Do you think music has 'developed' through history, or that this is simply a modernist myth?
Quote from: millionrainbows on September 10, 2017, 02:10:54 PM
Do you think music has 'developed' through history, or that this is simply a modernist myth?
It hasn't developed at all, methinks. It has flourished this way and that down history, but in terms of music 'developing', there is more musicality in Bach with his sometimes fiendishly complicated counterpoint and crossing melodies than there could ever be in modern minimalism (for example). But, having said that, modern minimalism (for example) can say in fewer melodies and complications something more profound than even the most death affirming Requiem or love affirming sonata.
So. In answer to your question, er,...I don't know... ;D But a darn interesting thing to look into!! :)
I don't understand the question. Of course it has developed. Of course it has evolved.
Do you mean "has music gotten better?" Because that might be a controversial topic to discuss. But the fact that music has changed is obvious.
Quote from: millionrainbows on September 10, 2017, 02:10:54 PM
Do you think music has 'developed' through history, or that this is simply a modernist myth?
Yup. And, Million, I think you've chosen
le mot just for what it has done, i.e. develop. "Development" holds within a much greater possibility for the odd turn of events, sea changes in taste, whether for a lot of accountable reasons
or those matters more the fluff of caprice that have all affected composers and their audiences. Too often when this Q comes up the writer uses "Progress." Progress leads to an expectation of things going according to some organic set of laws that can take but only a few shapes or directions, or 'less than a few,' like minerals or flora ;-)
Best regards.
Quote from: Est.1965 on September 10, 2017, 03:36:20 PM
But, having said that, modern minimalism (for example) can say in fewer melodies and complications something more profound than even the most death affirming Requiem or love affirming sonata.
)
If this is right it is interesting, so please can you support it a bit more?
(It
feels along the right lines to me, when I think of Feldman, Nono and Luc Ferrari, though I'm not sure what you mean by "minimalism")
The funny thing is, the modern extended techniques have always been there. So why didn't Beethoven deploy tone clusters or instruct the pianist to pluck the strings inside the piano? At what point in history did someone just say "Screw the rules" and just go with what they wanted to hear?
Quote from: Maestro267 on September 11, 2017, 07:51:43 AM
The funny thing is, the modern extended techniques have always been there. So why didn't Beethoven deploy tone clusters or instruct the pianist to pluck the strings inside the piano? At what point in history did someone just say "Screw the rules" and just go with what they wanted to hear?
For both of those two things, it would have been Henry Cowell, in the 1910s.
There was a progressive loosening of musical syntax throughout the 19th century. The reason why no composer before the early 20th century would have used a tone cluster as a basic element is that it wouldn't work grammatically within the musical "language" of the time. Dissonances required specific treatment. Then you had Wagner and Bruckner, then Mahler and Strauss, then Debussy and Schoenberg and Stravinsky, each set of names employing fewer of the "rules" strictly, until the last where any rules become merely personal.
As for development? There are two separate ways to answer, because the word has different possible meanings.
- Yes, of course, music developed over time in the sense that it has continued to change, and will continue to change.
- No, development does not imply superiority of one period over another.
The short answer is, of course.
All art involves a struggle to find something beautiful and original with a set of explicit or implicit rules, conventions and forms. In the "classical music" tradition we have begun with an exceedingly restricting set of rules (Gregorian Chant) where only the unison or octave was regarded as a consonant interval. That was succeeded by ever expanding ideas of what sounds good and what is acceptable. I.e. the 5th or 4th being accepted in organum, leading to medieval counterpoint, pre-classical counterpoint, classical, romantic, post-romantic, serial, modern, post-modern, neoclassical, minimalist, etc.
In many successive styles, what was "allowed" expanded and composers enriched their styles to push up against a wider boundary, in some successive styles the constraints became more restrictive and composers were challenged to make something that sounded new within a more restricted language. There is a hysteresis to it as well, because even if neoclassicists wanted to return to the virtues of Mozart's and Haydn's era, they couldn't "un-hear" Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, etc.
It doesn't mean that composers became better. Mozart and Haydn showed us what was possible within the relatively restricted musical language of their day, and later Bruckner and Mahler showed us what was possible within a much less restricted musical language. In each case they were masters of the field of play they found themselves on.
I'd have to say yes music has developed; until the fiendish trickery of the question is revealed.
;) ;) ;) Sorry .... childhood memories.
https://www.youtube.com/v/zjHrmmFIErY
I think Western Tonality, with its major/minor diatonic scales, was a dead end, and I am a modernist who thinks that musical thinking, and the resulting music, is a development past that, and is an 'evolution' of music in the Darwinian sense, since music is part of the Quadrivum, along with arithmetic, geometry, and astronomy. It's more like a science than most 'artsy' types will admit to.
