said:


> ...I even once saw early, non-abstract art by the famous abstract artist Mark Rothko at a museum exhibit. None of that establishes much.


Rothko hadn't found his voice yet in the early works. Varese is known to have destroyed most of his early work. The earliest published piano pieces by John Cage are 12-tone, based on his studies with Schoenberg, and Stravinsky has always been a modernist, even when writing so-called "neo-classical" pieces.


----------



## amfortas

millionrainbows said:


> Even Wagner's music shows this: as new philosophical ideas began to emerge in the nineteenth century, ideas which questioned the divinity of Christ, questioned the virgin birth and miracles, etc, a corresponding weakening of tonality was taking place in music.


All of which, for Wagner, culminated in . . . _Parsifal_!


----------



## fluteman

millionrainbows said:


> Rothko hadn't found his voice yet in the early works.


Maybe not. He certainly decided to move in a different direction, and his later abstract work is vastly better known. But he was certainly capable of producing non-abstract work.


millionrainbows said:


> Varese is known to have destroyed most of his early work.


True. There is a surviving choral work that he wrote as an assignment when he was a student at the Schola Cantorum that is interesting and rather medieval sounding. Again, he was certainly capable of composing music in a more traditional style.


millionrainbows said:


> The earliest published piano pieces by John Cage are 12-tone, based on his studies with Schoenberg, and Stravinsky has always been a modernist, even when writing so-called "neo-classical" pieces.


Again, Cage was certainly capable of composing music based on other, more tonally-based traditions, such as his String Quartet in Four Parts, though even that is not strictly in accord with pre-modern Western traditions, and has atonal as well as tonal elements, I admit.
The point I was trying to make is that these modern composers were capable of writing in a more traditional style, but chose not to, much as Rochberg did the opposite relatively late in his career.


----------



## Woodduck

Millionrainbows: Western tonality and its paradigm/mindset is closely linked with the belief in God. Even Wagner's music shows this: as new philosophical ideas began to emerge in the nineteenth century, ideas which questioned the divinity of Christ, questioned the virgin birth and miracles, etc, a corresponding weakening of tonality was taking place in music.

Amfortas: All of which, for Wagner, culminated in . . . Parsifal!

Amfortas has made an amusing point, but if you know the score of _Parsifal_ you know that Wagner exploits the traditional associations of diatonic and chromatic harmony to the hilt, resolving the most complex and subtle harmony ever employed up to that time into pure major triad radiance as good overcomes evil and pain is resolved into bliss. What needs to be said about this is that although both millionrainbows and amfortas are offering legitimate observations, Wagner did not believe in God, God is not mentioned in _Parsifal,_ and the view of religion it presents defies superficial appearances. The opera is actually subversive of religion; its torturous journey to the verge of atonality and back to diatonicism accompanies a rejection of traditional religious thought. The major chord that ends the opera represents not a capitulation to the Judeo-Christian God but freedom from Him and a restoration of human autonomy.

This may seem a bit esoteric, but it should caution us against drawing simplistic equivalences between music and culture or philosophical ideas. But perhaps a still better caution lies in the fact that Western music reached a peak of tonal strictness and transparency, not during eras when religion and the church dominated society, politics and art, but during the 18th century. It's arguable that the most insistently diatonic, hierarchical, tone-centric music ever written in the history of the world characterizes a period when God was precipitously losing his grip on society and the human imagination. The Age of Revolution suggests that if tonality symbolizes anything, it symbolizes not the mysteries of religion - we have modal chant and organum for that - but the power of reason to comprehend the world and our place in it.

I'm not trying to substitute one questionable notion for another here. I'm just questioning.


----------



## DaveM

fluteman said:


> I've played Rochberg's music in addition to listening to it, but I'm not such a big fan, tonal, atonal or otherwise. I guess what Millionrainbows was trying to say was, if Rochberg was unable or unwilling to express his grief through atonal music, that may say something about Rochberg's abilities or preferences, but it doesn't say anything about atonal music generally. Schoenberg, Varese and Cage certainly wrote fine tonal music early in their careers, just as early on Picasso painted portraits that were much more easily recognizable as people than many paintings he made in later years, such as Nude Descending A Staircase. I even once saw early, non-abstract art by the famous abstract artist Mark Rothko at a museum exhibit. None of that establishes much.


You're right. The fact that those composers turned to atonal after tonal and Picasso turned to abstract art doesn't establish much, especially since they didn't do so after losing a child. The premise that a composer experienced in atonal music felt he had to turn to tonal music to express emotions associated with loss of a child because of his limited composing ability as opposed to limitations of atonal music is pretty lame.

I don't have a problem with people loving atonal music. I do have a problem with their not being honest about it's limitations. Heard any atonal music love themes? Heard any atonal music played at weddings. Heard any atonal music played at funerals?


----------



## Haydn70

DaveM said:


> You're right. The fact that those composers turned to atonal after tonal and Picasso turned to abstract art doesn't establish much, especially since they didn't do so after losing a child. The premise that a composer experienced in atonal music felt he had to turn to tonal music to express emotions associated with loss of a child because of his limited composing ability as opposed to limitations of atonal music is pretty lame.


Precisely. Rochberg was a first-rate composer...one of the best contemporary art music composers on the planet when he was alive.



> I don't have a problem with people loving atonal music. I do have a problem with their not being honest about it's limitations. Heard any atonal music love themes? Heard any atonal music played at weddings. Heard any atonal music played at funerals?


Once again, precisely!

*Atonality has a very limited emotional/expressive palette*.

Your questions about its use--or lack thereof--in various situations highlight the issue well. Thus the use of Barber's _Adagio for Strings_ after the 9/11 tragedy instead of, oh let's say, a piece by Boulez:


----------



## Phil loves classical

DaveM said:


> Presumably an experienced composer such as Rochberg would know what format can be used to best express his grief. Apparently, he chose tonality which is interesting after years of composing atonally.


I knew he turned away from atonality, but didn't know it had to do with the death of his son. From Wikipedia:

A longtime exponent of serialism, Rochberg abandoned this compositional technique upon the death of his teenage son in 1964. He said he had found serialism empty of expressive intent and that it had proved an inadequate means for him to express his grief and rage


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> I don't have a problem with people loving atonal music. I do have a problem with their not being honest about it's limitations. Heard any atonal music love themes? Heard any atonal music played at weddings. Heard any atonal music played at funerals?


I don't understand your rhetoric here. The limitations are only due to cultural phenomena and personal experience; it's a personal, human limitation and not a musical one. I have heard more than a few operas with love themes that fit within an established non-tonal harmonic language, btw. Not sure what that has to do with anything.


----------



## DaveM

shirime said:


> I don't understand your rhetoric here. The limitations are only due to cultural phenomena and personal experience; it's a personal, human limitation and not a musical one. I have heard more than a few operas with love themes that fit within an established non-tonal harmonic language, btw. Not sure what that has to do with anything.


I understand that you're not sure. Would be interested to hear a few examples of these love themes.


----------



## Phil loves classical

ArsMusica said:


> Precisely. Rochberg was a first-rate composer...one of the best contemporary art music composers on the planet when he was alive.
> 
> Once again, precisely!
> 
> *Atonality has a very limited emotional/expressive palette*.
> 
> Your questions about its use--or lack thereof--in various situations highlight the issue well. Thus the use of Barber's _Adagio for Strings_ after the 9/11 tragedy instead of, oh let's say, a piece by Boulez:


I'm playing both sides here. Emotion doesn't need to be the ultimate goal of music. That is a great work by Boulez, I hear lots of interesting harmony, without being strictly tonal. It doesn't suppress or trivialize harmonic relationships which some atonal music does.


----------



## Guest

I am honestly not surprised that I had not ever heard of *George Rochberg* until this year when I encountered his neoconservative style as an example of a niche in 20th century music in the USA. He started his career with a wholly academic view of some kind of necessity for a serial language, he spoke about musical styles as objects or entities with universally understood emotional qualities, rather than as tools and shortcuts for composing intuitively as every other composer does. His failure to incorporate serialism into his mature style is partly due to his extraordinarily elitist viewpoint of the superiority of tonality and the shortcomings of serialism _as a means of expression._ Well, serialism has never been used in its own right as _a means of expression_ but rather as a guide to allow a more intuitive process for composers to write music based on their own subjective musical impulses and emotions, music where the dramaturgy and the linear hierarchy is established through the external sound, the musical impulse of composer and performers, rather than through the underlying permutations and transformations of pitch.

Part of the problem in the USA in the 20th Century with regards to serialism was that it was taken over by people who honestly embraced the academic and analytical side of composition over the intuitive, personal and expressive. In Europe, composers like Boulez took the opposite view and spoke strongly against the pseudo-intellectuals that gave so much importance to academic analysis of the internal workings of music. Boulez was very anti-elitist and took it upon himself to perform serial music (and a whole range of 20th century styles of classical music) that was very unfortunately turned into an academic circle jerk by the American university elitists and brought it to the public through his popular Rug Concerts in New York ($5 tickets, everyone welcome) and elsewhere he was a conductor.

Rochberg's rejection of serialism as a 'valid' compositional tool is a view that is as insular and narrow minded as his initial embrace of it. I think it's no surprise that composers whose serial music (or any music!) is remembered and performed most often today are the composers who rejected the shortcomings of that kind of insular elitism. I've never seen Rochberg on any concert programmes where I come from, but I've certainly seen Boulez on at least a few.


----------



## DaveM

Phil loves classical said:


> I'm playing both sides here. Emotion doesn't need to be the ultimate goal of music. That is a great work by Boulez, I hear lots of interesting harmony, without being strictly tonal.


The way I read that is that, 'Okay, being used to express emotions is not atonal's strong suit, but...' The relationship between the expression or raising of (several different) emotions and works of the classical and romantic period has been so close as to be called a raison d'etre and even the ultimate goal of most, if not all, music of those periods.

On the other hand, I agree that emotion doesn't need to be the ultimate goal of _all_ music. In fact, atonal music strikes me as more of the head than the heart.


----------



## Phil loves classical

DaveM said:


> The way I read that is that, 'Okay, being used to express emotions is not atonal's strong suit, but...' The relationship between the expression or raising of (several different) emotions and works of the classical and romantic period has been so close as to be called a raison d'etre and even the ultimate goal of most, if not all, music of those periods.
> 
> On the other hand, I agree that emotion doesn't need to be the ultimate goal of _all_ music. In fact, atonal music strikes me as more of the head than the heart.


Ya, I agree with all you said. There are various degrees within the tonal / atonal spectrum too. That Boulez piece is more mildly atonal. I find the more strictly serial ones destroy any tonal connections being the most limited in harmony content. Emancipation of the Dissonance, Schoenberg called it.


----------



## DaveM

shirime said:


> I am honestly not surprised that I had not ever heard of *George Rochberg* until this year when I encountered his neoconservative style as an example of a niche in 20th century music in the USA. He started his career with a wholly academic view of some kind of necessity for a serial language, he spoke about musical styles as objects or entities with universally understood emotional qualities, rather than as tools and shortcuts for composing intuitively as every other composer does. His failure to incorporate serialism into his mature style is partly due to his extraordinarily elitist viewpoint of the superiority of tonality and the shortcomings of serialism _as a means of expression._


Interesting choice of words '_His failure to incorporate serialism into his mature style_'. When does 'choice' become 'failure'?

You seem to be denigrating his music. I've done a little composing in my time. I would count myself very lucky to have composed something anywhere near this good:








> Well, serialism has never been used in its own right as _a means of expression_ but rather as a guide to allow a more intuitive process for composers to write music based on their own subjective musical impulses and emotions, music where the dramaturgy and the linear hierarchy is established through the external sound, the musical impulse of composer and performers, rather than through the underlying permutations and transformations of pitch.


What is the difference between _'a means of expression'_ and _'writing music based on their own subjective musical impulses and emotions,..'_ And I don't know what_ 'the musical impulse of composer and performers'_ as specific to atonal/serial music is.

Btw, still interested in examples of love themes in serial/avant-garde operas.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

DaveM said:


> Interesting choice of words '_His failure to incorporate serialism into his mature style_'. When does 'choice' become 'failure'?
> 
> You seem to be denigrating his music. I've done a little composing in my time. I would count myself very lucky to have composed something anywhere near this good:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the difference between _'a means of expression'_ and _'writing music based on their own subjective musical impulses and emotions,..'_ And I don't know what_ 'the musical impulse of composer and performers'_ as specific to atonal/serial music is.
> 
> Btw, still interested in examples of love themes in serial/avant-garde operas.


Tonality is Unreal (and not in a good way), who want nambie pambie lovie dovie Opera anyway. Here is some real Opera


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> Interesting choice of words '_His failure to incorporate serialism into his mature style_'. When does 'choice' become 'failure'?


It was certainly his choice, and it was a choice based on rejecting the academic circle jerk of serialism rather than finding a way to overlay his personal musical impulses on serial techniques and procedures.



> What is the difference between _'a means of expression'_ and _'writing music based on their own subjective musical impulses and emotions,..'_ And I don't know what_ 'the musical impulse of composer and performers'_ is.


I am using those terms sorta synonymously. 

I guess it's really the personal, emotional drive to compose, a concern for the musical nature of a composition in it's most external layer, how a composer's musical sense is translated into sound.

In this case, tonality is a particular system of ordering pitch across a linear framework through time and serialism is a system that allows for more freedom for a composer to create the linear, dramaturgical and hierarchical nature of the music as they see fit. The row and its permutations are merely there to help with underlying harmonic cohesion rather than used for hierarchical purposes; a composer can come up with other ways of creating the linear framework of a serial composition. George Rochberg seems to have renounced serialism based on the fact that it was failing to do something that he wanted to do; it was failing to present itself on the surface, as some kind of 'hearable' tool. There are some serial compositions that evoke a wide range of emotions to me, from joy, humour, sadness, but most importantly are the nuanced mixtures. This is just me, though, not Rochberg. Boulez, as an example, was concerned with how the music sounds; he described the 'exterior' sound as being incredibly important to music because that is what the audience connects with, not silly permutations of rows. This 'exterior' level of sound is shaped by the composer's own musical intuition, how the composer wants the music to sound. George Rochberg seems to have had no interest in appreciating his musical intuition through applying it to serialism, so he turned to tonality for its superficial qualities in that area.



> Btw, still interested in examples of love themes in serial/avant-garde operas.


Sure. You can check out some operas by Adès (_The Tempest_ particularly), Brett Dean (_Bliss_ rather than _Hamlet_ although both these operas don't exactly concern themselves with your typical love story but a more twisted and cynical view of life through the eyes of an individual) and Charles Wuorinen (_Brokeback Mountain_). They aren't all serial, they aren't all avant-garde, but they aren't at all tonal.


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> You seem to be denigrating his music. I've done a little composing in my time. I would count myself very lucky to have composed something anywhere near this good:


Not his music, I enjoy his music very much, but his insular and elitist views on music certainly don't interest me in the slightest. He, himself, used the term 'failure' when describing how serialism did not suit what he wanted to write. I am suggesting that his preoccupation with serialism's alleged shortcomings were more likely _his own_ (and by extension, a number of the American university-based serial composers) shortcomings in applying his personal musical/emotional impulses on the surface using serial procedures as an underlying tool rather than a binding compositional/aesthetic rule of law.


----------



## Lisztian

shirime said:


> Sure. You can check out some operas by Adès (_The Tempest_ particularly), *Brett Dean (Bliss rather than Hamlet *although both these operas don't exactly concern themselves with your typical love story but a more twisted and cynical view of life through the eyes of an individual) and Charles Wuorinen (_Brokeback Mountain_). They aren't all serial, they aren't all avant-garde, but they aren't at all tonal.


*Bliss* is fantastic! I haven't been able to hear *Hamlet* yet, but I'm definitely looking forward to the time when I can...What were/are your impressions?


----------



## Guest

Lisztian said:


> *Bliss* is fantastic! I haven't been able to hear *Hamlet* yet, but I'm definitely looking forward to the time when I can...What were/are your impressions?


_Hamlet_ I think is a little more lusciously orchestrated than the harsh, biting sound of _Bliss._ Dean's wit and charm is still ever present, but it certainly has a more traditionally ghostly atmosphere. The play within a....opera segment was particularly good in Armfield's production, there was something even meta about exposing things like stage lights and turning the set around to see things that typically a director would want to hide. It's out on DVD and Blu ray soon I think.


----------



## DaveM

shirime said:


> This 'exterior' level of sound is shaped by the composer's own musical intuition, how the composer wants the music to sound. George Rochberg seems to have had no interest in appreciating his musical intuition through applying it to serialism, so he turned to tonality for its superficial qualities in that area.


I don't know how one can tell whether a tonal composer is capable of musical intuition or not. Nor have I ever heard that tonality 'has superficial qualities in that area.' For all we know Mozart and Beethoven were quite capable of musical intuition. In any event, you are assuming that musical intuition had anything to do with Rochberg's turning to tonality.



> Sure. You can check out some operas by Adès (_The Tempest_ particularly), Brett Dean (_Bliss_ rather than _Hamlet_ although both these operas don't exactly concern themselves with your typical love story but a more twisted and cynical view of life through the eyes of an individual) and Charles Wuorinen (_Brokeback Mountain_). They aren't all serial, they aren't all avant-garde, but they aren't at all tonal.


Seems like you are backing off the original claim. I'm not going searching for love themes in operas that don't exactly concern themselves with a love story or works that may or may not be tonal. Until there is something more specific, your claim remains anecdotal.


----------



## DaveM

shirime said:


> Not his music, I enjoy his music very much, but his insular and elitist views on music certainly don't interest me in the slightest. He, himself, used the term 'failure' when describing how serialism did not suit what he wanted to write. I am suggesting that his preoccupation with serialism's alleged shortcomings were more likely _his own_ (and by extension, a number of the American university-based serial composers) shortcomings in applying his personal musical/emotional impulses on the surface using serial procedures as an underlying tool rather than a binding compositional/aesthetic rule of law.


Don't you think it's a little presumptuous to turn what an experienced, successful composer felt was a failure of a form of composition to express feelings of grief for loss of a son into a failure of the composer. Do you have any basis other than your own opinion to be saying that?


----------



## janxharris

millionrainbows said:


> I think religion is linked with death and out thoughts on death, as a way of dealing. It seems that Rochberg needed to "go back to God" after the death of a loved one. This simply bolsters my idea that Western tonality and its paradigm/mindset is closely linked with the belief in God.


Did Strauss err then in using tonal music in setting Nietzsche?



> Even Wagner's music shows this: as new philosophical ideas began to emerge in the nineteenth century, ideas which questioned the divinity of Christ, questioned the virgin birth and miracles, etc, a corresponding weakening of tonality was taking place in music.


Yet his music remained tonal.


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> I don't know how one can tell whether a tonal composer is capable of musical intuition or not. Nor have I ever heard that tonality 'has superficial qualities in that area.' For all we know Mozart and Beethoven were quite capable of musical intuition. In any event, you are assuming that musical intuition had anything to do with Rochberg's turning to tonality.
> 
> Seems like you are backing off the original claim. I'm not going searching for love themes in operas that don't exactly concern themselves with a love story or works that may or may not be tonal. Until there is something more specific, your claim remains anecdotal.


I don't listen to music to deduce whether a composer has any musical intuition as I am sure they all do. What is extremely elitist is for a composer to proclaim that a certain technique or a certain style has completely failed when it comes to composers writing the music they want to write according to how they want to express their musical ideas. No music has failed. Of course tonality on its most superficial level is concerned with the exterior sound of chord progressions and stuff like that, and a composer's musical intuition will be expressed in the unique sound or aesthetic in any piece of music. Serialism on the other hand lends itself to different kinds of techniques where the external sound of a piece and the composer's musical intuition is far less 'bound' to any structural framework.

Rochberg's turn to tonality was based on what he viewed as a 'failure' of serialism to do something that he felt tonality did well. I agree that serialism is not concerned with the linear framework and rigid structures that tonality concerns itself with, but I disagree that serialism failed at to do anything because it is up to how a composer uses a compositional tool/technique and not the tool/technique itself.

I am not backing off my claim that there are love stories with fitting music in each of the operas I mentioned. Whilst there may not be 'themes' along the terms of a more motific usage of melody, there are parts of each opera where characters fall in love and the music that accompanies those scenes are very suitable according to how the composer wanted to present the story.


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> Don't you think it's a little presumptuous to turn what an experienced, successful composer felt was a failure of a form of composition to express feelings of grief for loss of a son into a failure of the composer. Do you have any basis other than your own opinion to be saying that?


Not at all presumptuous. I am going by what he has said about his approach to music and seeing how it aligns with my own values. He wrote some utterly brilliant pieces in the idiom that best suited him, but him to blame a compositional technique seems extremely silly and the kind of elitist attitude he promotes about the superiority of tonal music shows some kind of inflated self worth on his part that I find extremely off-putting. I feel similarly about what Schoenberg had to say about the superiority of his 12-tone technique. Serialism is just a technique/tool or a collection of techniques/tools that a composer can use in their music. For a composer to go out and ridicule it and all the composers who have used that technique and describe the music as 'failing' to do something is just an example of a composer putting their ego before the music.


----------



## Fredx2098

shirime said:


> I don't listen to music to deduce whether a composer has any musical intuition as I am sure they all do. What is extremely elitist is for a composer to proclaim that a certain technique or a certain style has completely failed when it comes to composers writing the music they want to write according to how they want to express their musical ideas. No music has failed. Of course tonality on its most superficial level is concerned with the exterior sound of chord progressions and stuff like that, and a composer's musical intuition will be expressed in the unique sound or aesthetic in any piece of music. Serialism on the other hand lends itself to different kinds of techniques where the external sound of a piece and the composer's musical intuition is far less 'bound' to any structural framework.
> 
> Rochberg's turn to tonality was based on what he viewed as a 'failure' of serialism to do something that he felt tonality did well. I agree that serialism is not concerned with the linear framework and rigid structures that tonality concerns itself with, but I disagree that serialism failed at to do anything because it is up to how a composer uses a compositional tool/technique and not the tool/technique itself.
> 
> I am not backing off my claim that there are love stories with fitting music in each of the operas I mentioned. Whilst there may not be 'themes' along the terms of a more motific usage of melody, there are parts of each opera where characters fall in love and the music that accompanies those scenes are very suitable according to how the composer wanted to present the story.


The music of Alban Berg sounds very emotional to me. The opera Wozzeck would be a good example of atonal music with emotional themes. I hear slightly motivic melody and a wide variety of emotions expressed. As far as I know, his music is atonal, but I could be wrong.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> The prelude to _Rheingold_ doesn't depict chaos but rather an evolutionary principle working at the heart of nature. What does the music consist of? A deep unison in the bass, followed by the fifth immediately above it, then the octave and the major third to form the triad of Eb Major, which sounds unchanged for 136 bars and slowly grows and glows in waves of arpeggios. It's the creation of tonal music from its basic elements, *symbolizing the birth of the cosmos of the Ring in the depths of the primordial waters*, where myth and science suggest that life began. How profoundly different from Haydn's _Creation,_ where wandering chromaticism depicts chaos until the Sky God of Israel steps down from his throne and imposes diatonic order in a burst of light!
> 
> We might say that music has gone from Genesis to Darwin in half a century.


Gee, this sounds an awful lot like... order arising from chaos! The differences between the two is the source of chaos and order and how each are depicted.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> You're taking this into the philosophical weeds and geting away from the subject I dealt with: musical perception.
> 
> The difference between a logical choice and an intuitive one lies in whether we have all the information we need to make a correct choice, or whether we have to "go with our gut" in the absence of some key information. Millionrainbows called the process of 12-tone composition "logical" (as well as "scientific"). I argued in response that the perception of tonal music is more analogous to logic than the perception of serial music, in that we are given an abundance, a constant flow, of information which leads to certain expectations, analogous to the process of drawing conclusions from premises in solving a logical problem.
> 
> I have no idea what you mean when you suggest that the concept of a tone row is "logical." But in any case I wasn't talking about the concept, but about how the music is perceived.
> 
> The fact that tonal expectations require "pattern recognition" is not any sort of objection. Music is just patterns of sound, isn't it? Our experience of the world and the conclusions we draw about it are fundamentally and constantly dependent on pattern recognition. That's the basic mechanism of perception and conceptualization. Conscious thought depends on unconscious processes; far more information goes into thinking than we can hold consciously. Obliterate those processes and conscious thought would be impossible. See Rudolf Arnheim's _Visual Thinking._


My entire middle paragraph was about musical perception, and you took this into the philosophical weeds when you chose to riff off millionrainbows's bad analogy of music with logic. When you take up an analogy with a philosophical subject, you should perhaps anticipate people correcting you when you make a muddle of it. Case-in-point:



> The difference between a logical choice and an intuitive one lies in whether we have all the information we need to make a correct choice, or whether we have to "go with our gut" in the absence of some key information.


This is absolutely, factually wrong. A great many professions (including mine) require making logical choices in the face of partial information and uncertainty; in which cases inductive logic, which could be called probabilistic reasoning, takes the place of deductive logic. Inductive/Probabilistic logic aims at producing more accurate estimations, while deductive logic aims at producing certainties. A great many rationalists would claim that deductive logic is really just inductive logic in disguise, that all reasoning is really, innately, probabilistic/uncertain. In both cases, however, the rules of logic still apply; you're still reasoning from facts to a conclusion, and in both cases "going with your gut" (or intuition) tends to produce errors, irrationality/illogic, into our reasoning.

This is why I think the logic/music analogy is a bad one, because you're using our intuitive grasping of the patterns of tonality as analogy with logic; but logic is not always intuitive, and what separates logic from the illogical has nothing to do with how intuitive it is to us. My point with mentioning pattern recognition is that our ability to intuit the possibilities of tonal music has far more to do with such patterns than with any logic. Even pattern recognition is a good example of how the human brain isn't always logical, because the same brain that can recognize real patterns can "recognize" non-existing ones, and fail to recognize existing ones.

Of course our thinking is both a mix of conscious and unconscious thought, but there are degrees of weight that we can place on one or the other, and the degrees of error that each tends to produce. If we're recommending books, I'd highly recommend Daniel Kahneman's (who won a well-deserved Nobel Prize in his field of study) Thinking, Fast and Slow.


----------



## DaveM

shirime said:


> Rochberg's turn to tonality was based on what he viewed as a 'failure' of serialism to do something that he felt tonality did well. I agree that serialism is not concerned with the linear framework and rigid structures that tonality concerns itself with, but I disagree that serialism failed at to do anything because it is up to how a composer uses a compositional tool/technique and not the tool/technique itself.
> 
> I am not backing off my claim that there are love stories with fitting music in each of the operas I mentioned. Whilst there may not be 'themes' along the terms of a more motific usage of melody, there are parts of each opera where characters fall in love and the music that accompanies those scenes are very suitable according to how the composer wanted to present the story.


You are holding to the premise that it was Rochberg's limitations rather than serialism's. Yet, you will not provide any example of serial music's ability to convey emotions that Rochberg was trying to convey. And not even a basic love theme. Something more than evasive wordsmithing -"there may not be 'themes' along the terms of more motif usage of melody"- is more likely to persuade.


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> Of the four words you used we can probably dispense with "chaotic" as the perception of chaos is often (always) merely a failure to see the patterns. So we are left with "dark", "tense" and "tortured" and I am not sure I can think of many examples of atonal music that would bring those words to my mind. In fact those words make me immediately think of some Mahler (the 6th, perhaps - especially the last movement)! And when applied to perceptions of music they are still subjective.
> 
> But how about:
> George Benjamin - say, Duet for Piano and Orchestra or Palimpsests?
> *Boulez - perhaps Repons* or Sur Incises?
> Elliott Carter - maybe one of the quartets (perhaps the 5th)?
> Peter Eotvos - Psy or Seven or Replica for Viola and Orchestra?
> Gerard Grisey - Les Espaces Acoustiques?
> Jonathon Harvey - Bird Concerto with Pianosong?
> Kurtag - maybe, Signs, Games and Messages
> Or even Lachenmann - say, Nun?
> 
> These are not really specially selected: I'm just listing pieces that I have listened to recently in alphabetical order and none of them seem to fit the three words you use. I gave up on reaching the letter L because the list would be too long! Maybe you could start with the Harvey or some Eotvos.
> 
> By the way, I am assuming that you rule out Morton Feldman from this?


I know this work somewhat - it immediately reminded me of Stockhausen's _Gruppen_. I hear much that is tense in the music and also I perceive chaos. Surely tension is concomitant with serialism - dissonance is in the very essence of the 'system' isn't it?

Actually, it was listening to _Repons_ that initially sparked off my post requesting serial music that depicted emotions and phenomena other than the descriptors I cited. I was merely wondering if all serial music was in fact limited to such expressions.


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> You are holding to the premise that it was Rochberg's limitations rather than serialism's. Yet, you will not provide any example of serial music's ability to convey emotions that Rochberg was trying to convey. And not even a basic love theme. Something more than evasive wordsmithing -"there may not be 'themes' along the terms of more motif usage of melody"- is more likely to persuade.


It's Rochberg's criticism that I have a problem with, and yes serialism itself as a tool does not have any problems. It's only present in the music that it's present in and used by composers who want to use it. The composers who used it are diverse enough in style for anyone to hear that serialism doesn't create an aesthetic or emotion, it's just a tool and composers find ways to apply it to their music. Stretto doesn't have inherent emotional qualities either, but it can be used differently by any composer who wishes to compose using it as a tool.

No music literally conveys emotion; it's way more complex than that as it will always affect every one of us differently. I never tried to argue that there is such thing as a serial love theme, but I have tried to argue that a composer's individual aesthetic, individual musical impulses and intuition, their subjective music sensibilities is what allows them to convince at least _me_ that I'm hearing the right kind of music for the way the composer wishes to express a story in an opera through music. I don't wish to persuade you; I'd rather you listen to music that you want to hear. If you were in my part of the world I would happily lend you a DVD of the Adès opera I mentioned so that you can watch it in full, but certainly not to try to convince you that what I hear is what you should hear in it.


----------



## janxharris

Nobody else here suspicious of the atonal music they enjoy/love? Having listened to Boulez's _Répons_ I was struck by how (imho) it appeared to sound very similar to Stockhausen's _Gruppen_ (which I very much enjoy).

I'm yet wondering - have I been fooled? Take a tone row - fiddle with it's variations and throw it in a mix of surrounding notes...


----------



## janxharris

By comparison - I am zero % suspicious of Sibelius's 7th Symphony.


----------



## Guest

janxharris said:


> Nobody else here suspicious of the atonal music they enjoy/love? Having listened to Boulez's _Répons_ I was struck by how (imho) it appeared to sound very similar to Stockhausen's _Gruppen_ (which I very much enjoy).
> 
> I'm yet wondering - have I been fooled? Take a tone row - fiddle with it's variations and throw it in a mix of surrounding notes...


_Répons_ is my favourite piece of music. I think it does share one similarity with _Gruppen_ in terms of the inspiration they both took from electronic sound diffusion/spatialisation.

If anyone can find a piece of music in, say, B flat major that does what _Répons_ can do to me then I would be extremely impressed!

Btw what do you mean by 'fooled'?


----------



## janxharris

shirime said:


> _Répons_ is my favourite piece of music. I think it does share one similarity with _Gruppen_ in terms of the inspiration they both took from *electronic sound diffusion/spatialisation*.


?

_Répons_, I believe, has digital echo of certain instruments at some moments. Did you mean that?



> If anyone can find a piece of music in, say, B flat major that does what _Répons_ can do to me then I would be extremely impressed!


I enjoy what appears to be organised chaos. I am more familiar with _Gruppen_ where it almost seems as if we are glimpsing the world of the atomic - electrons, protons and neutrons moving about almost chaotically....



> Btw what do you mean by 'fooled'?


Fooled because anyone could achieve a very similar result with just a little serial knowledge and organisational awareness. I remain on the fence as yet though.


----------



## janxharris

shirime said:


> If anyone can find a piece of music in, say, B flat major that does what _Répons_ can do to me then I would be extremely impressed!


I think this is a good point - atonal music steps in where tonal music reaches it's limit (and visa versa). It would seem that both are valid depending on what it is that one wants to express.


----------



## janxharris

Just to clarify this:



> Fooled because anyone could achieve a very similar result with just a little serial knowledge and organisational awareness. I remain on the fence as yet though.


I am NOT asserting that such music is achievable by just anyone - rather that I merely have some degree of suspicion.


----------



## nikola

Yes, I went outside and started to listen to the birds. For sure they were chirping Schoenberg and Stockhausen. Certainly not Beethoven or Chopin. 
You taught us! We finally see.... hear actually. The world is naturally atonal and ugly and we need more of it in music.


----------



## janxharris

Nice mix of tonal and not so tonal?


----------



## Guest

nikola said:


> Yes, I went outside and started to listen to the birds. For sure they were chirping Schoenberg and Stockhausen. Certainly not Beethoven or Chopin.
> You taught us! We finally see.... hear actually. The world is naturally atonal and ugly and we need more of it in music.


Last time I checked, the birds were chirping Messiaen.


----------



## Guest

janxharris said:


> Just to clarify this:
> 
> I am NOT asserting that such music is achievable by just anyone - rather that I merely have some degree of suspicion.


I think one would need more than just a little knowledge........perhaps a few decades of experience would be good too.


----------



## janxharris

shirime said:


> I think one would need more than just a little knowledge........perhaps a few decades of experience would be good too.


You might be right; perhaps you you know more about this music than I do. I am rather convinced that many of the notes used are arbitrary - but that is not asserting such pieces necessarily aren't meritorious.


----------



## janxharris

shirime said:


> _Répons_ is my favourite piece of music.


Do you think that Boulez was totally aware of the _harmonic effect_ that all his interweaving 'melodic' lines in _Répons_ have on the listener? I think in tonal music this is called voice leading.


----------



## Guest

janxharris said:


> Do you think that Boulez was totally aware of the _harmonic effect_ of all his interweaving 'melodic' lines in _Répons_? I think in tonal music this is called voice leading.


Yes. 

....................


----------



## EdwardBast

DaveM said:


> You are holding to the premise that it was Rochberg's limitations rather than serialism's. Yet, you will not provide any example of serial music's ability to convey emotions that Rochberg was trying to convey. And not even a basic love theme. Something more than evasive wordsmithing -"there may not be 'themes' along the terms of more motif usage of melody"- is more likely to persuade.


Why should serialists be conveying emotions? You seem to be assuming that's the universal aim of Western art music. It isn't.


----------



## janxharris

shirime said:


> Yes.
> 
> ....................


You don't think that, rather, he was more concerned with the horizontal flow? It does seem that many pieces end up sounding dissonant in rather similar ways - with myriad contrapuntal lines forming tone clusters.

Just my observation.


----------



## Guest

janxharris said:


> You don't think that, rather, he was more concerned with the horizontal flow? It does seem that many pieces end up sounding dissonant in rather similar ways - with myriad contrapuntal lines forming tone clusters.
> 
> Just my observation.


That too.

I think a lot of what's going on in the piece is the interplay between the central orchestra and the soloists as well, the physical space that the sound is passed around in as much as the gestural exchanges between the instruments. It's extremely high energy music, a lot of it sounds wonderfully joyful and ecstatic to me with some mysterious undertones.


----------



## janxharris

shirime said:


> That too.
> 
> I think a lot of what's going on in the piece is the interplay between the central orchestra and the soloists as well, the physical space that the sound is passed around in as much as the gestural exchanges between the instruments. It's extremely high energy music, a lot of it sounds wonderfully joyful and ecstatic to me with some mysterious undertones.


Indeed - and I am intrigued to continue listening because of it's similarities to _Gruppen_.

Joyful? I'm not in anyway saying you are wrong - but I guess it's just that dissonance and joy are rather uncomfortable bedfellows. So that's maybe that's why you added 'with some mysterious undertones'?


----------



## Guest

janxharris said:


> Indeed - and I am intrigued to continue listening because of it's similarities to _Gruppen_.
> 
> Joyful? I'm not in anyway saying you are wrong - but I guess it's just that dissonance and joy are rather uncomfortable bedfellows. So that's maybe that's why you added 'with some mysterious undertones'?


I've personally never found it difficult to find feelings of joy in this kind of music.


----------



## Enthusiast

In the back of my mind I've been thinking of this matter of joyfulness in music (tonal and atonal and in between) over the last few days ... and the wider question of whether music expresses emotions, and which ones. I think I have arrived at a feeling that some music that uses a language that is very familiar can be said to represent more or less the same emotion or an emotional state for many of us (say, the slow movement of Mahler 5). But usually describing what emotion we think is being expressed in music (even very tonal and quite old music like Mozart) in a way that strikes a chord with what others feel is at best very hit and miss. In the end I find myself thinking that music is not usually about emotion but does engage us emotionally. That's my best shot at that question and I am a little surprised at myself.


----------



## janxharris

A comment on the _Gruppen_ Youtube page:

_I've been listening to a lot of "avant-garde" music lately. I'm really taken with Boulez's music, but I'm not convinced that Stockhausen wasn't just having everybody on.﻿_


----------



## Lisztian

janxharris said:


> A comment on the _Gruppen_ Youtube page:
> 
> _I've been listening to a lot of "avant-garde" music lately. I'm really taken with Boulez's music, but I'm not convinced that Stockhausen wasn't just having everybody on.﻿_


Well, Boulez didn't think so, as he said some time in the sixties:

"Stockhausen is the greatest living composer, and the only one whom I recognise as my peer."

Then, later (more qualified, as a lot of people became with his later music):

"In Stockhausen's good period, I came to trust his music more than anything else. I felt he could solve all the problems, that it was no longer necessary for me to address myself to them."


----------



## Thomyum2

DaveM said:


> I don't have a problem with people loving atonal music. I do have a problem with their not being honest about it's limitations. Heard any atonal music love themes? Heard any atonal music played at weddings. Heard any atonal music played at funerals?


I agree with you on this, but I'd ask, don't all styles and forms of music have limitations? Atonal music might not be a frequent choice for love songs or weddings, but works well in many film scores to express a sense of mystery or unknown or a dream-like state. And then again, much tonal classical music would be out of place in other settings too. My nieces and nephews would find Tchaikovsky or Mendelssohn completely inappropriate to express the feelings they want at their high school graduation party!

As for an example of atonal music that expresses love (though I concede not a 'love theme') have you ever experienced a performance of Saariaho's _L'Amour du Loin_? I think it's one of the most moving love stories ever, and the opera is like one long love song in some ways. (I suggest a performance if possible because there is a 3-dimensional quality to Saariaho's music that can't quite be captured as well in a recording.)


----------



## Phil loves classical

janxharris said:


> Do you think that Boulez was totally aware of the _harmonic effect_ that all his interweaving 'melodic' lines in _Répons_ have on the listener? I think in tonal music this is called voice leading.


Repons was one of the most successful works of Boulez for me because its harmony sounds composed, rather than arrived through sequences. It is a long way from this earlier work


----------



## janxharris

Phil loves classical said:


> Repons was one of the most successful works of Boulez for me because its harmony sounds composed, rather than arrived through sequences. It is a long way from this earlier work


Thanks - I'll have a listen.

That's a good way of putting it: 'rather than arrived through sequences' (though I believe this can and does occur in tonal music).


----------



## Thomyum2

Enthusiast said:


> In the back of my mind I've been thinking of this matter of joyfulness in music (tonal and atonal and in between) over the last few days ... and the wider question of whether music expresses emotions, and which ones. I think I have arrived at a feeling that some music that uses a language that is very familiar can be said to represent more or less the same emotion or an emotional state for many of us (say, the slow movement of Mahler 5). But usually describing what emotion we think is being expressed in music (even very tonal and quite old music like Mozart) in a way that strikes a chord with what others feel is at best very hit and miss. In the end I find myself thinking that music is not usually about emotion but does engage us emotionally. That's my best shot at that question and I am a little surprised at myself.


I think you make a very good point. In fact, when I look back to the origins of western classical music in Gregorian chant, I have the sense that is a form of music that specifically aims to _avoid_ any kind of emotional expression. I'm not an expert on early music, but in that there is no real harmony or rhythm as we know them now, and the 'melody', if you can even call it that, has no repetitions to establish itself in our immediate memory, the music to my ear sounds completely pure, as I believe it was designed to be, to glorify God and not distract from that by drawing attention to itself or to any emotions that it might generate. Each piece stands alone and has its place in the liturgy; there is no 'listener', and the faithful that sang it (and still sing it) do so as an act of worship. Using it to express emotions, I think, might strike a monk as inappropriate (or 'secular'?) in that it would put the focus on what one is feeling rather than on the object of worship.

So yes, I agree, there is a lot more to music than emotion. I think music is full of mystery in so many ways, which is what makes it so wonderful and exciting to explore.


----------



## Guest

Thomyum2 said:


> As for an example of atonal music that expresses love (though I concede not a 'love theme') have you ever experienced a performance of Saariaho's _L'Amour du Loin_? I think it's one of the most moving love stories ever, and the opera is like one long love song in some ways. (I say a performance because I've found the music doesn't translate as well to recording - there is a '3-dimensional' quality to Saariaho's music that comes through in a live performance.)


I got myself a DVD of that opera last year but I have to confess I never got around to watching it................


----------



## soni

DaveM said:


> I don't have a problem with people loving atonal music. I do have a problem with their not being honest about it's limitations. Heard any atonal music love themes? Heard any atonal music played at weddings. Heard any atonal music played at funerals?


I agree serial music has these limitations, but not atonal music per se. While playing Feldman at a wedding would be difficult due to the length, I believe parts of the Second String Quartet would totally fit. Funerals: how about this - 



. Also who said music has to have themes? Isn't that imposing a limitation? The music I like is music with the least possible limitations - no limitations of serialism or tone rows, but no limitation of tonality either.


----------



## Enthusiast

soni said:


> I agree serial music has these limitations, but not atonal music per se. While playing Feldman at a wedding would be difficult due to the length, I believe parts of the Second String Quartet would totally fit. Funerals: how about this -
> 
> 
> 
> . Also who said music has to have themes? Isn't that imposing a limitation? The music I like is music with the least possible limitations - no limitations of serialism or tone rows, but no limitation of tonality either.