This is obvious by simply listening to Gregorian chant and Renaissance music; even Tchaikovsky compared to Webern. That music sounds old. It is old, and much simpler.
Quote from: millionrainbows on September 14, 2017, 12:32:01 PM
I think Western Tonality, with its major/minor diatonic scales, was a dead end, and I am a modernist who thinks that musical thinking, and the resulting music, is a development past that, and is an 'evolution' of music in the Darwinian sense,
Careful, now. If you bring in the Darwinian evolution idea, you imply that "Western Tonality" either is going extinct, replaced by the new language, or it will coexist with the new language for a time before being "defeated" (like Neanderthals). Given the fact that today's young generation of composers seem to be returning to music in recognizable key signatures - and given that 99.99% of popular music as enjoyed by 99% of "Western" people is still in "Western Tonality" - that argument is dubious at best.
Quote from: Brian on September 14, 2017, 12:37:16 PM
Careful, now. If you bring in the Darwinian evolution idea, you imply that "Western Tonality" either is going extinct, replaced by the new language, or it will coexist with the new language for a time before being "defeated" (like Neanderthals). Given the fact that today's young generation of composers seem to be returning to music in recognizable key signatures - and given that 99.99% of popular music as enjoyed by 99% of "Western" people is still in "Western Tonality" - that argument is dubious at best.
Popular music isn't primarily tonal. It's diatonic and triadic, yes, but not tonal in the sense that Mozart or Beethoven are tonal. The same goes for the neoromantic or minimalist conceptions of tonality.
Quote from: Brian on September 14, 2017, 12:37:16 PM
Careful, now. If you bring in the Darwinian evolution idea, you imply that "Western Tonality" either is going extinct, replaced by the new language, or it will coexist with the new language for a time before being "defeated" (like Neanderthals).
careful now that is a misreading of evolution, simple tonal/diatonic music remains successful in the same way that bacteria and insects will always remain a more successful group of creatures than humans.
I do not see how anything in artistic method can be "a dead end" when artists continue to make use of it, and find inspiration in it.
The need to apply the idea of "a dead end" to the arts, is dogmatic and wrong-headed. Whatever nugget of applicable fact might be lodged in there, could probably be better understood and expressed.
Quote from: Maestro267 on September 11, 2017, 07:51:43 AM
The funny thing is, the modern extended techniques have always been there. So why didn't Beethoven deploy tone clusters or instruct the pianist to pluck the strings inside the piano? At what point in history did someone just say "Screw the rules" and just go with what they wanted to hear?
The truly funny thing is that while it was always physically possible to make tone clusters or to play the piano's harp directly, it was not possible to do until it was. And it was at definite points in history, too, when things were done. And it did not take either "screw the rules" or even wanting to hear something particular. It did take ideas, though. And without the ideas, the things will not happen.
So no, the extended techniques have not "always been there." The instruments have always been there. (As it were.) The ideas about the actions referred to as "extended" have not. Of course it was always possible to prepare a piano, say, but it did not happen until certain ideas and certain circumstances conspired to that particular end. It seems so normal and obvious now, just like pizzicato does. But until someone thinks of something, that something cannot be done. As to what leads to the new idea, well that could be any number of things, probably different for each new technique.
Quote from: Brian on September 14, 2017, 12:37:16 PM
Careful, now. If you bring in the Darwinian evolution idea, you imply that "Western Tonality" either is going extinct, replaced by the new language, or it will coexist with the new language for a time before being "defeated" (like Neanderthals).
No, I think Western tonality came from the same root, but branched off - like monkeys and Humans coming from the same tree. Then Modern music took off from there.
Quote from: Mahlerian on September 14, 2017, 01:21:42 PM
Popular music isn't primarily tonal. It's diatonic and triadic, yes, but not tonal in the sense that Mozart or Beethoven are tonal. The same goes for the neoromantic or minimalist conceptions of tonality.
That's misleading to say that pop music "is not tonal."
Quote from: millionrainbows on September 16, 2017, 01:44:55 PM
That's misleading to say that pop music "is not tonal."
But it isn't. How could it be misleading to describe something as not fitting into a category that it doesn't fit into?
Quote from: Mahlerian on September 14, 2017, 01:21:42 PM
Popular music isn't primarily tonal. It's diatonic and triadic, yes, but not tonal in the sense that Mozart or Beethoven are tonal. The same goes for the neoromantic or minimalist conceptions of tonality.
Quote from: millionrainbows on September 16, 2017, 01:44:55 PM
That's misleading to say that pop music "is not tonal."
Quote from: Mahlerian on September 16, 2017, 05:23:52 PM
But it isn't. How could it be misleading to describe something as not fitting into a category that it doesn't fit into?
I have to agree w Mahlerian on this one. "Tonal" having more than one definition muddles the very concept and premise.
As Mahlerian stated, pop music is diatonic, triadic, etc.
Its passingly paying obeisance to I,IV,V without otherwise paying jack-beans obeisance to the rest of chord function pretty much sets it apart from formal tonality and makes of it something else. These few things, prevalent in pop music, are enough to have it not tonal in the formal sense of the term:
1.) Freely added sixths or sevenths peppered in somewhat arbitrarily and just about anywhere for color.
2.) That cliche procedure of simply dragging something up a whole step and calling it a modulation -- i.e. a modulation by assertion vs. a tonal modulation.
3.) In pop music theoretic terminology a duad with one pitch doubled is called a "power chord", when by definition a chord is comprised of three discrete pitches -- stacked thirds for true classical tonality -- is yet another tip-off that the theoretic approach and mindset of pop music is not exactly 'tonal.'
Otherwise, to call pop music 'tonal' is a bit like Humpty-Dumpty's pronouncement that when he uses a word, it means whatever he chooses it to mean, "Nothing more, nothing less." ;-)
Yes this is all nit-picking, while it is well on the side of being specific to good purpose.
Best regards
Of course pop music is tonal. Whether triads have the same functions as in common practice classical music is irrelevant. The functions it has establish tonal centers in consistent ways. The primary difference derives from the simple fact that pop and rock musicians tend to think V-I cadences, especially those in which ti-do is prominent, are cheesy. So they use bVII to I, or IV to I, or whatever. The counterarguments ^ ^ ^ are like arguing that giraffes aren't mammals because their necks are too long.
Quote from: BasilValentine on September 17, 2017, 12:19:07 PM
Of course pop music is tonal. Whether triads have the same functions as in common practice classical music is irrelevant.
No, because the functions of classical practice are what defines tonality as separate from non-tonal modal and post-tonal music.
Quote from: Mahlerian on September 17, 2017, 12:29:09 PM
No, because the functions of classical practice are what defines tonality as separate from non-tonal modal and post-tonal music.
What he said :-)
Yes, pop music is 'tonal' based, and while this whole yea-nay argument is nit-picky, 'Tonal' on a classical forum does usually mean one specific thing and is linked to the era(s) dubbed Common Practice in which it was practiced (and upon which tonal theory and analysis are based). Pop theory itself shows it is
based on tonality while having little or no other adherence to any notion of chord functions other than I,IV,V, and as Mr. Valentine pointed out, 'substitutions,' those very substitutions also used in a loosey-goosey manner quite unlike substitutions are in classical tonality.
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on September 17, 2017, 01:50:56 PM
What he said :-)
Yes, pop music is 'tonal' based, and it is nit-picky to argue otherwise, while 'Tonal' on a classical forum does usually mean one specific thing and the era(s) in which it was practiced (and is so analyzed in Roman numeral harmonic analysis). Pop theory itself shows it is based on tonality while having little or no other adherence to any notion of chord functions other than I,IV,V, and as Mr. Valentine pointed out, 'substitutions,' those very substitutions also used in a loosey-goosey manner quite unlike substitutions are in classical tonality.
"Tonal" means having a tone center, and pop music certainly does. The fact that harmonic progressions are formulaic and often limited in scope does not change that. That fact that pop music employs non-triadic chords in ways that do not follow classical harmonic theory does not change that either.
Quote from: Scarpia on September 17, 2017, 02:01:13 PM
"Tonal" means having a tone center, and pop music certainly does.
So do modal and post-tonal/"atonal" music. What's your point?
Quote from: Scarpia on September 17, 2017, 02:01:13 PM
"Tonal" means having a tone center, and pop music certainly does. The fact that harmonic progressions are formulaic and often limited in scope does not change that. That fact that pop music employs non-triadic chords in ways that do not follow classical harmonic theory does not change that either.
I'm the first to jump to having said this particular discussion is all 'nit-picking,' but, we all have to make our own kind of fun.
The loose, general, generic use of Tonal would include pop music.
The formal, classical ~
Common Practice matrix definition includes Tonic (triad) as the tonal center of a very rigid hierarchy of triadic chords built upon the scale degrees, all of them with a very specific "Function" within that matrix. Common Practice Tonal, in that respect, no longer includes 20th century pop music any more than it includes, say, most of the music of Debussy.
Repeating, this is all nit-picking between a loose and generic idea of 'tonal' vs. the formal (classical) meaning of "Tonal/ tonality."
Since even dodecaphonic and other serial music and set theory music is quite often tone centered (and can be and is called that), I would prefer at least some qualification added to the looser use of the term tonal to distinguish it from the formal Common-Practice definition and its meaning.
And... at what point do we decide to transfer formal theory, tonal or otherwise, to pop music, and why and to what useful end? So many of those songs that have the typical modulations by assertion (up a whole-step from the starting key, always used for and considered 'dramatic') often remain in that second key level and end there. Do we want to get seriously pretentious and then start labeling this particular niche of the pop genre as "Progressive Tonality." Lol, I think not.