I don't even accept that atonal music (what a huge and varied field that is by now!) is limited in terms of the "topic" of love although, of course, it will generally only be overt when it involves words (operas, songs). I say "of course" because otherwise we end up comparing our perceptions of something that is essentially abstract (i.e. all music) - "is hear x" ... "well, I only hear y". But I do agree with your points and particularly regarding the use of the word "themes" (tunes? motifs?) when applied to music.

I do wonder, though, what we as a group will ever get out of comparing such huge fields as tonal music and atonal music. I don't thing the OP tried to do that but it does seem that the thread has moved into trying to do that impossible thing. I'm not sure much light has come out of that attempt.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

Thomyum2 said:


> I think you make a very good point. In fact, when I look back to the origins of western classical music in Gregorian chant, I have the sense that is a form of music that specifically aims to _avoid_ any kind of emotional expression. I'm not an expert on early music, but in that there is no real harmony or rhythm as we know them now, and the 'melody', if you can even call it that, has no repetitions to establish itself in our immediate memory, the music to my ear sounds completely pure, as I believe it was designed to be, to glorify God and not distract from that by drawing attention to itself or to any emotions that it might generate. Each piece stands alone and has its place in the liturgy; there is no 'listener', and the faithful that sang it (and still sing it) do so as an act of worship. Using it to express emotions, I think, might strike a monk as inappropriate (or 'secular'?) in that it would put the focus on what one is feeling rather than on the object of worship.
> 
> So yes, I agree, there is a lot more to music than emotion. I think music is full of mystery in so many ways, which is what makes it so wonderful and exciting to explore.


Quick search gives us this definition of classical - "representing an exemplary standard within a traditional and long-established form or style".. You can't say that so many of the light and "vulgar" operas have anything in common with religious music. Completely different compositional strategies and effects. Both are labeled "classical", because they are cultural heritage, not because they have something in common.

Many "classical" baroque, galant and romantic concertos and symphonies are based on popular dances/genres/folk music(19-20th century). Nothing to do with the church music. (Imagine some "serious" composer today to write music based on popular dance - no way, it has to be atonal textures, no dance rhythms and melodies. )

I doubt that most religions tolerate fast and happy music; that is why I have always been amazed by the way afro-american churches are presented in the movies.

I'm pretty sure that more people are interested in hearing something like new jazz/funk/blues, rock, electronic, ethnic, Medieval, Renaissance, Baroque, Galant, Romantic symphony/concerto than screeching, clusters and clashing polyrhythmic banging.


----------



## DaveM

EdwardBast said:


> Why should serialists be conveying emotions? You seem to be assuming that's the universal aim of Western art music. It isn't.


I can only assume that you read my post without the background. I'll bring you up to date: Rochberg, with a long history of composing with atonality/serialism loses his son and consequentially returns to tonality to express emotions of grief and sorrow, emotions he claims can't be expressed with serialism. A poster claims that it is Rochberg's limitations that he can't express said emotions with serialism. I take umbrage that it is Rochberg's limitations rather than serialism's. 

This hardly rises to the level of my saying that serialists _should_ be conveying emotions. That would be asking them to do something with a medium that is weak in the area. Parenthetically, it's interesting that a few atonal/serial supporters admit that limitation while others here appear to deny it exists.

As for my allegedly 'assuming that [conveying emotions] is the universal aim of Western Art music' goes, how did you extrapolate that? -Western Art music is a pretty big tent. I have said to the effect that the expression of emotions was a major factor in the tonal music of the Classical and Romantic eras and i'll be happy to debate that anytime.


----------



## DaveM

Enthusiast said:


> I don't even accept that atonal music (what a huge and varied field that is by now!) is limited in terms of the "topic" of love although, of course, it will generally only be overt when it involves words (operas, songs).


Hmm, you don't accept that it is limited 'in terms of the topic of love' and then in the same sentence, you mention a limitation.


----------



## millionrainbows

What is "natural" is harmonic centricity, and this should not be exactly equated with Western tonality. Harmonic centricity can loosely and generally be called "tonality," but this tends to confuse the issue, so I'll call it what it is: _harmonic centricity, which_ _can be the perception of one note only, _or more.

Western CP tonality is based on harmonic centricity. The C major scale is the given, and triads are built on each of the scale steps. These triads are then ranked in order of their relation to the tonic triad (I), in terms of consonance/dissonance. G major is the next most important triad, being related to the most prominent harmonic, the fifth.

Each of these triads are harmonic centricities in themselves; each has a fifth, a third, and so on. Thus, _triads_ are the device which creates a centricity on the scale steps, each triad being a small "harmonic model" of the natural overtones which occur in any pitch. Theoretically, and practically, each of these triads can become its own centric/root station, but in Western tonality, all the other triads on the scale steps are subordinated to I (C major), which is the tonic station. 
In jazz, any scale step in any scale can become a main root station, thus "modal" jazz in dorian mode, mixolydian mode, and so on.

In Western CP tonality, this is not so; unless there is definite modulation to a new root station (scale step triad), all of these other triads are subservient to the home key of C. Thus, when a progression goes from C to, say, G major, G major is heard as a centricity or new station, but there is "expectation" that it will return us to the home key of C. Thus, "expectation" and "anticipation" of the G triad is _not_ based solely on the ear's perception of centricity, but on a _cognitive_ process which occurs over the span of the progression. This system of expectation and anticipation is learned by repetition, by recognizable procedures of resolution and tension, and is based on the style of the music which is produced using this system.

The fact that all of these subordinate steps "away" from the home key are based on triads, with fifths reinforcing their centric identity, is the way the ear is "convinced" that the subordinate triad _might_ be a new root station; but _tension_ and _resolution_ are the ways the ear's natural tendency to hear harmonic centricity is _"overcome;"_ tension and resolution are the _cognitive_ devices, which require ear/_brain_ perception of progressions and events over spans of time. 
Thus, the 'natural' tendency of the ear to hear harmonic centricity is "overcome" by cognitive, narrative sequences of events which we call "Western tonality."

So to say atonal music, like Anton Webern's, is "unnatural" because it does not refer every centricity which occurs to a root or key area, is mistaken. All music (using pitch) has tone centricity, even when it is melodic. Centricity becomes more obvious and compelling when there is more than one note occurring, since we tend to hear sequences of pitches as "melody" rather than harmony.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Gee, this sounds an awful lot like... order arising from chaos! The differences between the two is the source of chaos and order and how each are depicted.


Why assume that order must arise from chaos? And where is the chaos in building a major triad from the ground up? You're ignoring the really fundamental difference here between Haydn's Christian concept of order as imposed on chaos through divine intervention and Wagner's Darwinian concept of order_ing_ as organic growth.


----------



## fluteman

Enthusiast said:


> I don't even accept that atonal music (what a huge and varied field that is by now!) is limited in terms of the "topic" of love although, of course, it will generally only be overt when it involves words (operas, songs). I say "of course" because otherwise we end up comparing our perceptions of something that is essentially abstract (i.e. all music) - "is hear x" ... "well, I only hear y". But I do agree with your points and particularly regarding the use of the word "themes" (tunes? motifs?) when applied to music.
> 
> I do wonder, though, what we as a group will ever get out of comparing such huge fields as tonal music and atonal music. I don't thing the OP tried to do that but it does seem that the thread has moved into trying to do that impossible thing. I'm not sure much light has come out of that attempt.


What I find interesting about the many lengthy threads at TC on this topic is how so many posters take as an indisputable given that harmony is not only necessary to, but also the most important element of, all music, to the extent that music can't convey emotion, or at least joyful emotion, without it. Wasn't there joyful emotion in the Burundi drum music I linked to? No harmony there, and no real tonality, either. I wonder how many posters here have non-Western backgrounds, e.g., African, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Southeast Asian, Indonesian, Polynesian, Native American, etc. This is a very Western-centric discussion.


----------



## Enthusiast

DaveM said:


> Hmm, you don't accept that it is limited 'in terms of the topic of love' and then in the same sentence, you mention a limitation.


No. That was _all _music - not just atonal music. The only times we know music is actually about love is when words tell us that it is.


----------



## Enthusiast

fluteman said:


> ........Wasn't there joyful emotion in the Burundi drum music I linked to? No harmony there, and no real tonality, either. I wonder how many posters here have non-Western backgrounds, e.g., African, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Southeast Asian, Indonesian, Polynesian, Native American, etc. This is a very Western-centric discussion.


Yes and yes, it is!


----------



## Haydn70

EdwardBast said:


> You seem to be assuming that's the universal aim of Western art music. It isn't.


And that is an assertion, not a fact.


----------



## Haydn70

fluteman said:


> Wasn't there joyful emotion in the Burundi drum music I linked to?


I didn't hear any.


----------



## DaveM

Enthusiast said:


> No. That was _all _music - not just atonal music. The only times we know music is actually about love is when words tell us that it is.


Okay, but having been told the music is about love, it is the listening to the music that will confirm the description. Or not.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> What I find interesting about the many lengthy threads at TC on this topic is how so many posters take as an indisputable given that harmony is not only necessary to, but also the most important element of, all music, to the extent that music can't convey emotion, or at least joyful emotion, without it. Wasn't there joyful emotion in the Burundi drum music I linked to? No harmony there, and no real tonality, either. I wonder how many posters here have non-Western backgrounds, e.g., African, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Southeast Asian, Indonesian, Polynesian, Native American, etc. This is a very Western-centric discussion.


I have two reactions to this. First, the focus on harmony to the neglect of other elements of music has been characteristic of Western musical theory for centuries. Second, Schoenberg reinforced this bias by viewing music's history and imagining its destiny as a matter of harmonic evolution; he seems to have known or cared little about any lessons that non-Western music might have to teach. You can't blame posters on threads like this, especially threads with titles like "Tonality is Unnatural."

No one (I think) has said that music can't be joyful without harmony. The contention seems to be that atonal music - music which uses the notes of the scale but avoids tonality and consonant harmony, resulting in a continuous dwelling on the dissonant end of the harmonic spectrum - isn't good at expressing certain emotions, especially positive ones. I don't see anything surprising about that. Why should every sort of music be equally good at expressing everything?


----------



## BabyGiraffe

Woodduck said:


> Why should every sort of music be equally good at expressing everything?


Tonal music can express dark moods and unpleasant feelings without any problem. Did anyone manage to find happy atonal music? - And no, playing fast rhythms can't do it by itself when the surrounding texture is cacophony.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> My entire middle paragraph was about musical perception, and you took this into the philosophical weeds when you chose to riff off millionrainbows's bad analogy of music with logic. When you take up an analogy with a philosophical subject, you should perhaps anticipate people correcting you when you make a muddle of it. Case-in-point:
> 
> This is absolutely, factually wrong. A great many professions (including mine) require making logical choices in the face of partial information and uncertainty; in which cases inductive logic, which could be called probabilistic reasoning, takes the place of deductive logic. Inductive/Probabilistic logic aims at producing more accurate estimations, while deductive logic aims at producing certainties. A great many rationalists would claim that deductive logic is really just inductive logic in disguise, that all reasoning is really, innately, probabilistic/uncertain. In both cases, however, the rules of logic still apply; you're still reasoning from facts to a conclusion, and in both cases "going with your gut" (or intuition) tends to produce errors, irrationality/illogic, into our reasoning.
> 
> This is why I think the logic/music analogy is a bad one, because you're using our intuitive grasping of the patterns of tonality as analogy with logic; but logic is not always intuitive, and what separates logic from the illogical has nothing to do with how intuitive it is to us. My point with mentioning pattern recognition is that our ability to intuit the possibilities of tonal music has far more to do with such patterns than with any logic. Even pattern recognition is a good example of how the human brain isn't always logical, because the same brain that can recognize real patterns can "recognize" non-existing ones, and fail to recognize existing ones.
> 
> Of course our thinking is both a mix of conscious and unconscious thought, but there are degrees of weight that we can place on one or the other, and the degrees of error that each tends to produce. If we're recommending books, I'd highly recommend Daniel Kahneman's (who won a well-deserved Nobel Prize in his field of study) Thinking, Fast and Slow.


This is so unnecessarily ponderous. You are "left-brained" with a vengeance! But I will stick with my practical distinction between a logical decision and an intuitive one. Of course we can, and should, apply logic when we don't have all the information we need. That's bloody obvious.

I can't see the value of going on and on with abstract philosophical hairsplitting when the actual subject I was discussing was the perception of tonal music and the way in which it's analogous to - _analogous to_ - projecting conclusions from premises.

If I had the stomach for it I could pick apart a paragraph like this:

"This is why I think the logic/music analogy is a bad one, because you're using our intuitive grasping of the patterns of tonality as analogy with logic; but logic is not always intuitive, and what separates logic from the illogical has nothing to do with how intuitive it is to us. My point with mentioning pattern recognition is that our ability to intuit the possibilities of tonal music has far more to do with such patterns than with any logic. Even pattern recognition is a good example of how the human brain isn't always logical, because the same brain that can recognize real patterns can "recognize" non-existing ones, and fail to recognize existing ones."

That paragraph is full of vagueness, confusion and simple non-responsiveness, but some tasks are just too onerous.


----------



## Haydn70

BabyGiraffe said:


> Did anyone manage to find happy atonal music?


Someone did present a Schoenberg work they found joyful. I doubt the vast majority of classical musical listeners would.

Happy, joyful, ebullient, uplifting...none of those are possible with atonality. Just angst, angst and more angst...


----------



## soni

ArsMusica said:


> Happy, joyful, ebullient, uplifting...none of those are possible with atonality. Just angst, angst and more angst...


----------



## millionrainbows

Conveying emotion through music is a Romantic era notion. Classical era music does not do this explicitly.

Music can "excite" me by its structure; Hildegard von Bingen's "O Jerusalem" gets me excited by the way she handles the melody, and emphasizes certain notes. This is very close to emotion for me.

Also, Bach can do this, but the interpretation has to excite me, like Gouls playing the Goldbergs.


----------



## Enthusiast

DaveM said:


> Okay, but having been told the music is about love, it is the listening to the music that will confirm the description. Or not.


I think I see it differently. If the music is in an opera or a song then - to the extent that I am interested in what the music _is about _ (a tricky concept in my opinion) - my interest is in what the music is _adding _to the words and the drama. If the subject of love is merely gleaned from the title of the piece then I may also glean something about what the composer feels or has chosen to tell us about that subject.

But, no, I don't think I expect music "about love" to be just a picture of "Valentines Day" love (not that I am saying that you are suggesting that it is) and, much as I love Wagner, I wouldn't expect all love music to be "Tristan and Isolde love" either. More likely a composer titling a work about love might want to tell us something quite specific about it - love takes many forms, has many differing qualities and can be approached from many different angles.


----------



## DaveM

millionrainbows said:


> Conveying emotion through music is a Romantic era notion. Classical era music does not do this explicitly.


Ever listened to a Mozart opera?


----------



## soni

Let's take the example of pop music. A large proportion of pop music is about love, but if my impressions were objective fact, then pop music would be incapable of expressing love, yet we know that this is not true since it is obviously expressing love to various people. While atonal music less often expresses love, I gave an example which does for me - the Sorabji piece. The fact that it may not have the same effect on you is irrelevant, as explained.


----------



## Woodduck

BabyGiraffe said:


> Tonal music can express dark moods and unpleasant feelings without any problem. Did anyone manage to find happy atonal music?


Yes, tonal music has an enormous expressive range (speaking now of Western common practice tonality). It can exploit the full range of consonance and dissonance possible to intervals constructed from its scale (the twelve tones of the chromatic scale), and because it's rooted in, and refers back to, the most consonant of harmonies representing a "norm" or "stable state" from which all harmonic movement is a departure and a disturbance, it can convey strong forces of direction, tension and anticipation over time periods both short and long. Emotions, biologically, are arcs of excitation, desire, expectation, anticipation, frustration and fulfillment beginning with a stable state and seeking a return to it, and tonal harmony has developed as a "metaphorical" representation of the shapes of feeling which become, in turn, the shapes of musical structures. Nothing could depict the basic trajectory of affect more elegantly than I-V-I, but tonal harmony has found a virtual infinity of elaborations and extensions of that fundamental pattern, and can extend the trajectory of arousal-to-satisfaction from the three minutes of a simple hymn tune to the three hours of _Tristan und Isolde._

Atonal harmony, which is not rooted in, and does not refer back to, a "stable state," is in a more or less constant state of excitation or irresolution, and can't depict the desire for final resolution and "normality" which, in the biological life of feeling, gives emotion its poignancy. Its tensions and (partial) releases are necessarily of short duration, and this in turn limits the possible uses of harmony in constructing large musical forms, which is the problem Schoenberg's serial technique was intended to solve. But did it?


----------



## Enthusiast

ArsMusica said:


> Someone did present a Schoenberg work they found joyful. I doubt the vast majority of classical musical listeners would.
> 
> Happy, joyful, ebullient, uplifting...none of those are possible with atonality. Just angst, angst and more angst...


There were in fact many suggestions over the last ten pages. But I doubt they would change your mind, either. The thing to me is the request (give us a piece that is happy, joyful, ebullient, uplifting...) seems always to come with an idea based on music from the past of what those emotions sound like in music. But that has been done. What value is there in repeating it?

If music is to express emotions - I personally think it _elicits _emotions (in listeners) rather than expresses them - we need it to do so in new ways. So anyone who wants to ask this question needs to respond to such new music with open ears and, ideally, wonderment? Fair enough for those who don't want to do that .... but, then, why ask?


----------



## soni

Woodduck said:


> Yes, tonal music has an enormous expressive range (speaking now of Western common practice tonality). It can exploit the full range of consonance and dissonance possible to intervals constructed from its scale (the twelve tones of the chromatic scale), and because it's rooted in, and refers back to, the most consonant of harmonies representing a "norm" or "stable state" from which all harmonic movement is a departure and a disturbance, it can convey strong forces of direction, tension and anticipation over time periods both short and long. Emotions, biologically, are arcs of excitations, desires, expectations, anticipations, frustrations and fulfillments beginning with a stable state and seeking a return to it, and tonal harmony has developed as a metaphorical representation of the shapes of feeling which become, in turn, the shapes of musical structures. Nothing could depict the basic trajectory of affect more elegantly than I-V-I, but tonal harmony has found a virtual infinity of elaborations and extensions of that fundamental pattern, and can extend the trajectory of arousal-to-satisfaction from the three minutes of a simple hymn tune to the three hours of _Tristan und Isolde._
> 
> Atonal harmony, which is not rooted in, and does not refer back to, a "stable state," is in a more or less constant state of excitation or irresolution, and can't depict the desire for final resolution and "normality" which, in the biological life of feeling, gives emotion its poignancy. Its tensions and (partial) releases are necessarily of short duration, and this in turn limits the possible uses of harmony in constructing large musical forms, which is the problem Schoenberg's serial technique was intended to solve.


Nice point, but Sorabji solves this problem with ease, if you've listened to any of his music.


----------



## EdwardBast

ArsMusica said:


> And that is an assertion, not a fact.


No, it comes from a study of the history of musical aesthetics and is confirmed by the statements of composers themselves about the aims of their music.


----------



## soni

The point about resolution is interesting, but it doesn't demonstrate that atonal music is limited in emotional expression. I've given the example of Sorabji - Sorabji finds many ways of creating strong forces of direction and resolution without being tonal. Just because one way works doesn't mean all others are wrong.


----------



## DaveM

Enthusiast said:


> I think I see it differently. If the music is in an opera or a song then - to the extent that I am interested in what the music _is about _ (a tricky concept in my opinion) - my interest is in what the music is _adding _to the words and the drama. If the subject of love is merely gleaned from the title of the piece then I may also glean something about what the composer feels or has chosen to tell us about that subject...


Okay, you're a tough sell when it comes to love themes and music.  But especially when a composer actually entitles a work, directly or indirectly, as love-related, he/she is gambling that the majority of listeners will 'get it' otherwise the music will likely fail and the composer's credibility called into question. Does anybody here not 'get' this?


----------



## millionrainbows

DaveM said:


> Ever listened to a Mozart opera?


I think the fact that the music has voices and words has a lot to do with that. The music itself, not as much. So this bolsters my assertion that emotion in music is largely conveyed by "gesture."


----------



## soni

DaveM said:


> Okay, you're a tough sell when it comes to love themes and music.  But especially when a composer actually entitles a work, directly or indirectly, as love-related, he/she is gambling that the majority of listeners will 'get it' otherwise the music will likely fail and the composer's credibility called into question. Does anybody here not 'get' this?


Pleasant music, but to me it doesn't have anything to do with either love or the story of Romeo and Juliet, so the composer's point is lost on me.


----------



## DaveM

millionrainbows said:


> I think the fact that the music has voices and words has a lot to do with that. The music itself, not as much. So this bolsters my assertion that emotion in music is largely conveyed by "gesture."


It does? The music itself, not as much? If chopsticks accompanied the voices and words would that work as well?


----------



## fluteman

Enthusiast said:


> Yes and yes, it is!


And just to be clear, yes, I know that harmony, tonality, formal scales, and even precise systems of tuning can be found in non-Western music. But in Western music by the end of the 19th century, harmony had developed to such a sophisticated and elaborate extent, it had become the overwhelmingly dominant element, much more so than in most traditional non-Western music, at least that I've heard. (I would welcome links to counterexamples.)

A key feature of a lot of modern Western music is that it simplifies and/or pares down the use of harmony. If most or all of the satisfaction one gets from music is from its use of harmony, i.e., if harmony alone is the juice of your orange, this will almost never be a welcome development. I see no point in arguing with those of you with this preference, but know that there is nothing inevitable or universal about it.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

soni said:


> Pleasant music, but to me it doesn't have anything to do with either love or the story of Romeo and Juliet, so the composer's point is lost on me.


It's pretty typical romantic melody (imitated in countless old jazz and pop songs) symbolising passion and strong feelings - notice the leaps and the melodic contour, and the chromaticism. For you it may not mean anything, but not for the 19th - early 20th century people - they loved such music.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

fluteman said:


> And just to be clear, yes, I know that harmony, tonality, formal scales, and even precise systems of tuning can be found in non-Western music. But in Western music by the end of the 19th century, harmony had developed to such a sophisticated and elaborate extent, it had become the overwhelmingly dominant element, much more so than in most traditional non-Western music, at least that I've heard. (I would welcome links to counterexamples.)
> 
> A key feature of a lot of modern Western music is that it simplifies and/or pares down the use of harmony. If most or all of the satisfaction one gets from music is from its use of harmony, i.e., if harmony alone is the juice of your orange, this will almost never be a welcome development. I see no point in arguing with those of you with this preference, but know that there is nothing inevitable or universal about it.


Harmony is pretty overrated; melody is king. You can take away the harmony from most classical tunes and they will still work without any problem. Currently Western pop music is poor not only in terms of harmony - melodies are usually primitive ostinatos. Add autotune and the picture is tragic.

There is no point in having melodies when the composition is just ambient music, it will distract too much ( late romanticism and impressionism, some avantgarde music that is just orchestral textures, film music); most listeners expect interesting rhythms and melodies, not just thick chords or sound effects that go from nowhere to nowhere.


----------



## Enthusiast

DaveM said:


> Okay, you're a tough sell when it comes to love themes and music.  But especially when a composer actually entitles a work, directly or indirectly, as love-related, he/she is gambling that the majority of listeners will 'get it' otherwise the music will likely fail and the composer's credibility called into question. Does anybody here not 'get' this?


Oops - prior to my edit I thought you had posted some Prokofiev. I have now edited my post to respond to the Tchaikovsky example that you did post.

OK. But where is the failure in music by composers who became active after 1950? Are you saying that there is new music that tries to express what Tchaikovsky is doing in that clip but failing? (It was surely rather even over the top in its time?) Or are you just saying it can't be done without resorting to composition styles that are no longer used? There are young active tonal composers (never mind that most of them don't do much for me): are they succeeding where the atonal composers are either not trying or failing?

Meanwhile, I'll try to think of a fresh example that attempts to handle the sort of thing Tchaikovsky was expressing in your clip. Someone a little later than Prokofiev (who handled the Romeo story very well). Shakespeare, of course, remains a source for many.


----------



## DaveM

BabyGiraffe said:


> Harmony is pretty overrated; melody is king. You can take away the harmony from most classical tunes and they will still work without any problem. Currently Western pop music is poor not only in terms of harmony - melodies are usually primitive ostinatos. Add autotune and the picture is tragic.
> 
> There is no point in having melodies when the composition is just ambient music, it will distract too much ( late romanticism and impressionism, some avantgarde music that is just orchestral textures, film music); most listeners expect interesting rhythms and melodies, not just thick chords or sound effects that go from nowhere to nowhere.


It's true, more recent pop music tends to have little in the way of fleshed out melody. But, thankfully, there are a few exceptions:


----------



## fluteman

BabyGiraffe said:


> Harmony is pretty overrated; melody is king. You can take away the harmony from most classical tunes and they will still work without any problem. Currently Western pop music is poor not only in terms of harmony - melodies are usually primitive ostinatos. Add autotune and the picture is tragic.
> 
> There is no point in having melodies when the composition is just ambient music, it will distract too much ( late romanticism and impressionism, some avantgarde music that is just orchestral textures, film music); most listeners expect interesting rhythms and melodies, not just thick chords or sound effects that go from nowhere to nowhere.


All entirely reasonable opinions. Of course, some would argue that rhythm, not melody, is king. Others would argue that it is impossible to overrate harmony. I've learned to keep my ears open to just about anything that isn't ear-splittingly loud. YMMV.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Yes, tonal music has an enormous expressive range (speaking now of Western common practice tonality). It can exploit the full range of consonance and dissonance possible to intervals constructed from its scale (the twelve tones of the chromatic scale)...


_All_ music which can draw on all 12 notes has an enormous expressive range, and this includes modern music which is quasi-tonal or atonal. Use of chromatic notes is the beginning of modern musical thought. 
Western tonality has depended from the start on chromatic notes, in order to develop. Otherwise, it would be exceedingly limited. You can't say with credibilty that "simply by being tonal" that Western tonal music is expressive, or that Western tonality in itself, because it is tonal, has a patent on musical emotion.



Woodduck said:


> ...and because it's rooted in, and refers back to, the most consonant of harmonies representing a "norm" or "stable state" from which all harmonic movement is a departure and a disturbance it can convey strong forces of direction, tension and anticipation over time periods both short and long. Emotions, biologically, are arcs of excitation, desire, expectation, anticipation, frustration and fulfillment beginning with a stable state and seeking a return to it, and tonal harmony has developed as a "metaphorical" representation of the shapes of feeling which become, in turn, the shapes of musical structures. Nothing could depict the basic trajectory of affect more elegantly than I-V-I, but tonal harmony has found a virtual infinity of elaborations and extensions of that fundamental pattern, and can extend the trajectory of arousal-to-satisfaction from the three minutes of a simple hymn tune to the three hours of _Tristan und Isolde._


The emotion in Wagner is created by the "gesture" of all opera; voices and story line which refer to Human experience. You're just speaking of established conventions, of works which already exist as conventional examples, replete with story lines, singers, etc. These are so ingrained that they are accepted without thought.

Tonality itself cannot convey emotion without "gesture" of some sort which relates and reflects Human experience. Dynamics, instruments, vibrato, melodic lines which resemble speech patterns of declamation, speech-like rising and falling accents, etc., are all ways this is done. Harmonic expectation consists of "question/answer" speech-like phrases; the "harmonic sensation" of tension-resolution is simply a matter of dissonance resolving into consonance, and any harmonic music can do this.

I don't think that the music being a _tonal_ progression has anything to do with this; any "progression" or sequence of harmonic sound could do this, as long as there are the accompanying devices of voices, plot, gesture, vibrato, arcing melodic lines, etc.



Woodduck said:


> Atonal harmony, which is not rooted in, and does not refer back to, a "stable state"....


All music, even a single note, refers back to a harmonic state of stability. "Stability" can also be a return to a former state, not necessarily a harmonically stable one. Dissonance and consonance are comparative states, and do not have to refer to a single, central tone or key area.



Woodduck said:


> (atonal music)...is in a more or less constant state of excitation or irresolution, and can't depict the desire for final resolution and "normality" which, in the biological life of feeling, gives emotion its poignancy.


12-tone and serial "set" music is necessarily chromatic; it chooses to use the entire chromatic set of notes constantly; so pitch-wise, and "harmonically," it is in a constant state of flux. That's its nature.

A return to a single note can be a "resolution," especially if it's in the bass. If the hierarchical narratives of tonality have any connection to human experience of emotion, it's because we are 'beings-in-time,' and music takes place over spans of time. Atonal music can have 'narrative' development as time passes, but this is not in reference to a single tonal center.

The only "momentary" limitations of atonal music refer strictly to its lack of _extended_ reference to a single tone center, which Western tonality infers by repetition and narrative conventions, which are learned by rote repetition. Atonal music is by nature chromatic and constantly changing, so its "centricities" are constantly changing as well. Otherwise, every event in atonal music refers to a centricity which occurs with all pitched sound, and has meaning in a harmonic sense.



Woodduck said:


> ...Its tensions and (partial) releases are necessarily of short duration, and this in turn limits the possible uses of harmony in constructing large musical forms, which is the problem Schoenberg's serial technique was intended to solve. But did it?


I think Webern solved it, as did Schoenberg, because their music was not just based on harmony; it was also a return to the purely melodic and counterpoint. The tensions and releases it could create are limited only by how the harmony is used, in terms of consonance/dissonance, which does not have to refer to a single key center.


----------



## Woodduck

soni said:


> Nice point, but Sorabji solves this problem with ease, if you've listened to any of his music.


I have listened to Sorabji. What problem are you referring to?


----------



## Fredx2098

If you don't hear emotions in atonal music, who cares? Why argue about it? Why take offense if, for example, I don't hear emotion in Beethoven's symphonies? It doesn't seem like anyone is trying to disparage tonal music, but several people are disparaging atonal music.

I feel like the limitations of both tonal and atonal music are caused by similar societal reasons. The idioms of traditional classical music arose in a similar way that modern pop acts become famous, due to accessibility, simplicity, and the popular opinion being that it is cheerful. Happiness is a very basic thing to desire and not very interesting in my opinion. Atonal music seemed to arise due to a boredom with the relentless traditional, idiomatic, cheerful music. Most atonal composers seem to avoid a cheerful mood because it is already so prevalent in the realm of classical music. There are now plenty of atonal works that are not cheerful, leading to that being an idiom of the style.

Now that there is an abundance of idioms for cheerful (tonal) and non-cheerful (atonal) music, I believe that the most expressive style is an extremely chromatic style somewhere towards to middle of the spectrum between tonality and atonality, like the music of Feldman and Ives.


----------



## Woodduck

_All_ music which can draw on all 12 notes has an enormous expressive range

I don't think so.

You can't say with credibilty that "simply by being tonal" that Western tonal music is expressive, 

I didn't say any such thing.

or that Western tonality in itself, because it is tonal, has a patent on musical emotion.

I didn't say that either. You're off to a stumbling start here.

The emotion in Wagner is created by the "gesture" of all opera; voices and story line which refer to Human experience. You're just speaking of established conventions, of works which already exist as conventional examples, replete with story lines, singers, etc. These are so ingrained that they are accepted without thought.

I'm momentarily speechless..........

OK, so you just don't know what you're hearing, and you're telling those who do know that they're responding without thought.

Sweet.

Tonality itself cannot convey emotion without "gesture" of some sort which relates and reflects Human experience. Dynamics, instruments, vibrato, melodic lines which resemble speech patterns of declamation, speech-like rising and falling accents, etc., are all ways this is done. Harmonic expectation consists of "question/answer" speech-like phrases;

Yeah, so music uses all these devices...

the "harmonic sensation" of tension-resolution is simply a matter of dissonance resolving into consonance, and any harmonic music can do this.

...and the power of tonality is really a "simple matter"? Live and learn.

All music, even a single note, refers back to a harmonic state of stability.

Nothing in isolation has anything to refer "back" to.

"Stability" can also be a return to a former state, not necessarily a harmonically stable one. 

Huh?

Dissonance and consonance are comparative states, and do not have to refer to a single, central tone or key area.

Obviously.

12-tone and serial "set" music is necessarily chromatic; it chooses to use the entire chromatic set of notes constantly; so pitch-wise, and "harmonically," it is in a constant state of flux. That's its nature. 

So where's the "stable state"?

A return to a single note can be a "resolution," especially if it's in the bass. 

OK...

If the hierarchical narratives of tonality have any connection to human experience of emotion, it's because we are 'beings-in-time,' and music takes place over spans of time. 

Good...You're reinforcing my point.

Atonal music can have 'narrative' development as time passes, but this is not in reference to a single tonal center.

Mmm hmmm...

The only "momentary" limitations of atonal music refer strictly to its lack of reference to a single tone center, which Western tonality infers by narrative conventions, which are learned by rote repetition.

Signifying what? 

I think Webern solved it, as did Schoenberg, 

Solved what?

because their music was not just based on harmony; it was also a return to the purely melodic and counterpoint.

"Purely" melodic? Did counterpoint need to be "returned to"?

The tensions and releases it could create are *limited only by how the harmony is used*, in terms of consonance/dissonance, which does not have to refer to a single key center.

Harmony is not used in isolation from other elements. Schoenberg talked as if it was, but melody, counterpoint and rhythm are all essential elements in the harmonic structuring of music, and the articulation of any harmonic progression by these means makes all the difference to its expressive meaning. It isn't just a matter of having a key center.


----------



## Fredx2098

soni said:


>


Is this completely atonal? Either way, it sounds very mellow and relaxing and definitely not fully tonal. It's given me an idea to compose a completely serial 12-tone atonal piece that is completely mellow and relaxing. I'll have to listen to more of this composer.


----------



## Woodduck

Enthusiast said:


> I personally think [music] _elicits _emotions (in listeners) rather than expresses them.


I think it both expresses and elicits, and that these are very different, but not unrelated, things.


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> No. That was _all _music - not just atonal music. The only times we know music is actually about love is when words tell us that it is.


Rachmaninov Piano concerto no.2 isn't about love?


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> ...Harmony is not used in isolation from other elements. Schoenberg talked as if it was, but melody, counterpoint and rhythm are all essential elements in the harmonic structuring of music, and the articulation of any harmonic progression by these means makes all the difference to its expressive meaning. It isn't just a matter of having a key center.


Western tonality is _primarily_ based on harmony, i.e. the construction of triads on scale steps, and their ranking.


----------



## amfortas

janxharris said:


> Rachmaninov Piano concerto no.2 isn't about love?


It is when you watch _Brief Encounter._


----------



## Woodduck

Fredx2098 said:


> Is this completely atonal? Either way, it sounds very mellow and relaxing and definitely not fully tonal. It's given me an idea to compose a completely serial 12-tone atonal piece that is completely mellow and relaxing. I'll have to listen to more of this composer.


Sorabji is distinctive. I'd say this is basically atonal but not dogmatically so. It doesn't avoid the occasional tonal allusion, and these are strong at moments, though it has no long-range tonal shape. Subjectively, I find it dreamlike: I don't think of where I've been or care much where I'm going, but there are clear and varied shapes floating by to keep me absorbed in a relaxed way.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Western tonality is _primarily_ based on harmony, i.e. the construction of triads on scale steps, and their ranking.


Well, yeah. My point is that the expressive function of harmony in a work can't be grasped without reference to how it's articulated through rhythm, melody, counterpoint, orchestration, etc. In what bar or on what beat you place a chord, how long it lasts, how loud it is, what instruments you give it to - it all changes the meaning. You can't understand the harmonic expression of a work in isolation from the rest.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> _All_ music which can draw on all 12 notes has an enormous expressive range
> 
> I don't think so.


Yes, you said that by putting-down atonal music.



Woodduck said:


> You can't say with credibilty that "simply by being tonal" that Western tonal music is expressive,
> 
> I didn't say any such thing.


I'm commenting on your statement for discussion purposes. I did not literally quote you. Here is what you said:_
"Yes, tonal music has an enormous expressive range (speaking now of Western common practice tonality). It can exploit the full range of consonance and dissonance possible to intervals constructed from its scale (the twelve tones of the chromatic scale) __and because it's rooted in, and refers back to, the most consonant of harmonies representing a "norm" or "stable state" from which all harmonic movement is a departure and a disturbance it can convey strong forces of direction, tension and anticipation over time periods both short and long. Emotions, biologically, are arcs of excitation, desire, expectation, anticipation, frustration and fulfillment beginning with a stable state and seeking a return to it, and tonal harmony has developed as a "metaphorical" representation of the shapes of feeling which become, in turn, the shapes of musical structures. Nothing could depict the basic trajectory of affect more elegantly than I-V-I, but tonal harmony has found a virtual infinity of elaborations and extensions of that fundamental pattern, and can extend the trajectory of arousal-to-satisfaction from the three minutes of a simple hymn tune to the three hours of __Tristan und Isolde."_



Woodduck said:


> or that Western tonality in itself, because it is tonal, has a patent on musical emotion.
> 
> I didn't say that either. You're off to a stumbling start here.


I guess you mean *literal quotes.* Your statement above says (to my understanding) that tonal music is capable of the greatest emotion because it is tonal; if there is another reason, please state it more explicitly.



Woodduck said:


> The emotion in Wagner is created by the "gesture" of all opera; voices and story line which refer to Human experience. You're just speaking of established conventions, of works which already exist as conventional examples, replete with story lines, singers, etc. These are so ingrained that they are accepted without thought.
> 
> I'm momentarily speechless..........OK, so you just don't know what you're hearing, and you're telling those who do know that they're responding without thought. Sweet.


Surely it's not based solely on musical progressions, which is what you imply...and you're right, most people don't know what it is they are hearing. They are dazzled by the spectacle.



Woodduck said:


> Tonality itself cannot convey emotion without "gesture" of some sort which relates and reflects Human experience. Dynamics, instruments, vibrato, melodic lines which resemble speech patterns of declamation, speech-like rising and falling accents, etc., are all ways this is done. Harmonic expectation consists of "question/answer" speech-like phrases;
> 
> Yeah, so music uses all these devices...


...and emotion in music is not based solely on the narrative progressions of Western tonality.



Woodduck said:


> the "harmonic sensation" of tension-resolution is simply a matter of dissonance resolving into consonance, and any harmonic music can do this.
> 
> ...and the power of tonality is really a "simple matter"? Live and learn.


Other times, you say that Western tonality is something that is universally known.



Woodduck said:


> All music, even a single note, refers back to a harmonic state of stability.
> 
> Nothing in isolation has anything to refer "back" to.


A single note and its harmonics are "self-referential" in that they "refer" to each other as an hierarchy, and are used as a harmonic model for tonality.



Woodduck said:


> "Stability" can also be a return to a former state, not necessarily a harmonically stable one.
> 
> Huh?


You said "_Atonal harmony, which is not rooted in, and does not refer back to, a "stable state"...." 
_Stability, in terms of consonance/dissonance, is strictly a comparative state, not absolute. Only in Western tonality is the tonic considered to be "the absolute stability."



Woodduck said:


> Dissonance and consonance are comparative states, and do not have to refer to a single, central tone or key area.
> 
> Obviously.


Then your statement "_Atonal harmony, which is not rooted in, and does not refer back to, a "stable state"...." _contradicts this.



Woodduck said:


> 12-tone and serial "set" music is necessarily chromatic; it chooses to use the entire chromatic set of notes constantly; so pitch-wise, and "harmonically," it is in a constant state of flux. That's its nature.
> 
> So where's the "stable state"?


Not in the harmony, of which atonality has none in the usual sense. Its stability is in the tone row or set.



Woodduck said:


> A return to a single note can be a "resolution," especially if it's in the bass.
> 
> OK...





Woodduck said:


> If the hierarchical narratives of tonality have any connection to human experience of emotion, it's because we are 'beings-in-time,' and music takes place over spans of time.
> 
> Good...You're reinforcing my point.


Isn't this true of atonal music as well? _All_ music can take place over spans of time, even if it is not "narrative" and depends on that time line to accomplish its goals.



Woodduck said:


> Atonal music can have 'narrative' development as time passes, but this is not in reference to a single tonal center.
> 
> Mmm hmmm...


I'm glad you agree.



Woodduck said:


> The only "momentary" limitations of atonal music refer strictly to its lack of reference to a single tone center, which Western tonality infers by narrative conventions, which are learned by rote repetition.
> 
> Signifying what?


Well, you said the harmonic momentary nature of atonal music limited it, but "narrative" development in Western tonality is not caused by harmonic factors, but by comparisons over spans of time. This is relative, not absolute. _Western tonality is a system which is entirely based on cognitive comparisons, not any sort of "natural" sensation of centricity. _




Woodduck said:


> I think Webern solved it, as did Schoenberg,
> 
> Solved what?


The problem of large forms.



Woodduck said:


> ...because their music was not just based on harmony; it was also a return to the purely melodic and counterpoint.
> 
> "Purely" melodic? Did counterpoint need to be "returned to"?


Yes, a return to counterpoint after the era of harmonic development. The 12-tone method lends itself to thematic development, and harmony had reached its farthest limits with Wagner, etc. Progressions became "unanalyzable" in tonal terms.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> "narrative" development in Western tonality is not caused by harmonic factors, but by comparisons over spans of time. This is relative, not absolute. _Western tonality is a system which is entirely based on cognitive comparisons, not any sort of "natural" sensation of centricity. _
> Yes, a return to counterpoint after the era of harmonic development. The 12-tone method lends itself to thematic development, and harmony had reached its farthest limits with Wagner, etc. Progressions became "unanalyzable" in tonal terms.


The statements, "narrative development in Western tonality is not caused by harmonic factors, but by comparisons over spans of time" and "Western tonality is a system which is entirely based on cognitive comparisons, not any sort of 'natural' sensation of centricity," are based on a shrunken and biased concept of tonality.