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on September 17, 2017, 02:24:10 PM
I'm the first to jump to having said this particular discussion is all 'nit-picking,' but, we all have to make our own kind of fun.
The loose, general, generic use of Tonal would include pop music.
The formal, classical ~ Common Practice matrix definition includes Tonic (triad) as the tonal center of a very rigid hierarchy of triadic chords built upon the scale degrees, all of them with a very specific "Function" within that matrix. Common Practice Tonal, in that respect, no longer includes 20th century pop music any more than it includes, say, most of the music of Debussy.
Repeating, this is all nit-picking between a loose and generic idea of 'tonal' vs. the formal (classical) meaning of "Tonal/ tonality."
Yes.
(All your musical observations well taken and of interest.)
My remark is essentially that here, as in a number of threads on GMG, the conversation spins about chasing its own tail because of the fluidity of the terminology. Agree on definitions, and the spinning slows a bit, and may perhaps even cease.
So, music is developmentally disabled...
I think we've just deselected development . . . .
Monsieure Croche said: "Otherwise, to call pop music 'tonal' is a bit like Humpty-Dumpty's pronouncement that when he uses a word, it means whatever he chooses it to mean, "Nothing more, nothing less." ;-)...Yes this is all nit-picking, while it is well on the side of being specific to good purpose."
Specific? No, academic. One of The Harvard Dictionary of Music's definitions of tonality is a general one, meaning tone-centric. In this sense, almost all folk, ethnic, and pop music is tonal, and pop music is specifically what we were referring to.
Tonality in the other common practice definition is so specific that it refers only to itself. What good is that in a discussion of different musics and different genres?
I also disagree with Brian's statement, which started this: "...given that 99.99% of popular music as enjoyed by 99% of "Western" people is still in "Western Tonality" - that argument is dubious at best." I would use the term "Western tonality" to refer to Mahlerian's definition of the common-practice major/minor diatonic tonal system.
As a caveat, I also would argue in Brian's favor that many pop songs do fit the definition of the CP Western tonal system: The Beatles' "Here, There, and Everywhere," "Eleanor Rigby," "Yesterday," and many more.
Mahlerian said: "the functions of classical practice are what defines tonality as separate from non-tonal modal and post-tonal music."
I disagree, and think that "function" also has a general definition. Any scale whatsoever can have functions derived from triads built on the scale steps. These functions are determined by the scale step's relation to the tonic.
Quote from: millionrainbows on September 18, 2017, 08:52:49 AM
Mahlerian said: "the functions of classical practice are what defines tonality as separate from non-tonal modal and post-tonal music."
I disagree, and think that "function" also has a general definition. Any scale whatsoever can have functions derived from triads built on the scale steps. These functions are determined by the scale step's relation to the tonic.
That's just making up a new definition for the word function.
"My remark is essentially that here, as in a number of threads on GMG, the conversation spins about chasing its own tail because of the fluidity of the terminology. Agree on definitions, and the spinning slows a bit, and may perhaps even cease."
There cannot be one single definition of tonality, since it has a general definition as well. What we need to agree on is their use in context.
"That's just making up a new definition for the word function."
Then if you want "function" to have a narrow, academic definition, then it applies only to itself, and can't be used in a discussion to distinguish CP tonality from other music (which you called non-tonal modal and post-tonal). It becomes a self-serving term which is essentially meaningless in other contexts. This is counter-productive to discussion of wider areas of music.
BTW, do you really understand "function" and what makes it work? If you did, you would see the underlying general principle that "function" in a general sense embodies.
Quote from: millionrainbows on September 18, 2017, 09:01:27 AM
"That's just making up a new definition for the word function."
Then if you want "function" to have a narrow, academic definition, then it applies only to itself, and can't be used in a discussion to distinguish CP tonality from other music (which you called non-tonal modal and post-tonal).
What you just wrote is, quite literally, meaningless. Of course something with a specific definition can be used to separate things from other things.
That's the point of a definition!Quote from: millionrainbows on September 18, 2017, 09:01:27 AMIt becomes a self-serving term which is essentially meaningless in other contexts. This is counter-productive to discussion of wider areas of music.
BTW, do you really understand "function" and what makes it work? If you did, you would see the underlying general principle that "function" in a general sense embodies.
You're assuming that function must apply to music outside of common practice tonality, just as you're assuming tonal must apply to other music. The problem is that all of your arguments depend on this assumption, which is why you never prove anything.
Quote from: millionrainbows on September 18, 2017, 08:42:22 AM
Monsieure Croche said: "Otherwise, to call pop music 'tonal' is a bit like Humpty-Dumpty's pronouncement that when he uses a word, it means whatever he chooses it to mean, "Nothing more, nothing less." ;-)...Yes this is all nit-picking, while it is well on the side of being specific to good purpose."