It's wrong to describe the urge to structure music hierarchically as less than "natural" merely because that urge is not "caused by harmonic factors" - i.e., stimulated solely by the acoustical properties of tone (your "harmonic centricity" theory, which you're now carrying on in several threads). The "sensation of centricity" arises quite "naturally" in music of all styles all over the world, and does so for a whole complex of reasons related both to the acoustics of tone and to the processes and perceptions of human cognition, as I've indicated in many posts in many threads.

Among the many existing tonal systems, Western tonality is no more "unnatural" than any other; it is merely more complex, in that it brings harmony under its principles in a more explicit and thoroughgoing way.

"Analyzability" is not the sole criterion for tonal significance. Wagner is at times problematic for ivory-tower theorists, but the ear is not confused.


----------



## millionrainbows

Fredx2098 said:


> Is this completely atonal? Either way, it sounds very mellow and relaxing and definitely not fully tonal. It's given me an idea to compose a completely serial 12-tone atonal piece that is completely mellow and relaxing. I'll have to listen to more of this composer.


It doesn't sound completely atonal because all 12 notes are not in constant circulation, but apart from that, I hear no tonal relations, and the "limiting" effect of using less than 12 notes does not seem to establish a tonality. You start getting above 6 notes and redundancy begins to set in. So he could be using 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 notes in various places and still be quite chromatic-seeming.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> The statements, "narrative development in Western tonality is not caused by harmonic factors, but by comparisons over spans of time" and "Western tonality is a system which is entirely based on cognitive comparisons, not any sort of 'natural' sensation of centricity," are based on a shrunken and biased concept of tonality.


Well, OK, Woodduck, but this is coming from someone who defined 'atonality' a few posts back as something invented by Arnold Schoenberg 100 years ago. Talk about a narrow definition! These arguments get way too semantic for my tastes.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> The statements, "narrative development in Western tonality is not caused by harmonic factors, but by comparisons over spans of time" and "Western tonality is a system which is entirely based on cognitive comparisons, not any sort of 'natural' sensation of centricity," are based on a shrunken and biased concept of tonality.


Harmonic centricity is the great equalizer; all music can have it. The problems start when people start using an expanded, over-generalized definition of tonality, and use this to give Western tonality, a contrived system based on cognitive comparisons over time, the primacy that all music springs from: harmonic sound.



Woodduck said:


> It's wrong to describe the urge to structure music hierarchically as less than "natural" merely because that urge is not "caused by harmonic factors" - i.e., stimulated solely by the acoustical properties of tone (your "harmonic centricity" theory, which you're now carrying on in several threads).


"Shrunken and biased? How about "restless" and "unstable"?

Hierarchically structured music" is not needed in music which stays centered and has no need to modulate or travel, such as Indian raga music. The hierarchy of Western harmony is indicative of the 'restless' nature of our culture. This restlessness and instability is built-in to our system; the C major scale itself is not as "tonal" as it could be, since it contains the tritone B-F, which led to the unravelling of tonality in Wagner's diminished excursions.



Woodduck said:


> The "sensation of centricity" arises quite "naturally" in music of all styles all over the world, and does so for a whole complex of reasons related both to the acoustics of tone and to the processes and perceptions of human cognition, as I've indicated in many posts in many threads.


Yes, and this is not due to Western tonality's patent on the process.



Woodduck said:


> Among the many existing tonal systems, Western tonality is no more "unnatural" than any other; it is merely more complex, in that it brings harmony under its principles in a more explicit and thoroughgoing way.


This "complexity" or "narrative" development in Western tonality is not caused by harmonic factors, but by comparisons over spans of time. This is relative, not absolute. Western tonality is a system which is entirely based on cognitive comparisons, not any sort of "natural" sensation of centricity. In this sense, it is more unnatural and contrived than other music systems.



Woodduck said:


> "Analyzability" is not the sole criterion for tonal significance. Wagner is at times problematic for ivory-tower theorists, but the ear is not confused.


A diminished seventh chord, the kind favored by Wagner, has four possible resolutions to four different dominant seventh chords. It has a flattened fifth, which makes it unstable and unsuited as a stable root station; it was called a "vagrant" chord. "Expectation" of resolution can now go 4 ways; the chord is beginning to lose its "harmonic meaning" even in a tonal context. In this sense, harmony has almost reached its limits of comprehensibility in tonal terms. As chromaticism takes over, the harmonic fabric loses its meaning as discrete root stations and becomes a seething chromatic mass of lines, as in Strauss' Metamorphosen. Face it: there are limits to what harmony, and tonality, can do.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> Well, OK, Woodduck, but this is coming from someone who defined 'atonality' a few posts back as something invented by Arnold Schoenberg 100 years ago. Talk about a narrow definition! These arguments get way too semantic for my tastes.


I don't recall offering any such "definition" of atonality, or any definition at all. What _exactly_ did I say? I'm not one to play semantic games.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Harmonic centricity is the great equalizer; all music can have it.
> 
> What do you mean "all music"? Surely you don't mean _all _music.
> 
> The problems start when people start using an expanded, over-generalized definition of tonality, and use this to give Western tonality, a contrived system based on cognitive comparisons over time, the primacy that all music springs from: harmonic sound.
> 
> What "expanded, over-generalized definition of tonality"? Why is Western tonality more "contrived" than any other? "The primacy that all music springs from: harmonic sound" is a meaningless phrase.
> 
> "Shrunken and biased? How about "restless" and "unstable"?
> 
> I said that your conception of tonality is shrunken and biased. All you can talk about is the properties of sound.
> 
> Hierarchically structured music is not needed in music which stays centered and has no need to modulate or travel, such as Indian raga music.
> 
> There is still hierarchy - a central tone the drone) and a scale with different functions and occurrences among the steps. Indian music is not atonal.
> 
> The hierarchy of Western harmony is indicative of the 'restless' nature of our culture.
> 
> Enough with the simplistic cultural analysis!
> 
> This restlessness and instability is built-in to our system; the C major scale itself is not as "tonal" as it could be, since it contains the tritone B-F, which led to the unravelling of tonality in Wagner's diminished excursions.
> 
> Wagner's tonality did not unravel.
> 
> Yes, and this is not due to Western tonality's patent on the process.
> 
> What patent? Who's talking about a patent?
> 
> This "complexity" or "narrative" development in Western tonality is not caused by harmonic factors, but by comparisons over spans of time. This is relative, not absolute. Western tonality is a system which is entirely based on cognitive comparisons, not any sort of "natural" sensation of centricity. In this sense, it is more unnatural and contrived than other music systems.
> 
> It is merely more elaborate. _All_ tonal systems are artificial, but the impulse to tonal organization is not.
> 
> A diminished seventh chord, the kind favored by Wagner, has four possible resolutions to four different dominant seventh chords. It has a flattened fifth, which makes it unstable and unsuited as a stable root station; it was called a "vagrant" chord. "Expectation" of resolution can now go 4 ways; the chord is beginning to lose its "harmonic meaning" even in a tonal context. In this sense, harmony has almost reached its limits of comprehensibility in tonal terms. As chromaticism takes over, the harmonic fabric loses its meaning as discrete root stations and becomes a seething chromatic mass of lines, as in Strauss' Metamorphosen. Face it: there are limits to what harmony, and tonality, can do.
> 
> Your final sentence doesn't follow from anything that preceded it.
> 
> Tonal ambiguity is not atonality. Even diatonic progressions can resolve in different ways. The trick for the composer is to make his ambiguities seem to flow naturally in context, and to make his chosen solutions sound inevitable. Wagner could do that brilliantly while holding us in excruciating suspense using the most complex chromatics. His harmony doesn't float in space. Who cares if some theoretician feels frustrated because he can't find a single function with which to label a chord? That's a shrunken concept of tonality.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> I don't recall offering any such "definition" of atonality, or any definition at all. What _exactly_ did I say? I'm not one to play semantic games.


Look at my post no. 429. Or not. But if you do, you'll find a link to some nifty Burundi drum music.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> Look at my post no. 429. Or not. But if you do, you'll find a link to some nifty Burundi drum music.


OK. In the sense relevant to this discussion, or at least the part of it I've been involved in, Schoenberg did invent atonal music. He looked at the music written over the last several centuries, theorized that because dissonance came to be heard as consonance over the course of time it was inevitable that dissonance should be "emancipated," and tried to be the bringer of the gospel by eliminating all suggestion of tonal hierarchy. No one had ever done this before, so let's give credit where credit is due. Whether or not one finds his theoretical grounds credible is another question.

It really isn't meaningful to call drum music "atonal," since it isn't constructed of tones. Interestingly, when those Africans chant along with the drumming, there's an obvious tonal hierarchy among the few pitches they use.


----------



## DaveM

fluteman said:


> As Millionrainbows correctly notes, harmony only gradually reached the exalted position it reached in Western music by the end of the 19th century, starting from scratch. Schoenberg did not succeed in abolishing it, if that was his goal, but in suggesting it need not dominate so thoroughly, he cleared the way for many innovations that followed.


So I went back to your post #429. What are the many innovations that followed?


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> OK. In the sense relevant to this discussion, or at least the part of it I've been involved in, Schoenberg did invent atonal music. He looked at the music written over the last several centuries, theorized that because dissonance came to be heard as consonance over the course of time it was inevitable that dissonance should be "emancipated," and tried to be the bringer of the gospel by eliminating all suggestion of tonal hierarchy. No one had ever done this before, so let's give credit where credit is due. Whether or not one finds his theoretical grounds credible is another question.
> 
> It really isn't meaningful to call drum music "atonal," since it isn't constructed of tones. Interestingly, when those Africans chant along with the drumming, there's an obvious tonal hierarchy among the few pitches they use.


Yes, some of the chanting in that clip is a more or less tonal "drone", but most of it is more like sprechstimme, if you'll pardon the expression, though not invented by Schoenberg, and one often hears such African drumming with no vocal accompaniment at all. And I'll have to differ with you about drum music not being constructed of tones, as there are two distinct pitches in that clip and in most other traditional African drum music I've heard, one much higher than the other. You could rightly say that the rhythmic percussive effect is far more important and at the forefront than the two-tone system.

The same could be said of the modern drum kit of 20th century American jazz, swing and rock bands. There you have a collection of up to five drums, bass, two or three toms, and snare, and one or two cymbals or maybe more, including a high hat and maybe a ride, and even various other percussion instruments, each tuned to its own pitch. But pitch is still very much secondary, and is really more for contrast than establishing a tonal center, as is obvious in an extended Buddy Rich solo. Rhythm is the main point, and I'd put timbre second and pitch a very distant third.

In short, the roots of the modern jazz drum kit in traditional African drumming are pretty obvious. But where traditional African drumming is often nearly or completely atonal, with two different pitches creating contrast but no real tonal center, the modern jazz drummer shows the influence of Western music and its emphasis on tonality and harmonic progression, and thus there is slightly more emphasis on tonality.

I'd say music in general falls somewhere within a spectrum or continuum from fully atonal to fully tonal, none of which was invented by Schoenberg. Traditional Western music using the equal-tempered diatonic scale is pretty much all the way on the tonal end of the spectrum. In fact, the invention of equal temperament in mid-18th century Germany was an important step in making it possible to establish the dominance of harmony over other aspects of Western music. Again, nothing inevitable or natural about that.


----------



## fluteman

DaveM said:


> So I went back to your post #429. What are the many innovations that followed?


Just a bunch of stuff you will say about, "It's horrible! It's outrageous! It isn't music!" So since you aren't going to like it anyway, let's just stick to some hit pop tunes. After all, once an artform has filtered into the popular culture, it's pretty much here to stay. Enjoy. Ahem.


----------



## DaveM

fluteman said:


> I'd say music in general falls somewhere within a spectrum or continuum from fully atonal to fully tonal, none of which was invented by Schoenberg. Traditional Western music using the equal-tempered diatonic scale is pretty much all the way on the tonal end of the spectrum. In fact, the invention of equal temperament in mid-18th century Germany was an important step in making it possible to establish the dominance of harmony over other aspects of Western music. Again, nothing inevitable or natural about that.


It is my understanding that true Equal Temperment was not prevalent until the 20th century. It was variations of Well Temperment that were predominant from the mid 18th century through the 19th century. Confusion over the issue stems, for one thing, from the fact that what was actually Well Temperment was often called Equal Temperment.


----------



## KenOC

Per Wiki, the idea of equal temperament, where the frequency of each tone is equal to the nearest lower tone times the twelfth root of two, is quite ancient and appears to have originated in China. It was used in Europe, from time to time, starting in the 16th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_temperament#Early_history_2

But I'm not at all clear when it became "prevalent."


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> Yes, some of the chanting in that clip is a more or less tonal "drone", but most of it is more like sprechstimme, if you'll pardon the expression, though not invented by Schoenberg, and one often hears such African drumming with no vocal accompaniment at all. And I'll have to differ with you about drum music not being constructed of tones, as there are two distinct pitches in that clip and in most other traditional African drum music I've heard, one much higher than the other. You could rightly say that the rhythmic percussive effect is far more important and at the forefront than the two-tone system.
> 
> The same could be said of the modern drum kit of 20th century American jazz, swing and rock bands. There you have a collection of up to five drums, bass, two or three toms, and snare, and one or two cymbals or maybe more, including a high hat and maybe a ride, and even various other percussion instruments, each tuned to its own pitch. But pitch is still very much secondary, and is really more for contrast than establishing a tonal center, as is obvious in an extended Buddy Rich solo. Rhythm is the main point, and I'd put timbre second and pitch a very distant third.
> 
> In short, the roots of the modern jazz drum kit in traditional African drumming are pretty obvious. But where traditional African drumming is often nearly or completely atonal, with two different pitches creating contrast but no real tonal center, the modern jazz drummer shows the influence of Western music and its emphasis on tonality and harmonic progression, and thus there is slightly more emphasis on tonality.
> 
> I'd say music in general falls somewhere within a spectrum or continuum from fully atonal to fully tonal, none of which was invented by Schoenberg. Traditional Western music using the equal-tempered diatonic scale is pretty much all the way on the tonal end of the spectrum. In fact, the invention of equal temperament in mid-18th century Germany was an important step in making it possible to establish the dominance of harmony over other aspects of Western music. Again, nothing inevitable or natural about that.


It baffles me why people want to blur obvious distinctions in talking about tonality in music and cite fringe phenomena in order to do so. The mere fact that drums can be pitched and played in such a way as to alternate pitches really has no relation to tonality or to atonality as developed in Western music by Schoenberg and his successors. Atonality, in the sense in which the term is commonly applied by musicians as well as ordinary listeners, was brought into existence, and is here being discussed, in relation to tonality; it's a kind of music which, like tonal music, utilizes a scale but, unlike tonal music, establishes no systemic hierarchy of importance among its tones and does not relate them and their functions to a central tone or "tonic." As you yourself say, pitch in African drumming is secondary, and I'd say that it really functions as a sort of "orchestration" rather than as tonality, a concept which applies only to music's melodic and harmonic organization. Those drummers aren't playing tunes.

To your statement, "music in general falls somewhere within a spectrum or continuum from fully atonal to fully tonal, none of which was invented by Schoenberg," I'd comment that some tonal music may contain non-tonal elements (for example, embellishing notes not intended to be heard in relation to a tonic), but in discussing ethnic music of various sorts I wouldn't be too quick to guess how people native to a tradition perceive their music. The idea of "fully tonal" or "partly tonal" is a little tricky. The only traditional music I can think of that sounds close to atonal is that of the Japanese Noh theater, but even there we hear the persistence of a single pitch which is articulated with added ornaments by the flute. It may be worth noting that Noh plays typically deal with supernatural beings, and the whole art form is stylized in the extreme.

You haven't presented evidence that convinces me that atonality, in the common sense of the word, wasn't invented by you know who (and yes I know about Hauer). But whatever you do don't share your opinion with Arnold. He wouldn't take it well.


----------



## janxharris

amfortas said:


> It is when you watch _Brief Encounter._


And when you don't - well that has been my experience anyway.


----------



## zootMutant

I'm in way over my head, so please be kind. 

I have no musical training and I am only vaguely aware of the difference between tonality and atonality. 

When I experience music, it seems as though emotion comes first, thought afterword. I might smile with delight or wrinkle my brow in confusion. I might release inner tension and feel calm and safe, or I might feel irritable and distraught. Afterword, I can reflect and try to understand why I felt the way I did. But I'm never sure how much of what I conclude is rational and how much is rationalization.

I know I am mixing up multiple concepts here. I can't help that; I'm learning. My question concerns the relationship between emotion and music. It seems obvious that composers wish to communicate something to their listeners. It also seems obvious that listeners experience emotions based on what they perceive. However, I don't see any causal connection between the two. By that I mean a one-to-one correspondence: composition A is joyful, composition B is angst-ridden. There seem to be far, far too many subjective factors that influence how I feel when I listen to a composition.



Woodduck said:


> Emotions, biologically, are arcs of excitation, desire, expectation, anticipation, frustration and fulfilment beginning with a stable state and seeking a return to it, and tonal harmony has developed as a "metaphorical" representation of the shapes of feeling which become, in turn, the shapes of musical structures...
> 
> Atonal harmony, which is not rooted in, and does not refer back to, a "stable state," is in a more or less constant state of excitation or irresolution, and can't depict the desire for final resolution and "normality" which, in the biological life of feeling, gives emotion its poignancy.


In your opinion, Woodduck, how much of this is due to intrinsic musical structure compared with our learned expectations?

Cheers,
zoot


----------



## KenOC

zootMutant said:


> I have no musical training and I am only vaguely aware of the difference between tonality and atonality.


There are quite a few here who will gladly explain the difference for you. Unfortunately, no two of them will agree.


----------



## zootMutant

KenOC said:


> There are quite a few here who will gladly explain the difference for you. Unfortunately, no two of them will agree.


:lol::lol::lol:

Yes. I'd gathered that. 

But I've been avidly reading this thread and listening to the posted clips... so I'm learning.


----------



## KenOC

zootMutant said:


> :lol::lol::lol:
> 
> Yes. I'd gathered that.
> 
> But I've been avidly reading this thread and listening to the posted clips... so I'm learning.


Actually I may be able to help you out.

If it
Overwhelms you with its mighty architecture
Drops you to your knees in a religious fervor
Delights you with its witty, humane repartee
Impresses you with the perfection of its form and content
Knocks you smack down with the strength of its expression
Stuns you with the brilliance of its musical thought
Lifts you on gossamer wings into the empyrean domain

Then it's likely tonal.

If it
Sounds like an accompaniment to the torments of the damned in Hell

Then it's probably atonal.


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> Of the four words you used we can probably dispense with "chaotic" as the perception of chaos is often (always) merely a failure to see the patterns. So we are left with "dark", "tense" and "tortured" and I am not sure I can think of many examples of atonal music that would bring those words to my mind. In fact those words make me immediately think of some Mahler (the 6th, perhaps - especially the last movement)! And when applied to perceptions of music they are still subjective.
> 
> But how about:
> George Benjamin - say, Duet for Piano and Orchestra or Palimpsests?
> Boulez - perhaps Repons or Sur Incises?
> *Elliott Carter - maybe one of the quartets (perhaps the 5th)? *
> Peter Eotvos - Psy or Seven or Replica for Viola and Orchestra?
> Gerard Grisey - Les Espaces Acoustiques?
> Jonathon Harvey - Bird Concerto with Pianosong?
> Kurtag - maybe, Signs, Games and Messages
> Or even Lachenmann - say, Nun?
> 
> These are not really specially selected: I'm just listing pieces that I have listened to recently in alphabetical order and none of them seem to fit the three words you use. I gave up on reaching the letter L because the list would be too long! Maybe you could start with the Harvey or some Eotvos.
> 
> By the way, I am assuming that you rule out Morton Feldman from this?







Elliott Carter's String Quartet no.5 is not dark, tense or tortured? Without actually commenting on the qualities (or otherwise) of this work - I remain rather baffled how those descriptors don't, as you say, fit. The harmony is tense because it is dissonant isn't it?


----------



## janxharris

KenOC said:


> Actually I may be able to help you out.
> 
> If it
> Overwhelms you with its mighty architecture
> Drops you to your knees in a religious fervor
> Delights you with its witty, humane repartee
> Impresses you with the perfection of its form and content
> Knocks you smack down with the strength of its expression
> Stuns you with the brilliance of its musical thought
> Lifts you on gossamer wings into the empyrean domain
> 
> Then it's likely tonal.
> 
> If it
> Sounds like an accompaniment to the torments of the damned in Hell
> 
> Then it's probably atonal.


Indeed, so atonal music has it's province.


----------



## Enthusiast

janxharris said:


> Rachmaninov Piano concerto no.2 isn't about love?


It might be for _you_. And it was used in some Hollywoood films of the period in that way. But all those notes that the poor pianist has to play! I like the work well enough but it isn't about love for me and I don't know if it was for Rachmaninov.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Actually I may be able to help you out.
> 
> If it
> Overwhelms you with its mighty architecture
> Drops you to your knees in a religious fervor
> Delights you with its witty, humane repartee
> Impresses you with the perfection of its form and content
> Knocks you smack down with the strength of its expression
> Stuns you with the brilliance of its musical thought
> Lifts you on gossamer wings into the empyrean domain
> 
> Then it's likely tonal.
> 
> If it
> Sounds like an accompaniment to the torments of the damned in Hell
> 
> Then it's probably atonal.


Right then, so Boulez's _Répons_ is tonal and Pachelbel's canon is atonal! Glad *that's* cleared up!


----------



## fluteman

KenOC said:


> Per Wiki, the idea of equal temperament, where the frequency of each tone is equal to the nearest lower tone times the twelfth root of two, is quite ancient and appears to have originated in China. It was used in Europe, from time to time, starting in the 16th century.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_temperament#Early_history_2
> 
> But I'm not at all clear when it became "prevalent."


There are better sources than that dubious, unclear and citation-lacking wikipedia article, but two key statements in it are more or less reasonable, and consistent with other sources I have read: "Twelve tone equal temperament took hold for a variety of reasons. It was a convenient fit for the existing keyboard design, and permitted total harmonic freedom at the expense of just a little impurity in every interval...." Also, " it was already the temperament of choice [or at least in use, I'm not sure what "of choice" means] during the Classical era (second half of the 18th century) [but not yet standard] ... and it became standard [but still not universal] during the Early Romantic era...." So equal temperament is a relatively recent phenomenon in Western music, which was my main point.


----------



## Enthusiast

Woodduck said:


> I think it both expresses and elicits, and that these are very different, but not unrelated, things.


They are certainly different things but I don't know about music expressing emotions. Some composers probably thought that was what they were doing and some music is certainly picturing or representing emotions while other might be referring to or commenting on emotions. We might know this because it sets emotional songs or dramas. But I do think the idea that music expresses emotions is a tricky one because there are so many ways that the composer's emotional knowledge might have influenced what s/he wrote and even the composer will not have access to the unconscious "truth" about where the music came from - only rationalisations of this. And there is also a second problem - what "expressing" means. If a composer tells us "this is what I was feeling" (like in the famous quote of Vaughan Williams on his 4th - something like "I don't know if I like it but it is what I meant") we still don't really know whether he was expressing (as opposed to picturing, commenting on or re-imagining) an emotional state. And we don't know if it was a personal recollection of a complex feeling or an evocation of an idealised state. I guess artists through history have had a variety of ideas about what it is they were doing and what they should have been doing. Perhaps it is interesting the trace that but what really matters (to me) is what the art does to me. Once art is out here with us it is what we make of it, isn't it? It is with us to be affected by it. And, I guess, to discuss it in both learned works and on classical music forums.


----------



## Fredx2098

shirime said:


> Right then, so Boulez's _Répons_ is tonal and Pachelbel's canon is atonal! Glad *that's* cleared up!


I'm just gonna pretend his post was satirical so I can be at peace...


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> It might be for _you_. And it was used in some Hollywoood films of the period in that way. But all those notes that the poor pianist has to play! I like the work well enough but it isn't about love for me and I don't know if it was for Rachmaninov.


What is it about for you?


----------



## Enthusiast

zootMutant said:


> I'm in way over my head, so please be kind.
> 
> I have no musical training and I am only vaguely aware of the difference between tonality and atonality.
> 
> When I experience music, it seems as though emotion comes first, thought afterword. I might smile with delight or wrinkle my brow in confusion. I might release inner tension and feel calm and safe, or I might feel irritable and distraught. Afterword, I can reflect and try to understand why I felt the way I did. But I'm never sure how much of what I conclude is rational and how much is rationalization.
> 
> I know I am mixing up multiple concepts here. I can't help that; I'm learning. My question concerns the relationship between emotion and music. It seems obvious that composers wish to communicate something to their listeners. It also seems obvious that listeners experience emotions based on what they perceive. However, I don't see any causal connection between the two. By that I mean a one-to-one correspondence: composition A is joyful, composition B is angst-ridden. There seem to be far, far too many subjective factors that influence how I feel when I listen to a composition.
> 
> In your opinion, Woodduck, how much of this is due to intrinsic musical structure compared with our learned expectations?
> 
> Cheers,
> zoot


That seems to cover a lot of what I think, too. And I include your opening "confession" in this!


----------



## Enthusiast

zootMutant said:


> ... so I'm learning.


I hope we all are. Why come here otherwise?


----------



## Enthusiast

KenOC said:


> Actually I may be able to help you out.
> 
> If it
> Overwhelms you with its mighty architecture
> Drops you to your knees in a religious fervor
> Delights you with its witty, humane repartee
> Impresses you with the perfection of its form and content
> Knocks you smack down with the strength of its expression
> Stuns you with the brilliance of its musical thought
> Lifts you on gossamer wings into the empyrean domain
> 
> Then it's likely tonal.
> 
> If it
> Sounds like an accompaniment to the torments of the damned in Hell
> 
> Then it's probably atonal.


Wow! I really could not have guessed where you were going with that post until you reached the punchline. I was all ready to click "like" but your conclusion was so .... bizarre and so counter to my experience that the disappointment hurt! Still, I guess it _is _what you feel and it was expressed creatively.


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> Wow! I really could not have guessed where you were going with that post until you reached the punchline. I was all ready to click "like" but your conclusion was so .... bizarre and so counter to my experience that the disappointment hurt! Still, I guess it _is _what you feel and it was expressed creatively.


It seems that some will lump much of Mozart and the Classical era composers together and say they all sounded the same...and similar is occurring here with atonal music.


----------



## Enthusiast

janxharris said:


> Elliott Carter's String Quartet no.5 is not dark, tense or tortured? Without actually commenting on the qualities (or otherwise) of this work - I remain rather baffled how those descriptors don't, as you say, fit. The harmony is tense because it is dissonant isn't it?


I'm replying to too many posts (sorry everyone!).

For what it is worth, one of the things I feel about Carter's quartets is a continuation of a long and great tradition! But I have got by now that there are a lot of people here who don't hear anything remotely like what I hear in new music, just as there are many who do hear something similar to some of what I hear. I think I'm right. Those who disagree feel they are right. But I do notice that those who disagree seem to hear the same qualities in a huge body of very varied music ... and this encourages me in my belief that they are missing something. But let it go. You may feel differently in some future time (there may be a sudden or gradual joy of discovery) or perhaps you won't. There is so much great tonal music to get inspired by and you do also seem to be finding your way in to some atonal music.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> It baffles me why people want to blur obvious distinctions in talking about tonality in music and cite fringe phenomena in order to do so. The mere fact that drums can be pitched and played in such a way as to alternate pitches really has no relation to tonality or to atonality as developed in Western music by Schoenberg and his successors. Atonality, in the sense in which the term is commonly applied by musicians as well as ordinary listeners, was brought into existence, and is here being discussed, in relation to tonality; it's a kind of music which, like tonal music, utilizes a scale but, unlike tonal music, establishes no systemic hierarchy of importance among its tones and does not relate them and their functions to a central tone or "tonic." As you yourself say, pitch in African drumming is secondary, and I'd say that it really functions as a sort of "orchestration" rather than as tonality, a concept which applies only to music's melodic and harmonic organization. Those drummers aren't playing tunes.
> 
> To your statement, "music in general falls somewhere within a spectrum or continuum from fully atonal to fully tonal, none of which was invented by Schoenberg," I'd comment that some tonal music may contain non-tonal elements (for example, embellishing notes not intended to be heard in relation to a tonic), but in discussing ethnic music of various sorts I wouldn't be too quick to guess how people native to a tradition perceive their music. The idea of "fully tonal" or "partly tonal" is a little tricky. The only traditional music I can think of that sounds close to atonal is that of the Japanese Noh theater, but even there we hear the persistence of a single pitch which is articulated with added ornaments by the flute. It may be worth noting that Noh plays typically deal with supernatural beings, and the whole art form is stylized in the extreme.
> 
> You haven't presented evidence that convinces me that atonality, in the common sense of the word, wasn't invented by you know who (and yes I know about Hauer). But whatever you do don't share your opinion with Arnold. He wouldn't take it well.


There is nothing blurred about what I am saying. I am using a standard dictionary definition of "atonal" -- "lacking a tonal center or key." It is true, as the rather good wikipedia article on this subject articles notes, that "Atonality, in this sense, usually describes compositions written from about 1908 to the present day where a hierarchy of pitches focusing on a single, central tone is not used, and the notes of the chromatic scale function independently of one another." However, it later notes, "[a]s a categorical label, 'atonal' generally means only that the piece is in the Western tradition and is not 'tonal'" (Rahn 1980, 1), although there are longer periods, e.g., medieval, renaissance, and modern modal musics to which this definition does not apply."

So it's true I am applying the concept of music without a tonal center or key to non-Western examples. But as you have repeatedly said, traditional non-Western music often employs scales (though not the Western equal tempered 12-tone scale), and tonal hierarchies and centers, and should thus be considered tonal. So if you claim that the term "tonal" applies to music that is not in the Western tradition, as you repeatedly have, you'll have to concede that the term "atonal" can be used in that context as well. This is an example of the inconsistent and disingenuous use of such terms by many here, not just you, that makes me tire of these semantic debates.

Even if the term atonality is applied only to Western music, Schoenberg invented only a narrow, specific form of it that has not become the accepted standard even among atonal composers.


----------



## Enthusiast

fluteman said:


> There is nothing blurred about what I am saying. I am using a standard dictionary definition of "atonal" -- "lacking a tonal center or key." It is true, as the rather good wikipedia article on this subject articles notes, that "Atonality, in this sense, usually describes compositions written from about 1908 to the present day where a hierarchy of pitches focusing on a single, central tone is not used, and the notes of the chromatic scale function independently of one another." However, it later notes, "[a]s a categorical label, 'atonal' generally means only that the piece is in the Western tradition and is not 'tonal'" (Rahn 1980, 1), although there are longer periods, e.g., medieval, renaissance, and modern modal musics to which this definition does not apply."
> 
> So it's true I am applying the concept of music without a tonal center or key to non-Western examples. But as you have repeatedly said, traditional non-Western music often employs scales (though not the Western equal tempered 12-tone scale), and tonal hierarchies and centers, and should thus be considered tonal. So if you claim that the term "tonal" applies to music that is not in the Western tradition, as you repeatedly have, you'll have to concede that the term "atonal" can be used in that context as well. This is an example of the inconsistent and disingenuous use of such terms by many here, not just you, that makes me tire of these semantic debates.
> 
> Even if the term atonality is applied only to Western music, Schoenberg invented only a narrow, specific form of it that has not become the accepted standard even among atonal composers.


I would love to read someone who knows talking about what Indian ragas are doing musically and also the Bengali tradition of Tagore songs.

As for Schoenberg, aside from quite a lot of very impressive, distinctive and powerful (and enjoyable!) music, what impresses me is how prophetic he was. I don't think he was right that tonality was dead when he said it (if that is what he said) but I do think he was right to recognise that its life in western classical music was doomed.


----------



## Enthusiast

janxharris said:


> It seems that some will lump much of Mozart and the Classical era composers together and say they all sounded the same...and similar is occurring here with atonal music.


Yes. Absolutely. If you can't hear the variety and the musical personality then you are not hearing the music.


----------



## Guest

Enthusiast said:


> I would love to read someone who knows talking about what Indian ragas are doing musically and also the Bengali tradition of Tagore songs.
> 
> As for Schoenberg, aside from quite a lot of very impressive, distinctive and powerful (and enjoyable!) music, what impresses me is how prophetic he was. I don't think he was right that tonality was dead when he said it (if that is what he said) but I do think he was right to recognise that its life in western classical music was doomed.


I am not even sure if he believed it _was_ doomed; after all, he kept composing tonal music throughout his life and believed that there is still plenty of good music to be written in C major..........


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> Yes. Absolutely. If you can't hear the variety and the musical personality then you are not hearing the music.


We all appear to hear music so differently so it's difficult to aver with assurity that there is necessarily anything in a particular piece that is being missed.


----------



## janxharris

Tonality is not doomed.


----------



## Enthusiast

janxharris said:


> What is it about for you?


To be honest: a lot of piano notes (far too many) that seem designed to test the pianist but saved by some really great tunes. There was a tradition from the second half of the 19th Century for piano concertos to do that - all those notes and runs - but not many of those works do much for me. Rachmaninov managed to make it work (for me) and become distinctive with his big tunes. I do prefer his symphonic music, though. I know that all this is a very personal feeling and that many people love all those still slightly obscure piano concertos of the "lesser" late Romantics.

Parts of Rach 2 worked well in some films - including those that portrayed what it meant to "young people in love" at the time when it was fairly new. It was clearly the height of fashion.


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> To be honest: a lot of piano notes (far too many) that seem designed to test the pianist but saved by some really great tunes. There was a tradition from the second half of the 19th Century for piano concertos to do that - all those notes and runs - but not many of those works do much for me. Rachmaninov managed to make it work (for me) and become distinctive with his big tunes. I do prefer his symphonic music, though. I know that all this is a very personal feeling and that many people love all those still slightly obscure piano concertos of the "lesser" late Romantics.
> 
> Parts of Rach 2 worked well in some films - including those that portrayed what it meant to "young people in love" at the time when it was fairly new. It was clearly the height of fashion.


Thanks Enthusiast, but I wasn't asking if you liked it or not or if you think it has great tunes; I was asking what you think it expresses - what is it about? I'm just curious.


----------



## Enthusiast

janxharris said:


> Thanks Enthusiast, but I wasn't asking if you liked it or not or if you think it has great tunes; I was asking what you think it expresses - what is it about? I'm just curious.


Sorry, I don't have more than "great tunes" and associations from films. I actually prefer the 3rd concerto but that is because it starts with a really wonderful tune that draws me in. If I get anything concrete from music it tends to be pictures rather than emotions. I'm not sure what pictures I get from the Rachmaninov concertos, though.


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> Sorry, I don't have more than "great tunes" and associations from films. I actually prefer the 3rd concerto but that is because it starts with a really wonderful tune that draws me in. If I get anything concrete from music it tends to be pictures rather than emotions. I'm not sure what pictures I get from the Rachmaninov concertos, though.


Thanks. It remains fascinating does it not the differences each of us have in our responses to music?


----------



## Enthusiast

janxharris said:


> Thanks. It remains fascinating does it not the differences each of us have in our responses to music?


Yes, indeed.

But I also thought my reply to you was a little weasely and wanted to edit it (but you had already replied). I do, of course, feel emotions listening to music but I experience them as mine rather than as something the composer wanted to express. And with Rachmaninov the emotion I get (aside from distress at all those notes!) is "merely" the joy I feel when I hear a good tune.


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> Yes, indeed.
> 
> But I also thought my reply to you was a little weasely and wanted to edit it (but you had already replied). I do, of course, feel emotions listening to music but I experience them as mine rather than as something the composer wanted to express. And with Rachmaninov the emotion I get (aside from distress at all those notes!) is "merely" the joy I feel when I hear a good tune.


I must admit I like nothing about the piece; I do recognise, though, the skill in his crafting of the melodies and complex chord progressions.


----------



## Enthusiast

shirime said:


> I am not even sure if he believed it _was_ doomed; after all, he kept composing tonal music throughout his life and believed that there is still plenty of good music to be written in C major..........


Oh dear - you make him seem almost human.


----------



## EdwardBast

janxharris said:


> Thanks Enthusiast, but I wasn't asking if you liked it or not or if you think it has great tunes; I was asking what you think it expresses - what is it about? I'm just curious.


The Second Concerto as a whole isn't "about anything" because it was composed before Rachmaninoff developed a method for unifying his multimovement works through systematic thematic processes. The Third Concerto, by contrast, has a clear abstract plot structure: Every theme in its triumphant finale derives from the second theme group of the first movement. This material was overshadowed in the first movement by the dark principal theme and its cataclysmic development. Thus, a tentative and unrealized ideal in the first movement is powerfully asserted and fully realized in the finale; A brilliant variation on the standard dark-to-light, struggle to triumph paradigm of Beethoven's Fifth and its countless progeny.


----------



## DaveM

fluteman said:


> There are better sources than that dubious, unclear and citation-lacking wikipedia article, but two key statements in it are more or less reasonable, and consistent with other sources I have read: "Twelve tone equal temperament took hold for a variety of reasons. It was a convenient fit for the existing keyboard design, and permitted total harmonic freedom at the expense of just a little impurity in every interval...." Also, " it was already the temperament of choice [or at least in use, I'm not sure what "of choice" means] during the Classical era (second half of the 18th century) [but not yet standard] ... and it became standard [but still not universal] during the Early Romantic era...." So equal temperament is a relatively recent phenomenon in Western music, which was my main point.


True Equal Temperment didn't become a reality until the 1917 publication of William Braid White's manual, 'Modern Piano Tuning and Allied Arts' which established for the first time a scientific method for tuning a piano with equal temperament. Going back to the time of Bach, "there was no way to tune strings to equal temperament, because there were no devices to measure frequency. They had no scientific method to achieve real equal-ness; they could only approximate."

Back then, they did call it equal temperament - not because the 12 pitches were equally spaced, but because you could play equally well in all keys. Each key, however, was a little different, and Bach wrote *The Well-Tempered* Clavier in all 24 major and minor keys in order to capitalize on those differences, not because the differences didn't exist. The theorist who came up with the easiest way to tune the kind of Well Temperament Bach needed was the German organist Andreas Werckmeister (1645-1706), whose most famous tuning, dating from 1691, is known as Werckmeister III

From that period, until the 20th century, pianos were tuned with variations of Well Temperment, though towards the end of the 19th century, tuning was getting closer and closer to Equal Temperment.


----------



## fluteman

DaveM said:


> True Equal Temperment didn't become a reality until the 1917 publication of William Braid White's manual, 'Modern Piano Tuning and Allied Arts' which established for the first time a scientific method for tuning a piano with equal temperament. Going back to the time of Bach, "there was no way to tune strings to equal temperament, because there were no devices to measure frequency. They had no scientific method to achieve real equal-ness; they could only approximate."
> 
> Back then, they did call it equal temperament - not because the 12 pitches were equally spaced, but because you could play equally well in all keys. Each key, however, was a little different, and Bach wrote *The Well-Tempered* Clavier in all 24 major and minor keys in order to capitalize on those differences, not because the differences didn't exist. The theorist who came up with the easiest way to tune the kind of Well Temperament Bach needed was the German organist Andreas Werckmeister (1645-1706), whose most famous tuning, dating from 1691, is known as Werckmeister III
> 
> From that period, until the 20th century, pianos were tuned with variations of Well Temperment, though towards the end of the 19th century, tuning was getting closer and closer to Equal Temperment.


Yes, truly precise tuning is a more recent phenomenon, but according to what I've read, a reasonable approximation of equal temperament appeared in music performance in the mid-18th century and ultimately became the universal standard thanks in large part to the development of the modern piano from 1800 to the 1850s. Towards the end of that period, German piano manufacturers promoted the a=440 tuning standard, though France adopted a=435 as its principal standard and a=440 wasn't officially adopted as the "universal" Western standard until a London conference in 1939. It made sense to adopt a pitch standard with the equal temperament standard, as differently pitched instruments could transpose and play in different keys and remain perfectly in tune with each other.


----------



## janxharris

EdwardBast said:


> The Second Concerto as a whole isn't "about anything" because it was composed before Rachmaninoff developed a method for unifying his multimovement works through systematic thematic processes. The Third Concerto, by contrast, has a clear abstract plot structure: Every theme in its triumphant finale derives from the second theme group of the first movement. This material was overshadowed in the first movement by the dark principal theme and its cataclysmic development. Thus, a tentative and unrealized ideal in the first movement is powerfully asserted and fully realized in the finale; A brilliant variation on the standard dark-to-light, struggle to triumph paradigm of Beethoven's Fifth and its countless progeny.


How does it follow that a piece needs systematic thematic processes for it to be about something? I was asking what Enthusiast thought it expressed in his opinion. For me it is clearly expressing romantic love - but I was wrong to assume this was a universally held view. Your analysis is nevertheless interesting, thanks.


----------



## DaveM

janxharris said:


> I must admit I like nothing about the piece; I do recognise, though, the skill in his crafting of the melodies and complex chord progressions.


One just has to find the right performance. Now this one (the Rach #2 Adagio) is rather special. I can't nail down if it's the interpretation, the fingering, the pedaling or just what. If you watch the first several minutes, maybe you can figure it out.


----------



## DaveM

fluteman said:


> Yes, truly precise tuning is a more recent phenomenon, but according to what I've read, a reasonable approximation of equal temperament appeared in music performance in the mid-18th century and ultimately became the universal standard thanks in large part to the development of the modern piano from 1800 to the 1850s. Towards the end of that period, German piano manufacturers promoted the a=440 tuning standard, though France adopted a=435 as its principal standard and a=440 wasn't officially adopted as the "universal" Western standard until a London conference in 1939. It made sense to adopt a pitch standard with the equal temperament standard, as differently pitched instruments could transpose and play in different keys and remain perfectly in tune with each other.


There has been much misinformation about Temperment used in the past. John Broadwood in England developed the first grand pianos until about 1820 when the Pleyel and Erard firms in France started competing. The Broadwood firm became Broadwood and Sons and one of his sons, James was known to say that the Broadwood pianos were tuned with Equal Temperment. But apparently, it came to light that Broadwood tuners were actually using Well Temperment as well as the older Meantone Tuning (which dated back to the 16th century and existed in some British pianos and organs into the 19th century).