Specific? No, academic. One of The Harvard Dictionary of Music's definitions of tonality is a general one, meaning tone-centric. In this sense, almost all folk, ethnic, and pop music is tonal, and pop music is specifically what we were referring to.
Tonality in the other common practice definition is so specific that it refers only to itself. What good is that in a discussion of different musics and different genres?
One of The Harvard Dictionary of Music's definitions of tonality is a general one, meaning tone-centric.
"
Specific? No, academic."
Uh... academe tends to demand being quite specific to the degree where you could say that specific and academic are virtually synonymous. Ergo, you have from this dictionary that
one definition which is the more general; saying "tone-centric." Tone-centric includes, just as I had previously mentioned (and I was not making it up), quite a passel of dodecaphonic and set-theory music... the term is that broadly general, and that safely and correctly applied to much pop music as well.
If only that post which spawned this combing through the minutia for a reasonable term for pop music tonality had said instead,
like the dictionary you have now cited, Tone-Centric instead of Tonal, i.e. had been as 'academically specific' in the first place, I doubt if this hiccup discussion would have come up at all.
The proper term for pop music would be modal rather than tonal. Pop music is based on scales, not chords, and has been ever since.... the 1950s? Something like that?
There is nothing "tonal" about a song based on a I-V-vi-IV ostinato, any more than there is any "tonality" in this piece (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mcxEtyEUw4). It's a mode, with a final note, rather than a particular centre of gravity. The same is true of this piece (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8TcrMFFqJg), which simply happens to be in a different mode (one with eight notes instead of seven).
Quote from: Mahlerian on September 17, 2017, 12:29:09 PM
No, because the functions of classical practice are what defines tonality as separate from non-tonal modal and post-tonal music.
No, it is not the harmonic "functions of classical practice [that] defines tonality as separate from non-tonal modal and post-tonal music," it is the presence of harmonic functions—of whatever variety—that systematically relate to and define a tonic. These are obviously present in pop music, along with a vocabulary of scales and triads it shares with classical traditions. V-I cadencial progressions are fairly commonplace, along with plagal ones, both standard in classical vocabulary. Circle of fifths progressions are also commonplace. These, along with bVII-I cadences and other closing progressions are understood in tonal-functional terms by competent musicians from pop to rock to jazz.
Cadences have always been the most stylized, ornamented and cliche ridden junctures of musical works from time immemorial. It became inexcusably lame to end jazz versions of standards on bare triads, so they added major 6ths, 9ths and other tones—something art music composers did too. I'm playing a Prokofiev sonatina that adds a major 9th to the tonic chord. In general, V-I is just too lame to be an acceptable conclusion in most pop genres. The very fact that it is routinely avoided to the point that it is rare, along with why this is so, is in itself enough to prove a kind of tonality intimately related to the classical kind is in play.
Quote from: amw on September 18, 2017, 12:22:41 PM
The proper term for pop music would be modal rather than tonal. Pop music is based on scales, not chords, and has been ever since.... the 1950s? Something like that?
There is nothing "tonal" about a song based on a I-V-vi-IV ostinato, any more than there is any "tonality" in this piece (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mcxEtyEUw4). It's a mode, with a final note, rather than a particular centre of gravity. The same is true of this piece (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8TcrMFFqJg), which simply happens to be in a different mode (one with eight notes instead of seven).
Huh? That is a perfectly good progression for establishing a tonality. Each change is thoroughly grammatical and coherent in classical theory. And I suppose if it went I-vi-IV-V you'd think that was perfectly tonal? The choice between I-V-vi-IV and I-vi-IV-V isn't the difference between modal and tonal, it's the difference between writing a dated 1950s tune and one currently considered less hackneyed and lame. They are both thoroughly tonal.
Quote from: BasilValentine on September 18, 2017, 12:51:04 PMIn general, V-I is just too lame to be an acceptable conclusion in most pop genres. The very fact that it is routinely avoided to the point that it is rare, along with why this is so, is in itself enough to prove a kind of tonality intimately related to the classical kind is in play.
So you're saying the fact that pop music avoids the singular defining feature of functional tonality proves that pop music is related to functional tonality?
Quote from: Mahlerian on September 18, 2017, 01:15:10 PM
So you're saying the fact that pop music avoids the singular defining feature of functional tonality proves that pop music is related to functional tonality?
That isn't the singular defining feature of functional tonality (read the post to which you are referring). But, essentially, yes! They are avoiding it because it does exactly what they want to do — establish a tonal center — but it does it in a lame, stylistically outmoded way. Everyone knows it's a possibility, it's just a way modern tonal pop composers know to avoid. The fact that they all understand its function, and know to find a substitute for it, is a clear demonstration that they are thinking tonally.