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> There is nothing blurred about what I am saying. I am using a standard dictionary definition of "atonal" -- "lacking a tonal center or key." It is true, as the rather good wikipedia article on this subject articles notes, that "Atonality, in this sense, usually describes compositions written from about 1908 to the present day where a hierarchy of pitches focusing on a single, central tone is not used, and the notes of the chromatic scale function independently of one another." However, it later notes, "[a]s a categorical label, 'atonal' generally means only that the piece is in the Western tradition and is not 'tonal'" (Rahn 1980, 1), although there are longer periods, e.g., medieval, renaissance, and modern modal musics to which this definition does not apply."
> 
> So it's true I am applying the concept of music without a tonal center or key to non-Western examples. But as you have repeatedly said, traditional non-Western music often employs scales (though not the Western equal tempered 12-tone scale), and tonal hierarchies and centers, and should thus be considered tonal. So if you claim that the term "tonal" applies to music that is not in the Western tradition, as you repeatedly have, you'll have to concede that the term "atonal" can be used in that context as well. This is an example of the inconsistent and disingenuous use of such terms by many here, not just you, that makes me tire of these semantic debates.
> 
> Even if the term atonality is applied only to Western music, Schoenberg invented only a narrow, specific form of it that has not become the accepted standard even among atonal composers.


I'm not the one debating semantics. How words are ordinarily used may very well be the best guide to how we use them. I said simply that Schoenberg invented atonal music. You challenged that. Well, OK, if he didn't invent it, where are we to look for it earlier? Surely it's ridiculous to attach the label to African drumming that alternates two pitches. _No one_ is talking about that sort of thing when they use the term. Neither is there any point in calling "musique concrete" atonal, since it has no ingredients that could be employed tonally. And how about 4'33"? Is that an "atonal" experience?

Even if we could find examples of atonal music that appeared somewhere in the world independent of Schoenberg, that wouldn't diminish the significance of what he created. It's simply historical fact that "atonality" did not become a thing until Schoenberg made it a thing, both in theory and in practice: he not only created a distinct style of music in which a tonal center is deliberately prevented from becoming established, but he constructed an impressive theoretical apparatus to explain and justify his procedures. If we can't call that a significant invention, what can we call it?

I'm not interested in semanatic debates either, except where I think words are used in a pointless or misleading manner. I was not guilty of that. Schoenberg created a thing of world-changing importance, and it wasn't a "narrow, specific thing," but a principle that made the musical world sit up and take notice, and informed vast quantities of music for decades thereafter. It should have been perfectly obvious that that was the thing I was talking about.

I hope everything is clear now.


----------



## fluteman

DaveM said:


> There has been much misinformation about Temperment used in the past. John Broadwood in England developed the first grand pianos until about 1820 when the Pleyel and Erard firms in France started competing. The Broadwood firm became Broadwood and Sons and one of his sons, James was known to say that the Broadwood pianos were tuned with Equal Temperment. But apparently, it came to light that Broadwood tuners were actually using Well Temperment as well as the older Mean temperment (which dated back to the 16th century and existed in some British pianos and organs into the 19th century).


Yes, I'm aware of most of that history. Beethoven played a Broadwood that still exists, though I seem to remember that the standard modern piano action is based more on Erard's design. My music books and LPs are in storage right now, but I actually have an LP of Beethoven's music played on his own piano, no doubt with some form of historical tuning. And I've heard Bach played with Werckmeister III tuning.

I just found a short article online called An Introduction to Historical Tuning by Kyle Gann. Mr. Gann is a forceful advocate of the pre-equal temperament tunings, and notes as you do that "Not until 1917 was a method devised for tuning exact equal temperament." But even he concedes, "During the 19th century ... , keyboard tuning drifted closer and closer to equal temperament."
http://www.kylegann.com/histune.html

I'm not against many of the ideas of these anti-equal temperament zealots, but they seem to be avoiding the elephant in the room, and that is there is a reason equal temperament had pretty much taken over by the mid-19th century that has to do how Western music evolved over the course of that century, especially in terms of increasing harmonic complexity. However inferior equal temperament may be in many ways, that was a trade-off that Western musicians accepted. I only brought it up in this thread as an illustration of how the overwhelming importance of harmony in Western music by the mid to late 19th century was not natural or inevitable, and perhaps the necessity of equal temperament was one downside of this development.


----------



## EdwardBast

janxharris said:


> *How does it follow that a piece needs systematic thematic processes for it to be about something?* I was asking what Enthusiast thought it expressed in his opinion. For me it is clearly expressing romantic love - but I was wrong to assume this was a universally held view. Your analysis is nevertheless interesting, thanks.


It doesn't! I got carried away. (Sorry ) But having themes recur and interact in different contexts over several movements allows complex evolving relationships among them that often suggest abstract _plot patterns_, for want of a better term. This is what Rachmaninoff's Third has that his Second doesn't.


----------



## janxharris

DaveM said:


> One just has to find the right performance. Now this one (the Rach #2 Adagio) is rather special. I can't nail down if it's the interpretation, the fingering, the pedaling or just what. If you watch the first several minutes, maybe you can figure it out.


It's one of those pieces that works for some and not for others. For me it's sentimentality is too much but, as I said, the crafting of the melody and chords are quite brilliant.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

fluteman said:


> I'm not against many of the ideas of these anti-equal temperament zealots, but they seem to be avoiding the elephant in the room, and that is there is a reason equal temperament had pretty much taken over by the mid-19th century that has to do how Western music evolved over the course of that century, especially in terms of increasing harmonic complexity. However inferior equal temperament may be in many ways, that was a trade-off that Western musicians accepted. I only brought it up in this thread as an illustration of how the overwhelming importance of harmony in Western music by the mid to late 19th century was not natural or inevitable, and perhaps the necessity of equal temperament was one downside of this development.


Very funny, 12ET is way closer to the medieval pythagorean tuning than to various meantone variants. So Western music devolved backwards to more medieval sound. And this happened, because of the need for modulation and playing in remote keys (without having to add/split keyboad keys).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_sharp
http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1138&context=ppr

Nothing to do with "harmonic complexity". If anything meantone systems are way more complex, approximating intervals based on higher harmonics (think Afro-blues and Oriental sounding intervals)- of course, we lose simplicity and add more dissonance to certain chords (other chords blend better).

Equal temperament is mostly a theoretical construct than something heard in practice (outside of synthesizer based music; pianos also can't be perfectly tuned to it, because of inherent inharmonicity). Measuring the actual frequencies played during a concert reveals that the system is neither equal, just or meantone, or well-tempered. Same observation is valid for non-Western music - there are some youtube video seminars by some world/ethno music society on Indian and Turkish music and how intervals deviate from theory.

Wagner or Debussy (for example) or any music based on thick chords (jazz) would sound somewhat out of tune, if we had to be purists demanding completely equal tuning.

(I've experimented with 19 equal notes - there are some semi-authentic blues scales that don't exist in 12 ET - I guess it's ok for jazz, impressionism, romanticism and similar styles; also some extensions of hexatonic and octatonic scales - perfect for 20th century music; 31 - has even more blues intervals and now some scales that can be heard in Arabic music (but not every theoretical oriental scale). And all these can sound perfectly tonal and modern without any dissonant noises - the problem is that there are just too many notes.)


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> Of the four words you used we can probably dispense with "chaotic" as the perception of chaos is often (always) merely a failure to see the patterns. So we are left with "dark", "tense" and "tortured" and I am not sure I can think of many examples of atonal music that would bring those words to my mind. In fact those words make me immediately think of some Mahler (the 6th, perhaps - especially the last movement)! And when applied to perceptions of music they are still subjective.
> 
> But how about:
> George Benjamin - say, Duet for Piano and Orchestra or Palimpsests?
> Boulez - perhaps Repons or Sur Incises?
> Elliott Carter - maybe one of the quartets (perhaps the 5th)?
> Peter Eotvos - Psy or Seven or Replica for Viola and Orchestra?
> Gerard Grisey - Les Espaces Acoustiques?
> Jonathon Harvey - Bird Concerto with Pianosong?
> *Kurtag - maybe, Signs, Games and Messages*
> Or even Lachenmann - say, Nun?
> 
> These are not really specially selected: I'm just listing pieces that I have listened to recently in alphabetical order and none of them seem to fit the three words you use. I gave up on reaching the letter L because the list would be too long! Maybe you could start with the Harvey or some Eotvos.
> 
> By the way, I am assuming that you rule out Morton Feldman from this?


For me, it's chaotic, dark, tense and tortured; the soundtrack to a mental asylum.

But that's not how you would describe it.


----------



## Enthusiast

janxharris said:


> For me, it's chaotic, dark, tense and tortured; the soundtrack to a mental asylum.
> 
> But that's not how you would describe it.


This is the second post I have replied to today about how I would describe a piece of music! Not a strength of mine, I warn you.

Kurtag's Signs, Games and Messages? Of course, there are many (19?) short movements: so lots of variety. The recording I have is of Kim Kashkashian, who makes a lovely rich sound and is often quite emotional and I don't know how others might sound playing it. But - and this is from memory (there is other music playing in our house so I can't listen to it to reply) - the words that come to my mind might include "soulful", "meditative", "mysterious", "clown-like" (both sad and jesting clowns in different movements), "Hungarian" (you can hear Bartok in it!); "mournful" (of course - given that several movements are "in memoriam"); "stately" (I might be remembering that one wrongly) .... . And "varied", of course! I'm trying to avoid the word "playful" because that is what the title suggests.

I wouldn't argue with the suggestion that there is darkness and tenseness in the piece and I suppose a piece of many short movements, in different moods, can seem chaotic overall. "Tortured" is not a word that I would associate with the piece. Also, I'm sorry but in some ways the whole piece reminds me a little of Beethoven, the Beethoven of the Diabelli Variations, for example.

(I have a premonition of someone posting a youtube clip of part of this piece and saying, with sarcastic laughter, "so you think this sounds like ...."!)


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> This is the second post I have replied to today about how I would describe a piece of music! Not a strength of mine, I warn you.
> 
> Kurtag's Signs, Games and Messages? Of course, there are many (19?) short movements: so lots of variety. The recording I have is of Kim Kashkashian, who makes a lovely rich sound and is often quite emotional and I don't know how others might sound playing it. But - and this is from memory (there is other music playing in our house so I can't listen to it to reply) - the words that come to my mind might include "soulful", "meditative", "mysterious", "clown-like" (both sad and jesting clowns in different movements), "Hungarian" (you can hear Bartok in it!); "mournful" (of course - given that several movements are "in memoriam"); "stately" (I might be remembering that one wrongly) .... . And "varied", of course! I'm trying to avoid the word "playful" because that is what the title suggests.
> 
> I wouldn't argue with the suggestion that there is darkness and tenseness in the piece and I suppose a piece of many short movements, in different moods, can seem chaotic overall. "Tortured" is not a word that I would associate with the piece. Also, I'm sorry but in some ways the whole piece reminds me a little of Beethoven, the Beethoven of the Diabelli Variations, for example.
> 
> (I have a premonition of someone posting a youtube clip of part of this piece and saying, with sarcastic laughter, "so you think this sounds like ...."!)


Is that your wife playing Beethoven 1 again?


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> This is the second post I have replied to today about how I would describe a piece of music! Not a strength of mine, I warn you.
> 
> Kurtag's Signs, Games and Messages? Of course, there are many (19?) short movements: so lots of variety. The recording I have is of Kim Kashkashian, who makes a lovely rich sound and is often quite emotional and I don't know how others might sound playing it. But - and this is from memory (there is other music playing in our house so I can't listen to it to reply) - the words that come to my mind might include "soulful", "meditative", "mysterious", "clown-like" (both sad and jesting clowns in different movements), "Hungarian" (you can hear Bartok in it!); "mournful" (of course - given that several movements are "in memoriam"); "stately" (I might be remembering that one wrongly) .... . And "varied", of course! I'm trying to avoid the word "playful" because that is what the title suggests.
> 
> *I wouldn't argue with the suggestion that there is darkness and tenseness in the piece* and I suppose a piece of many short movements, in different moods, can seem chaotic overall. "Tortured" is not a word that I would associate with the piece. Also, I'm sorry but in some ways the whole piece reminds me a little of Beethoven, the Beethoven of the Diabelli Variations, for example.
> 
> (I have a premonition of someone posting a youtube clip of part of this piece and saying, with sarcastic laughter, "so you think this sounds like ...."!)


Perhaps you changed your mind then:



Enthusiast said:


> Kurtag - maybe, Signs, Games and Messages
> 
> I'm just listing pieces that I have listened to recently in alphabetical order and *none of them seem to fit the three words you use*. I gave up on reaching the letter L because the list would be too long! Maybe you could start with the Harvey or some Eotvos.


----------



## Enthusiast

janxharris said:


> Is that your wife playing Beethoven 1 again?


The Beethoven 1 went on to the Eroica - that's how they're paired in Bernstein's set - but this morning it is just the classical (more or less) radio station (BBC Radio 3) playing a variety of different things, none of which I have so far recognised. I suspect she will return the Bernstein set later in the day but she may surprise me. I am reminded that that Bernstein set is a good one.


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> The Beethoven 1 went on to the Eroica - that's how they're paired in Bernstein's set - but this morning it is just the classical (more or less) radio station (BBC Radio 3) playing a variety of different things, none of which I have so far recognised. I suspect she will return the Bernstein set later in the day but she may surprise me. I am reminded that that Bernstein set is a good one.


 ..............................


----------



## Enthusiast

janxharris said:


> Perhaps you changed your mind then:


Well, it is a _very _mixed piece. I certainly do not think that dark and tense are dominant moods in the piece.


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> Well, it is a _very _mixed piece. I certainly do not think that dark and tense are dominant moods in the piece.


Fair point - and I have only heard some excerpts on youtube.


----------



## Enthusiast

janxharris said:


> Fair point - and I have only heard some excerpts on youtube.


Yes - I feel that the darkness and tenseness that is there comes in the context of the words/moods I suggested. I do have a love of the viola and if you do, too, it might be worthwhile listening to the whole thing.


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> Yes - I feel that the darkness and tenseness that is there comes in the context of the words/moods I suggested. I do have a love of the viola and if you do, too, it might be worthwhile listening to the whole thing.


The extracts I have heard don't tempt me to investigate further - the music baffles me to be honest, but thanks anyway.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> I'm not the one debating semantics. How words are ordinarily used may very well be the best guide to how we use them. I said simply that Schoenberg invented atonal music. You challenged that. Well, OK, if he didn't invent it, where are we to look for it earlier? Surely it's ridiculous to attach the label to African drumming that alternates two pitches. _No one_ is talking about that sort of thing when they use the term. Neither is there any point in calling "musique concrete" atonal, since it has no ingredients that could be employed tonally. And how about 4'33"? Is that an "atonal" experience?
> 
> Even if we could find examples of atonal music that appeared somewhere in the world independent of Schoenberg, that wouldn't diminish the significance of what he created. It's simply historical fact that "atonality" did not become a thing until Schoenberg made it a thing, both in theory and in practice: he not only created a distinct style of music in which a tonal center is deliberately prevented from becoming established, but he constructed an impressive theoretical apparatus to explain and justify his procedures. If we can't call that a significant invention, what can we call it?
> 
> I'm not interested in semanatic debates either, except where I think words are used in a pointless or misleading manner. I was not guilty of that. Schoenberg created a thing of world-changing importance, and it wasn't a "narrow, specific thing," but a principle that made the musical world sit up and take notice, and informed vast quantities of music for decades thereafter. It should have been perfectly obvious that that was the thing I was talking about.
> 
> I hope everything is clear now.


I agree 100 percent with your characterization of Schoenberg's innovations, except you don't seem to be willing to accept my attempt to put them in a longer term and broader historical context. Schoenberg came of age in a time (the late 19th century) and place (Europe, and more specifically Vienna, one of the centers of Western music if not the primary center at that time), where harmony, and in particular harmonic progressions, had attained a dominant role, in the most sophisticated and elaborate ways, after 500 years or more of gradual development.

Schoenberg devised a formal system that suddenly did away with harmonic progressions that resolve upon, or at least imply, a tonal center. He did so while maintaining the traditional Western 12-tone chromatic scale and many other traditional features of Western music at that time. But most importantly, he did so in a time and place where the harmonic progression had become king of the realm.

That, in my humble opinion, is what made his innovations of such "world-changing importance" to use your terms. "Atonality", at least in the broadest sense of music without a key or tonal center, has always been around. Hence my reference to African drum music, or even the Indian raga, which may have a drone that sounds not far from a Western chord, but which just drones on and on without progressing anywhere. If you want to define "atonality" as what Schoenberg did, OK.

But Schoenberg's great contribution to Western music was to remind us that there are more elements in music than just harmonic progression. Rhythm, timbre, volume, and structure, for example. John Cage was being especially cheeky in including one structural element in 4'33", and that element is duration. You don't just listen to nothing, or to random ambient sounds, you listen to random ambient sounds for a very specific length of time. No, you don't have to call it atonal if you don't want to. And you can go ahead and call it a joke, or not music, both views are reasonable. Cage was a jokester and a conceptual artist as much as a composer of music. But he and all sorts of other modern composers owe a profound debt to Schoenberg, because he gave them permission to look at innovations other than devising ever more elaborate means of harmonic progression.


----------



## Guest

The way I understand Schoenberg's position in relation to this is that he did away with the necessity for a major-minor key system. His music was still deeply rooted in the chromatic harmony of the late 19th century where tonality itself was incredibly blurred and tonicisations implied a far greater number of keys than the music actually would resolve to. The tonal implications, as in, the implications of a pitch hierarchy (with leading notes and all that) are still there and can be perceived in Schoenberg's 'atonal' music, they necessity for a major-minor key system is _not_ important, however. Late Mahler would simply suggest keys and move through them rather than land on them, through the implications that of pitches have within tertain harmony, but Schoenberg was more concerned with treating the full chromatic collection as divisible into different modes where pitches had functions based on the quality and structure of such modes. In tonal music with a major-minor key system, the harmony could 'borrow' from modes of different qualities with less rigidity than adhering to the usual chromatic alterations of triads. Pitch functionality was important as Schoenberg could create fleeting instances of pitches with 'leading note to tonic' functions in the same way that late Romantic tertian harmony was concerned with chromaticism and tonicisation within a major-minor key framework. Schoenberg simply dissolved the constraints of that system to compose his music. Function and hierarchy is ever present and constantly changes throughout a Schoenberg composition, but the key systems of the immediate past are not present.

I'll be damned if the opening cello line here doesn't at least suggest that each pitch has a function alluding to major and minor modes of A with the clarinets homorythmically accompanying the cellos with their own individual diatonic collections bringing the music outside of a sense of 'key' but firmly rooted in a sense of pitch hierarchy. Or perhaps the fleeting A flat phrygian at figure 1 introduced by the double basses:






Not to mention all the motific development that is driven by the pitch and rhythmic material of the first piece.......


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> But Schoenberg's great contribution to Western music was to remind us that there are more elements in music than just harmonic progression. Rhythm, timbre, volume, and structure, for example.


Western music never forgot the importance of those other elements. The Romantic movement brought huge innovations in all of them (though not so much in rhythm). I would say that it was Schoenberg who needed reminding that harmony was not the most basic element of music, given his theoretical preoccupation with it and his belief that "emancipating" it was critical to music's future.

Regarding rhythm, Stravinsky's was really the 20th-century breakthrough.


----------



## Woodduck

shirime said:


> Late Mahler would simply suggest keys and move through them rather than land on them.
> 
> Function and hierarchy is ever present and constantly changes throughout a Schoenberg composition, but the key systems of the immediate past are not present.
> 
> I'll be damned if the opening cello line here doesn't at least suggest that each pitch has a function alluding to major and minor modes...


Wagner was implying tonal areas without landing in them half a century before Mahler, and much more persistently.

"Hierarchy" and "function" refer to relationships of parts within a _system_ and to the consequent expectation of particular resolutions, not to the mere fact that one note or line assumes temporary importance.

We hear suggestions of tonality in (some) atonal music because it's natural to hear tonally (to look for and imagine systemic hierarchy and function). It's particularly easy in Schoenberg's music.


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> Wagner was implying tonal areas without landing in them half a century before Mahler, and much more persistently.
> 
> "Hierarchy" and "function" refer to relationships of parts within a _system_ and to the consequent expectation of particular resolutions, not to the mere fact that one note or line assumes temporary importance.
> 
> We hear suggestions of tonality in (some) atonal music because it's natural to hear tonally (to look for and imagine systemic hierarchy and function). It's particularly easy in Schoenberg's music.


Would you justify 'it's natural to hear tonally'? I'm not necessarily disagreeing.


----------



## DaveM

shirime said:


> The way I understand Schoenberg's position in relation to this is that he did away with the necessity for a major-minor key system. His music was still deeply rooted in the chromatic harmony of the late 19th century where tonality itself was incredibly blurred and tonicisations implied a far greater number of keys than the music actually would resolve to...


Once he vacated all tonality and dissonances were not resolved, I don't see how his music was still rooted in the chromatic harmony of the late 19th century.


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> Once he vacated all tonality and dissonances were not resolved, I don't see how his music was still rooted in the chromatic harmony of the late 19th century.


It was, he was still interested in it. He dissolved the major-minor key system in his own 'atonal' compositions, but he still drew on comparable ideas of borrowing pitches across various modes based on function of scale degrees and their harmonic implications. Schoenberg himself described it as a synthesis of all keys. Dissonances aren't resolved in the way they would be in a composition that follows Common Practice Tonality because it just isn't. The notion of 'being in a key' is not there, but the harmonic, melodic and motific progression and direction _are_ still there and are still firmly rooted within the usual compositional procedures and 'language' of the late 19th century. It's just that it isn't shaped by key relationships.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> Western music never forgot the importance of those other elements. The Romantic movement brought huge innovations in all of them (though not so much in rhythm). I would say that it was Schoenberg who needed reminding that harmony was not the most basic element of music, given his theoretical preoccupation with it and his belief that "emancipating" it was critical to music's future.
> 
> Regarding rhythm, Stravinsky's was really the 20th-century breakthrough.


All good points. The major impact Schoenberg actually had on Western music was much different than the major impact he wanted to have and thought he would have. He actually wrote letters to other composers pleading with them to see things more his way and ended up quite bitter and disillusioned, not to mention nasty, by the tone of some of his final letters.

You are obviously right about Stravinsky and his innovations with rhythm. His Ebony Concerto is directly influenced by jazz which is directly influenced by the African drum music I mentioned earlier. But Schoenberg was also one of Stravinsky's many influences. The Beatles Revolution 9 that I cited is in the musique concrète tradition most often associated with Stockhausen, as is the work of Marius Constant, the composer of, or at least contributor to, the Twilight Zone Theme, but even all of that is in part an outgrowth of Schoenberg.

I don't mean to oversell this. One could easily argue that Stravinsky had an even greater impact on Western music, which Schoenberg himself knew and greatly resented. But I think we need to get away from the "inventor of atonality" title, which both under- and overstates his place in musical history.


----------



## Woodduck

shirime said:


> [Schoenberg] dissolved the major-minor key system in his own 'atonal' compositions, but he still drew on *comparable ideas of borrowing pitches across various modes based on function of scale degrees and their harmonic implications*. ...Dissonances aren't resolved in the way they would be in a composition that follows Common Practice Tonality because it just isn't. The notion of 'being in a key' is not there, but the harmonic, melodic and motific progression and direction _are_ still there and are still firmly rooted within the usual compositional procedures and 'language' of the late 19th century.It's just that it isn't shaped by key relationships.


I have to admit to not understanding what you're saying in this post. Schoenberg's music certainly retains textural and formal characteristics of his German Romantic predecessors (for which Boulez criticized him as old-fashioned). But what does it mean to "borrow pitches across various modes"? How is Schoenberg's harmony "based on function of scale degrees and their harmonic implications" when the whole idea of atonality was to eliminate the functions which tonality recognizes as residing in the degrees of the scale?


----------



## Roger Knox

Woodduck said:


> But what does it mean to "borrow pitches across various modes"? How is Schoenberg's harmony "based on function of scale degrees and their harmonic implications" when the whole idea of atonality was to eliminate the functions which tonality recognizes as residing in the degrees of the scale?


Shirime, I appreciate your initiative of drawing in theoretical concepts as they apply. But I must agree with Woodduck here. Once you go beyond the early Schoenberg (plus later deliberately tonal works) into his *atonal music,* scale-degree _functions_ and their _harmonic implications_ are not part of the main compositional practice. That is now based on _intervals_ -- distances between notes. The 12-note chromatic scale is now the source of pitches for melodies, rather than other scales. And combinations of 2 up to (potentially) 12 different pitches now create sonorities, replacing the earlier practice of chords built from notes at the interval of a third. As an atonal composer for a brief time, I remember being at pains to avoid anything that sounded like a major scale or dominant seventh chord or tonal chord progression. One might have an interesting sonority or succession of pitches, but for me atonality only worked in miniature pieces. And the sheer labour of constant "avoidism" caused tedium.

In brief, *serial music* was intended to bring more order and structure into the practice. The twelve-tone row in serial music produces rigourous determination of intervals, while allowing variety of pitches. The principal row is transposed onto any degree of the chromatic scale, and used forwards, backwards, or mirrored. Different versions of the same row can be combined, certain pitches can be highlighted (but not as tonal "centres"), and other operations can be introduced that give a certain consistency while avoiding repetition. But the row itself is usually obscured and the sense of "where you are" much weakened.

I like atonal music and serial music but in a different way than tonal or modal music. It's like being in a maze, or watching a mobile sculpture, or imagining a desolate locale -- at least such thoughts came to me listening to Webern's Symphony yesterday.


----------



## Woodduck

janxharris said:


> Would you justify 'it's natural to hear tonally'? I'm not necessarily disagreeing.


I did hesitate over that sentence, not wanting to imply too much by it. But the brain wants to establish a hierarchy of importance and function in any field of perception; tonality (of whatever sort) is the "normal" expression of this in music. Schoenberg was aware that a suggestion of tonality could very easily be created merely by sounding a note too long or too often; the tendency to hear a bass note as a root is another "pitfall" for a composer wanting to write non-tonal music, and of course the use of major or minor triads and their extensions will instantly suggest tonality and harmonic function. The "rules" for writing atonally require avoiding such things (or using them very cautiously), but because Schoenberg's atonal music preserves many of the formal procedures of the tonal music that preceded it, we're led to hear "suggestions" of possible tonal progressions even while we hear him disallowing their actual occurrence by including tonally nonfunctional tones in his chords. Of course he sometimes relaxes his own "rules" and allows a momentary sense of tonal centering to occur. I get the feeling from some of his work that he never overcame the urge to think and feel tonally.


----------



## DaveM

shirime said:


> It was, he was still interested in it. He dissolved the major-minor key system in his own 'atonal' compositions, but he still drew on comparable ideas of borrowing pitches across various modes based on function of scale degrees and their harmonic implications. Schoenberg himself described it as a synthesis of all keys. Dissonances aren't resolved in the way they would be in a composition that follows Common Practice Tonality because it just isn't. The notion of 'being in a key' is not there, but the harmonic, melodic and motific progression and direction _are_ still there and are still firmly rooted within the usual compositional procedures and 'language' of the late 19th century. It's just that it isn't shaped by key relationships.


I don't see how that addresses my point. The straightforward definition of Chromatic Harmony is harmony (chords) which use notes which do not belong to the key the music is in (they are not in the key signature). Pure atonality is music without a tonal center or key. Chromatic Harmony typically is apparent to the listener because there is a key. Even if there were some semblance of it in atonality (which seems doubtful to me), it wouldn't be apparent to the listener and certainly not be anything like that typically used in the late 19th century.


----------



## millionrainbows

Western tonality is about establishing a key area, and this means we have to "move away" from the tonic chord (C) in order to "return" to it, and establish the tonality, unless we want to drone on in one chord. Western tonality likes to move around, unlike Indian raga music. So how is this "movement" away from, and back to, the key tonic station accomplished?

The main way that Western tonality establishes key areas is by root movement. These roots are the scale steps, and the functions assigned to them within that scale. 
But why do we hear (in the key of C Major) a G chord as being the "dominant" (V) function, as "subordinate" to I (C)? What is this perception based on, and why does it convince our ear that "G" needs to resolve, and that "C" is our home key?

Woodduck might say that this perception is based on various factors, which it is, such as repetition, phrasing, etc., but I'm saying that the _main_ way tonality is "played with" is by root movement.

This "root movement" is really a harmonic interval. The progression from C major to G major is the interval of a fifth, just spread out over time. So all root movement can be traced back to our harmonic intervals, which is the source of all pitched sound.

What evidence do we have of this? Simply our ears, and the way we hear harmonics.

Let's say that the root movement from C to G is a fifth up. Harmonically, we hear a fifth with the "root" on the bottom note, so C-G is heard as being rooted on "C." Since Western tonality is largely based on root movements of a fifth, and the 'circle of fifths' is further evidence of this, then this explains much of tonal root movement.

Conversely, we hear a fourth (the inversion of a fifth) as having its "root" on the top note; so G up to C establishes the root as C.

This is all based on vertical factors; the way we hear the natural harmonic series. Root movement in Western tonality simply "spreads this out" over spans of time.

This can also show how the diatonic C major scale, the chosen scale for most of our music, is also inherently unstable as far as being "totally tonal." It's built for movement, for unrest.

The interval C-F is a fourth; if we hear this as "root on top," then F Major is established, subordinating C, supposedly the "home" key. All this is due to the fact of the tritone F-B in the C major scale. 
In this light, we can see the truth of George Russell's assertion that the Lydian scale is "more tonal" if one wants to establish the scale root as the key. The F lydian scale cycles through all 7 in fifths before it circles back around to F, its key note: F-C-G-D-A-E-B (F).

This is also why piano tuners start on F and tune by fifths. If we try to "stack fifths" starting on C, we get C-G-D-A-E-B-(F#?). It doesn't work for a C major scale, as it has an "F." 
As the Pebber Brown video on Youtube shows, when he sustains all the notes C-G-D-A-E-B, the consonance of perfect fifths falls apart when the clunker "F" is added on top.

The C major scale is structured so that there is a "leading tone" E-F (establishing F), as well as B-C (establishing C).
The C lydian scale has a leading tone F#-G (establishing the more closely related V step of G) and B-C (establishing the scale key).

I'm not criticizing the C major scale; it's perfectly suited for what it is used for: to travel to other key areas.


----------



## Phil loves classical

DaveM said:


> I don't see how that addresses my point. The straightforward definition of Chromatic Harmony is harmony (chords) which use notes which do not belong to the key the music is in (they are not in the key signature). Pure atonality is music without a tonal center or key. Chromatic Harmony typically is apparent to the listener because there is a key. Even if there were some semblance of it in atonality (which seems doubtful to me), it wouldn't be apparent to the listener and certainly not be anything like that typically used in the late 19th century.


I tend to agree with this. Schoenberg's 12-tone method, but not his earlier work, was a radical change from harmony before, that was the intent. But there are various degrees how far from tonality this atonal music sounds. In one of Webern's pieces (can't remember which one), he intentionally picked tones in an order which defied any vestiges of tonal harmony, while Berg's Violin Concerto is well-known for being tonal, incorporating major and minor thirds.


----------



## Guest

In short, what I'm saying is this: Schoenberg was interested in pitches where function was relative to the pitches around them melodically, through intervals. The functions themselves aren't explicit because his harmonisations don't fall within the major-minor key system of tertian harmony where pitches have certain roles in chords as well. He saw this as a synthesis of all keys rather than an avoidance of anything. Brief 'tonics' can be deduced and Schoenberg is careful enough about how he composes so that points of resolution in his music are arrived at audibly through the implications that his choices of interval have melodically.


----------



## Fredx2098

shirime said:


> In short, what I'm saying is this: Schoenberg was interested in pitches where function was relative to the pitches around them melodically, through intervals. The functions themselves aren't explicit because his harmonisations don't fall within the major-minor key system of tertian harmony where pitches have certain roles in chords as well. He saw this as a synthesis of all keys rather than an avoidance of anything. Brief 'tonics' can be deduced and Schoenberg is careful enough about how he composes so that points of resolution in his music are arrived at audibly through the implications that his choices of interval has melodically.


I hear a lot of emotion in Schoenberg's music. To me it has a mood similar to Classical-era music. One of my favorite pieces by him is his first string quartet which is tonal in D minor. It sounds very emotional, and I think the emotion still shows in his atonal pieces. If he composed something like the first string quartet and then switched to atonality (the opposite of the composer who was mentioned in this or another thread, whose name escapes me, nothing against him), I definitely don't think the intent was to create something less emotional. It really boils down to personal opinion when it comes to emotions elicited by styles of music. Some Baroque and Classical pieces may bore me but may be euphoric to others, and that's fine, as long as people don't try to say that their opinion is the right one.


----------



## fluteman

Roger Knox said:


> Once you go beyond the early Schoenberg (plus later deliberately tonal works) into his *atonal music,* scale-degree _functions_ and their _harmonic implications_ are not part of the main compositional practice.





Woodduck said:


> Schoenberg's music certainly retains textural and formal characteristics of his German Romantic predecessors (for which Boulez criticized him as old-fashioned).


These two intelligent comments neatly sum up most what I was trying to say in several long posts. And when a piece of modern or contemporary Western music, or part of that piece, includes material where scale degree functions and their harmonic implications are not part of the main compositional practice, as Mr. Knox put it, most of the time you can trace a line of influence and evolution leading from that music back to Schoenberg. That is no small thing, even if it's far from what Schoenberg himself wanted.

His music also retained characteristics of his German Romantic predecessors, as Woodduck says, which to me only puts his idea of moving away from the diatonic scale and harmonic progression in sharper relief. That may be what makes so many here hostile towards his music, or uncomfortable with it or mystified by it. But it got peoples' attention.


----------



## Larkenfield

Few if any of you have anything to say to the non-technical listener in the audience. Whatever means Arnold Schoenberg used was for reasons of self-expression and not for technical explanations that mean little or nothing to the general public. The subject of unprecedented expanded self-expression has been touched upon a number of times before but evidently forgotten. It was a new vocabulary needed to express the new conditions of the 20th century, the new consciousness, and that was the primary reason for its existence. I doubt if Chopin, even Wagner, could have survived the turbulence of the 20th century with the vocabulary they were using. It just was not big enough to deal with the mystical, the unusual states of consciousness, the psychological violence, the uncertainty, the confusion, the anxiety, and the abnormal. It’s no wonder why some people don’t understand the music or like it when none of this is acknowledged or swept under the carpet by the reputed experts.


----------



## KenOC

Larkenfield said:


> Few if any of you have anything to say to the non-technical listener in the audience. Whatever means Arnold Schoenberg used was for reasons of self-expression...


He had far greater hopes for it: "Today I have discovered something which will assure the supremacy of German music for the next 100 years." (Schoenberg, end of July, 1921) But somebody forgot to tell the Russians.


----------



## Fredx2098

Larkenfield said:


> Few if any of you have anything to say to the non-technical listener in the audience. Whatever means Arnold Schoenberg used was for reasons of self-expression and not for technical explanations that mean little or nothing to the general public. The subject of unprecedented expanded self-expression has been has been touched upon a number of times before but evidently forgotten. It was a new vocabulary needed to express the new conditions of the 20th century, the new consciousness, and that was the primary reason for its existence. I doubt if Chopin, even Wagner, could have survived the turbulence of the 20th century with the vocabulary they were using. It just was not big enough to deal with the mystical, the unusual states of consciousness, the psychological violence, the uncertainty, the confusion, the anxiety, and the abnormal. It's no wonder why some people don't understand the music or like it when none of this is acknowledged or swept under the carpet by the reputed experts.


What I have to say to them is: if they like it, good for them. I know plenty of non-technical listeners who love atonal music. If they don't like it, that's fine, it's not their cup of tea. I wouldn't try to convince someone to like it, just like I wouldn't try to convince someone not to like Beethoven or Bach. Whether or not someone "understands" the music is irrelevant. If they like it, they like it; if they don't like it, they don't like it. There's no point in arguing about what someone likes or about what emotions someone believes a piece of music elicits.


----------



## Guest

What are technical and non-technical listeners?


----------



## mathisdermaler

I love the title of this thread. It's so deliciously fascistic, but it's also absurd which makes it hilarious.


----------



## Guest

mathisdermaler said:


> I love the title of this thread. *It's so deliciously fascistic*, but it's also absurd which makes it hilarious.


Goodness me, I've never associated with such a thing before!


----------



## mathisdermaler

shirime said:


> Goodness me, I've never associated with such a thing before!


You're not listening to Parsifal enough!


----------



## Guest

mathisdermaler said:


> You're not listening to Parsifal enough!


_Neminem laede; immo omnes, quantum potes, juva_ seems to be the message I get from _Parsifal_.................


----------



## janxharris

shirime said:


> In short, what I'm saying is this: Schoenberg was interested in pitches where function was relative to the pitches around them melodically, through intervals. The functions themselves aren't explicit because his harmonisations don't fall within the major-minor key system of tertian harmony where pitches have certain roles in chords as well. He saw this as a synthesis of all keys rather than an avoidance of anything. Brief 'tonics' can be deduced and Schoenberg is careful enough about how he composes so that points of resolution in his music are arrived at audibly through the implications that his choices of interval have melodically.


I'm just wondering about the meaning of 'function' here since you say they aren't explicit.


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> I did hesitate over that sentence, not wanting to imply too much by it. But the brain wants to establish a hierarchy of importance and function in any field of perception; tonality (of whatever sort) is the "normal" expression of this in music. Schoenberg was aware that a suggestion of tonality could very easily be created merely by sounding a note too long or too often; the tendency to hear a bass note as a root is another "pitfall" for a composer wanting to write non-tonal music, and of course the use of major or minor triads and their extensions will instantly suggest tonality and harmonic function. The "rules" for writing atonally require avoiding such things (or using them very cautiously), but because Schoenberg's atonal music preserves many of the formal procedures of the tonal music that preceded it, we're led to hear "suggestions" of possible tonal progressions even while we hear him disallowing their actual occurrence by including tonally nonfunctional tones in his chords. Of course he sometimes relaxes his own "rules" and allows a momentary sense of tonal centering to occur. I get the feeling from some of his work that he never overcame the urge to think and feel tonally.


Interesting - _the brain wants to establish a hierarchy of importance and function in any field of perception_ - I'm just trying to work out if this is indeed the case and to what degree. What would you say are the parallels to tonality in painting?

If, as you suggest, Schoenberg included 'tonally non-functional tones in his chords' and did so with the express aim of obscuring tonality, then that could be seen to be as rather contrived - that instead of aiming at ideal expression, he was more concerned with avoiding the past.


----------



## Guest

There is no such thing as non-functional when it comes to music; we can analyse the function of pitch but it's impossible to analyse the non-function.

Function is not limited to how chords and pitches interact with one another in the Common Practice Tonality type of framework because pitches in Schoenberg's freely 'atonal' compositions still allow us to analyse their function in terms of looking at how they interact with other pitches on an intervallic level and how Schoenberg uses intervals and their quality to imply function melodically. 

On another level, Schoenberg creates a hierarchy of tension and release based on different levels of textural density, harmonic density and levels of dissonance. These elements he treats in a very conventional late-Romantic way to create a linear arc that guides the ear through a piece of music.


----------



## janxharris

shirime said:


> On another level, Schoenberg creates a hierarchy of tension and release based on different levels of textural density, harmonic density and levels of dissonance. These elements he treats in a very conventional late-Romantic way to create a linear arc that guides the ear through a piece of music.


I don't think it is tendentious to say that Schoenberg's own particular attempts _to guide the ear_ remain unsuccessful.


----------



## Guest

shirime said:


> What are technical and non-technical listeners?


I presume a non-technical listener enjoys (or doesn't enjoy) what they listen to without the technical understanding to know why they enjoy, or to explain to others what is happening.

I regard myself as a non-technical listener. I can enjoy Schoenberg's Piano Concerto and Fauré's Dolly Suite, noticing that they are quite different in a number of ways. But I could only explain those differences using non-technical or only a basic musical language.


----------



## Woodduck

janxharris said:


> Interesting - _*the brain wants to establish a hierarchy of importance and function in any field of perception*_ - I'm just trying to work out if this is indeed the case and to what degree. What would you say are the parallels to tonality in painting?
> 
> *If, as you suggest, Schoenberg included 'tonally non-functional tones in his chords' and did so with the express aim of obscuring tonality, then that could be seen to be as rather contrived - that instead of aiming at ideal expression, he was more concerned with avoiding the past.*


The senses give us data, but it's chaotic and meaningless until the brain organizes it. We have to group things by resemblance and to distinguish figure from ground; this is how we know that there are entities, and in the process we decide what is important - which features give things their identity and which are incidental. Hierarchy is thus created spontaneously in the very act of perception, which is largely unconscious or pre-conscious. And when we then consciously give names to things and form defined concepts of both concrete things and abstract relationships among things, the structure of ideas continues to be hierarchical: we appeal to more basic concepts in order to build and understand more complex, abstract ones. The hierarchical principle extends yet further into the realm of values.

Painting certainly achieves compositional strength by means of hierarchies of form, but I doubt that there can be an exact parallel between a spatial art and a temporal one.

I think your second paragraph identifies a paradox in Schoenberg's new style and his attitude toward it. He conceived atonality as both a necessary outgrowth of the past and a necessary break with it, with the centuries-long growth of tonal harmony leading up to the moment of transformation which he was chosen to enact. It is a bit strange to realize that in order for atonal music to fulfill its nature and aims, elements of earlier music would have to be eliminated. Schoenberg didn't remain a strict adherent of his own rules for avoiding tonal references, but they became obligatory for composers who boarded the serialist train and came to dominate the academy. Not surprisingly, many eventually rebelled against the restrictions in the name of free expression.


----------



## Woodduck

shirime said:


> There is no such thing as non-functional when it comes to music; we can analyse the function of pitch but it's impossible to analyse the non-function.
> 
> Function is not limited to how chords and pitches interact with one another in the Common Practice Tonality type of framework because pitches in Schoenberg's freely 'atonal' compositions still allow us to analyse their function in terms of looking at how they interact with other pitches on an intervallic level and how Schoenberg uses intervals and their quality to imply function melodically.
> 
> On another level, Schoenberg creates a hierarchy of tension and release based on different levels of textural density, harmonic density and levels of dissonance. These elements he treats in a very conventional late-Romantic way to create a linear arc that guides the ear through a piece of music.


The term "function" means something quite different if we're no longer talking about a _system_ of pitch relationships. We say that the seventh degree of the scale functions as a leading tone to the tonic, or that a chord functions as the dominant of the tonic chord. But what if there is no such thing as a tonic, seventh degree, or dominant? We can say that one tone or chord moves to another in atonal music, but how do we assign it a function?


----------



## Guest

janxharris said:


> I don't think it is tendentious to say that Schoenberg's own particular attempts _to guide the ear_ remain unsuccessful.


Then if it isn't successful for people who like listening to Schoenberg, what is?


----------



## janxharris

shirime said:


> Then if it isn't successful for people who like listening to Schoenberg, what is?


Maybe I'm just saying that it does seem to be his earlier works that are played more often. I guess I am just musing on the disjunct between his purported influence and actual appeal.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> The term "function" means something quite different if we're no longer talking about a _system_ of pitch relationships. We say that the seventh degree of the scale functions as a leading tone to the tonic, or that a chord functions as the dominant of the tonic chord. But what if there is no such thing as a tonic, seventh degree, or dominant? We can say that one tone or chord moves to another in atonal music, but how do we assign it a function?


I am yet to hear a composition by Schoenberg where there is no such thing as a tonic, seventh degree or dominant. I think I mentioned it in the earlier example op. 16 that he really makes a point of A flat having a brief 'tonic function' as established through the relative instability of the G just below, at around figure 1 in the double basses. There are moments like this all through his music.

I don't know about anyone else, but when I try to analyse the functions of various pitches and stuff like that in Schoenberg's music I look at how he implies those things through melodic and harmonic intervals and how Schoenberg establishes a tension-release duality in his music. His atonal compositions don't fall within the major-minor key system, but of course every pitch he writes can be analysed for its _function_. Not everyone will even come to the same conclusion, as is the case with so much chromatic music (atonal or otherwise).


----------



## Phil loves classical

shirime said:


> In short, what I'm saying is this: Schoenberg was interested in pitches where function was relative to the pitches around them melodically, through intervals. The functions themselves aren't explicit because his harmonisations don't fall within the major-minor key system of tertian harmony where pitches have certain roles in chords as well. He saw this as a synthesis of all keys rather than an avoidance of anything. Brief 'tonics' can be deduced and Schoenberg is careful enough about how he composes so that points of resolution in his music are arrived at audibly through the implications that his choices of interval have melodically.


I tend to agree with this. Naturally (poor choice of word?) we tend to associate those intervals tonally, and we could hear constant shifting of the tonic in a lot of atonal music. I read it is the same as with postmodern poetry, we tend to try and draw meaning between the words, while the author may have wanted to leave them open-ended in meaning. I'm not sure if Schoenberg actually wanted us to make those associations tonally.


----------



## Roger Knox

shirime said:


> Schoenberg was interested in pitches where function was relative to the pitches around them melodically, through intervals. The functions themselves aren't explicit because his harmonisations don't fall within the major-minor key system of tertian harmony where pitches have certain roles in chords as well. He saw this as a synthesis of all keys rather than an avoidance of anything. Brief 'tonics' can be deduced and Schoenberg is careful enough about how he composes so that points of resolution in his music are arrived at audibly through the implications that his choices of interval have melodically.


In this post I appreciate the way you have expressed Schoenberg's compositional practice. It applies especially well to his atonal music. I am thinking about the oft-discussed opening melody of Piano Piece Op. 11, No. 1. The sense of tension-release is clear, there are obvious appoggiaturas ("leaning tones") at cadences. Your emphasis on _melody_ is welcome in pointing up this crucial feature, compared to the pitch-class set theory that I studied as a grad student in the 1970's which stresses interval content expressed numerically in mod 12. But in the Piano Piece Op. 11, No. 3 it's much harder to make out what he's doing!


----------



## JAS

Fredx2098 said:


> There's no point in arguing about what someone likes or about what emotions someone believes a piece of music elicits.


The key word here is "arguing." Indeed "arguing" about such matters is pointless. Discussing, on the other hand, has the potential for interest and reward, but it is very difficult to achieve, and it must begin by accepting that there is a perfectly reasonable disagreement at the beginning . . . and may end there as well.


----------



## DaveM

shirime said:


> Function is not limited to how chords and pitches interact with one another in the Common Practice Tonality type of framework because pitches in Schoenberg's freely 'atonal' compositions still allow us to analyse their function in terms of looking at how they interact with other pitches on an intervallic level *and how Schoenberg uses intervals and their quality to imply function melodically.
> *


Melody was implicit in the works that fell in the category of late Romanticism. One of the shocks to the system of Schoenberg's atonal music was the loss of melody. I'm alway amazed at attempts to jury-rig semblance's of melody in his music. At the very least, whatever structures are being associated with melody must be part of a new definition -that I'm unfamiliar with- of the term.


----------



## Enthusiast

DaveM said:


> Melody was implicit in the works that fell in the category of late Romanticism. One of the shocks to the system of Schoenberg's atonal music was the loss of melody. I'm alway amazed at attempts to jury-rig semblance's of melody in his music. At the very least, whatever structures are being associated with melody must be part of a new definition -that I'm unfamiliar with- of the term.


But surely the only reason milkmen aren't whistling his tunes is that there are no milkmen any more?


----------



## aleazk

DaveM said:


> Melody was implicit in the works that fell in the category of late Romanticism. One of the shocks to the system of Schoenberg's atonal music was the loss of melody. I'm alway amazed at attempts to jury-rig semblance's of melody in his music. At the very least, whatever structures are being associated with melody must be part of a new definition -that I'm unfamiliar with- of the term.


Give me a break, the melodies in Schoenberg are rather obvious. I could understand you if your complains were about the lack of melody in a serialist piece from the 50s, since the composers in that period systematically avoided it. In fact, the hardcore serialists considered Schoenberg as having too much melody for their taste, that there wasn't ANY departure from tradition in that aspect in his music. You can dislike his new approach to harmony, but when you make such a strawman it's difficult to take you seriously in this topic.

You can be amazed, I'm rather un-amazed since they are so in the surface. Perhaps you hate his harmony so much that this clouds the pieces for you, well, that's not anyone's problem except yours. Other less hating people hear the melodies without any effort. Even Webern is very melodious, since the symmetries in his rows imply constant repeated intervallic patterns that one can easily hear as recurring melodies and motifs in different harmonic areas but which maintain their implied harmony because the inner intervals remain the same. It's the old Bach counterpoint trick, in which a motif is transformed via inversion, retrograde, etc., but the integrity of the initial motif remains there.


----------



## JAS

And obviously music itself is totally unnatural as in all of my years wandering here and there, in fields and forests, I have yet to stumble across a piano growing in a pasture, a trombone swimming with a school of brass in the ocean, or a violin freshly ripening on the vine. All of these instruments are so much creations of people and not nature, and yet they have historically been made of natural materials and often emulate natural sounds, even if they do so in arguably unnatural ways. To me, this is very much one of the insurmountable barriers to any appreciation of pop music. I cannot abide the sound of an electric guitar, and the more it sounds like an electric guitar, the less I can tolerate it.


----------



## DaveM

aleazk said:


> Give me a break, the melodies in Schoenberg are rather obvious. I could understand you if your complains were about the lack of melody in a serialist piece from the 50s, since the composers in that period systematically avoided it. In fact, the hardcore serialists considered Schoenberg as having too much melody for their taste, that there wasn't ANY departure from tradition in that aspect in his music. You can dislike his new approach to harmony, but when you make such a strawman it's difficult to take you seriously in this topic.
> 
> You can be amazed, I'm rather un-amazed since they are so in the surface. Perhaps you hate his harmony so much that this clouds the pieces for you, well, that's not anyone's problem except yours. Other less hating people hear the melodies without any effort. Even Webern is very melodious, since the symmetries in his rows imply constant repeated intervallic patterns that one can easily hear as recurring melodies and motifs in different harmonic areas but which maintain their implied harmony because the inner intervals remain the same. It's the old Bach counterpoint trick, in which a motif is transformed via inversion, retrograde, etc., but the integrity of the initial motif remains there.


I'm all out of breaks. What you are calling melodies is a re-definition of melody as it was used in classical music for well over 2 centuries. They are snippets/fragments. In a given atonal piece, I would be surprised if anyone could point out 'the melody' as opposed to various sequences of notes where one person might call a given sequence a melody, but which might be totally different from sequences of notes that others are calling melody. This change from the definition, '_a series of musical notes or tones arranged in a definite pattern of pitch and rhythm'_ to sequences of notes that seem to require considerable effort to define as melody is one of the main reasons that this music has not received widespread acceptance.


----------



## Woodduck

shirime said:


> *I am yet to hear a composition by Schoenberg where there is no such thing as a tonic, seventh degree or dominant.* I think I mentioned it in the earlier example op. 16 that he really makes a point of A flat having a brief 'tonic function' as established through the relative instability of the G just below, at around figure 1 in the double basses. There are moments like this all through his music.
> 
> I don't know about anyone else, but when I try to analyse the functions of various pitches and stuff like that in Schoenberg's music I look at how he implies those things through melodic and harmonic intervals and how Schoenberg establishes a tension-release duality in his music. His atonal compositions don't fall within the major-minor key system, but of course every pitch he writes can be analysed for its _function_. Not everyone will even come to the same conclusion, as is the case with so much chromatic music (atonal or otherwise).


Your statements about tonal function in Schoenberg raise questions. What does it mean for music to have tonal functions, but not be tonal? How suggestive of tonal functions can supposedly "atonal" music be before we need to reclassify it as "tonal"? How brief can a "brief tonic function" be before it's too brief to qualify a piece of musical as tonal? How clear - in concept or to the ear - is the dividing line between tonal and atonal music?

It's common experience, at least among fairly experienced listeners, to hear harmonic relationships in Schoenberg's music that sound, or feel, like relationships familiar from chromatic music by earlier composers. Anyone acquainted with the unstable, rapidly shifting, ambiguous tonality of, say, the prelude to Act 3 of _Parsifal_ will perceive the ancestry.






Wagner begins firmly in Bb minor, and then gives us tonal "anchor points" of varying duration, alternating with passages of rapidly fluctuating references to key areas that are never stated, and passages with no definite tonal direction at all in which melodic sequences provide momentum and structure.

Berg's piano sonata begins just as clearly in B minor, and is similarly characterized by episodes of tonal explicitness alternating with passages of extreme tonal fluctuation.






The Berg is looser in structure than the Wagner, with less in the way of sectional contrasts and figural repetitions to ground us (although the piece does clearly end in the key in which it begins, while the Wagner merely transitions into the opera). But neither of these pieces would be considered "atonal," since there is always an identifiable destination "just around the corner" even when the harmony at a given moment can't be felt to be taking us there.

Tonal references are less explicit and more fleeting in the second movement of Schoenberg's 5 Pieces for Orchestra, and we have no sense of an underlying key:






Is this tonal music? Did Schoenberg think of it that way? Obviously he is not at pains to avoid the "forbiddens," the repeated notes and the triads, which tend to create tonal expectations; in fact he employs them quite purposefully, but he doesn't allow these suggestions of tonality to develop enough even to imply that we might arrive in a key.

Schoenberg seems to approach his Wind Quintet in a stricter frame of mind; there's an even clearer avoidance of anything that would suggest the possibility that a tonal center might establish itself:






In music like this it takes an effort to find tonal hints (though I get a strong one at around 5:20). It's interesting to set this beside the _Parsifal_ excerpt; there's an unmistakable family resemblance in the widely reaching themes and the polyphonic part writing, but it's clear, to me at least, that we are now in a different harmonic world, one where the expectations which we bring to tonal music in the common practice tradition are no longer relevant in understanding the music's structure or expressive meaning.

For Wagner, chromaticism, even at its most extreme, was clearly still an extension of tonal principles; it acquired its expressive meaning and power by playing with the listener's expectation of tonal relationships. But at a certain point in the application of his principles, Schoenberg seems to have defied those expectations to the point where they are nominally irrelevant to the comprehension of the music. I say "nominally," because through selective listening to components of his dense textures we can often imagine tonal implications where I suspect they may not even have been intended. My guess is that writing music using the chromatic scale that completely defeats our ears' tendency to hear tonal relationships is quite difficult (or maybe impossible), and that Schoenberg, whatever his theories about avoiding tonal centers, didn't have his heart in it the way, say, Milton Babbitt did:






I'd be interested in others' reactions to these (or other) pieces, and how they hear and define the differences in terms of tonality's presence or absence.


----------



## Steve Mc

Tonality is unnatural in he sense that, yes, you do not find it much in the physical world.
Tonality represents a higher plane of sonic organization, a glimpse into a more spiritual realm.
Atonality and expirimentation would be meaningless withoutout some sort of foundation to build upon or disregard.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> I'd be interested in others' reactions to these (or other) pieces, and how they hear and define the differences in terms of tonality's presence or absence.


That's quite an interesting post, bur without getting into particular pieces right now, I'd point out that Schoenberg was closer in age to Brahms than to Babbitt (by a year or so), and maybe closer to Brahms than to Babbitt in other ways, too.


----------



## Fredx2098

JAS said:


> The key word here is "arguing." Indeed "arguing" about such matters is pointless. Discussing, on the other hand, has the potential for interest and reward, but it is very difficult to achieve, and it must begin by accepting that there is a perfectly reasonable disagreement at the beginning . . . and may end there as well.


Indeed. I am calmly stating my opinions (that I enjoy music that is tonal, atonal, and otherwise) without asserting them, while others boldly state that all atonal music is ugly and expressionless aside from angst and ugly emotions. If someone takes my non-assertive opinion of personally not being a fan of Beethoven (or anything else I've said) as argumentative, they should think about how their description of atonal music is interpreted by those who enjoy it. My goal is not to disparage tonal music or famous composers. My goal is to show that every composer and style of music is interpreted differently by each one of us, and no composer or style is more meritorious than another. If people believe that an older, more famous composer is more meritorious than a more modern, less popular one, then that has lowered the discussion of classical music to the same level as a discussion about the most famous pop stars, or talking about The Beatles like they're they only "great" rock band.


----------



## DaveM

Fredx2098 said:


> ...and no composer or style is more meritorious than another.


Someone I know said Feldman is '_more emotionally moving than any one composer'_

Individuals and large groups of people assign the term meritorious or one of its many synonyms to various composers all the time. It's what we do.


----------



## Woodduck

Nothing wrong with believing that one composer is superior to another. It's more reasonable than believing that no composer is superior to any other. 

Anyone think Bach is no better than Babbitt? (Sorry, Milt. I could have used Raff, but KenOC has beat up on him enough already.)


----------



## Fredx2098

DaveM said:


> Someone I know said Feldman is '_more emotionally moving than any one composer'_
> 
> Individuals and large groups of people assign the term meritorious or one of its many synonyms to various composers all the time. It's what we do.


If it was I who said that, it seems clear that it was a statement of opinion. The concept of how emotionally moving a composer is seems like one of the most purely subjective things that can be discussed, aside from discussing which composers are generally considered the most emotionally moving, which isn't what I'm discussing and doesn't seem like a productive topic. I'm really not trying to say that my favorite composers are objectively better than anyone else's favorite composers.


----------



## EdwardBast

JAS said:


> And obviously music itself is totally unnatural as in all of my years wandering here and there, in fields and forests, *I have yet to stumble across a piano growing in a pasture*, a trombone swimming with a school of brass in the ocean, or a violin freshly ripening on the vine. All of these instruments are so much creations of people and not nature, and yet they have historically been made of natural materials and often emulate natural sounds, even if they do so in arguably unnatural ways. To me, this is very much one of the insurmountable barriers to any appreciation of pop music. I cannot abide the sound of an electric guitar, and the more it sounds like an electric guitar, the less I can tolerate it.


Two days ago, at about 3,500 feet in the Adirondacks, among the mountain ash, balsam fir and birch, I heard a chorus of winter wrens. That is natural music of a complex and fascinating kind. It sounds to me like the overtone series plays a big part, like there must be several air sacks, each of which can be overblown to produce one or more harmonics? But why guess? I'll kneel to the Lord Google and pray for enlightenment …

Oh, about the music: When several birds called out of sync and at different distances afield it was like the stretto of a fugue, shards of audial lighting flickering skyward, each ending with a high trill.

As for "a piano growing in a pasture," would you settling for a flaming piano planted in a pasture?:


----------



## Fredx2098

Woodduck said:


> Nothing wrong with believing that one composer is superior to another. It's more reasonable than believing that no composer is superior to any other.
> 
> Anyone think Bach is no better than Babbitt? (Sorry, Milt. I could have used Raff, but KenOC has beat up on him enough already.)


I definitely prefer Babbitt over Bach. I'm sure you have to opposite opinion and that's fine and dandy, but I have my own opinion.


----------



## Guest

Fredx2098 said:


> talking about The Beatles like they're they only "great" rock band.


Well, d'uh !


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> Well, d'uh !


What does the apostrophe stand for?


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> What does the apostrophe stand for?


Well I don't know - I didn't invent randomly punctutated internet memes that could be posted with or without

(or possibly I was getting confused with 'd'oh'...and I don't know what that apostrophe stands for either!)


----------



## janxharris

One might wonder if composers whose own tonal works were lacking in originality sought a way to achieve it through the 12 tone system. Without doubt, such works shocked their audiences with the new.


----------



## Guest

janxharris said:


> One might wonder if composers whose own tonal works were lacking in originality sought a way to achieve it through the 12 tone system. Without doubt, such works shocked their audiences with the new.


That thought reminds me of Lachenmann's _Marche Fatale_-basically the inverse for Lachenmann fans.


----------



## aleazk

Is tonality natural?

I guess that, being in the physics business, I should have something to say. Well, I do, but it's not very helpful. Sound is a periodic change in air pressure, a mechanical wave, some waves are more complex than others and they can superpose to yield various resulting effects.

And that would be all. And this is because, when these waves hit the ear membrane, they get coded in nervous impulses that are then directed to that BIG mess of interconnections called brain of which we have a shameful, to our scientific pride, almost null, knowledge when it comes to the actual details about how these interconnections process these signals to produce the sensations we feel. I say this just to put things in perspective, since, if you jump to conclusions, very likely you will be doing pseudo-science rather than elucidating the question.

And, in fact, if there's a word that is unadequate to describe the brain responses, that is the word natural. Indeed, if there's a key aspect of it success, it's its capability to discard what it thought it was natural and to work with new languages, new facts, new discoveries, etc., that reality gives to it. It's incredibly plastic to adapt to, and discover, the self-sufficient rules of new patterns. A dramatic example of this is how, with just a few months of training, the brain can discard all of its prejudices about the, what it would seem, 'natural' state of everyday physical reality, in which every object that exists has a well defined position, to the apparent non-sense given by quantum physics, in which a piece of matter can exist without having a position, in which two pieces of matter can 'telepathically' (in Einstein's words; they are pejorative, since he was against this, but experiments later proved that he was mistaken) send instantaneous messages to each other (even if separated by arbitrarily long distances), and the list could go on. Thus, so much for what the brain can take as natural at first glance, since even this brain itself changes its opinion due to its intrinsically plastic nature, which is, after all, the quality that made humans to get to the advanced point to which they got.

To assume there's something 'natural' in tonality is akin to suggest that the brain has some sort of Kantian a prioristic immutable prejudice with which it perceives the world. With something as complex as art-music, that seems rather dubious, even Kant himself only applied that to very simple things like the perception of time and spatial order. But, to emotions, to joy, and to any other extremely complex emergent phenomena from that interconnected mess, I really doubt that.

Now, some would say, 'oh but what about evolution, evolution surely coded into our brains an a prioristic tendency to feel discomfort at dissonance and complex waves'. Well, first of all, that's an empirically falsifiable premise, which can be tested, in principle. With the rudimentary techniques and understanding of even the most modern techniques in brain scan, I wish you luck in that enterprise, you will need it. There are all sorts of junk papers being produced about the 'neuroscience of aesthetics', which serious neuroscientists take as utter nonsense and pseudo-scientific. But one doesn't need to go that far, really. At least at the level of common experience, it has been evidently falsified by the fact that there is a lot of people that enjoy so-called atonal music. In my own case, when I hear tonal music, I easily adapt to the role that dissonance and tonal centers have in this musical language, and when I hear atonal music, I easily adapt to the role these same things have in this other language. Even my emotional response to the same type of wave becomes sensitive to the context of the language in which it's being used, that is, contrary to those claiming the supposed natural association of dissonance with discomfort, I don't perceive it like that in the context of atonal music, while I do perceive it in that way in tonal music. Which one is more natural? In my plastic brain, they stand in equal footing, and it changes from one understanding to the other, as can change from classical to quantum understanding, according to the context and necessity. The question of which one is more natural has been completely emptied of all meaning because of this capacity to re-adapt. And, in fact, as Carnap would say with his internal-external distinction, it does even make much sense to take statements from one language to the other to compare them, it's a meaningless thing to do. 'Yeah but which language is more expressive than the other' well, sorry, but that's highly subjective and it also depends on what one is expressing, and the degree of familiarity that one has with each of them. But what about the intrinsic qualities of each language. No atonal piece gives me what Ravel's Le jardin feerique gives me, but no tonal/modal piece gives the poetic lament of Ligeti's Automne a Varsovie. 'Aha!' you may say 'so you admit tonal gives so-called positive emotions while atonal gives the negative ones'. No, only in those examples, and, again, highly subjective. And even the naturalness of positive vs. negative emotions is debatable (Schopenhauer would tell that evidently the negative ones are the most natural and profound considering the considerable and disproportionate amount of greek tragedies, impossible-love poems, tragic operas and plays, etc., over other forms of expression.)

Thus, to close, I invite you to let your brain to do what it does best rather than resisting to atonality on the basis of a very dubious soil of supposed naturality, at which the brain laughs. It certainly may take some effort if one comes from the paradigm of another language, and, also, not all persons respond in the same way, etc. And it's precisely because of this that one should be careful about imposing supposed natural standards for what others should perceive.


----------



## Fredx2098

Well said, aleazk. By the way, I love your avatar, if that's who I think it is (my favorite jazz pianist).


----------



## millionrainbows

Western tonality is based on a harmonic "model" which is a scale. These scale steps are assigned "functions" within that scale, all in relation to the starting "key" note of the scale.
These functions are derived from the harmonic series, and the intervallic relationships with that "hierarchy" and all other scale "models" of that hierarchy.

We must accept it as a "given" that the 12-note division of the octave is based on Pythagorean-derived "stacking" or projection of fifths; this generates all 12 notes. The diatonic C major scale is a partial realization of this 12-cycle, but it stops at 7: F-C-G-D-A-E-B (the fact that we start on C is one of those quirks of historical development).

So, if tonal function is derived from the vertical perception of intervals, then Schoenberg's music (and his rows) can be seen as having "function," although not tonal, in this context, as long as the intervals are perceived as "root movements" of chords.

But in a totally chromatic environment such as atonality, "root movement" is a very open field. Still, an interval of a fifth up (C-G) will still be perceived vertically, by our ear, as "root on bottom" as long as the context is that of a "root movement" between 2 chords. In the case of atonality, these may be any kind of harmonic aggregate (I hesitate to say "chord"). The movement of a bass note, intervallically, may still be perceived as establishing a relationship between two harmonic entities.

It gets dicier as we see smaller intervals, such as major seconds or major thirds, but even in Western tonal music, root movements of a major third are heard as being vague, and not being a definite establishment of "dominance" of a root station.


----------



## millionrainbows

Since "harmony" in Western music developed out of linear aspects of melodic lines which combined, the idea of "chords" and "functions" of those chords did not develop until all the kinks were worked out. "Root movement" was a kind of "shorthand" way of creating a "harmonic progression" of chords as separate entities apart from the linear and melodic aspects.

Since atonal music uses all 12 notes continuously, it tends to become a linear matrix. "Root movement" of chords becomes melded into the polyphonic fabric, so that it has less meaning and relevance in atonality.

Defenders of tonality, when comparing tonality and atonality, should be aware of these discrepancies, and of the rather limited and "template-like" quality harmony's technique of "root movement" shorthand in terms of function and in establishing tonality.


----------



## Razumovskymas

aleazk said:


> In my own case, when I hear tonal music, I easily adapt to the role that dissonance and tonal centers have in this musical language, and when I hear atonal music, I easily adapt to the role these same things have in this other language. Even my emotional response to the same type of wave becomes sensitive to the context of the language in which it's being used, that is, contrary to those claiming the supposed natural association of dissonance with discomfort, I don't perceive it like that in the context of atonal music, while I do perceive it in that way in tonal music.


My theory (in my case) is that the brain (my brain) when hearing atonal music, adapts in a way that it suggests tonality when not actually hearing atonality. It spots the slightest tonal reference and leaves out notes or fills in so the same "emotions" are triggered as with tonal music. I think my brain does it that way because it's too "tonal". People here on this forum tell me that's a wrong way of listening to atonal music but I ask myself if it is really possible to listen to it any other way? This train of though made me state: "it's impossible to compose atonal music, one can only try"


----------



## fluteman

millionrainbows said:


> We must accept it as a "given" that the 12-note division of the octave is based on Pythagorean-derived "stacking" or projection of fifths; this generates all 12 notes.


That's right, but each of those fifths, when adjusted for equal temperament, is 2 cents off. Stack twelve of them, and you're 24 cents off, hence the Pythagorean "comma", which is the point the original poster was making. Many scholars and musicians prefer earlier systems of temperament as a better compromise, at least for pre-mid 19th century music. But late Romantic music has harmonic progressions of such complexity, and "vertical" harmony of such density, that equal temperament is more convenient.

I've heard Bach played in Werckmeister III tuning, and it sounds slightly microtonal or out of tune, even non-Western. I think that is because my ears are so thoroughly accustomed to a different artificial construct, i.e., equal temperament. I think Woodduck is right that humans seek to establish order or regular patterns in any sensory input so as to be able to make sense of it. "Order" most likely implies a hierarchy. "Regular patterns" do not, at least not necessarily.


----------



## Fredx2098

Razumovskymas said:


> My theory (in my case) is that the brain (my brain) when hearing atonal music, adapts in a way that it suggests tonality when not actually hearing atonality. It spots the slightest tonal reference and leaves out notes or fills in so the same "emotions" are triggered as with tonal music. I think my brain does it that way because it's too "tonal". People here on this forum tell me that's a wrong way of listening to atonal music but I ask myself if it is really possible to listen to it any other way? This train of though made me state: "it's impossible to compose atonal music, one can only try"


I think this is a good way of thinking. I think it aligns with what shirime has said about hearing the intervals in atonal music that imply harmony, if I'm interpreting correctly. I personally think the widest emotional range is possible when not limiting the notes you use, as well as not necessarily using every note equally in a serial way.


----------



## Guest

It is, at root, a compromise. If you divide the octave into 12 equal chromatic steps you end up with pretty decent approximations of the important "pure" intervals, the perfect fifth, forth, major third, minor third. Even though they did not have equipment for measuring frequency on those days, instrument makers could "see" frequency because the length of an organ pipe or vibrating string is directly related to frequency.

If you try dividing the octave another way (into 10 steps, 11, steps, 13, 14, 15, steps, etc) You don't get as good approximations of the perfect intervals.


----------



## JAS

All of the asserting that atonal music is not really all that different than tonal music, or that it is melodic or beautiful in basically the same way, is instantly defeated when I actually listen to examples of said music. One of these things is clearly not like the other, and I certainly know which one I prefer.


----------



## Fredx2098

JAS said:


> All of the asserting that atonal music is not really all that different than tonal music, or that it is melodic or beautiful in basically the same way, is instantly defeated when I actually listen to examples of said music. One of these things is clearly not like the other, and I certainly know which one I prefer.


Who is asserting that? I don't think anyone is saying that the atonal style is closely similar to tonal style. That's the reason some of us prefer it. It's perfectly fine that you prefer tonal music, but that's not the only "correct" opinion. I certainly know which one I prefer as well. How long has the phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" been around?


----------



## Barbebleu

Fredx2098 said:


> Well said, aleazk. By the way, I love your avatar, if that's who I think it is (my favorite jazz pianist).


It's either Bill Evans or Glenn Gould I think! Either way, both brilliant!:lol:


----------



## Fredx2098

Barbebleu said:


> It's either Bill Evans or Glenn Gould I think! Either way, both brilliant!:lol:


I'm in love with Bill Evans. Ornette Coleman is amazing as well!


----------



## DaveM

aleazk said:


> Is tonality natural?
> 
> I guess that, being in the physics business, I should have something to say. Well, I do, but it's not very helpful. Sound is a periodic change in air pressure, a mechanical wave, some waves are more complex than others and they can superpose to yield various resulting effects...
> 
> To assume there's something 'natural' in tonality is akin to suggest that the brain has some sort of Kantian a prioristic immutable prejudice with which it perceives the world. With something as complex as art-music, that seems rather dubious, even Kant himself only applied that to very simple things like the perception of time and spatial order. But, to emotions, to joy, and to any other extremely complex emergent phenomena from that interconnected mess, I really doubt that.
> 
> *Now, some would say, 'oh but what about evolution, evolution surely coded into our brains an a prioristic tendency to feel discomfort at dissonance and complex waves'. Well, first of all, that's an empirically falsifiable premise, which can be tested, in principle. With the rudimentary techniques and understanding of even the most modern techniques in brain scan, I wish you luck in that enterprise, you will need it.* There are all sorts of junk papers being produced about the 'neuroscience of aesthetics', which serious neuroscientists take as utter nonsense and pseudo-scientific. But one doesn't need to go that far, really. At least at the level of common experience, it has been evidently falsified by the fact that there is a lot of people that enjoy so-called atonal music. In my own case, when I hear tonal music, I easily adapt to the role that dissonance and tonal centers have in this musical language, and when I hear atonal music, I easily adapt to the role these same things have in this other language.


Well that's an interesting journey from a statement of one's background in the sciences to the dismissal of the value or possibility of scientific testing to a finale of one's anecdotal experience from which final conclusions are drawn.

The fact is that significant testing has been done on the human response to consonance and dissonance starting with 2-4 day old infants. From a recent paper (2015):
_
'Even infants, with no prior knowledge or training of any sort, prefer consonance over dissonance. Several studies have examined infants' response to consonant and dissonant sounds and have found that newborns as young as 2-4 days show a preference of consonance over dissonance (Perani. Saccuman, Scitb. Spada, Andreolli. Rovelli, et al., 2009 ; Masataka, 2006 ; Schellenberg & Trainor, 1996 ; Trainor et al., 2002). The babies looked longer at a sound source that was producing consonant music than they did a sound source that produced dissonant music. Perani et al. (2009) found that the brain structures involved in the processing of such things as pitch and sensory consonance-dissonance in mature adults are already present and active in newborns.'_

That does not mean that atonal music can't be enjoyed by humans -we already know that it can. But it does mean that, all things being equal, dissonance is not as naturally pleasurable to humans, young and old, as consonance and while there are some people who apparently take to music with a fair amount of dissonance fairly easily, the majority don't. It does seem that some of the latter can develop a taste for atonal music with effort, but most don't.

Atonal music has been around for 100+ years, yet it has never achieved the widespread popularity (i.e. in concert halls, recordings, published music) -outside academia- that tonal music did and, in fact, it has waned markedly over the last several decades. It continues to surprise me that various posters try to ignore these facts or deny they exist in long tomes as if the more words that are dedicated to the topic, the more likely they are to convince.


----------



## Fredx2098

DaveM said:


> Well that's an interesting journey from a statement of one's background in the sciences to the dismissal of the value or possibility of scientific testing to a finale of one's anecdotal experience from which final conclusions are drawn.
> 
> The fact is that significant testing has been done on the human response to consonance and dissonance starting with 2-4 day old infants. From a recent paper (2015):
> _
> 'Even infants, with no prior knowledge or training of any sort, prefer consonance over dissonance. Several studies have examined infants' response to consonant and dissonant sounds and have found that newborns as young as 2-4 days show a preference of consonance over dissonance (Perani. Saccuman, Scitb. Spada, Andreolli. Rovelli, et al., 2009 ; Masataka, 2006 ; Schellenberg & Trainor, 1996 ; Trainor et al., 2002). The babies looked longer at a sound source that was producing consonant music than they did a sound source that produced dissonant music. Perani et al. (2009) found that the brain structures involved in the processing of such things as pitch and sensory consonance-dissonance in mature adults are already present and active in newborns.'_
> 
> That does not mean that atonal music can't be enjoyed by humans -we already know that it can. But it does mean that, all things being equal, dissonance is not as naturally pleasurable to humans, young and old, as consonance and while there are some people who apparently take to music with a fair amount of dissonance fairly easily, the majority don't. It does seem that some of the latter can develop a taste for atonal music with effort, but most don't.
> 
> Atonal music has been around for 100+ years, yet it has never achieved the widespread popularity (i.e. in concert halls, recordings, published music) -outside academia- that tonal music did and, in fact, it has waned markedly over the last several decades. It continues to surprise me that various posters try to ignore these facts or deny they exist in long tomes as if the more words that are dedicated to the topic, the more likely they are to convince.


If you want to talk about popularity, then all classical music is waning and fading away. It's been getting less and less popular since the advent of jazz, then rock, then pop, in an exponential way. When I go to a classical performance, regardless of the style or popularity, I'm in a very small minority of people under 50-years old. It's definitely not hip with the kiddies anymore, so that isn't really relevant.

The test you mention doesn't seem to support your point. It actually seems to support the title of this thread. It doesn't seem objective to interpret a baby "looking longer" at a source of consonant sound as them "preferring" it. It seems just as likely or more likely that they would look at the source of consonance thinking "what is this strange unnatural sound?"

What does widespread popularity have to do with anything? Popularity and naturalness do not seem to be correlated, same as popularity and talent. Popularity seems to be a result of almost pure luck, and it does not seem relevant to discuss.


----------



## millionrainbows

fluteman said:


> That's right, but each of those fifths, when adjusted for equal temperament, is 2 cents off. Stack twelve of them, and you're 24 cents off, hence the Pythagorean "comma", which is the point the original poster was making. Many scholars and musicians prefer earlier systems of temperament as a better compromise, at least for pre-mid 19th century music. But late Romantic music has harmonic progressions of such complexity, and "vertical" harmony of such density, that equal temperament is more convenient.


Yes, each fifth in ET is 2 cents off; but the 12-note division was arrived at through "stacking" or projection of this interval, because after 12 steps, it "almost" coincides with itself, and was adjusted later in history.

ET favors the fifth, over other intervals such as thirds, because it needs the least adjustment.

It's irrelevant that it's off by 2 cents when considering how "12" was arrived at as the division we use...unless you take that so much for granted that you're not thinking about it. I'm thinking about it, in the context of tonality and all 12 key areas.

Consider the major third: it's a whopping 14 cents sharp in ET! So the reason fifths are more important is that they are the dominant overtone, and lend stability to triads in progressions based on root movement.


----------



## EdwardBast

DaveM said:


> Well that's an interesting journey from a statement of one's background in the sciences to the dismissal of the value or possibility of scientific testing to a finale of one's anecdotal experience from which final conclusions are drawn.
> 
> The fact is that significant testing has been done on the human response to consonance and dissonance starting with 2-4 day old infants. From a recent paper (2015):
> _
> 'Even infants, with no prior knowledge or training of any sort, prefer consonance over dissonance. Several studies have examined infants' response to consonant and dissonant sounds and have found that newborns as young as 2-4 days show a preference of consonance over dissonance (Perani. Saccuman, Scitb. Spada, Andreolli. Rovelli, et al., 2009 ; Masataka, 2006 ; Schellenberg & Trainor, 1996 ; Trainor et al., 2002). The babies looked longer at a sound source that was producing consonant music than they did a sound source that produced dissonant music. Perani et al. (2009) found that the brain structures involved in the processing of such things as pitch and sensory consonance-dissonance in mature adults are already present and active in newborns.'_
> 
> That does not mean that atonal music can't be enjoyed by humans -we already know that it can. But it does mean that, all things being equal, dissonance is not as naturally pleasurable to humans, young and old, as consonance and while there are some people who apparently take to music with a fair amount of dissonance fairly easily, the majority don't. It does seem that some of the latter can develop a taste for atonal music with effort, but most don't.
> 
> Atonal music has been around for 100+ years, yet it has never achieved the widespread popularity (i.e. in concert halls, recordings, published music) -outside academia- that tonal music did and, in fact, it has waned markedly over the last several decades. It continues to surprise me that various posters try to ignore these facts or deny they exist in long tomes as if the more words that are dedicated to the topic, the more likely they are to convince.


1. What data do you have showing that atonal music is generally more dissonant than tonal music? Among the great things about tonality is that it provides a system by which intense dissonance can be made readily digestible, so there are passages by people named Bach that are more intensely dissonant than most of Schoenberg. You are likely confusing level of dissonance with resolved versus unresolved dissonance.
2. And even if it could be shown that atonal music has a higher level of dissonance, how would one isolate that factor's role in palatability from all the others?
3. What does the preference for isolated consonant intervals have to do with the enjoyment or appreciation of real music? The conclusions you seem to be drawing from the baby study would be like saying babies prefer the sound of the letter O over the letter E, therefore all nursery rhymes should avoid Es.
4. Babies tend not to like spicy curry to the same extent adults do. Does that mean adults shouldn't enjoy it?


----------



## aleazk

DaveM said:


> Well that's an interesting journey from a statement of one's background in the sciences to the dismissal of the value or possibility of scientific testing to a finale of one's anecdotal experience from which final conclusions are drawn.
> 
> The fact is that significant testing has been done on the human response to consonance and dissonance starting with 2-4 day old infants. From a recent paper (2015):
> _
> 'Even infants, with no prior knowledge or training of any sort, prefer consonance over dissonance. Several studies have examined infants' response to consonant and dissonant sounds and have found that newborns as young as 2-4 days show a preference of consonance over dissonance (Perani. Saccuman, Scitb. Spada, Andreolli. Rovelli, et al., 2009 ; Masataka, 2006 ; Schellenberg & Trainor, 1996 ; Trainor et al., 2002). The babies looked longer at a sound source that was producing consonant music than they did a sound source that produced dissonant music. Perani et al. (2009) found that the brain structures involved in the processing of such things as pitch and sensory consonance-dissonance in mature adults are already present and active in newborns.'_


On the contrary, I respect science so much that I mention clearly what are its limitations, so that others can't use its name and prestige to propagate nonsense supposedly based on it. As for the study, I mentioned that few neuroscientists take those very seriously, or very literally at least. And, even if I accept that, which may even be weakly true, it doesn't contradict what I said. As I mentioned, at first glance, the brain tends to consider natural certain things (I gave the example of incorrect notions from objects described with classical physics). But my claim is that those notions can be changed relatively easily, that they are not immutable, and therefore the notion of what's natural becomes uninteresting, at least to me. As I clearly mentioned, I was talking about a type of Kantian a prioristic notion which cannot be changed. Evolution can certainly code all sorts of silly stuff in our brains, since this brain was conceived by nature in order to deal with predators, smart food search, etc., and certainly not for the highly sophisticated life of a cosmopolitan listener of the rarified field of classical music (or quantum physics). But most of those things can be changed and we do it constantly, since we live in the modern world and those things are useless now. I just contradicted the supposed immutable a prioristic character of tonal music and that people that enjoy atonal music are, therefore, posers, cranks, liars, sub-human, and all sorts of insults. The truth is that they genuinely enjoy that music, and the reason why this is the case lies, I think, in the brain mechanisms I mentioned. For them, it's genuinely natural.



DaveM said:


> That does not mean that atonal music can't be enjoyed by humans -we already know that it can. But it does mean that, all things being equal, dissonance is not as naturally pleasurable to humans, young and old, as consonance and while there are some people who apparently take to music with a fair amount of dissonance fairly easily, the majority don't. It does seem that some of the latter can develop a taste for atonal music with effort, but most don't.


It certainly may require some effort for some people (it took some effort in my case, until I had a click and everything started to make more sense), since it means to adapt to new languages. Most people are not interested in classical music. Those which are, are only moderately interested in it and they don't really care about adapting to anything, and that's okay, to each its own, I don't adapt to a lot of other stuff either for which I have only a moderate interest. Of the rather small minority which are very interested, some adapt, some others don't, again, I also mentioned that.



DaveM said:


> Atonal music has been around for 100+ years, yet it has never achieved the widespread popularity (i.e. in concert halls, recordings, published music) -outside academia- that tonal music did and, in fact, it has waned markedly over the last several decades. It continues to surprise me that various posters try to ignore these facts or deny they exist in long tomes as if the more words that are dedicated to the topic, the more likely they are to convince.


I would suggest you not to jump to such sloppy generalizations. Actually, for something that has been around for only 100 years, it has a good amount of recordings by top musicians. Second, I don't know where you live, but it would help you to get your head out of the hole from time to time and to see what's happening around. In my case, when Boulez died, I assisted to an homage in Buenos Aires. The piece in the program was, guess what, Le marteau sans maitre. The, medium sized, concert hall was full. I'm pretty sure you would characterize that piece as utterly dry and of interest only to academics. Well, I really doubt that old school serialist academics (are they even still alive?) can fill a whole hall. In fact, most of the people were quite young. And this is happening right now in a lot of cities around the world that have a strong tradition in high culture. In other occasion, I went to see a rather obscure piece by Stockhausen, Trans, at the Teatro Colón, which is a traditional opera house. It wasn't full like, say, in an Argerich recital, but it was as full as any other normal event, say 2/3. On yet another occasion, I went to see Xenakis' Pleiades at the same venue, and this time was full, an immense opera house full of people that went by themselves to see an 'ultramodern piece'. A notoriously big herd of masochists? No, they simply enjoy it. So, when I read statements like yours, and because of my first person experience, I cannot help to laugh a bit at the cliché and utterly false view which is being expressed.