Quote from: BasilValentine on September 18, 2017, 01:06:52 PM
Huh? That is a perfectly good progression for establishing a tonality. Each change is thoroughly grammatical and coherent in classical theory. And I suppose if it went I-vi-IV-V you'd think that was perfectly tonal? The choice between I-V-vi-IV and I-vi-IV-V isn't the difference between modal and tonal, it's the difference between writing a dated 1950s tune and one currently considered less hackneyed and lame. They are both thoroughly tonal.
Not..... really? I'll use chord names instead of function numbers for easier comprehensibility here, but: think about the romanesca.
The romanesca was a ground bass very similar to the "four chords and the truth" ostinato: instead of C | G | a | F, it was C | G | a | E. In popular music of the 16th~ century it was used as a framework for improvisation similar to the way the chords are used in modal jazz (Blue in Green, etc). The focus was on the notes of what we now think of as the Aeolian mode; the chord pattern in itself has no direction. The same is true of "four chords and the truth". The chords C, G, a and F in that order can establish a tonality
if there is a tonic cadence. There is not. In fact most of the songs I know that use this ostinato end on either the second or fourth chords: G or F. Neither one is a particularly shocking or surprising way to end such a song. Similarly, the guitar or lute player playing a romanesca could finish on C, or G, or a, or E, and it would make precisely no difference.
When composers of written-down music got hold of the romanesca on the other hand—"art music"—they made a very important change to the pattern:
C | G | a | E :||: C | G | a E | A
Now the pattern had a
direction. The final two chords E-A are a tonic cadence, even though it is one put off until the very last minute. That's tonality. One could obviously do the same with the pop music pattern if one were so inclined:
C | G | a | F :||: C | G | a G | C
Then it would become a tonal pattern—but as you imply, it would be considered hackneyed. Whereas if you asked Diego Ortiz (or whoever) to end a romanesca without the tonic cadence, he would have considered that outmoded and not up-to-date enough.
Tonality doesn't mean simply something that uses "tonal harmonies" (did you possibly mean triadic harmonies?); it requires a tonal centre of gravity. Most pop music intentionally avoids establishing one of those. That's not something that was really possible to do in the tonal system except by oscillating between two (or more) tonalities, as done by Schubert and almost nobody else:
https://youtu.be/ZbJtHzaFpBQ?t=950 D minor/B-flat major with F as a passing chord. This is only possible because of the massive cadence establishing D minor that preceded it; otherwise D minor would not really be a tonality at all, just a chord that Schubert sits on for a really long time.
https://youtu.be/7H_Qwvz2u8w?t=2235 C-sharp minor/E major with F-sharp minor as a passing chord. This is only possible because eventually F-sharp minor resolves to the dominant of C-sharp minor, which in turn becomes major to prepare for the subsequent "false reprise" in F#.
Schumann used these passages as models for some complete compositions (e.g. In die wunderschönen Monat Mai) but apart from that we don't really see modal oscillations between triads with no functional relationship until the 20th century.
Great points, amw. I would like to add that the wide gulf between common practice tonality and the harmonic practice of popular music/jazz was at the center of a dispute that recently blew up where a musicologist who came from the popular tradition said that music theory as taught in conservatories perpetuates white supremacy.
I wouldn't go that far, but I do agree with him that there's a significant disparity between common practice tonality and the harmonic practice that's more familiar to the vast majority of people.* When I first started listening to classical music closely after a long time away, I found it difficult to recognize the markers of harmonic closure, because they simply work differently.
In that connection, the same musicologist posted this on his blog about how "tonality" (read: modality) works for popular music:
http://www.ethanhein.com/wp/2017/philip-taggs-everyday-tonality/
It has nothing to do with the functional relationships of harmony, and everything to do with rhythmic placement and accent. Wherever something ends, that's where it ends, and who cares what happened in-between?
* I also agree that teaching common practice harmony as normative is bad, but for nearly opposite reasons: it ignores the diverse practices of 20th century modernism and makes them seem aberrant, when they are an important and necessary part of our musical culture. Allowing 20th century modernism in brings in people from non-European backgrounds and women as well, so it takes care of the other problem too.
Quote from: BasilValentine on September 18, 2017, 12:51:04 PM
In general, V-I is just too lame to be an acceptable conclusion in most pop genres. The very fact that it is routinely avoided to the point that it is rare, along with why this is so, is in itself enough to prove a kind of tonality intimately related to the classical kind is in play.