----------



## aleazk

Razumovskymas said:


> My theory (in my case) is that the brain (my brain) when hearing atonal music, adapts in a way that it suggests tonality when not actually hearing atonality. It spots the slightest tonal reference and leaves out notes or fills in so the same "emotions" are triggered as with tonal music. I think my brain does it that way because it's too "tonal". People here on this forum tell me that's a wrong way of listening to atonal music but I ask myself if it is really possible to listen to it any other way? This train of though made me state: "it's impossible to compose atonal music, one can only try"


I'm not going to say to you what's the 'correct' way of listening, that's silly. Certainly, one can try to hear tonal patterns, there are many. In my case, I don't do that since for that I already have tonal music. I simply find more interesting the way in which the composer chooses to order the successions of intervals to many diverse effects, of which transient weak and local tonal centers are only a small subset. I tend to like the combinatory of contrasting intervals. Implied harmony or whatever is secondary to me. The level of dissonance of the intervals is irrelevant to me in those cases, what is important is something different than dissonance and which I only can call their individual character (it may be related to dissonance, but I feel it goes beyond that and something that is obscured in tonal music, concerned as it is with function, dissonance, etc.)

I think it's in the aspect I mentioned where atonal or freely chromatic music has something new to offer, since, considering that it uses all the 12 notes and in a more recurring but also possibly free way, one has at disposition a wider range of interval combinatorics and contrasts than in tonal music. Some may call it 'intellectual', but I don't agree with that, since, when I listen, I don't think 'oh a sixth followed by a second', I just simply feel it, and, also, things go so fast that one simply doesn't have the time for such explicit thoughts.


----------



## DaveM

EdwardBast said:


> 1. What data do you have showing that atonal music is generally more dissonant than tonal music? Among the great things about tonality is that it provides a system by which intense dissonance can be made readily digestible, so there are passages by people named Bach that are more intensely dissonant than most of Schoenberg. You are likely confusing level of dissonance with resolved versus unresolved dissonance.


I'm not confusinng anything with anything. Instead of comparing 'passages by people named Bach', how about comparing works of comparable length. (Btw, regarding 'passages by people named Bach that are more intensely dissonant than most of Schoenberg: reference please). Unresolved dissonance is dissonance in the altogether: it was Schoenberg in his 1926 essay who stated that one of his goals was 'The Emancipation of Dissonance'. That's from the horse's mouth.



> 3. What does the preference for isolated consonant intervals have to do with the enjoyment or appreciation of real music? The conclusions you seem to be drawing from the baby study would be like saying babies prefer the sound of the letter O over the letter E, therefore all nursery rhymes should avoid Es.
> 4. Babies tend not to like spicy curry to the same extent adults do. Does that mean adults shouldn't enjoy it?


These studies go into far more detail than I'm prepared to post. You can sneer at studies all you want or you can look some of them up before disparaging them. Apparently, you don't think that the fact that infants don't find dissonance as pleasurable as consonance _may suggest_ that more effort is going to be necessary to understand/enjoy music with a lot of unresolved dissonance (using terminology to make you happy). Apparently you think that dissonance has nothing to do with the fact that atonal music has not been accepted -or is not as accessible- as tonal music.


----------



## aleazk

EdwardBast said:


> 1. What data do you have showing that atonal music is generally more dissonant than tonal music? Among the great things about tonality is that it provides a system by which intense dissonance can be made readily digestible, so there are passages by people named Bach that are more intensely dissonant than most of Schoenberg. You are likely confusing level of dissonance with resolved versus unresolved dissonance.
> 2. And even if it could be shown that atonal music has a higher level of dissonance, how would one isolate that factor's role in palatability from all the others?
> 3. What does the preference for isolated consonant intervals have to do with the enjoyment or appreciation of real music? The conclusions you seem to be drawing from the baby study would be like saying babies prefer the sound of the letter O over the letter E, therefore all nursery rhymes should avoid Es.
> 4. Babies tend not to like spicy curry to the same extent adults do. Does that mean adults shouldn't enjoy it?


A big problem with those 'studies' is that the people that design them tend to use caricature definitions of the things they want to study. In this case, as you mention, 'dissonance' without considering its context in a piece or system. One may get some information about isolated dissonance, but by restricting it to such narrow notion, the 'study' loses strength. And, actually, this point is precisely the critiques that other neuroscientists tend to do.


----------



## EdwardBast

DaveM said:


> I'm not confusinng anything with anything. Instead of comparing 'passages by people named Bach', how about comparing works of comparable length. (Btw, regarding 'passages by people named Bach that are more intensely dissonant than most of Schoenberg: *reference please*). Unresolved dissonance is dissonance in the altogether: it was Schoenberg in his 1926 essay who stated that one of his goals was 'The Emancipation of Dissonance'. That's from the horse's mouth.
> 
> These studies go into far more detail than I'm prepared to post. You can sneer at studies all you want or you can look some of them up before disparaging them. Apparently, you don't think that the fact that infants don't find dissonance as pleasurable as consonance _may suggest_ that more effort is going to be necessary to understand/enjoy music with a lot of unresolved dissonance (using terminology to make you happy). Apparently you think that dissonance has nothing to do with the fact that atonal music has not been accepted -or is not as accessible- as tonal music.


Reference: Listen to the second movement of the Brandenburg Concerto No. 2!

What does emancipation have to do with intensity?

It would be absurd to extrapolate anything about the effort required to understand/enjoy any particular type of music from infants' differential responses to consonant and dissonant intervals. Greater attention to a stimulus from infants is taken as a sign of greater interest. How did you get from interest to enjoyment? Did the little buggers fill out questionnaires or what?

No, I don't think "that dissonance has nothing to do with the fact that atonal music has not been accepted." It might have something to do with it. I'm just skeptical that dissonance is the main factor.


----------



## DaveM

aleazk said:


> ...As for the study, I mentioned that few neuroscientists take those very seriously, or very literally at least.


The passage that I quoted from that study, gave 4 references supporting its findings. Do you have any proof whatsoever that neuroscientists do not take those particular studies seriously?



> It certainly may require some effort for some people (it took some effort in my case, until I had a click and everything started to make more sense), since it means to adapt to new languages.


Okay, we've got that settled.



> I would suggest you not to jump to such sloppy generalizations.


_You mean like 'the brain tends to consider natural certain things...my claim is that those notions can be changed relatively easily'_ or_ 'Evolution can certainly code all sorts of silly stuff in our brains, since this brain was conceived by nature in order to deal with predators, smart food search, etc., and certainly not for the highly sophisticated life of a cosmopolitan listener of the rarified field of classical music (or quantum physics).'
_


> Second, I don't know where you live, but it would help you to get your head out of the hole from time to time and to see what's happening around.


Well that's not very nice. I live in a rather nice hole



> In my case, when Boulez died, I assisted to an homage in Buenos Aires. The piece in the program was, guess what, Le marteau sans maitre. The, medium sized, concert hall was full. I'm pretty sure you would characterize that piece as utterly dry and of interest only to academics. Well, I really doubt that old school serialist academics (are they even still alive?) can fill a whole hall. In fact, most of the people were quite young.


You mean to tell me that in an homage to Pierre Boulez, a Boulez work was on the program? Quelle surprise!



> And this is happening right now in a lot of cities around the world that have a strong tradition in high culture. In other occasion, I went to see a rather obscure piece by Stockhausen, Trans, at the Teatro Colón, which is a traditional opera house. It wasn't full like, say, in an Argerich recital, but it was as full as any other normal event, say 2/3. On yet another occasion, I went to see Xenakis' Pleiades at the same venue, and this time was full, an immense opera house full of people that went by themselves to see an 'ultramodern piece'. A notoriously big herd of masochists? No, they simply enjoy it. So, when I read statements like yours, and because of my first person experience, I cannot help to laugh a bit at the cliché and utterly false view which is being expressed.


Okay, you win. Atonal and Avant Garde music is taking the world by storm.


----------



## Fredx2098

I wonder which would be more likely to cause the popularity of classical music to grow over time: performing the same "great" works by the same "great" composers from hundreds of years ago ad infinitum for hundreds of years, or developing new ideas and having a large variety of musical styles.


----------



## aleazk

DaveM said:


> The passage that I quoted from that study, gave 4 references supporting its findings. Do you have any proof whatsoever that neuroscientists do not take those particular studies seriously?


Lol, of course they have references. In today's science, if there's something which you will always find is tons of papers to justify almost any claim. Are you familiar with what has been called the 'replication crisis' in scientific psychology? I will give you a short summary: the field is in crisis because of the great amount of easily marketable nonsense that is constantly being produced and printed in papers, that is difficult to reproduce by other teams, authors that endogamically cite each other to generate a snowball effect of citations of works of dubious quality, all this mainly a product of desperation because of the extreme peak to which the publish or perish dogma has escalated. In physics, this has reached an apotheosis in fields like string theory and other branches of high energy physics, multiverse mania, and other equally pseudo-scientific topics.



DaveM said:


> Okay, we've got that settled.


Great.



DaveM said:


> _You mean like 'the brain tends to consider natural certain things...my claim is that those notions can be changed relatively easily'_ or_ 'Evolution can certainly code all sorts of silly stuff in our brains, since this brain was conceived by nature in order to deal with predators, smart food search, etc., and certainly not for the highly sophisticated life of a cosmopolitan listener of the rarified field of classical music (or quantum physics).'
> _


When the change does happen, it does it relatively easily. For those that it never happens, what I said doesn't apply by definition, duh.



DaveM said:


> Well that's not very nice. I live in a rather nice hole


Better to enjoy some sunlight from time to time.



DaveM said:


> You mean to tell me that in an homage to Pierre Boulez, a Boulez work was on the program? Quelle surprise!


I said that in the context of what I latter clarified about that particular piece being considered as difficult and dry and that, nevertheless, the hall was full. Learn to read a text.



DaveM said:


> Okay, you win. Atonal and Avant Garde music is taking the world by storm.


Not the world nor by storm. But it does fill lots of concert halls around the globe. That's a fact. You should update your fossilized data. Until that, I do win indeed. Thank you, I'm glad we got that settled


----------



## Larkenfield

Have no fear: there will always be room for new composers and their music. But to be played by live musicians will probably require that they're just as lucky as they are talented. The competition is so great for live performances. Here are 10 young composers who are redefining classical music today, and I happen to like much of what I hear: https://theculturetrip.com/north-america/usa/articles/top-10-young-composers-who-are-redefining-classical-music/

The young need to be encouraged and not discouraged by those who think they know everything. They don't. No one does. But I also hope that the young composers will someday understand and deeply respect a Bach or a Beethoven as much as they do contemporary music and be able to discuss them in depth. Without that, I think the young are starting at the end of the history of the foundation of the music and will be missing out on just how high the standards for composers have been down through the centuries, and it's not about young composers trying to repeat in style what they did. It's about the dedication to the art of writing and that it can be one of the hardest things in the world to do something of true originality and inspiration that's never been done before.


----------



## Guest

aleazk said:


> I do win indeed. Thank you, I'm glad we got that settled


Well played, sir! Mods: close the thread!


----------



## DaveM

EdwardBast said:


> Reference: Listen to the second movement of the Brandenburg Concerto No. 2!


So you think that that work is more intensely dissonant than most of Schoenberg? Fine, an opinion, unsubstantiated by any supporting evidence, but still, an opinion.



> What does emancipation have to do with intensity?


'Intensity' is apparently your subject of interest. Mine was the role of dissonance in atonal music that has made it more difficult for both the majority of classical music listeners and the general public to appreciate it. You apparently want to micro-dissect the subject with issues relating to resolution of dissonance and intensity, but I don't see the point. Apparently, Schoenberg didn't either since he specifically talked about the 'emancipation of dissonance' as if dissonance, in general, was an important factor in his development of atonal music. If has specifically pointed to 'intensity of dissonance' then please point it out.



> It would be absurd to extrapolate anything about the effort required to understand/enjoy any particular type of music from infants' differential responses to consonant and dissonant intervals. Greater attention to a stimulus from infants is taken as a sign of greater interest. How did you get from interest to enjoyment? Did the little buggers fill out questionnaires or what?


Who said anything about 'enjoyment' being a factor in the study. I stated, some people do enjoy atonal music. You must have skimmed over the reason I presented that study. And the little buggers didn't fill out questionnaires -that's too old school. They responded on their iPhone 8s.



> No, I don't think "that dissonance has nothing to do with the fact that atonal music has not been accepted." It might have something to do with it...


Could've fooled me given the veiled outrage in response to my post.


----------



## Fredx2098

Larkenfield said:


> Have no fear: there will always be room for new composers and their music. But to be played by live musicians will probably require that they're just as lucky as they are talented. The competition is so great for live performances. Here are 10 young composers who are redefining classical music today, and I happen to like much of what I hear: https://theculturetrip.com/north-am...composers-who-are-redefining-classical-music/
> 
> The young need to be encouraged and not discouraged by those who think they know everything. They don't. No one does. But I also hope that the young composers will someday understand and deeply respect a Bach or a Beethoven as much as they do contemporary music and be able to discuss them in depth. Without that, I think the young are starting at the end of the history of the foundation of the music and will be missing out on just how high the standards for composers have been down through the centuries, and it's not about young composers trying to repeat in style what they did. It's about the dedication to the art of writing and that it can be one of the hardest things in the world to do something of true originality and inspiration that's never been done before.


What gives you the idea that "the young" don't understand and respect Bach or Beethoven? I've never heard of a person who likes contemporary music and does not understand or respect earlier composers. Nothing has been said by me or any other "young" person that should make you think that we've only heard modern music and don't care about or appreciate anything else. Someone who only appreciates modern music is just as bad as someone who only appreciates old music.


----------



## DaveM

aleazk said:


> Lol, of course they have references. In today's science, if there's something which you will always find is tons of papers to justify almost any claim. Are you familiar with what has been called the 'replication crisis' in scientific psychology? I will give you a short summary: the field is in crisis because of the great amount of easily marketable nonsense that is constantly being produced and printed in papers, that is difficult to reproduce by other teams, authors that endogamically cite each other to generate a snowball effect of citations of works of dubious quality, all this mainly a product of desperation because of the extreme peak to which the publish or perish dogma has escalated. In physics, this has reached an apotheosis in fields like string theory and other branches of high energy physics, multiverse mania, and other equally pseudo-scientific topics.


Your background is apparently in physics. What do you know about neuroscience? My background is in the medical sciences. And you still didn't provided any proof to substantiate that few neuroscientists take the studies I mentioned seriously. And btw, the issue of publish or perish is an old, old story. It doesn't mean that every study is useless.



> I said that in the context of what I latter clarified about that particular piece being considered as difficult and dry and that, nevertheless, the hall was full. Learn to read a text.


Incivility does not buy credibility.



> Not the world nor by storm. But it does fill lots of concert halls around the globe. That's a fact. You should update your fossilized data. Until that, I do win indeed. Thank you, I'm glad we got that settled


Those who have to proclaim, 'I win' are not confident that they didn't lose.


----------



## janxharris

EdwardBast said:


> 1. What data do you have showing that atonal music is generally more dissonant than tonal music? Among the great things about tonality is that it provides a system by which intense dissonance can be made readily digestible, so *there are passages by people named Bach that are more intensely dissonant than most of Schoenberg.* You are likely confusing level of dissonance with resolved versus unresolved dissonance.


A specific example would be helpful EdwardBast. I'd be astonished if your assertion were true.


----------



## janxharris

Does anyone relax and 'meditate' to dissonant sounds?


----------



## Fredx2098

janxharris said:


> Does anyone relax and 'meditate' to dissonant sounds?


Yes. Dissonance and noise can be very meditative and relaxing.


----------



## janxharris

EdwardBast said:


> 1. What data do you have showing that atonal music is generally more dissonant than tonal music? Among the great things about tonality is that it provides a system by which intense dissonance can be made readily digestible, so there are passages by people named Bach that are more intensely dissonant than most of Schoenberg. You are likely confusing level of dissonance with resolved versus unresolved dissonance.





EdwardBast said:


> Reference: Listen to the second movement of the Brandenburg Concerto No. 2!


Poll:
Is the 2nd mvmt of Bach's Brandenburg Concerto no.2 more dissonant than Schoenberg?


----------



## Larkenfield

*S*



janxharris said:


> Does anyone relax and 'meditate' to dissonant sounds?


Of course not. Not for me. Dissonances stimulate; consonances balance and relax. Dissonances, if loud enough, drown out the activities of thought within the mind without calming it-and that's what some will call "meditation". Suppression of thought is not meditation; non-attachment to thought is meditation in which the mind becomes inwardly quiet and stills itself. If the music is jarring and dissonant it invariably breaks the spell of the meditation. Drowning out thought is not taught as meditation by its teacher even if it can provide some sense of relief or distraction from the noise of one's thoughts and the incessant activities of the mind.

Music for Zen Meditation:


----------



## Enthusiast

Larkenfield said:


> Of course not. Not for me. Dissonances stimulate; consonances balance and relax. Dissonances, if loud enough, drown out the activities of thought within the mind without calming it-and that's what some will call "meditation". Suppression of thought is not meditation; non-attachment to thought is meditation in which the mind becomes inwardly quiet and stills itself. If the music is jarring and dissonant it invariable breaks the spell of the meditation. Drowning out thought is not taught as meditation by its teacher even if it can provide some sense of relief or distraction from the torment of one's thoughts and the incessant activities of the mind.


This thread keeps going into and out of areas that I am completely incompetent to comment on! I think personally that dissonant sound can be "meditative" (as in thoughtful, perhaps in an unfocused and dispersed way) and relaxing but I _think_ I agree with what you say about meditation itself. The reason I am not sure is that there are so many ways to an altered and heightened state (dervish practice, for example).

I guess your need to use the phrase "if loud enough" suggest that there may be agreement that dissonances per se are not always and of themselves disturbing to us?


----------



## Enthusiast

DaveM said:


> Your background is apparently in physics. What do you know about neuroscience? My background is in the medical sciences. And you still didn't provided any proof to substantiate that few neuroscientists take the studies I mentioned seriously. And btw, the issue of publish or perish is an old, old story. It doesn't mean that every study is useless.


I guess I could claim a background in psychology - albeit the cognitive kind rather that neuroscience (so your background may place you between me and a physicist?) - and I am certainly aware that there are many grounds to be guarded about taking the conclusions of the research you mention as having much to teach us about something as complex as music and our reactions to it.


----------



## janxharris

DaveM said:


> Well that's an interesting journey from a statement of one's background in the sciences to the dismissal of the value or possibility of scientific testing to a finale of one's anecdotal experience from which final conclusions are drawn.
> 
> The fact is that significant testing has been done on the human response to consonance and dissonance starting with 2-4 day old infants. From a recent paper (2015):
> _
> 'Even infants, with no prior knowledge or training of any sort, prefer consonance over dissonance. Several studies have examined infants' response to consonant and dissonant sounds and have found that newborns as young as 2-4 days show a preference of consonance over dissonance (Perani. Saccuman, Scitb. Spada, Andreolli. Rovelli, et al., 2009 ; Masataka, 2006 ; Schellenberg & Trainor, 1996 ; Trainor et al., 2002). The babies looked longer at a sound source that was producing consonant music than they did a sound source that produced dissonant music. Perani et al. (2009) found that the brain structures involved in the processing of such things as pitch and sensory consonance-dissonance in mature adults are already present and active in newborns.'_
> 
> That does not mean that atonal music can't be enjoyed by humans -we already know that it can. But it does mean that, all things being equal, dissonance is not as naturally *pleasurable* to humans, young and old, as consonance and while there are some people who apparently take to music with a fair amount of dissonance fairly easily, the majority don't. It does seem that some of the latter can develop a taste for atonal music with effort, but most don't.
> 
> Atonal music has been around for 100+ years, yet it has never achieved the widespread popularity (i.e. in concert halls, recordings, published music) -outside academia- that tonal music did and, in fact, it has waned markedly over the last several decades. It continues to surprise me that various posters try to ignore these facts or deny they exist in long tomes as if the more words that are dedicated to the topic, the more likely they are to convince.


I think _pleasurable_ is the wrong word unless you qualify the context. If it's relentless then maybe, but even then it would depend on the piece and intent of the composer.

Is eternal summer more pleasurable than summer viewed after a hard winter?


----------



## aleazk

DaveM said:


> Your background is apparently in physics. What do you know about neuroscience? My background is in the medical sciences. And you still didn't provided any proof to substantiate that few neuroscientists take the studies I mentioned seriously. And btw, the issue of publish or perish is an old, old story. It doesn't mean that every study is useless.


My background is mathematical physics, not 'apparently' so. But I also have a background in the philosophy of science, of physics and epistemology. So, I know what I'm talking about. Not only I did substantiate my claim, I directed you to a whole polemics that is going on right now in the psychological sciences precisely because of that type of 'studies'. The so-called "replication crisis", of which publish or perish, as old as it may be, is only one of its dimensions and is worse than ever: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis



DaveM said:


> Those who have to proclaim, 'I win' are not confident that they didn't lose.


Well, you invoked that term first, I only accepted your claim


----------



## aleazk

janxharris said:


> Does anyone relax and 'meditate' to dissonant sounds?


Actually, yes! In eastern cultures, the dissonance and beat frequency volume undulation produced by the combination of a pitch with various other pitches that are just microtones appart from it, i.e., what in the western world we would simply call as an 'out of tune instrument', is considered as more 'sacred' and 'pure' than the mere total consonance. This is particularly striking in, e.g., gamelan music from Indonesia: 




If you listen carefully, you will see that all of the sounds are quite 'out of tune' in western terms. They simply can't stand pure western style consonance. They deliberately tune their instruments in that way in order to avoid total consonance.

Thus, so much for Dave's study. I guess Indonesian kids wouldn't be considered human by the study, since they give a da*n about his consonance. As I said, context, cultural context is important: learn to deal with the diversity.


----------



## EdwardBast

DaveM said:


> So you think that that work is more intensely dissonant than most of Schoenberg? Fine, an opinion, unsubstantiated by any supporting evidence, but still, an opinion.


The dissonance in the second movement of Brandenburg 2 isn't subjective. There are harsh dissonances on the strong beats of most of its measures and plenty of others in between. On the first beat of measure 7, for example, we have D, C#, E, and F sounding simultaneously - a m2, M7, and m7 all at the same time. Go hit those together on a piano! By any acoustical standard that is extremely harsh. It is obvious Bach was going for the strongest dissonance the tonal system could bear. Why does it not bother you? Because of its context and the way the dissonances resolve. My point is that much milder dissonance in Schoenberg is going to bother you more than the Bach because the issue is not how much dissonance, it is how the dissonance is treated. The violent dissonance in the Bach is mitigated by the fact that all of the lines have linear continuity within a harmonic progression. My point is that you are complaining about the wrong thing.



DaveM said:


> 'Intensity' is apparently your subject of interest. Mine was the role of dissonance in atonal music that has made it more difficult for both the majority of classical music listeners and the general public to appreciate it. You apparently want to micro-dissect the subject with issues relating to resolution of dissonance and intensity, but I don't see the point. Apparently, Schoenberg didn't either since he specifically talked about the 'emancipation of dissonance' as if dissonance, in general, was an important factor in his development of atonal music. If has specifically pointed to 'intensity of dissonance' then please point it out.


By emancipation of the dissonance Schoenberg wasn't calling for more dissonance, he was calling for freeing dissonance from the linear treatment it requires in a tonal, triadically based system.



DaveM said:


> Who said anything about 'enjoyment' being a factor in the study. I stated, some people do enjoy atonal music. You must have skimmed over the reason I presented that study. And the little buggers didn't fill out questionnaires -that's too old school. They responded on their iPhone 8s.


You did when you summed up the study by saying it shows dissonance is not naturally as pleasurable to humans, young or old.



DaveM said:


> Could've fooled me given the veiled outrage in response to my post.


There was no outrage whatever. I'm just trying to show you that what you are reacting against in atonal music is likely not dissonance per se, it is how it is treated in context or, more likely, the less systematic nature of its linear motion.



janxharris said:


> I think _pleasurable_ is the wrong word unless you qualify the context. If it's relentless then maybe, but even then it would depend on the piece and intent of the composer.
> 
> Is eternal summer more pleasurable than summer viewed after a hard winter?


Exactly. That's what I'm getting at. Each of Bach's biting dissonances just makes the following sonority sweeter. It is not that Schoenberg's dissonance bites more, it is that the language he is using doesn't systematically follow up the bites with something sweeter.


----------



## fluteman

millionrainbows said:


> Consider the major third: it's a whopping 14 cents sharp in ET! So the reason fifths are more important is that they are the dominant overtone, and lend stability to triads in progressions based on root movement.


Yes, after twelve steps it "almost" coincides with itself, and that "almost" is the Pythagorean comma. It's very easy to overblow on the C flute and produce the natural overtone series: C1 C2 G2 C3 E3 G3 Bb3 corresponding to frequency ratios 1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, 1/6, and 1/7 and producing a major triad and a dominant seventh chord as well as the two octaves above the fundamental. As you say, the fifth is 2 cents sharp, the major third is 14 cents flat, and the minor seventh is 31 cents flat when compared to equal temperament.

Traditional barbershop quartet songs are based on the dominant seventh chord, and to achieve a powerful, "ringing" quality, where the overtones reinforce the fundamentals, the singers try to approximate these natural intervals. This is also sometimes true in a string quartet. But equal temperament is now firmly entrenched in most Western music, thanks in part to the growing dominance of keyboard instruments, but also in my opinion to growing harmonic complexities in the mid to late 19th century -- intervals of 9ths, 11ths, and even 13ths, and progressions that wander very far from the tonal center.

Modern music threw a splash of cold water on all that harmonic complexity, much as the increasingly elaborate and decorative architecture of the late 19th century suddenly gave way to the clean uncluttered lines of Bauhaus in the early 20th.


----------



## aleazk

shirime said:


> Is Tonality based on Nature?
> 
> No.
> 
> (that's the tl;dr for those who can't be bothered reading a long post)
> 
> Go outside, listen to the birds, the crickets, a croaking frog, a barking dog, the wind rustling the leaves in the trees or the sound of the waves crashing against the rocks on the shore. Sounds of nature.
> 
> Now take those sounds inside with you (with the help of a microphone/recording device) and analyse the sound spectrum using AudioSculpt or a similar software. You will see a sound spectrum, the physical qualities of the sound, the *truth* or the sound, the sound as it exists in *nature.* You will find that these spectra are all different, all unique and all complex, bearing little to no resemblance to the Harmonic Overtone Series.
> 
> Now clap your hands, stamp your feet, click your fingers. These are sounds we can make quite naturally.
> 
> Record and analyse them too. Their spectra are also complex, bearing little to no resemblance to the Harmonic Series.
> 
> Now sing. Just one pitch, any pitch.
> 
> Record it, analyse it. Aha! Now we get to something which we can safely say is more or less similar to the Harmonic Series! Is this where Tonality As We Know It comes from? Is this the binding truth that Tonality is Natural, despite all the previous analyses of 'natural sounds' that _didn't_ bear this resemblance???
> 
> No.
> 
> Let's take a look at the Harmonic Series a little more closely, shall we?
> 
> View attachment 105061
> 
> 
> Looks pretty rooted in Tonality to me, doesn't it? Looks like the closest we can get to the scientific/natural 'proof' that the intervals, chords and harmonic progressions that are at the heart of Tonality are 'based on nature,' wouldn't you say?
> 
> Except that it isn't.
> 
> Look at the Harmonic Series again and you will notice that above every note that isn't in the pitch-class C is coloured and has a +_n_ or -_n_ above it. That shows how far removed from the approximate pitch in equal temperament (the tuning system we use today) each overtone is in hundredths of a semitone (aka *cents*). We use equal temperament to combat the inequalities of the Harmonic Series, to alter its Natural Properites so that we can *adjust them to our taste, to our culture.* Historically, western music adjusted the intervals of the harmonic series in different ways, resulting in unequal keys with unequally distributed 'pure intervals' (intervals the closest to how they could be found in the lower end of the harmonic series) that gave different keys a certain quality to them, or an *affect* (see: Doctrine of the Affections).
> 
> These *adjustments* to the _natural order_ is what makes tonality so interesting, so rich and so diverse in its usage through time. One such adjustment, equal temperament (which we know and love today) even paved the way for the development of non-tonal harmonic languages! Harmonic progressions in the Common Practice Era (the kind of tonality that flourished in western music from the mid 17th to the late 19th centuries) resulted after centuries of musical development, stylistic change, adjustments and alterations of the tuning of intervals and chords and, with the world in perspective, only _one way of doing things_ with music.
> 
> All this in mind, take a listen to some traditional music from non-western cultures to experience and appreciate totally different histories to how human beings have always (and always will) take the *Natural* and make it *Unnatural* to create *Art.*


There seems to be a neo-Pythagorean tendency to consider that 'pure' ratios or simple numbers must obviously be 'natural' and that we humans must fall under the tyranny of this 'purity', since 'nature' says so.

Pure mystical nonsense. In today's particle physics, there's a similar mystical and pseudo-scientific notion. Somehow, it has been declared as law of nature that the ratio of the fundamental constants that appear in physical theories must be equal to the number 1. Why? 'cause it would be nice, elegant, 'natural', ..." 'cause God likes it"? And hear now how they call this supposed principle: the 'principle of naturalness'. Mmm, anyone is feeling some eerie resemblance with what is going on here in music?

You may say, 'but physicists are serious people, they must sure have some rigorous justification for it'. But the unfortunate answer is that they have none. In fact, right now there's an ongoing polemics in the field because of the tons of papers that have been produced under the guidance of this so-called 'principle of nature', at the cost of the neglection and detriment of other research paths.

A prominent research area called supersymmetry has been developed under the guidance of this mystical principle, as well as other parasitic, to it, lines of research like string theory. Tons of money have been directed towards it. The ridiculously expensive LHC particle accelerator was actually designed with supersymmetry in mind. This theory predicts a lot of new particles. None of them have been found to date and many (almost everyone outside this endogamic circle of mystical researchers) think that they simply don't exist and that all this tragicomedy is one of the greatest fiascos in physics' history. Some even would call it intellectual fraud.

You may think 'you gotta be kiddin', it's difficult to believe that most of mainstream research in particle physics, both theoretical and experimental, is based on such a pseudo-scientific basis'. Unfortunately, that's the crude truth and the pathetic results are public for anyone to seem them.

I apologize for this physics divertion, but the parallels with the topic of this thread are indeed striking. As Aldous Huxley put it, 'the only lesson from history is that humans don't learn from the lessons of history'.


----------



## JAS

EdwardBast said:


> Exactly. That's what I'm getting at. Each of Bach's biting dissonances just makes the following sonority sweeter. It is not that Schoenberg's dissonance bites more, it is that the language he is using doesn't systematically follow up the bites with something sweeter.


So, listening to Schoenberg will make whatever I listen to afterwards sound better. Got it.


----------



## aleazk

JAS said:


> So, listening to Schoenberg will make whatever I listen to afterwards sound better. Got it.


To me is the opposite, tonality tends to sound like black and white after hearing an atonal piece. Very contrasting? Sure, but very limited, too. But, hey, some people are so insensitive and burn out that need their daily dose of cocaine or some other illegal drug, and the after-it-down peak, to feel something. Other people can see and appreciate subtletly and don't need such devices. Kids, don't do drugs, they are bad


----------



## Thomyum2

EdwardBast said:


> Exactly. That's what I'm getting at. Each of Bach's biting dissonances just makes the following sonority sweeter. It is not that Schoenberg's dissonance bites more, it is that the language he is using doesn't systematically follow up the bites with something sweeter.





JAS said:


> So, listening to Schoenberg will make whatever I listen to afterwards sound better. Got it.


Sweeter, yes; better, not necessarily. To expand on the metaphor, we can also taste and enjoy things that sour, salty, bitter too. Our minds and our senses allow us to experience a wide array of things beyond just the simple pleasures.


----------



## aleazk

Thomyum2 said:


> Our minds and our senses allow us to experience a wide array of things beyond just the simple pleasures.


What I always find puzzling in these discussions is that these people come to classical music to demand simple minded, easy to understand and feel stuff, while classical music, being a high art, is intrinsically opposed to that provincial view. Really, if these people crave so much for tonal centers, easy to get peaks of tension and relief, then they should go to popular music where you have plenty of that. They also have tons of traditional old repertoire to find pleasure in them. I'm not trying to defend a 'specialist' approach to classical music, but I am indeed against those provincial approaches to it. Go figure.

If this makes classical music to go in directions different than those that the 'great public' would like, the worse for that public. High art is destined by its nature to that, that should be obvious.


----------



## JAS

aleazk said:


> What I always find puzzling in these discussions is that these people come to classical music to demand simple minded, easy to understand and feel stuff, while classical music, being a high art, is intrinsically opposed to that provincial view. Really, if these people crave so much for tonal centers, easy to get peaks of tension and relief, then they should go to popular music where you have plenty of that. They also have tons of traditional old repertoire to find pleasure in them. I'm not trying to defend a 'specialist' approach to classical music, but I am indeed against those provincial approaches to it. Go figure.
> 
> If this makes classical music to go in directions different than those that the 'great public' would like, the worse for that public. High art is destined by its nature to that, that should be obvious.


Of course, the distinction you are providing, I suspect you fully understand, is inherently unfair and untrue. Traditional classical music may be simpler, in a sense, than more modern approaches, and it may be easier to listen to, indeed it is probably easier to listen to even if that isn't necessarily the point, but you immediately jump to the extreme, which is illogical and not helpful to the discussion. Indeed, one of the challenges of these discussions always tends to center on how precisely to distinguish the approaches (and in some cases to admit that there is a distinction).


----------



## DaveM

aleazk said:


> My background is mathematical physics, not 'apparently' so. But I also have a background in the philosophy of science, of physics and epistemology. So, I know what I'm talking about. Not only I did substantiate my claim, I directed you to a whole polemics that is going on right now in the psychological sciences precisely because of that type of 'studies'. The so-called "replication crisis", of which publish or perish, as old as it may be, is only one of its dimensions and is worse than ever: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
> 
> Well, you invoked that term first, I only accepted your claim


I'm surprised that someone in the sciences would write off some studies without knowing anything about them on the basis of nothing more than 'a whole polemics that is going on right now in the psychological sciences.' Show me something specific that states that all studies in neuroscience are not to be trusted and I'll be more convinced.

And show me where I used the term 'win' first.

EDIT: Don't bother. I did say 'You win.' first.


----------



## aleazk

JAS said:


> Of course, the distinction you are providing, I suspect you fully understand, is inherently unfair and untrue. Traditional classical music may be simpler, in a sense, than more modern approaches, and it may be easier to listen to, indeed it is probably easier to listen to even if that isn't necessarily the point, but you immediately jump to the extreme, which is illogical and not helpful to the discussion. Indeed, one of the challenges of these discussions always tends to center on how precisely to distinguish the approaches (and in some cases to admit that there is a distinction).


I already recognized, in previous posts, the differences and explained what I look for when I hear atonal music. And you are mistaken, the lack of logic is in those coming here with provincial demands to classical music. I'm just pointing that out.

If you look for tension/relief dialectics in atonal music, you are imposing the rules of one system to another, and, of course, the latter will come quite unflattered from that. But this imposition is a logical mistake, since we are talking about two completely different languages. And those who know this, but, nevertheless, insist in the imposition, are being intellectualy dishonest.

As I mentioned, when I want what tonal music has to offer... I go and listen to tonal music, duh, since it does what it does best. The novel aspects that atonal music offers, I claim, have nothing to do with tension/relief dialectics realized in terms of harmonic dissonance. In the harmonic realm, it's about intervallic color and the diverse and free palette one has for this which is absent (in the free way in which it is present in atonal music) in tonal music due to its concerns with harmonic function, tension/relief, etc. The Impressionists already understood this. Bast (I think, he can correct me, of course) would claim that this is a rather weak device in comparison to the tonal paradigm and that this is the reason why the great public prefers tonality. Fine, he and the public can prefer what they please. In my case, and the people who likes atonal music, we also like subtle and extremely refined intervallic coloring. And, also, harmonic tension/relief is not completely absent either (although, of course, to a different degree than tonal music, in the same way that tonal music also has intervallic coloring, but to a different degree than atonal music.)


----------



## aleazk

DaveM said:


> I'm surprised that someone in the sciences would write off some studies without knowing anything about them on the basis of nothing more than 'a whole polemics that is going on right now in the psychological sciences.' Show me something specific that states that all studies in neuroscience are not to be trusted and I'll be more convinced.
> 
> And show me where I used the term 'win' first.


I already mentioned, as Bast did, that it uses a rather narrow notion of dissonance, since it ignores its context in the piece of music and the harmonic system it uses. It's limited and useless. Even the result is extremely weak in terms of power for generalization, considering the Gamelan example I mentioned.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Here is an interesting paper on musical consonance. There are 3 theories or interpretations, but the fact there are 3 separate theories that point to the same thing suggests to me they are interrelated. For example, the reason our speech have more consonant intervals musically may have to do with something subconscious or innate, and the reason the Hemholz model on dissonant interference may have (I would say invariably has)to do with the frequency ratios.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4568680/


----------



## Guest

aleazk said:


> There seems to be a neo-Pythagorean tendency to consider that 'pure' ratios or simple numbers must obviously be 'natural' and that we humans must fall under the tyranny of this 'purity', since 'nature' says so.


There is a physiological reason to favor pure ratios. A tuned instrument produces the harmonic series with frequencies in multiples of the fundamental frequency. The cochlea basically performs a Fourier transform, with individual hair cells triggered by specific frequencies. Such a pattern of stimulus is the simplest thing your ear can encounter in the world.

If you sound a second note is in an integer ratio which corresponds to the harmonic series it will tend mostly reinforce the same hair cells with some additional hair cells being excited. A note which is not in a simple ratio will not line up on the same frequencies/hair cells and will produce a more complex stimulus. Music apparently plays off the modulation of stimulus, from complex to simple.

I believe if you try to go much farther than that you are going into the weeds.


----------



## aleazk

Baron Scarpia said:


> There is a physiological reason to favor pure ratios. A tuned instrument produces the harmonic series with frequencies in multiples of the fundamental frequency. The cochlea basically performs a Fourier transform, with individual hair cells triggered by specific frequencies. Such a pattern of stimulus is the simplest thing your ear can encounter in the world.
> 
> If you sound a second note is in an integer ratio which corresponds to the harmonic series it will tend mostly reinforce the same hair cells with some additional hair cells being excited. A note which is not in a simple ratio will not line up on the same frequencies/hair cells and will produce a more complex stimulus. Music apparently plays off the modulation of stimulus, from complex to simple.
> 
> I believe if you try to go much farther than that you are going into the weeds.


I already knew that. But, as I said, those primitive reactions can be easily domesticated by the brain. Thus, its natural origin becomes irrelevant and useless to me as a theory for the supposed immutable non-naturality of dissonant music.


----------



## Phil loves classical

aleazk said:


> Actually, yes! In eastern cultures, the dissonance and beat frequency volume undulation produced by the combination of a pitch with various other pitchs that are just microtones appart from it, i.e., what in the western world we would simply call as an 'out of tune instrument', is considered as more 'sacred' and 'pure' than the mere total consonance. This is particularly striking in, e.g., gamelan music from Indonesia:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you listen carefully, you will see that all of the sounds are quite 'out of tune' in western terms. They simply can't stand pure western style consonance. They deliberately tune their instruments in that way in order to avoid total consonance.
> 
> Thus, so much for Dave's study. I guess Indonesian kids wouldn't be considered human by the study, since they give a da*n about his consonance. As I said, context, cultural context is important: learn to deal with the diversity.


Listening carefully to some of the Gamalean music, I hear prominent use of the perfect 5th, third (or approximation of them) amid some more dissonant "passing notes" (at least the way my mind interprets or receives the music). There mere repetition enforces the tonic. The dissonant passing notes add interest and a mystical quality, but everything resolves to the tonic through each melodic cycle. Although the tuning is off and not consistent among Gamalean music in general, I believe it still enforces consonance.


----------



## aleazk

Phil loves classical said:


> Listening carefully to some of the Gamalean music, I hear prominent use of the perfect 5th, third (or approximation of them) amid some more dissonant "passing notes" (at least the way my mind interprets or receives the music). There mere repetition enforces the tonic. The dissonant passing notes add interest and a mystical quality, but everything resolves to the tonic through each melodic cycle. Although the tuning is off and not consistent among Gamalean music in general, I believe it still enforces consonance.


My point wasn't harmonic function but the tuning system, which is dissonant and out of tune for modern western standards but that, nevertheless, eastern people consider more pure and pleasurable, even 'sacred'. That's all.

I read somewhere that some monks meditate with a single pitch in the background, but that this pitch must necessarily contain some beat undulation due to microtonal interactions for it to be considered adequate for this, pure and 'sacred'. To be honest, I can't remember where I read it. I guess one could google it.


----------



## Guest

aleazk said:


> I already knew that. But, as I said, those primitive reactions can be easily domesticated by the brain. Thus, its natural origin becomes irrelevant and useless to me as a theory for the supposed immutable non-naturality of dissonant music.


I knew you knew that.  I was just giving emphasis to what I regard as the most central fact.

I don't think it becomes irrelevant. You can develop a taste for fine cognac but it doesn't change the fact that your sense of taste is based on the five fundamental tastes.

Common practice tonality gives a way of way of resolving dissonance to consonance which is not itself "natural" but which relies on the natural sense of consonance and dissonance. Different forms of atonal music seek to use the natural sense of consonance and dissonance in different ways.

For me, it is a matter of "expectation." In tonal music if you year a certain harmonic progression you can expect it to resolve in a conventional way, and you can be surprised if the composer takes it in another direction with introduction of dissonance, a modulation, etc. In atonal music it is not so clear. You have Debussy, in which he uses harmony, consonance, dissonance as a source of color. (Although he probably takes advantage of our expectations developed listening to common practice tonal music). And you have Schoenberg, where he has made a new system which gives a different structure to the music. They all work in different ways, but they still make use of the natural distinction of consonance and dissonance.


----------



## JAS

aleazk said:


> I already recognized, in previous posts, the differences and explained what I look for when I hear atonal music. And you are mistaken, the lack of logic is in those coming here with provincial demands to classical music. I'm just pointing that out.
> 
> If you look for tension/relief dialectics in atonal music, you are imposing the rules of one system to another, and, of course, the latter will come quite unflattered from that. But this imposition is a logical mistake, since we are talking about two completely different languages. And those who know this, but, nevertheless, insist in the imposition, are being intellectualy dishonest.
> 
> As I mentioned, when I want what tonal music has to offer... I go and listen to tonal music, duh, since it does what it does best. The novel aspects that atonal music offers, I claim, have nothing to do with tension/relief dialectics realized in terms of harmonic dissonance. In the harmonic realm, it's about intervallic color and the diverse and free palette one has for this which is absent (in the free way in which it is present in atonal music) in tonal music due to its concerns with harmonic function, tension/relief, etc. The Impressionists already understood this. Bast (I think, he can correct me, of course) would claim that this is a rather weak device in comparison to the tonal paradigm and that this is the reason why the great public prefers tonality. Fine, he and the public can prefer what they please. In my case, and the people who likes atonal music, we also like subtle and extremely refined intervallic coloring. And, also, harmonic tension/relief is not completely absent either (although, of course, to a different degree than tonal music, in the same way that tonal music also has intervallic coloring, but to a different degree than atonal music.)


_You_ might recognize that, but _many clearly do not_. (And these discussions always take place in a context that is much greater than just whatever happens to be the current thread, or even between the current participants. That extended context is sometimes understandably awkward to those who have not partaken in or at least surveyed the other discussions, and it is not necessarily fair to expect anyone to do the homework of going back and digging up old threads. This difficulty, of course works on both sides, and many people bring with them to these discussions private conversations from elsewhere, which cannot be dug up at all. It isn't as if this is the only place where such discussions have taken place.)

With that said, we (positioning myself among the traditionalists) are not imposing the rules of one system on another. We are more accurately rejecting the rules proposed by the other, a perfectly valid option that is apparently not admitted in your view. (It is particularly valid when the thing we are rejecting itself rejects all or many of the elements of value we find in the thing we prefer.) This rejection is not necessarily philosophical or theoretical, but _based on our own actual experience listening to the music in question_ (presumably some sampling of pieces, perhaps more or less extensively, since it is not reasonable to expect anyone to spend a great deal of time examining something that he or she finds overtly unpleasant and/or unrewarding). Thus, the logical mistake you suggest does not apply, and there is no intellectual dishonesty (at least not on our side of the argument).

We can agree on a small point. I too, when I want what tonal music has to offer go and listen to tonal music. But as it happens, I do not value the degree of novelty that you (and presumably many others who like more modern music) would appear to crave. Indeed, I have never found anything in the more modern music I have heard that appealed to me on any level, or seemed worth seeking out a second time (or in other similar pieces). Dissonance in particular is a feature that does not especially appeal to me. Like salt, I find very small doses can help to enhance other flavors, but salt works best when it is not directly noticed, and it is easy for something to become overly salty. Extending the metaphor a bit, iit might also be noted that just eating raw salt is unpleasant and unhealthy.

I think that the chief challenge in these discussions for traditionalists is to find the words to describe the differences and their relative merit or demerit without merely seeming harshly critical or overly judgmental (especially when hampered by strict forum rules and overly-zealous moderators). Almost any attempt will likely be seen as an unacceptably negative statement, and for this problem I have found no real solution. The chief challenge for advocates of more modern music, in addition to trying to avoid sounding condescending (a concern that does not hamper everyone), is that in the end there is the music itself, which either does or does not speak to a given listener.


----------



## aleazk

JAS said:


> _You_ might recognize that, but _many clearly do not_. (And these discussions always take place in a context that is much greater than just whatever happens to be the current thread, or even between the current participants. That extended context is sometimes understandably awkward to those who have not partaken in or at least surveyed the other discussions, and it is not necessarily fair to expect anyone to do the homework of going back and digging up old threads. This difficulty, of course works on both sides, and many people bring with them to these discussions private conversations from elsewhere, which cannot be dug up at all. It isn't as if this is the only place where such discussions have taken place.)
> 
> With that said, we (positioning myself among the traditionalists) are not imposing the rules of one system on another. We are more accurately rejecting the rules proposed by the other, a perfectly valid option that is apparently not admitted in your view. This rejection is not necessarily philosophical or theoretical, but based on our own actual experience listening to the music in question (presumably some sampling of pieces, perhaps more or less extensively, since it is not reasonable to expect anyone to spend a great deal of time examining something that he or she finds overtly unpleasant and/or unrewarding.) Thus, the logical mistake you suggest does not apply, and there is no intellectual dishonesty (at least not on our side of the argument).
> 
> We can agree on a small point. I too, when I want what tonal music has to offer go and listen to tonal music. But as it happens, I do not value the degree of novelty that you (and presumably many others who like more modern music) would appear to crave. Indeed, I have never found anything in the more modern music I have heard that appealed to me on any level, or seemed worth seeking out a second time (or in other similar pieces). Dissonance in particular is a feature that does not especially appeal to me. Like salt, I find very small doses can help to enhance other flavors, but salt works best when it is not directly noticed, and it is easy for something to become overly salty. Extending the metaphor a bit, iit might also be noted that just eating raw salt is unpleasant and unhealthy.
> 
> I think that the chief challenge in these discussions for traditionalists is to find the words to describe the differences and their relative merit or demerit without merely seeming harshly critical or overly judgmental (especially when hampered by forum rules and over-zealous moderators). Almost any statement will likely be seen as a negative statement, and for this problem I have found no real solution. The chief challenge for advocates of more modern music, in addition to trying to avoid sounding condescending (a concern that does not hamper everyone), is that in the end there is the music itself, which either does or does not speak to a given listener.


If you reject it, it's fine to me. We actually agree on that. I said "Bast (I think, he can correct me, of course) would claim that this is a rather weak device in comparison to the tonal paradigm and that this is the reason why the great public prefers tonality. Fine, he and the public can prefer what they please. In my case, and the people who likes atonal music, we also like subtle and extremely refined intervallic coloring."

Traditionalists are free to consider that this is not enough, to completely reject the terms of this new language. I'm certainly not going to impose what others should like or not. But things get really messy when sloppy appeals to science, nature, or whatever are done to invalidate the subjectivity of others.

On a side note, oh, I can tell you, I'm an old contributor to these discussions and know more or less the positions of the regular posters since I have been reading them for years. Respectable positions, but I don't agree with their final value judgement. In fact, I think Bast and I pretty much agree on the fundamentals and simply give a different value judgement for the resulting new language.


----------



## San Antone

> I think that the chief challenge in these discussions for traditionalists is to find the words to describe the differences and their relative merit or demerit without merely seeming harshly critical or overly judgmental (especially when hampered by forum rules and over-zealous moderators). Almost any statement will likely be seen as a negative statement, and for this problem I have found no real solution. The chief challenge for advocates of more modern music, in addition to trying to avoid sounding condescending (a concern that does not hamper everyone), is that in the end there is the music itself, which either does or does not speak to a given listener.


The problem is talking about music.


----------



## JAS

San Antone said:


> The problem is talking about music.


I think the problem isn't necessarily talking about music. Where, really, is the problem when people agree on the music in question (except for the fact that pure and simple agreement is often quickly a recipe for boredom). Talking about music can be complicated by the issue of terminology, and assigning concrete verbal meaning to elusive sensory responses. I think the larger problem is entering a disagreement with the goal of winning rather than just trying to give opposing outlooks a fair examination.


----------



## aleazk

Baron Scarpia said:


> I don't think it becomes irrelevant. You can develop a taste for fine cognac but it doesn't change the fact that your sense of taste is based on the five fundamental tastes.


Yeah, true. When I say 'irrelevant' is that the brain is capable of giving new meanings to these basic inputs, which don't change, as you say, since it's the hardware. Tonal music gives it a more direct meaning related to the first emotional impressions that these inputs induce. These basic input-emotional response correlations may have some evolutionary reason, I don't know. But to me the key is that we don't need to live under the tyranny of these basic 'primitive' (to call it in some way, it's not my intention to be pejorative) correlations. If we do that, then quantum physics wouldn't have been developed since it contradicts basic perceptions in a radical way. And no, I have no intention in carrying this scientific analogy beyond this, i.e., a la Babbitt.

I agree with your 'expectation' take on tonal music. If we adapt to that language, we greatly enjoy those things. I hold to my intervallic color theory in the case of completely atonal music.


----------



## JAS

aleazk said:


> Tonal music gives it a more direct meaning related to the first emotional impressions that these inputs induce. These basic input-emotional response correlations may have some evolutionary reason, I don't know.


If one were feeling impish, one might even call it natural.


----------



## aleazk

JAS said:


> If one were feeling impish, one might even call it natural.


As natural as preferring water instead of a good cognac. I see no utility in that term. If the correlations were Kantian, immutable ones, then I would agree with you. But, while the hardware of the ear is the same, the meaning that the brain gives to these inputs can be changed, and thus these initial correlations do not seem really that natural to me if they can be discarded (at least in the case of some people).

The so-called emancipation of the dissonance is actually more a side effect rather than a goal in itself. At least if we put it in the perspective of all the years that have passed since its introduction. In line with my coloring take, I would say that if one wants to achieve this type of subtle play of harmonic colorations, one needs to have freedom in how to handle the intervals. Tonal functionality tends to constraint this, and this is why one simply discards it. Since harmonic function is not relevant in the atonal language, I have simply learned to ignore it in order to concentrate in the relevant stuff. As a result, unresolved dissonance, in the traditional sense, doesn't produce any distress on me when I listen to atonal music. It is in this sense that I say that the correlations can be changed.


----------



## DaveM

EdwardBast said:


> The dissonance in the second movement of Brandenburg 2 isn't subjective. There are harsh dissonances on the strong beats of most of its measures and plenty of others in between. On the first beat of measure 7, for example, we have D, C#, E, and F sounding simultaneously - a m2, M7, and m7 all at the same time. Go hit those together on a piano! By any acoustical standard that is extremely harsh. It is obvious Bach was going for the strongest dissonance the tonal system could bear. Why does it not bother you? Because of its context and the way the dissonances resolve. My point is that much milder dissonance in Schoenberg is going to bother you more than the Bach because the issue is not how much dissonance, it is how the dissonance is treated. The violent dissonance in the Bach is mitigated by the fact that all of the lines have linear continuity within a harmonic progression. My point is that you are complaining about the wrong thing.
> 
> By emancipation of the dissonance Schoenberg wasn't calling for more dissonance, he was calling for freeing dissonance from the linear treatment it requires in a tonal, triadically based system.


I always enjoy your posts -well most of the time - because I often learn things so I am making an effort not to be confrontational. We are talking at cross purposes. Much of this got started because someone posted a long rambling tome making broad claims about the human response to dissonance. I responded with a study that attempted to show the response of infants to dissonance in general. Then somehow this segues into the intricacies of dissonance in Schoenberg's music. After all the discussions on this subject, it gets daunting discussing anything to do with this subject without it getting into the weeds.

Anyway, as far as '_the issue is not how much dissonance, it is how the dissonance is treated'_, point taken.



> You did when you summed up the study by saying it shows dissonance is not naturally as pleasurable to humans, young or old.


No I didn't. Another example of cross purposes. You made a comment to the effect that one can't extrapolate from that study future enjoyment of music or some such. I responded that I didn't say anything about enjoyment. And I didn't. The studies that showed a preference of infants for consonance over dissonance was in response to the aforementioned poster. I was not jumping to broad conclusions about the enjoyment of music.



> Exactly. That's what I'm getting at. Each of Bach's biting dissonances just makes the following sonority sweeter. It is not that Schoenberg's dissonance bites more, it is that the language he is using doesn't systematically follow up the bites with something sweeter.


I am not the first to say that the dissonance in Schoenberg's music is disturbing. I understand that you find that too general and want to point out out the specifics of resolution of dissonance and intensity. That concept is not new to me and if it makes you feel any better, for the most part, I agree with it, but I was responding to another poster's unfounded general conclusions and after all the discussions about Schoenberg and dissonance on this forum, I sometimes assume that people know what we mean when we use the term 'dissonance' generally associated with Schoenberg because he himself has.


----------



## Fredx2098

JAS said:


> _You_ might recognize that, but _many clearly do not_. (And these discussions always take place in a context that is much greater than just whatever happens to be the current thread, or even between the current participants. That extended context is sometimes understandably awkward to those who have not partaken in or at least surveyed the other discussions, and it is not necessarily fair to expect anyone to do the homework of going back and digging up old threads. This difficulty, of course works on both sides, and many people bring with them to these discussions private conversations from elsewhere, which cannot be dug up at all. It isn't as if this is the only place where such discussions have taken place.)
> 
> With that said, we (positioning myself among the traditionalists) are not imposing the rules of one system on another. We are more accurately rejecting the rules proposed by the other, a perfectly valid option that is apparently not admitted in your view. (It is particularly valid when the thing we are rejecting itself rejects all or many of the elements of value we find in the thing we prefer.) This rejection is not necessarily philosophical or theoretical, but _based on our own actual experience listening to the music in question_ (presumably some sampling of pieces, perhaps more or less extensively, since it is not reasonable to expect anyone to spend a great deal of time examining something that he or she finds overtly unpleasant and/or unrewarding). Thus, the logical mistake you suggest does not apply, and there is no intellectual dishonesty (at least not on our side of the argument).
> 
> We can agree on a small point. I too, when I want what tonal music has to offer go and listen to tonal music. But as it happens, I do not value the degree of novelty that you (and presumably many others who like more modern music) would appear to crave. Indeed, I have never found anything in the more modern music I have heard that appealed to me on any level, or seemed worth seeking out a second time (or in other similar pieces). Dissonance in particular is a feature that does not especially appeal to me. Like salt, I find very small doses can help to enhance other flavors, but salt works best when it is not directly noticed, and it is easy for something to become overly salty. Extending the metaphor a bit, iit might also be noted that just eating raw salt is unpleasant and unhealthy.
> 
> I think that the chief challenge in these discussions for traditionalists is to find the words to describe the differences and their relative merit or demerit without merely seeming harshly critical or overly judgmental (especially when hampered by strict forum rules and overly-zealous moderators). Almost any attempt will likely be seen as an unacceptably negative statement, and for this problem I have found no real solution. The chief challenge for advocates of more modern music, in addition to trying to avoid sounding condescending (a concern that does not hamper everyone), is that in the end there is the music itself, which either does or does not speak to a given listener.


There's no point in "rejecting" a style of art except to be vindictive. The only conflict is being created by you and others who think that your opinion of disliking atonality is more valid than others' opinions. That's ridiculous. The 2 "sides" seem to be people who enjoy tonal music, atonal music, and music in between, and then a group of people simply insulting atonal music and giving anecdotal "proof" that's meant to be assertive. This "discussion" can be boiled down to: "I like atonal music, as well as other styles." "Oh yeah, well I don't, that means you're wrong." When someone says they like something, what gives someone the urge to argue with that person? A desire to stifle someone's enjoyment? A desire to discredit what you don't like? A desire for your opinion to be the only proper one? What is the point?

I like atonal music, dissonance, noise, but also tonal music and consonance. Why do you care?

You don't like atonal music, your own valid opinion. Why should I care? Why should that affect me? What are you contributing to this discussion except negativity and broad dismissal of ideas different from your own?


----------



## aleazk

@DaveM from the beginning I knew you don't agree nor even care about what I have to say. But, since we have completely opposite views (it seems, even regarding science!) in everything, I saw an oportunity, by confronting you, to establish a dialetic form of discourse that would enable me to better expose my views, nothing personal. Other people besides us are reading these discussions and it's them what I have in mind, to be honest, not you. Some of them may find my views interesting, some others don't (of course, you consider them utter nonsense, I already knew that and can happily live with it). The dialetic is now fully developed. Readers can read and form their own opinions about the topic in discussion. I have no further desire in exchanging more posts with you. Best regards.


----------



## JAS

Fredx2098 said:


> There's no point in "rejecting" a style of art except to be vindictive. The only conflict is being created by you and others who think that your opinion of disliking atonality is more valid than others' opinions. That's ridiculous. The 2 "sides" seem to be people who enjoy tonal music, atonal music, and music in between, and then a group of people simply insulting atonal music and giving anecdotal "proof" that's meant to be assertive. This "discussion" can be boiled down to: "I like atonal music, as well as other styles." "Oh yeah, well I don't, that means you're wrong." When someone says they like something, what gives someone the urge to argue with that person? A desire to stifle someone's enjoyment? A desire to discredit what you don't like? A desire for your opinion to be the only proper one? What is the point?


There is every point in rejecting a style of art for reasons that have nothing to do with being vindictive. Time and financial matters are finite. Recognizing what one does and does not like is often merely being pragmatic and realistic. I would suggest that, if we must limit ourselves to two sides, the two sides are people who accept and respect people who do not respond favorably to atonal music, and those who do not. (There are also other groups, including people who like atonal music and look down on tonal music.) The rest of your paragraph is just projection, and requires no further response.



Fredx2098 said:


> I like atonal music, dissonance, noise, but also tonal music and consonance. Why do you care?


About your personal position, I really have no reason to care other than the fact that one can most easily explore alternate views by have discussions with people who hold them. Such a possibility requires a participant who is both willing and able to understand and explain, but that would apparently not be you. (I will be sure to make a note of it, for future reference.)



Fredx2098 said:


> You don't like atonal music, your own valid opinion. Why should I care? Why should that affect me? What are you contributing to this discussion except negativity and broad dismissal of ideas different from your own?


There is no particular reason for you to care, and no reason that my position should affect you, unless you have some interest in alternate points of view (as I do). What I have chiefly contributed to this discussion is the correction of erroneous statements, as slight and unimportant as they may be.


----------



## Fredx2098

JAS said:


> There is every point in rejecting a style of art for reasons that have nothing to do with being vindictive. Time and financial matters are finite. Recognizing what one does and does not like is often merely being pragmatic and realistic. I would suggest that, if we must limit ourselves to two sides, the two sides are people who accept and respect people who do not respond favorably to atonal music, and those who do not. (There are also other groups, including people who like atonal music and look down on tonal music.) The rest of your paragraph is just projection, and requires no further response.
> 
> About your personal position, I really have no reason to care other than the fact that one can most easily explore alternate views by have discussions with people who hold them. Such a possibility requires a participant who is both willing and able to understand and explain, but that would apparently not be you. (I will be sure to make a note of it, for future reference.)
> 
> There is no particular reason for you to care, and no reason that my position should affect you, unless you have some interest in alternate points of view (as I do). What I have chiefly contributed to this discussion is the correction of erroneous statements, as slight and unimportant as they may be.


The concept of respecting someone who simply disagrees with people enjoying a certain kind of art is ridiculous. This thread isn't about rejecting tonality or disrespecting people who don't like atonal music. Like I just said, I enjoy both tonal and atonal music. I don't think I've encountered anyone on here who enjoys atonal music and doesn't enjoy or at least appreciate tonal music, so people talking about how they don't like atonal music are simply spouting pointless negativity, not adding new ideas to a dialectical conversation. The only "alternate views" are people who enjoy fewer musical styles than others. It's a valid opinion, but I see no point in discussing it.


----------



## JAS

Fredx2098 said:


> . . . but I see no point in discussing it.


And so we won't, which is fine by me. I was chiefly interested in correcting a number of misstatements that were made in the discussion, which I think I have done adequately.


----------



## DaveM

aleazk said:


> Actually, yes! In eastern cultures, the dissonance and beat frequency volume undulation produced by the combination of a pitch with various other pitches that are just microtones appart from it, i.e., what in the western world we would simply call as an 'out of tune instrument', is considered as more 'sacred' and 'pure' than the mere total consonance. This is particularly striking in, e.g., gamelan music from Indonesia:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you listen carefully, you will see that all of the sounds are quite 'out of tune' in western terms. They simply can't stand pure western style consonance. They deliberately tune their instruments in that way in order to avoid total consonance.
> 
> Thus, so much for Dave's study. I guess Indonesian kids wouldn't be considered human by the study, since they give a da*n about his consonance. As I said, context, cultural context is important: learn to deal with the diversity.


I presented that study in response to your:

'_Now, some would say, 'oh but what about evolution, evolution surely coded into our brains an a prioristic tendency to feel discomfort at dissonance and complex waves'. Well, first of all, that's an empirically falsifiable premise, which can be tested, in principle. With the rudimentary techniques and understanding of even the most modern techniques in brain scan, I wish you luck in that enterprise, you will need it.'_

The study indicated that infants as young as 2 days old indicated a preference for consonant over dissonant sound. You can try to extrapolate from that anything you like including something that disproves something when it comes to Indonesian kids -which were nowhere to be found in that video- but it didn't come from me.

Besides you reject all neuroscience studies on some broad premise though you have no experience in medical research whatsoever. Not to mention the curious analogy of issues having to do with particles physics with those of the atonal/tonal discussion.

Edit: And given your post -just noted- above, I don't expect any response.


----------



## aleazk

DaveM said:


> I presented that study in response to your:
> 
> '_Now, some would say, 'oh but what about evolution, evolution surely coded into our brains an a prioristic tendency to feel discomfort at dissonance and complex waves'. Well, first of all, that's an empirically falsifiable premise, which can be tested, in principle. With the rudimentary techniques and understanding of even the most modern techniques in brain scan, I wish you luck in that enterprise, you will need it.'_
> 
> The study indicated that infants as young as 2 days old indicated a preference for consonant over dissonant sound. You can try to extrapolate from that anything you like including something that disproves something when it comes to Indonesian kids -which were nowhere to be found in that video- but it didn't come from me.
> 
> Besides you reject all neuroscience studies on some broad premise though you have no experience in medical research whatsoever. Not to mention the curious analogy of issues having to do with particles physics with those of the atonal/tonal discussion.
> 
> Edit: And given your post -just noted- above, I don't expect any response.


----------



## Fredx2098

DaveM said:


> The study indicated that infants as young as 2 days old indicated a preference for consonant over dissonant sound. You can try to extrapolate from that anything you like [...]


I don't think it can be extrapolated that being more interested in consonance indicates a preference. It seems just as likely that they are interested in it because it sounds strange and unnatural, and it's impossible to tell either way. In any case, I fail to see how the study relates to this discussion. No scientific test is going to change the fact that some people enjoy atonal music, and it's no more unnatural than enjoying tonal music.


----------



## Woodduck

aleazk said:


> *Tonality tends to sound like black and white after hearing an atonal piece.* Very contrasting? Sure, but *very limited*, too. But, hey, *some people are so **insensitive and burn out that need their daily dose of cocaine or some other illegal drug, and the after-it-down peak, to feel something.* *Other people can see and appreciate subtlety and don't need such devices.* Kids, don't do drugs, they are bad.
> 
> What I always find puzzling in these discussions is that *these people come to classical music to demand simple minded, easy to understand and feel stuff, while classical music, being a high art, is intrinsically opposed to that provincial view.* Really, *if these people crave so much for tonal centers, easy to get peaks of tension and relief, then they should go to popular music* where you have plenty of that. They also have tons of traditional old repertoire to find pleasure in them. I'm not trying to defend a 'specialist' approach to classical music, but I am indeed against those provincial approaches to it. Go figure.
> 
> *If this makes classical music to go in directions different than those that the 'great public' would like, the worse for that public.* High art is destined by its nature to that, that should be obvious.


This business of rationalizing the musical tastes of others is useless, isn't it? Do you really think that a dislike for the "subtlety" of Birtwistle, Ferneyhough and Lachenmann (or whoever you think is subtle) is evidence of "insensitivity"? Do you really believe that the music of, say, Brahms is "simple-minded," that someone who prefers Brahms to Scelsi must lack the "sensitivity" to enjoy Scelsi, that people who prefer tonal to atonal music may as well just listen to Beyonce, or that music pre-Schoenberg offers listeners nothing more than the equivalent of a cocaine high? Music is diverse and provides many pleasures, intellectual and emotional. I get the feeling that you think the first of these is more respectable than the second.

You say that tonal music is "limited." Well, _all_ music is limited. Limitation is not a fault, neither in art nor elsewhere; it can even be a virtue (just ask Stravinsky). It's just a question of what kinds of limits we're talking about, and what those limits mean for the artistic experience. For many people, the experience of _Le Marteau sans maitre_ is far more limited than the experience of Mozart's _Requiem,_ or even of "Oh Danny Boy," even if they can understand Boulez's abstruse constructions and timbral variety. Intellectual or physical complexity is no assurance of either meaning or merit, and seemingly simple artistic statements can be powerful or even profound. And on the matter of "sensitivity," isn't it conceivable that some people are _too_ sensitive to dissonance to enjoy hearing it slathered all over every square millimeter of a piece of music? Too much of anything becomes unpleasant and tiring, and apparent "insensitivity" might actually be a need to defend against overstimulation, similar to the need of people with acute empathic responses to avoid too-constant exposure to the emotions of others. I could very well turn your "cocaine" metaphor back on you and argue that someone who finds tonal music "black and white" has become insensitive to the power of dissonance when used sparingly and needs the "fix" of atonality.

I could, but I won't. I don't know why anyone likes the music they like or what it says about them. But if atonal Boulez can now fill a concert hall, as you say he can, what's the problem? Why put down people who'd rather hear tonal Tchaikovsky and lump them with lovers of Celine Dionne? It's really enough to point out the specific fallacies proffered by some who may go too far in trying to validate their tastes (or invalidate others' tastes), and you seem to do that well enough.


----------



## Fredx2098

Woodduck said:


> This business of rationalizing the musical tastes of others is useless, isn't it? Do you really think that a dislike for the "subtlety" of Birtwistle, Ferneyhough and Lachenmann (or whoever you think is subtle) is evidence of "insensitivity"? Do you really believe that the music of, say, Brahms is "simple-minded," that someone who prefers Brahms to Scelsi must lack the "sensitivity" to enjoy Scelsi, that people who prefer tonal to atonal music may as well just listen to Beyonce, or that music pre-Schoenberg offers listeners nothing more than the equivalent of a cocaine high? Music is diverse and provides many pleasures, intellectual and emotional. I get the feeling that you think the first of these is more respectable than the second.
> 
> You say that tonal music is "limited." Well, _all_ music is limited. Limitation is not a fault, neither in art nor elsewhere; it can even be a virtue (just ask Stravinsky). It's just a question of what kinds of limits we're talking about, and what those limits mean for the artistic experience. For many people, the experience of _Le Marteau sans maitre_ is far more limited than the experience of Mozart's _Requiem,_ or even of "Oh Danny Boy," even if they can understand Boulez's abstruse constructions and timbral variety. Intellectual or physical complexity is no assurance of either meaning or merit, and seemingly simple artistic statements can be powerful or even profound. And on the matter of "sensitivity," isn't it conceivable that some people are _too_ sensitive to dissonance to enjoy hearing it slathered all over every square millimeter of a piece of music? Too much of anything becomes unpleasant and tiring, and apparent "insensitivity" might actually be a need to defend against overstimulation, similar to the need of people with acute empathic responses to avoid too-constant exposure to the emotions of others. I could very well turn your "cocaine" metaphor back on you and argue that someone who finds tonal music "black and white" has become insensitive to the power of dissonance when used sparingly and needs the "fix" of atonality.
> 
> I could, but I won't. I don't know why anyone likes the music they like or what it says about them. But if atonal Boulez can now fill a concert hall, as you say he can, what's the problem? Why put down people who'd rather hear tonal Tchaikovsky and lump them with lovers of Celine Dionne? It's really enough to point out the specific fallacies proffered by some who may go too far in trying to validate their tastes (or invalidate others' tastes), and you seem to do that well enough.


If it weren't for all the people boldly insulting atonal music, no disparaging of tonal music would have to occur. My point, and I think his point, is that ignorant put-downs can be made up for both tonal and atonal music, and if someone is only interested in tonal music and not willing to try new styles of music, pop music would certainly be a good suggestion for them, and if they don't like that, then they should just be content listening to the classical styles they are comfortable with, without putting down the tastes of others.


----------



## Woodduck

Fredx2098 said:


> If it weren't for all the people boldly insulting atonal music, no disparaging of tonal music would have to occur. My point, and I think his point, is that ignorant put-downs can be made up for both tonal and atonal music, and if someone is only interested in tonal music and not willing to try new styles of music, pop music would certainly be a good suggestion for them, and if they don't like that, then they should just be content listening to the classical styles they are comfortable with, without putting down the tastes of others.


I agree completely that putting down others for their musical tastes is wrong, but responding in kind is peevish and useless. So no, suggesting that people who can't get into Ferneyhough might as well go listen to Justin Bieber is not appropriate.


----------



## DaveM

aleazk said:


> Yeah, true. When I say 'irrelevant' is that the brain is capable of giving new meanings to these basic inputs, which don't change, as you say, since it's the hardware. *Tonal music gives it a more direct meaning related to the first emotional impressions that these inputs induce. These basic input-emotional response correlations may have some evolutionary reason, I don't know*. But to me the key is that we don't need to live under the tyranny of these basic 'primitive' (to call it in some way, it's not my intention to be pejorative) correlations...


Aleazk (edit: I mean, Hal) I'm amazed! We may have more in common than thought. You previously said something to the effect that whatever the brain might be programmed for in early life does not support the 'supposed immutable non-naturality of dissonant music.' So we're clear, I've never promoted the view of some immutable non-naturality of dissonant music.

My point, which you still may not agree with, is that there is some evidence that humans at an early age respond more positively to consonance over dissonance and this might explain why atonal music is not as widely accepted as tonal music. But we also know that _some_ people (in addition to those who apparently like it with little or no effort) who choose to make the effort, can develop an appreciation for atonal music.


----------



## eugeneonagain

I'm very happy that I can find enjoyment in music from the renaissance to now. From Bach to Ives to contemporary new music I hear at the concert hall. 
I really am puzzled when I read this forum and see people heaping scorn on post CP music. Rather more baffled by some of the the hyper-modern/contemporary/post CP crowd who claim to find 'nothing' in the long history of CP music that excites them. In the former there is an attitude of liking what one knows and a strong resistance to the unfamiliar. In the latter I suspect a peculiar overeagerness to portray the image of the ultra forward-thinker.

Broaden your horizons in both directions please. Why short change yourselves? If you've heard very little modernist/contemporary music, you have no room to comment upon it; similarly so for those who really aren't versed in the long history of CP classical music.


----------



## DaveM

Fredx2098 said:


> I don't think it can be extrapolated that being more interested in consonance indicates a preference. It seems just as likely that they are interested in it because it sounds strange and unnatural, and it's impossible to tell either way. In any case, I fail to see how the study relates to this discussion. No scientific test is going to change the fact that some people enjoy atonal music, and it's no more unnatural than enjoying tonal music.


Please refer to my post #761. You might understand better why I mentioned that study.


----------



## DaveM

aleazk said:


>


Damn, I've been talking to Hal all this time!


----------



## aleazk

Woodduck said:


> This business of rationalizing the musical tastes of others is useless, isn't it? Do you really think that a dislike for the "subtlety" of Birtwistle, Ferneyhough and Lachenmann (or whoever you think is subtle) is evidence of "insensitivity"? Do you really believe that the music of, say, Brahms is "simple-minded," that someone who prefers Brahms to Scelsi must lack the "sensitivity" to enjoy Scelsi, that people who prefer tonal to atonal music may as well just listen to Beyonce, or that music pre-Schoenberg offers listeners nothing more than the equivalent of a cocaine high? Music is diverse and provides many pleasures, intellectual and emotional. I get the feeling that you think the first of these is more respectable than the second.
> 
> You say that tonal music is "limited." Well, _all_ music is limited. Limitation is not a fault, neither in art nor elsewhere; it can even be a virtue (just ask Stravinsky). It's just a question of what kinds of limits we're talking about, and what those limits mean for the artistic experience. For many people, the experience of _Le Marteau sans maitre_ is far more limited than the experience of Mozart's _Requiem,_ or even of "Oh Danny Boy," even if they can understand Boulez's abstruse constructions and timbral variety. Intellectual or physical complexity is no assurance of either meaning or merit, and seemingly simple artistic statements can be powerful or even profound. And on the matter of "sensitivity," isn't it conceivable that some people are _too_ sensitive to dissonance to enjoy hearing it slathered all over every square millimeter of a piece of music? Too much of anything becomes unpleasant and tiring, and apparent "insensitivity" might actually be a need to defend against overstimulation, similar to the need of people with acute empathic responses to avoid too-constant exposure to the emotions of others. I could very well turn your "cocaine" metaphor back on you and argue that someone who finds tonal music "black and white" has become insensitive to the power of dissonance when used sparingly and needs the "fix" of atonality.
> 
> I could, but I won't. I don't know why anyone likes the music they like or what it says about them. But if atonal Boulez can now fill a concert hall, as you say he can, what's the problem? Why put down people who'd rather hear tonal Tchaikovsky and lump them with lovers of Celine Dionne? It's really enough to point out the specific fallacies proffered by some who may go too far in trying to validate their tastes (or invalidate others' tastes), and you seem to do that well enough.


You know to what type of people that was targeted at, but I agree it was over the top. Sensitive people with sensible positions about the topic, I have no problem with them if they don't like atonal music. People with provincial attitudes that come here to demand watered down versions of classical music so that it can suit their indeed insensitive tastes, I do have a problem with them, and I doubt they can even get Brahms in all its complexity. It's just all the same 'pretty music' to them, unlike 'ugly' and 'abominable' atonal music 'that shouldn't exist'. These people exist, are in this forum and I'm indeed going to call them into their attitudes.

As for oversensitivity to dissonance, that's actually and interesting point which I addressed in less provocative posts. To enjoy atonal music, it's not really a question of becoming used to dissonance, it's simply not to pay attention to it since it's not central to the style. I can go and listen to tonal music and enjoy without my sensitivity to its tension and relief game in dissonance being dimished at all because of my liking of atonal music. That's why I say it's a question of trying to read a book in japanese thinking it's written in good ol' plain english. It's not. By historical reasons, since tonal language came first, it may indeed take some initial effort to get this new language (as I mentioned, it happened to me and to many others, and this is why I will keep repeating it since very likely others will find the same obstacle at first). Now, after this, some may still be unable to 'get' atonal music. And that's fine to me, they tried, it didn't work, they either got it and didn't like it or are even still unable to get how someone can listen to a wall of dissonance (in their view, at least). But you know very well that a lot of the people that complain here have not even seriously tried. I call that simple minded in the context of a high art like classical music and find their complains dishonest since they know what to expect when you come to a high art. And it's to them that I recommend popular music instead, which is, in many cases, of a simplicity that seems the only palatable thing to them.


----------



## aleazk

DaveM said:


> Aleazk (edit: I mean, Hal) I'm amazed! We may have more in common than thought. You previously said something to the effect that whatever the brain might be programmed for in early life does not support the 'supposed immutable non-naturality of dissonant music.' So we're clear, I've never promoted the view of some immutable non-naturality of dissonant music.
> 
> My point, which you still may not agree with, is that there is some evidence that humans at an early age respond more positively to consonance over dissonance and this might explain why atonal music is not as widely accepted as tonal music. But we also know that _some_ people (in addition to those who apparently like it with little or no effort) who choose to make the effort, can develop an appreciation for atonal music.


I agree with that in general lines. Although I do think that dissonance is more complex than the notion used in the study and that, as Bast said, the reason why the 'general' public may not like it at first hearing is more related to the role of dissonance in tonal function and its 'emancipation' from that in atonal music than to isolated dissonant sounds.


----------



## aleazk

DaveM said:


> Damn, I've been talking to Hal all this time!


Hal is the only sentient character in that film, the others act like robots. And no, I'm not calling you a robot, only to the human characters of the film, Kubrick did that deliberately.


----------



## aleazk

Fredx2098 said:


> If it weren't for all the people boldly insulting atonal music, no disparaging of tonal music would have to occur. My point, and I think his point, is that ignorant put-downs can be made up for both tonal and atonal music, and if someone is only interested in tonal music and not willing to try new styles of music, pop music would certainly be a good suggestion for them, and if they don't like that, then they should just be content listening to the classical styles they are comfortable with, without putting down the tastes of others.


Exactly. To all your points.


----------



## Fredx2098

Woodduck said:


> I agree completely that putting down others for their musical tastes is wrong, but responding in kind is peevish and useless. So no, suggesting that people who can't get into Ferneyhough might as well go listen to Justin Bieber is not appropriate.


Repeatedly stating that atonal music is ugly while others discuss how they personally enjoy it seems similarly peevish and useless. It's not about whether or not you can get into this composer or that composer; it's about broadly writing off all atonal/modern/avant-garde music and saying you only enjoy tonal music. Pop music is very tonal, so it's really not a far-off or insulting suggestion. If someone goes on about how tonality is the most natural and proper and then writes off all pop music, it seems like a fair amount of pretense is involved. I give examples of famous composers who aren't my favorite to show that it's possible to enjoy a style of music without liking every composer of that style. If someone listens to Ferneyhough and Boulez and concludes that they don't like modern music and only like tonal music, I don't think they have enough experience to make that claim.


----------



## Fredx2098

DaveM said:


> Please refer to my post #761. You might understand better why I mentioned that study.


Like I said, I do not see how there is evidence that those babies were responding _positively_ to the consonance. Responding to consonance is not the same as preferring consonance. There's no way to tell what the babies preferred, just what caught their attention.


----------



## JAS

Fredx2098 said:


> Like I said, I do not see how there is evidence that those babies were responding _positively_ to the consonance. Responding to consonance is not the same as preferring consonance. There's no way to tell what the babies preferred, just what caught their attention.


. . . probably just gas.


----------



## Haydn70

Fredx2098 said:


> Repeatedly stating that atonal music is ugly while others discuss how they personally enjoy it seems similarly peevish and useless. It's not about whether or not you can get into this composer or that composer; it's about broadly writing off all atonal/modern/avant-garde music and saying you only enjoy tonal music. Pop music is very tonal, so it's really not a far-off or insulting suggestion. If someone goes on about how tonality is the most natural and proper and then writes off all pop music, it seems like a fair amount of pretense is involved. I give examples of famous composers who aren't my favorite to show that it's possible to enjoy a style of music without liking every composer of that style. If someone listens to Ferneyhough and Boulez and concludes that they don't like modern music and only like tonal music, I don't think they have enough experience to make that claim.


So exactly how much experience with atonality, how many hours of listening to atonality are necessary for someone to make a valid claim (that they don't like atonality) that you will accept?


----------



## eugeneonagain

ArsMusica said:


> So exactly how much experience with atonality, how many hours of listening to atonality are necessary for someone to make a valid claim (that they don't like atonality) that you will accept?


To the point where they can talk about examples from having listened and perhaps discuss the music and its structure, but also the aesthetic elements and its effect upon the (positive) listener.

Listening with a sour face, wishing it was over, just to be able to say: there I listened, I still think it's worthless! Well, that's not enough.

I think I remember reading that you originally started composing in the modern idiom, but shifted priority to CP music. That's only your personal tastes at work though.


----------



## Fredx2098

ArsMusica said:


> So exactly how much experience with atonality, how many hours of listening to atonality are necessary for someone to make a valid claim (that they don't like atonality) that you will accept?


A claim I would accept would be something like "I have listened to some atonal music and I dislike what I've heard so far, but I accept that others really enjoy it," and not "I have listened to some atonal music and I dislike what I've heard so far, therefore I know that all atonal music is ugly and incapable of expressing emotion and people who claim otherwise are wrong."


----------



## DaveM

Fredx2098 said:


> Like I said, I do not see how there is evidence that those babies were responding _positively_ to the consonance. Responding to consonance is not the same as preferring consonance. There's no way to tell what the babies preferred, just what caught their attention.


There is behavior that suggests the preference of infants. According to studies:

After 16 hours babies prefer the sound of human language to other noises.

After 3 days babies clearly prefer human voices, especially their mother's.

After 3-5 weeks babies become especially interested in faces, and particularly in their mother's eyes.


----------



## fluteman

Fredx2098 said:


> A claim I would accept would be something like "I have listened to some atonal music and I dislike what I've heard so far, but I accept that others really enjoy it," and not "I have listened to some atonal music and I dislike what I've heard so far, therefore I know that all atonal music is ugly and incapable of expressing emotion and people who claim otherwise are wrong."


As I keep saying here in various ways, it took centuries to build the elaborate edifice that is Western tonality (or harmony). It is deeply ingrained in our ears (our brains, really). When composers began to tear down key parts of that edifice, it revealed how much we Westerners assume or take for granted in our fundamental concept of what music is. To denigrate everything that does not conform to the traditional Western system of tonality is to be narrow-minded and egocentric. It is assuming the music language one has learned is the only one that is right or even possible.

There is nothing natural about Western harmony, though it makes use of the natural overtone series and appeals to the natural human desire to impose an order on what one encounters in the world. There is also nothing necessary or inevitable about it.


----------



## Woodduck

Fredx2098 said:


> A claim I would accept would be something like "I have listened to some atonal music and I dislike what I've heard so far, but I accept that others really enjoy it," and not "I have listened to some atonal music and I dislike what I've heard so far, therefore I know that all atonal music is ugly and incapable of expressing emotion and people who claim otherwise are wrong."


I can't argue with that. Now if we can ALL remember not to draw unwarranted conclusions about each other...


----------



## Woodduck

I think the business about babies is interesting. If they listen longer to consonant music than to dissonant music, they might be noticing that there's something different about consonance that doesn't seem like just another noise in their environment. But we haven't been told anything more about what music was chosen. Was it music with very obvious, elementary tonal relationships (Mozart or Haydn, perhaps)? If so, we might also wonder at what age the brain can perceive tonality (in its most basic features, the persistence of a tonic and perhaps of the fifth scale degree, common to tonal systems around the world). That there must be an elementary human attraction to tonality is really indisputable, given that it has arisen independently in most of the world's musical traditions. I've speculated here that tonal perception, with its principles of centricity and hierarchy, is an expression and a subset of both basic perceptual functioning and concept formation. But I wonder at what stage in the brain's development it can recognize these patterns in the organization of tones. Maybe that will be the next question to ask of these infants.