I do not really accept either the premise (even as a generality) that, nor the disdain implicit in,
V-I is just too lame to be an acceptable conclusion in most pop genres.
http://www.youtube.com/v/DyHHC5kK6Sk
http://www.youtube.com/v/5zKM60a2k44
A kind of tonality intimately related to the classical kind is an interesting counterexample of positive exaggeration. The mischief-maker in me wants to concede that a pale imitation is related to its model, and possibly intimately 0:)
Quote from: Maestro267 on September 11, 2017, 07:51:43 AM
The funny thing is, the modern extended techniques have always been there. So why didn't Beethoven deploy tone clusters or instruct the pianist to pluck the strings inside the piano? At what point in history did someone just say "Screw the rules" and just go with what they wanted to hear?
There were pianos being made in Beethoven's day which were actually quite experimental, including percussive sounds and extra pedals that would most definitely be considered 'extended techniques' by today's standards.
A Jessop sighting!
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Quote from: amw on September 18, 2017, 05:23:44 PM
Not..... really? I'll use chord names instead of function numbers for easier comprehensibility here, but: think about the romanesca.
The romanesca was a ground bass very similar to the "four chords and the truth" ostinato: instead of C | G | a | F, it was C | G | a | E. In popular music of the 16th~ century it was used as a framework for improvisation similar to the way the chords are used in modal jazz (Blue in Green, etc). The focus was on the notes of what we now think of as the Aeolian mode; the chord pattern in itself has no direction. The same is true of "four chords and the truth". The chords C, G, a and F in that order can establish a tonality if there is a tonic cadence. There is not. In fact most of the songs I know that use this ostinato end on either the second or fourth chords: G or F. Neither one is a particularly shocking or surprising way to end such a song. Similarly, the guitar or lute player playing a romanesca could finish on C, or G, or a, or E, and it would make precisely no difference.
Of course there is! There is a tonic cadence from IV-I on every repetition. Moreover their is a deceptive progression from VI-vi on every repetition as well. Tonality works differently in rock than in common-practice classical. IV-I is a grammatical, key establishing resolution in this style.
millions said: Then if you want "function" to have a narrow, academic definition, then it applies only to itself, and can't be used in a discussion to distinguish CP tonality from other music (which you called non-tonal modal and post-tonal).
Mahlerian reacted: What you just wrote is, quite literally, meaningless. Of course something with a specific definition can be used to separate things from other things. That's the point of a definition!
Hey, watch the language and stay on point! This points out the difference in us: I see how things are connected, and you see how they are separated. The Harvard definition of tonality is inclusive of all tone-centric music. Western CP gets no special treatment unless it is referred to specifically in that other sense.
Quote from: millionrainbows on September 18, 2017, 09:01:27 AM
It (tonal) becomes a self-serving term which is essentially meaningless in other contexts. This is counter-productive to discussion of wider areas of music. BTW, do you really understand "function" and what makes it work? If you did, you would see the underlying general principle that "function" in a general sense embodies.
Mahlerian pontificates: "You're assuming that function must apply to music outside of common practice tonality, just as you're assuming tonal must apply to other music."
Yes, that's right, and the Harvard dictionary backs me up on tonality. As far as function being a wider conceptual application, any present-day composer or jazz musician would tell you that 'function' is not exclusive to CP Western tonality.
Mahlerian declared: "The problem is that all of your arguments depend on this assumption, which is why you never prove anything."
I'll never 'prove' anything to a tight-fisted thinker like you, Mahlerian. Your defense of the abandoned fort called 'CP tonality' verges on absurdity at times, creating nonsensical axiomatic statements which tend to disappear into their own self-contained circularity. Loosen up!
Quote from: Mahlerian on September 18, 2017, 05:41:28 PM
Great points, amw.
In that connection, the same musicologist posted this on his blog about how "tonality" (read: modality) works for popular music:
http://www.ethanhein.com/wp/2017/philip-taggs-everyday-tonality/
It has nothing to do with the functional relationships of harmony, and everything to do with rhythmic placement and accent. Wherever something ends, that's where it ends, and who cares what happened in-between?
I got through several of this author's analyses. Each of the works has a perfectly clear tonal center and a perfectly clear tonic chord. The resolution chords don't sound like tonics because of "rhythmic placement and accent," they are put in rhythmically strong positions because they are obvious tonic chords!
Re his analyses:
La Bamba: What he writes about there not being time for "a narrative progression of tension and resolution" because it goes by too fast is silly. It is a perfectly normal tonal progression repeated in short-winded fashion.
Pink Floyd: The tonic is G. It is a repeated progression of i - IV7 in G (Dorian) minor. Perfectly standard rock progression with an obvious tonal center.
Get Lucky: His claim that any chord could be the tonic is just stupid. B minor is the tonic chord and this is perfectly clear to anyone who isn't deaf. As in the Floyd, the resolution is IV-I and it uses the standard Dorian inflections of the style.
Once again, all of this music is tonal in that it has a clear central tone established by a standard cadencial progression, V-I or IV-I. Why are you guys going through mental contortions to avoid what is perfectly obvious to every competent if illiterate teenage guitarist?