----------



## Ivan Smith

of course it is not natural you don't water or fertilise it


----------



## amfortas

Interesting discussion. But I note that when a poster tries to define the two sides of the debate, his or her own side invariably appears as the victim.

There's probably a name for that.


----------



## Ivan Smith

You mean like weed killer...............


----------



## Fredx2098

amfortas said:


> Interesting discussion. But I note that when a poster tries to define the two sides of the debate, his or her own side invariably appears as the victim.
> 
> There's probably a name for that.


If you're referring to me, I just can't see it in any other way. I try to avoid intense argumentative debate in favor of calm dialectical debate as much as possible, but if we're having a conversation about enjoying diverse styles of music and someone says something more assertive than "I personally don't like that kind of music" and argues about it, it seems clear that one side is being more aggressive. You might still be thinking this goes along with what you said, but there's also a thing called the fallacy fallacy...


----------



## janxharris

aleazk said:


> You know to what type of people that was targeted at, but I agree it was over the top. Sensitive people with sensible positions about the topic, I have no problem with them if they don't like atonal music. People with provincial attitudes that come here to demand watered down versions of classical music so that it can suit their indeed insensitive tastes, I do have a problem with them, and I doubt they can even get Brahms in all its complexity. It's just all the same 'pretty music' to them, unlike 'ugly' and 'abominable' atonal music 'that shouldn't exist'. These people exist, are in this forum and I'm indeed going to call them into their attitudes.
> 
> As for oversensitivity to dissonance, that's actually and interesting point which I addressed in less provocative posts. To enjoy atonal music, it's not really a question of becoming used to dissonance, it's simply not to pay attention to it since it's not central to the style. I can go and listen to tonal music and enjoy without my sensitivity to its tension and relief game in dissonance being dimished at all because of my liking of atonal music. That's why I say it's a question of trying to read a book in japanese thinking it's written in good ol' plain english. It's not. By historical reasons, since tonal language came first, it may indeed take some initial effort to get this new language (as I mentioned, it happened to me and to many others, and this is why I will keep repeating it since very likely others will find the same obstacle at first). Now, after this, some may still be unable to 'get' atonal music. And that's fine to me, they tried, it didn't work, they either got it and didn't like it or are even still unable to get how someone can listen to a wall of dissonance (in their view, at least). But you know very well that a lot of the people that complain here have not even seriously tried. I call that simple minded in the context of a high art like classical music and find their complains dishonest since they know what to expect when you come to a high art. And it's to them that I recommend popular music instead, which is, in many cases, of a simplicity that seems the only palatable thing to them.


Your attempt at objectivism failed aleazk. Why the need to put others down?


----------



## Thomyum2

I read a newspaper review of a concert a number of years ago (the piece in question was by Hindemith), and the reviewer obviously did not like it. Under normal circumstances I would accept that as being that person's legitimate opinion and move on, but in this particular case, the reviewer made a comment that the fact that the music was not well liked was 'the fault of the composer and not of the audience' and this got me pretty riled up, and it's stuck with me over the years and I've often struggled to try to understand why I found this upsetting. 

It occurs to me that this seems to be the crux of much of the dispute that's going on in this conversation of tonality vs. atonality (and Schoenberg seems to be the primary one getting beat up on here instead of Hindemith). Now I don't want to stir up more argument, but I think this is a point worth asking about. It seems none of us have a problem with others choosing what they do or don't enjoy or what they choose to listen to. But it seems like the dispute comes when the assertion is made that the reason for not liking the music lies with the shortcomings of the style or the composer or the musical language itself. Is this an area where we're running into trouble because we're blurring the lines between aesthetics with tastes?


----------



## amfortas

Fredx2098 said:


> If you're referring to me, I just can't see it in any other way. I try to avoid intense argumentative debate in favor of calm dialectical debate as much as possible, but if we're having a conversation about enjoying diverse styles of music and someone says something more assertive than "I personally don't like that kind of music" and argues about it, it seems clear that one side is being more aggressive.


I could go back and point out specific posts by various people, but it's probably best to leave it as an "if the shoe fits" thing. People can decide for themselves what does or doesn't apply to them. Or just not worry about it.



Fredx2098 said:


> You might still be thinking this goes along with what you said, but there's also a thing called the fallacy fallacy...


There's also a thing called the fallacy fallacy fallacy (or if there isn't, there should be).


----------



## fluteman

Thomyum2 said:


> I read a newspaper review of a concert a number of years ago (the piece in question was by Hindemith), and the reviewer obviously did not like it. Under normal circumstances I would accept that as being that person's legitimate opinion and move on, but in this particular case, the reviewer made a comment that the fact that the music was not well liked was 'the fault of the composer and not of the audience' and this got me pretty riled up, and it's stuck with me over the years and I've often struggled to try to understand why I found this upsetting.
> 
> It occurs to me that this seems to be the crux of much of the dispute that's going on in this conversation of tonality vs. atonality (and Schoenberg seems to be the primary one getting beat up on here instead of Hindemith). Now I don't want to stir up more argument, but I think this is a point worth asking about. It seems none of us have a problem with others choosing what they do or don't enjoy or what they choose to listen to. But it seems like the dispute comes when the assertion is made that the reason for not liking the music lies with the shortcomings of the style or the composer or the musical language itself. Is this an area where we're running into trouble because we're blurring the lines between aesthetics with tastes?


Another point I've repeatedly tried to make here is that although one is absolutely entitled to one's own tastes, when the question is evaluating the success or worth of a work of art, the key criterion has to be whether it has meaningfully communicated to a significant (not necessarily an enormous) audience, and whether the audience remains after the life of the artist and his contemporaries. To me, the main way of determining this is to examine the long-term influence or impact the art work has had, not just on other art, but on the society and culture generally, including popular culture.

Another point I've raised here repeatedly is, though all are entitled to their personal tastes, what use is it to post "I don't like xyz"? Much more useful to post "I like xyz", and even better to post, "I like xyz and here's why".


----------



## Thomyum2

fluteman said:


> Another point I've repeatedly tried to make here is that although one is absolutely entitled to one's own tastes, when the question is evaluating the success or worth of a work of art, the key criterion has to be whether it has meaningfully communicated to a significant (not necessarily an enormous) audience, and whether the audience remains after the life of the artist and his contemporaries. To me, the main way of determining this is to examine the long-term influence or impact the art work has had, not just on other art, but on the society and culture generally, including popular culture.
> 
> Another point I've raised here repeatedly is, though all are entitled to their personal tastes, what use is it to post "I don't like xyz"? Much more useful to post "I like xyz", and even better to post, "I like xyz and here's why".


Yes, I think you make a good point and I might also add that in order to evaluate 'the success or worth' of a work, it's necessary to look at the specifics and discuss each work on its own merits. Some of the discussions have taken on the impossible task of trying to evaluate the worth of a whole class of works, i.e. all tonal or atonal classical music, which ultimately involves making broad generalizations don't really hold up well when you get down to looking at individual compositions. It strikes me as akin to comparing, for example, the aesthetic value of English vs. French literature based on which language is 'more expressive', which is an exercise that doesn't make much sense to me because there are works in both that have qualities worth exploring beyond just what language they're written in.


----------



## fluteman

Thomyum2 said:


> Yes, I think you make a good point and I might also add that in order to evaluate 'the success or worth' of a work, it's necessary to look at the specifics and discuss each work on its own merits.


Right, or at minimum the work of one composer. I gave some examples above of pop culture references to the atonal, or non-tonal, or extra-tonal, ideas of Schoenberg, Varese and Stockhausen. More recent composers who have had a significant influence on pop culture include Philip Glass and Arvo Part. Arguably Stravinsky, especially The Rite of Spring, had the greatest influence of all on modern music. But if I had to make one broad generalization, it would be that traditional Western harmony, though still very much around and important, is no longer the one leading principle in all Western music. Schoenberg's "atonalism", if we accept that term (I believe he himself didn't), played a key early role in that transition.


----------



## JAS

fluteman said:


> Another point I've raised here repeatedly is, though all are entitled to their personal tastes, what use is it to post "I don't like xyz"? Much more useful to post "I like xyz", and even better to post, "I like xyz and here's why".


While it is certainly true that "I like xyz and here's why" is more useful than "I like xyz" without any explanation, it is simply untrue that "I like xyz and here's why" is in any way necessarily more useful than "I don't like xyz and here's why." It is sometimes true that an advocate of xyz has a particular level of insight into a subject that the presenter has felt compelled to pursue in detail. However, I have more frequently learned a great deal from presenters who were critical of the thing discussed than from those who were in favor of it. Those in favor of a thing are often misled by their preferences, even more commonly than those who have the opposing point of view. (In some cases, I ultimately disagreed with the disagreement, but still found value in the analysis.) Again, I make this point merely to correct a certain error, and not to begin another long back and forth of "is to" and "is not."


----------



## Woodduck

JAS said:


> While it is certainly true that "I like xyz and here's why" is more useful than "I like xyz" without any explanation, it is simply untrue that "I like xyz and here's why" is in any way necessarily more useful than "I don't like xyz and here's why." *It is sometimes true that an advocate of xyz has a particular level of insight into a subject that the presenter has felt compelled to pursue in detail. However, I have more frequently learned a great deal from presenters who were critical of the thing discussed than from those who were in favor of it.*


Interesting point. Liking something is an intrinsically self-justifying and self-sufficient experience for most people. When something "fits like a glove," there's not much motivation to question it. Disliking something, though, is disappointing and disturbing, and we wonder what we're missing. Is there something "wrong" with it, or with ourselves? Why don't we like what others think is wonderful? Our attempts at an explanation may or may not lead to any real understanding, but the effort is at least thought-provoking.


----------



## fluteman

JAS said:


> While it is certainly true that "I like xyz and here's why" is more useful than "I like xyz" without any explanation, it is simply untrue that "I like xyz and here's why" is in any way necessarily more useful than "I don't like xyz and here's why." It is sometimes true that an advocate of xyz has a particular level of insight into a subject that the presenter has felt compelled to pursue in detail. However, I have more frequently learned a great deal from presenters who were critical of the thing discussed than from those who were in favor of it. Those in favor of a thing are often misled by their preferences, even more commonly than those who have the opposing point of view. (In some cases, I ultimately disagreed with the disagreement, but still found value in the analysis.) Again, I make this point merely to correct a certain error, and not to begin another long back and forth of "is to" and "is not."


The reason "I like xyz" is generally more useful than "I dislike xyz", for me anyway, is that I'm always on the prowl for new and interesting music. If someone else finds something worthwhile that I'm not familiar with, that's enough of an incentive for me to follow up, even if no insightful analysis is offered. "I don't like xyz" doesn't provide the same incentive.


----------



## JAS

fluteman said:


> The reason "I like xyz" is generally more useful than "I dislike xyz", for me anyway, is that I'm always on the prowl for new and interesting music. If someone else finds something worthwhile that I'm not familiar with, that's enough of an incentive for me to follow up, even if no insightful analysis is offered. "I don't like xyz" doesn't provide the same incentive.


Recommendations from people with similar tastes (or interests) can certainly be valuable, but in the same regard, so can warnings be valuable. (I can think of several warnings that I wish I had heeded.) Certainly, people tend to prefer advocacy and optimism, unless it is about something for which they have already adopted an opposing position. One thing that I have come to find in the discussions of the present sort is that the things that group A says that it likes about more modern music, tend to be the _same_ things that group B says that it does not like. (Much of the trouble comes from trying to find common ground, and using accepted terms in peculiar ways. There is frequently an implication that people should like more modern music or give it a try, even in cases where they have already done so. But I have yet to see a statement that people who do say they like it should not, only an expression of puzzlement as to why. The more negative view is taken only in the interpretation.)


----------



## amfortas

JAS said:


> Recommendations from people with similar tastes (or interests) can certainly be valuable, but in the same regard, so can warnings be valuable.


Certainly--when it comes to children's car seat designs, prescription drugs, and electrical appliances. Perhaps a bit less so with classical music.


----------



## Fredx2098

Woodduck said:


> Interesting point. Liking something is an intrinsically self-justifying and self-sufficient experience for most people. When something "fits like a glove," there's not much motivation to question it. Disliking something, though, is disappointing and disturbing, and we wonder what we're missing. Is there something "wrong" with it, or with ourselves? Why don't we like what others think is wonderful? Our attempts at an explanation may or may not lead to any real understanding, but the effort is at least thought-provoking.


If someone doesn't enjoy a piece of music, I wouldn't support the idea that they're "missing something" or that they should try to listen to it until they "get it". It's possible that they'd eventually like the music, but I wouldn't suggest for someone to keep trying to appreciate it unless they have some degree of interest. There's no problem with personally disliking certain styles of art, just like there's no problem with enjoying certain styles, but I don't believe that any real art can be intrinsically "wrong" or "right": you either enjoy it or you don't, and there's nothing wrong with a negative opinion unless you try to enforce it. I love to discuss different tastes, but I would not say something like "Feldman is better than all of your favorite composers" or "The Baroque era is the worst period of music". I like to give reasons why I like or dislike things, but it's not meant as an argument to try to get people to agree with me. I also like to hear the reasons that others like or dislike things, but just saying "I don't like this style of music; it's ugly and emotionless," isn't productive or enriching conversation.


----------



## millionrainbows

I think the best way to "like" music is simply to listen to a beautiful example of it.






Here are some of his early tonal songs. Maybe the comparison, with the same singer, will assist in a favorable view.


----------



## Woodduck

Fredx2098 said:


> If someone doesn't enjoy a piece of music, I wouldn't support the idea that they're "missing something" or that they should try to listen to it until they "get it". It's possible that they'd eventually like the music, but I wouldn't suggest for someone to keep trying to appreciate it unless they have some degree of interest. There's no problem with personally disliking certain styles of art, just like there's no problem with enjoying certain styles, but I don't believe that any real art can be intrinsically "wrong" or "right": you either enjoy it or you don't, and there's nothing wrong with a negative opinion unless you try to enforce it.


Basically I don't disagree; no one is obliged to try to enjoy anything. But people seem to vary in the degree to which they take their lack of response to certain music as a challenge. Those with a real passion or a broad general interest in music are often motivated to put some effort into getting to know music even if it doesn't initially appeal to them. Along the way they may have some worthwhile thoughts as to what it is they like or don't like, especially if their impressions change upon deeper acquaintance. I suspect most of us have had such a change in our tastes, and many of us want to understand the reasons for the change. For instance, at 17 I had no use for Brahms, finding him drab and stuffy. But a few years later he became a favorite, and thinking about why my feelings changed so radically gave me some useful insight into both Brahms and myself.


----------



## DaveM

millionrainbows said:


> I think the best way to "like" music is simply to listen to a beautiful example of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are some of his early tonal songs. Maybe the comparison, with the same singer, will assist in a favorable view.


I don't extremely dislike the above. I understand that the 2nd one is 'more tonal', but even after repeated listening, I find it unsettling (particularly with the first) that the music seems to wander here and there. I can't pick up a central melody and I never have a sense as to where the music is going. The singing is beautiful though. For comparison, this is more up my alley:


----------



## fluteman

JAS said:


> Recommendations from people with similar tastes (or interests) can certainly be valuable, but in the same regard, so can warnings be valuable.


There is where we differ fundamentally. Never give me warnings not to listen to music, unless it is so loud I'd be at risk for hearing damage. Thanks, but I'll make up my own mind. Often there is a "group think" us versus them mentality in internet forums that I find especially unproductive. Romantic v. modern music? 19th century v. 20th century? Tonal v. atonal? As Samuel Goldwyn sagely remarked, "Include me the @#$% out."


----------



## JAS

fluteman said:


> There is where we differ fundamentally. Never give me warnings not to listen to music, unless it is so loud I'd be at risk for hearing damage.


I generally only provide warnings where I think they may be relevant, based on other dealings with the person being warned. (It this case, the phrasing is mostly just in keeping with the context.) In a film class I took long before MST3K existed, a teacher noted that one can learn more from watching, analyzing and critiquing a bad movie than a good one. With a bad movie, one learns common traps to avoid, but with good movies there is often a tendency to merely borrow or imitate specific features, rather than using them as inspirations for one's own ideas. In these discussions about music, the negative comments are mostly used for the purpose of context, with the implication of actively requesting a more detailed comment from the other side. There is nothing more boring than a conversation with only one side represented.



fluteman said:


> Thanks, but I'll make up my own mind.


Ditto, and I do.


----------



## Enthusiast

JAS said:


> ..... a teacher noted that one can learn more from watching, analyzing and critiquing a bad movie than a good one. With a bad movie, one learns common traps to avoid, but with good movies there is often a tendency to merely borrow or imitate specific features, rather than using them as inspirations for one's own ideas. In these discussions about music, the negative comments are mostly used for the purpose of context, with the implication of actively requesting a more detailed comment from the other side. There is nothing more boring than a conversation with only one side represented.


As someone who is inspired to explore by both enthusiastic reports and by "I hated this" reports, I am finding this side discussion interesting. When someone hates something - even when they are people I usually agree with - I might still be interested because of the strength of their reaction. But if the reason for hating is blandness or that the music is over-emotional or hackneyed then any interest peaked by the strong emotion is cancelled out by the reason!

I can imagine studying the bad to learn but not for pleasure.


----------



## amfortas

DaveM said:


> I don't extremely dislike the above. I understand that the 2nd one is 'more tonal', but even after repeated listening, I find it unsettling (particularly with the first) that the music seems to wander here and there. I can't pick up a central melody and I never have a sense as to where the music is going. The singing is beautiful though.


I'm not well-versed in atonal music, but I did like both the atonal and tonal Webern offerings (as well as the Strauss). That said, most of these songs are taken at a measured tempo with an appealing sense of searching note by note. That may serve to even out contrasts between the different styles.


----------



## fluteman

JAS said:


> I generally only provide warnings where I think they may be relevant, based on other dealings with the person being warned. (It this case, the phrasing is mostly just in keeping with the context.) In a film class I took long before MST3K existed, a teacher noted that one can learn more from watching, analyzing and critiquing a bad movie than a good one. With a bad movie, one learns common traps to avoid, but with good movies there is often a tendency to merely borrow or imitate specific features, rather than using them as inspirations for one's own ideas. In these discussions about music, the negative comments are mostly used for the purpose of context, with the implication of actively requesting a more detailed comment from the other side. There is nothing more boring than a conversation with only one side represented.
> 
> Ditto, and I do.


Your comment about movie criticism is interesting. As there is usually more of an investment at least in time if not in money in seeing a new movie than in listening to new music, I do pay some attention to movie critics. And I do find when reviews are overwhelmingly bad, the movie is usually bad, though good reviews do not guarantee a good movie.

But even there, I sometimes find that a movie panned by many of the famous critics is outstanding. A good recent example is Kenneth Branagh's Murder On The Orient Express. A classic Agatha Christie detective novel (maybe THE classic detective novel, leaving aside Doyle's Sherlock Holmes), made into a movie at least twice before, any new version would face tough criticism. But I thought Branagh's updated version (updated in style, not set in the present) is fun, energetic, and works on its own terms. No, it doesn't capture Christie's tone the way Sidney Lumet's classic version does, but why should it? Christie is not Marcel Proust or James Joyce, and movies are not novels. Turning one of the all time best light "summer reading on the beach" novels into a fun modern movie was a good idea, and those critics were too stuffy and pompous to see it.

With classical music, I find critics are prisoners of their own expectations to an even greater extent than with movies. There is less willingness to accept things that are far off the beaten path.


----------



## Haydn70

eugeneonagain said:


> To the point where they can talk about examples from having listened and perhaps discuss the music and its structure, but also the aesthetic elements and its effect upon the (positive) listener.
> 
> Listening with a sour face, wishing it was over, just to be able to say: there I listened, I still think it's worthless! Well, that's not enough.
> 
> I think I remember reading that you originally started composing in the modern idiom, but shifted priority to CP music. *That's only your personal tastes at work though.*


Yes, my personal taste which happens to be excellent! :tiphat:


----------



## Haydn70

Lisztian said:


> Cool, more opinions: and we'll keep firing back at you with our opinions -based on honest enjoyment- that a lot of atonal/twelve-tone music is wonderful. What are you trying to accomplish exactly?


Deleted post......


----------



## Haydn70

mathisdermaler said:


> I love the title of this thread. It's so deliciously fascistic, but it's also absurd which makes it hilarious.


Ah yes, make a reference to fascism...the quick, easy, lazy way to dismiss/shame something or someone these days....it relieves one from having to make a rational, objective and logical argument.


----------



## Haydn70

Thomyum2 said:


> I read a newspaper review of a concert a number of years ago (the piece in question was by Hindemith), and the reviewer obviously did not like it. Under normal circumstances I would accept that as being that person's legitimate opinion and move on, but in this particular case, the reviewer made a comment that the fact that the music was not well liked was 'the fault of the composer and not of the audience' and this got me pretty riled up, and it's stuck with me over the years and I've often struggled to try to understand why I found this upsetting.
> 
> It occurs to me that this seems to be the crux of much of the dispute that's going on in this conversation of tonality vs. atonality (and Schoenberg seems to be the primary one getting beat up on here instead of Hindemith). Now I don't want to stir up more argument, but I think this is a point worth asking about. It seems none of us have a problem with others choosing what they do or don't enjoy or what they choose to listen to. *But it seems like the dispute comes when the assertion is made that the reason for not liking the music lies with the shortcomings of the style or the composer or the musical language itself.* Is this an area where we're running into trouble because we're blurring the lines between aesthetics with tastes?


A dispute from the opposite direction comes when the assertion is made that the reason for not liking the music lies with the shortcomings of the listener, i.e., they don't like atonality/serialism because they don't understand it. Believe me, there are plenty of people (including myself) that understand it completely and don't like it.


----------



## Bluecrab

ArsMusica said:


> A dispute from the opposite direction comes when the assertion is made that the reason for not liking the music lies with the shortcomings of the listener, i.e., they don't like atonality/serialism because they don't understand it. Believe me, there are plenty of people (including myself) that understand it completely and don't like it.


No surprise there. Of course, the same could be said of Mozart's music.


----------



## Guest

Lmfao.....this thread again. The OP is probably a moron with no understanding of how harmony works.


----------



## Larkenfield

”Tonality is Unnatural?” I question that. Tonality implies a certain way of resolving dissonances into consonant chords that have been sought in music for hundreds of years, at least in western civilization which most people here reside in. Other cultures have their own orientation to tonality, the resolution of consonance and dissonance, but it’s still a system of consonance and dissonance that a culture would consider Natural, or it would have no meaning.

Tonality has a home base. The predominant lack of tonality is like wandering through a city and being homeless, maybe sleeping in the park. Does that sound appealing as a permanent lifestyle? Some are more inclined to go home rather than being homeless. It’s a very apt metaphor. So, unnatural – I don’t think so. 

But everybody is still welcome to do without it and sometimes it can be fascinating to be away from home for long periods of time in a strange or experimental non-tonality landscape and find it stimulating. What I suspect is that the need for the basic tonality of consonance and dissonance energies may be related to the demands of our DNA and our response to certain frequencies that resonate with our body. I would never argue that the resonance between the vibrations of music and the vibrations of our body is not somehow connected in a primal way and that would suggest that constant dissonance or a lack of tonality would not necessarily be good for one’s health.

Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule and other indigenous cultures who might have an entirely different reaction to what we consider as tonality and its consonance and dissonance energies. And sometimes there can be a special pleasure in being in a predominately dissonant or homeless environment. So there’s that side of it too. If there is a conditioned orientation to tonality it would have to be that certain cultures preferred it that way going back hundreds, even thousands of years to the beginning. I feel that people should choose the harmonic vibrations they expose themselves to very consciously and deliberately.


----------



## Woodduck

Living things alternate tension/action/reaching outward with relaxation/repose/drawing inward. We are always leaving home and coming back home.

Thought is hierarchical: specific concepts are unified under general concepts. 

Values are hierarchical: particular values are judged by fundamental values. 

Nature creates hierarchies: planets revolve around suns; leaves sprout from branches which sprout from trunks; the brain governs the nervous system.

Homing and hierarchy pervade our experience of reality. Tonality expresses homing and hierarchy, it feels familiar and basic, and humans inevitably discover it. Tonality is natural.


----------



## Gordontrek

Please for the love of god don't exhume this thread, let it rest in peace


----------



## Woodduck

Gordontrek said:


> Please for the love of god don't exhume this thread, let it rest in peace


God has no objection. In fact He specializes in resurrections.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Bluecrab said:


> No surprise there. Of course, the same could be said of Mozart's music.


At least lots of people who say they don't like contemporary music have general consistency in their argument, people who show intense dislike for Mozart (or Haydn) have double standards for a lot of Beethoven (sometimes appear to indulge in some sort wishful thinking or hypocrisy) even on this forum. These people say things like 'Mozart and other classical period music sounds the same'. People can like/dislike whatever they want to, but going beyond that to show intense dislike for something and not having rationality and consistency or reasoning to back up their argument can make them look weird. 
even if stuff like Boccherini's Op.11 No.5 String Quartet 



 sounds nothing like Mozart or Haydn, (at least far less Mozartian or Haydnesque than Beethoven's last piano sonata is to Mozart Adagio and Fugue for Strings in C minor and the last Razumovsky is to Mozart Dissonance) These facts somehow never 'occur' to them. How can you claim "Beethoven is never understood properly, that's what I love about Beethoven" and at the same time, "I understood Mozart completely, I hate his music". Let's be honest. How many of you knew all the stuff happening in Mozart quartets without watching their analysis? 
Sometimes, "I don't get or I haven't understood it" is just a nicer way to put, "I'm not fond of listening to it at the moment". Likewise you can alternatively say "I haven't understood late Beethoven" when you want to say "I'm rather bored by Beethoven's melodies", which sounds somewhat less snobbish - and it seems to happen with a lot of people.



Jacck said:


> I'd say Schubert was a better melodist of the two. I am an amateur and not an expert on Beethoven or Schubert, but I have been listening to their piano sonatas lately and I must say that I find the late piano sonatas by Schubert (D894, D958, D959, D960) both more melodic and more enjoyable than the Beethoven sonatas. And the same goes for Schumann, ie he was a better melodist than Beethoven. Beethoven's string quartets are not very melodic either compared for example to Schubert.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> I'd agree with you that it is no indicator whether something is better or worse, but I do think tonality, being more natural and sweet, is more liked and atonal is more hated in general. But some of us do get sick being fed sugary foods all the time.


Whether tonality is there or not is not that big of an issue. It's about how much effort, inspiration, skills, talent went into writing them, and how long its impact, influence in music history will last. Just because music is tonal, it's not harder to write than atonal music, and vice-versa. The most extreme example of contemporary music would be hitting random keys on the piano and calling it music. Like they all say- all art is equal, art is subjective. So the most important 'art' is the one that has the most influence in history. One that played the most important role in shaping the musical establishment and foundations today. I believe that's what makes classical music 'classical'. It continues to inspire generations of later artists. We'll have to wait and see who'll eventually be regarded as the 'Beethovens' of this era in the future.


----------



## millionrainbows

Apparently because of Schoenberg's appeal, atonality works best when it's tonality dressed up in drag.


----------



## millionrainbows

Gordontrek said:


> Please for the love of god don't exhume this thread, let it rest in peace


Oh, I don't know; there were some damn good posts here, and some noble battles fought.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> Living things alternate tension/action/reaching outward with relaxation/repose/drawing inward. We are always leaving home and coming back home.
> 
> Thought is hierarchical: specific concepts are unified under general concepts.
> 
> Values are hierarchical: particular values are judged by fundamental values.
> 
> Nature creates hierarchies: planets revolve around suns; leaves sprout from branches which sprout from trunks; the brain governs the nervous system.
> 
> Homing and hierarchy pervade our experience of reality. Tonality expresses homing and hierarchy, it feels familiar and basic, and humans inevitably discover it. Tonality is natural.


Jordan Peterson, is that you?


----------



## Guest

hammeredklavier said:


> people who show intense dislike for Mozart (or Haydn) have double standards for a lot of Beethoven (sometimes appear to indulge in some sort wishful thinking or hypocrisy) even on this forum. These people say things like 'Mozart and other classical period music sounds the same'. People can like/dislike whatever they want to, but going beyond that to show intense dislike for something and not having rationality and consistency or reasoning to back up their argument can make them look weird.


I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that if you like Beethoven, you must also like Mozart and Haydn, 'cause you're being inconsistent if you don't?


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Jordan Peterson, is that you?


What could you possibly be thinking?


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that if you like Beethoven, you must also like Mozart and Haydn, 'cause you're being inconsistent if you don't?


A good question, MacLeod, but please don't encourage this cranky Mozart-versus-everyone war that hammeredklavier wages in every thread where the name of Mozart is mentioned. Maybe you haven't noticed it, but it's getting tiresome.


----------



## Bluecrab

Woodduck said:


> ...please don't encourage this cranky Mozart-versus-everyone war that hammeredklavier wages in every thread where the name of Mozart is mentioned. Maybe you haven't noticed it, but it's getting tiresome.


Amen to that. There, that's 15 characters.


----------



## hammeredklavier

MacLeod said:


> I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that if you like Beethoven, you must also like Mozart and Haydn, 'cause you're being inconsistent if you don't?


I mean stuff like the works I mentioned above, there are obvious first Viennese school 'connections' and if someone goes around all the time telling about how crappy one of them sounds to his ears while ignoring the 'connections', without ever fully explaining themselves - it raises some questions. I'm not saying they're not allowed to do that. I'm just saying if someone has that attitude, it arouses my curiosity. There were some people doing that.



janxharris said:


> I am a Beethoven devotee.





janxharris said:


> It just sounds like pleasant background music to me.


I'm just saying, at least people who say they do not like atonal music seem to have _more consistency_ in their behavior in comparison. Like how they treat Schoenberg and Webern for example.



Woodduck said:


> A good question, MacLeod, but please don't encourage this cranky Mozart-versus-everyone war that hammeredklavier wages in every thread where the name of Mozart is mentioned. Maybe you haven't noticed it, but it's getting tiresome.


I'm not trying to wage wars any more than other people are. More like I'm on the defense most of the time. Sorry if you found them tiresome.


----------



## Guest

hammeredklavier said:


> I mean stuff like the works I mentioned above, there are obvious first Viennese school 'connections' and if someone goes around all the time telling about how crappy one of them sounds to his ears while ignoring the 'connections', without ever fully explaining themselves - it raises some questions. I'm not saying they're not allowed to do that. I'm just saying if someone has that attitude, it arouses my curiosity.


OK. I'll keep my "I like Beethoven and Haydn, but Mozart not so much" to myself then.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> I'm not trying to wage wars any more than other people are. More like I'm on the defense most of the time.


Why? Does Mozart really need to be defended and compared with other composers whenever someone says anything less than adulatory about him? How do you manage to track down every unflattering remark, regardless of the thread or conversation in which it occurs? Do you have spies?

The music world has esteemed Mozart as one of the greatest of composers - if not the very greatest - for two centuries. His reputation has endured, and only risen in recent times; there is no campaign or cabal, no whim of fashion or cultural prejudice, no unpleasant historical associations to darken his image and create misconceptions that might poison the general perception of his work. Not everyone loves Mozart, but practically everyone acknowledges his eminence.

Just be grateful that Mozart's name doesn't cause otherwise intelligent and temperate people to rant about Hitler and the Holocaust.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Just be grateful that Mozart's name doesn't cause otherwise intelligent and temperate people to rant about Hitler and the Holocaust.


It doesn't? Why, only the other day, I was conversing with an otherwise...


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> What could you possibly be thinking?


Your talk about hierarchies is very Peterson-esque.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Your talk about hierarchies is very Peterson-esque.


I prefer to think that his talk of hierarchies is Woodduckian.


----------



## hammeredklavier

MacLeod said:


> OK. I'll keep my "I like Beethoven and Haydn, but Mozart not so much" to myself then.


Sorry, you are naive if you think everything people said about WAM 41th symphony, Fantasy K475, for example, on the forum are simply thoughts coming out of their honest, genuine feelings about the works, without caring _who composed them._



Woodduck said:


> The music world has esteemed Mozart as one of the greatest of composers - if not the very greatest - for two centuries. His reputation has endured, and only risen in recent times; there is no campaign or cabal, no whim of fashion or cultural prejudice, no unpleasant historical associations to darken his image and create misconceptions that might poison the general perception of his work. Not everyone loves Mozart, but practically everyone acknowledges his eminence.
> 
> Just be grateful that Mozart's name doesn't cause otherwise intelligent and temperate people to rant about Hitler and the Holocaust.


I'm not tracking down anybody. Just like everybody else, I just express whatever thoughts going through my head on each point people bring out on individual basis. 
So you're saying we can't rule out the possibility people (perhaps fueled by jealousy or favoritism) bash certain masters just to brand them whatever image or reputation they want regardless of what they actually feel about the music. I think if someone has a fervent desire to brand LVB an image of the greatest ever - untouchable by others - it _might be reasonable_ to suspect there would be some unfair favoritism going on the things he'll say about some other masters.
I would say if someone should go around PROUDLY and LOUDLY talk as if WAM is their MOST favorite and LVB is their LEAST favorite, for example, they should at least be able to provide some thoughtful insight on the 'connections' I described above. At least that's what I think.  Me? I like both LVB third Razumovsky and WAM Dissonance. No problem.
As much as people can say whatever about what they like/dislike, it's perfectly ok for others to pose questions, "I don't see _consistency_ in your judgment" or "I smell _favoritism_", right?

(The things you said in your previous comment, you can say the same about the other greats as well. Again, don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming you of anything.  )


----------



## Guest

hammeredklavier said:


> Sorry, you are naive if you think everything people said about WAM 41th symphony, Fantasy K475, for example, on the forum are simply thoughts coming out of their honest, genuine feelings about the works, without caring _who composed them._


I'm not, and I don't. But that wasn't what you said to which I was replying.


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

I apologize for reviving a dead thread, but I read through everything & I'd like to respond to what I think is a logical leap that the pro-atonal posters here keep making.

So there are studies suggesting that infants prefer consonance to dissonance. Some have correctly pointed out that we cannot conclude from these studies that it is more 'natural' to prefer tonal music. There is a replication crisis, after all. More studies would be needed.

But the fact that we cannot say for sure that there is a natural preference for tonality does not imply that the appreciation of dissonant, atonal music is natural. If the assertion that tonality is 'natural' is a bold claim that requires much evidence to back it up, then so is the assertion that atonality is 'natural'.

Let's assume that people are naturally more inclined to tonal music. It does *not* mean everyone is incapable of appreciating atonal music. It does mean that people who appreciate atonal music are less common. Acknowledging this doesn't mean that atonal music is inferior, so I don't understand why pro-atonal posters have such a big problem with it.


----------



## Ariasexta

> *We use equal temperament to combat the inequalities of the Harmonic Series*, to alter its Natural Properites so that we can adjust them to our taste, to our culture. Historically, western music adjusted the intervals of the harmonic series in different ways, resulting in unequal keys with unequally distributed 'pure intervals' (intervals the closest to how they could be found in the lower end of the harmonic series) that gave different keys a certain quality to them, or an affect (see: Doctrine of the Affections).


For now I have to say you have a grave mis-statement about equal temperament, which is devised to expand the compass of the playable octaves by providing more possibilities of modulation.



> According to textbook definitions of Equal Temperament Lets examine what "The Oxford Concise Dictionary of Music" says: "Adjustment in tuning (i.e. 'tempering') of mus. intervals away from 'natural' scale so that such pairs of notes as B♯ and C, or C♯ and D♭, are combined instead of being treated individually. This leaves neither note accurate but sufficiently so for the ear to accept it. In kbd. instr. this avoids unmanageable number of finger‐keys. The pf., organ, and other fixed‐pitch modern instr., are tuned to equal temperament, in which each semitone is made an equal interval, making it easy to play in any key and to modulate.


More importantly modern equal temperament has to do with the emergence of the grand piano, because of the new material for high tension strings and harder case, old temperaments will result in unplayable dissonance. In fact, equal temperament also has no tonal purity, which is connected to what can be said as natural harmonic series. Harmonic series is the basis of Pythagorean scales, as shown in your own post. 


> *Equal temperament is the ultimate compromise. Tonal purity is sacrificed for freedom of modulation*. Depending on your viewpoint, equal temperament either a) makes every key equally in tune, or b) makes every key equally out of tune... The idea is to make it possible to play all intervals and chords, in all keys, with the same relative accuracy. Although every key is very slightly out of tune, every key is also useable. No key sounds worse than any other key. The same applies to all chords.


In case one might wonder what is tonal purity: there is no online source of strict definition of this term so I just found the parallel phrase used in the same context to the term. So it is clear that equal temperament can not play good pythagorean scales and that means the harmonic series of equal temperament is not natural or less natural than classical temperaments.



> The modern solution to the temperament problem *sacrifices the ability to play precise Pythagorean intervals*, in exchange to the ability to *transpose *perfectly. Its basic idea is to divide the octave into a certain number of equal musical intervals.


Also, as one might wonder why modulation possibility can link to the expansion of the keyboard width, remember flemish double keyboard harpsichords, the second keyboard was made for transposing. Look at the textual context here, you will understand, even you have no much musical knowledge. In vulgar terms, transposing means more notes on a keyboard, and modulation needs more notes. The wider the keyboard, the more possibility of modulation. But grand-piano can not use classical tuning systems given the wide range of notes and the materials used, so they have to use equal temperament.

This is an exerpt from my actual collected book "Ruckers-A Harpsichord and Virginal Building Tradition" by Grant O`Brien.
_
"Because the lower manual effects a transposition downwards of a fourth, the Ruckers double-manual harpsichords have become known as the transposing harpsichords."_

-Page-41：The types of instruments built by the Ruckers.
Heading: Double-manual harpsichords.


----------



## MarkW

The number of birdcalls that have thirds and fifths in them is remarkable.


----------



## Nawdry

Woodduck said:


> ... tonality, which in various forms appears to have arisen independently all over the world in widely dissimilar circumstances and cultures, indeed seems to merit the term "natural." Considering how tonality functions cognitively in the apprehension of musical form in light of the way human cognition (perception and concept formation) works, and looking at the expressive functions of tonally informed structures in terms of their analogous relationship to dynamic patterns of human affect, we can begin to understand the general human preference for organizing tones on tonal principles.


The following observations from one of classical music's greatest masters would seem relevant to this issue:



> To a given tone, the tone an octave higher stands in so close a relationship that one can hardly maintain a distinction between the two. The tone which is only a fifth higher than the given tone is the next most closely related, and there follow in order the fourth, the major sixth, the major third, the minor third, and so on. As the distance from the given tone increases in this series, the relationship diminishes, until, in the tones that stand at the interval of the augmented fourth or diminished fifth, it can hardly be felt at all.
> ...
> No other system gives us complete proof of the natural basis of total relations. All theorists are agreed, it is true, that there are various degrees of relationship, and the order of descending degrees of relationship is the same in all theories. This is remarkable, for in every other respect there is anything but unanimity among musical theorists.
> ...
> Just as in architecture the big supporting and connecting members - piers, columns, girders, and arches - determine the form and size of a building, as well as its interior division into rooms, corridors, and floors, irrespective of the material of which they are built - so tonal relations introduce order into the total mass.
> 
> [Paul Hindemith, The Craft of Musical Composition, Book I,Theoretical Part, Associated Music Publishers, New York, Rev. Ed. 1945.]


Tonality may indeed be a human creation, but it appears to be constructed in accordance with naturally occurring tonal relationships. Tonality itself appears to have evolved naturally and organically over thousands of years in the course of human development and the emergence of musical expression. For this reason I suspect that the human psychic complex has a propensity in particular to respond to and connect with these natural tonal relationships.


----------



## progmatist

A Hammond organ with only the whole number drawbars drawn sounds downright cheesy. To give it that classic "Hammond" sound, the 1/3, 2/3 and 3/5 drawbars must also be drawn.


----------



## Chibi Ubu

I think both are natural, but I enjoy a little structure, which can be found in both forms. What I don't enjoy is cacophony. I guess it's based upon the way I am wired.


----------



## 59540

> Tonality is Unnatural


Maybe, but then so is the Rouen Cathedral.


----------



## Sid James

Any system of musical notation is about ordering sounds which in reality are disordered. Traditionally there has been a difference between sounds that are considered music and those which aren't, but in the 20th century the distinction became more or less irrelevant thanks to things like development of new systems of notation (e.g. microtones) and technology (e.g. tape, synthesizers, computers).

Even considering the fact that the Western diatonic system is only one such of many systems - e.g. Arabic, Indian, Chinese - and the others didn't restrict everything to twelve notes, to argue that tonality is natural (in other words, universal) doesn't make sense. In the second half of the twentieth century things changed so much - not only in classical music, of course - that while the old way with 12 notes is still relevant, its no longer restricted to that.

In classical music, I think that a few things really shook things up. One was John Cage's introduction of what he called illegal harmonies - sounds that had been previously restricted from classical music - into the concert hall. Another where the early electronic works by the likes of Stockhausen and Pierre Henry. These changed everything, not only in terms of using technology and developing new methods of notation, but also the basic materials of music such as time signatures and dynamics.

Today, some of the breakthrough microtonal pieces like Ligeti's _Ramifications_, might sound wierd but they're still recognisable as music. We've had over half a century to get used to these new sounds entering music, and have developed new ways of listening. This includes use of music like this in movies.

Composers like Schoenberg, let alone Beethoven, would have had no idea about how to receive such music. They wouldn't have been able to make much sense of an aleatoric, electronic or microtonal score either. By the same token, if we went back in time, we'd find their world to be completely alien to us. We've grown accustomed to a level of disorder in music that previous generations would have considered cacophony.

Over the course of the 20th century, listeners gradually became accustomed to a situation where traditional harmony was no longer dominant. Harmony gave way to sounds, all manner of them.


----------