Quote from: BasilValentine on September 20, 2017, 01:59:37 PMOnce again, all of this music is tonal in that it has a clear central tone established by a standard cadencial progression, V-I or IV-I. Why are you guys going through mental contortions to avoid what is perfectly obvious to every competent if illiterate teenage guitarist?
You are arguing against a stance that neither I nor
amw have taken.
I am not arguing that those chords are not felt as points of arrival, I'm saying that the reason they are felt as points of arrival is more or less independent of functionality.
IV-I is not a standard cadential progression in functional tonality. Among other things, it is indistinguishable (when shorn of context) from a I-V, and so it lacks force in establishing a key. Only context (and in this case, placement and accent) indicate which interpretation makes sense.
Quote from: Mahlerian on September 20, 2017, 02:19:04 PM
You are arguing against a stance that neither I nor amw have taken.
The wonderful thing is you both have your own private definitions of "tonal" so that no statement you make can be proven false. As Wolfgang Pauli once said, "it's not even wrong."
Quote from: Scarpia on September 20, 2017, 02:24:14 PM
The wonderful thing is you both have your own private definitions of "tonal" so that no statement you make can be proven false. As Wolfgang Pauli once said, "it's not even wrong."
Far from a private or idiosyncratic definition, I am using the standard definition of "tonality" to indicate the specific system of harmonic hierarchies used in the common practice period, a triadic language based on the tonic-dominant polarity. I hope I have been consistent in doing this.
IV-I is a half cadence, not a full cadence. A half cadence is not sufficient to establish tonality kind of by definition. The subdominant cannot be a substitute for the dominant; its nature is antithetical to the dominant. The dominant is a key of higher tension than the tonic, because it contains the scale degree ^7 which is a semitone away from the tonic degree and therefore is acoustically dissonant relative to it. Therefore the progression ^7 -> ^8 is felt as resolution, and the tonic chord is stabilised. The subdominant is a key of lower tension than the tonic, because it contains the scale degree ^4. When a subdominant chord follows a tonic chord, this degree ^4 has the same semitonal relationship with ^3 of the tonic chord, and therefore ^3 -> ^4 is felt as resolution, and ^4 essentially becomes a new localised tonic with the original tonic chord now a dissonance. Similarly, the progression ^4 -> ^3 feels like a stable chord moving to a less stable one, which is why the cadence IV-I is rarely found in classical music except when I has been conclusively established by a full cadence.
When I say the dominant is dissonant and the subdominant makes the tonic dissonant I'm not talking about subjective assessments of dissonance but about acoustics. Tonality is ultimately based on the overtone series as a means for harmonic structure (although with heavy alterations bc of equal temperament). Modality is based on the overtone series as a means for melodic organisation. In a modal structure, an F major chord can be "dissonant" relative to a C major chord if the melodic line supports a resolution to C major. This is quite different from tonality, where the melodic line may be of no importance whatsoever.
Words have meanings.
Quote from: amw on September 20, 2017, 03:18:01 PM
IV-I is a half cadence, not a full cadence.
IV-I is a plagal cadence; perhaps its most famous use is at the end of the Hallelujah Chorus ... nothing halvsies about it.
A half cadence is one which rests upon the Dominant. Which is not the case in the celebrated
Handel example.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
A plagal cadence is basically just a half cadence on the tonic though.... and that tonic has to be established by a full cadence.
At least that's how I learned the terms lol
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 20, 2017, 04:42:12 PM
IV-I is a plagal cadence; perhaps its most famous use is at the end of the Hallelujah Chorus ... nothing halvsies about it.
A half cadence is one which rests upon the Dominant. Which is not the case in the celebrated Handel example.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
It's not used to establish the final tonic, though. The decisive cadence is at the "and he shall reign forever and ever" with a root position V-I. You could end it there and it would sound complete (if not as satisfying). The rest is just an extended tonic area.
The same goes for other movements in the common practice period that end with IV-I, like the first movement of Berlioz's Symphony Fantastique.
Quote from: amw on September 20, 2017, 04:55:29 PM
A plagal cadence is basically just a half cadence on the tonic though.... and that tonic has to be established by a full cadence.
At least that's how I learned the terms lol
It's still how harmony is taught today. https://www3.northern.edu/wieland/theory/harmony/cadences.htm eg
Quote from: Mahlerian on September 20, 2017, 05:03:40 PM
It's not used to establish the final tonic, though. The decisive cadence is at the "and he shall reign forever and ever" with a root position V-I. You could end it there and it would sound complete (if not as satisfying). The rest is just an extended tonic area.
Sure.
Quote from: amw on September 20, 2017, 04:55:29 PM
A plagal cadence is basically just a half cadence on the tonic though....
Mahlerian's point that closing plagal cadences are not "establishment" of the tonic, but an "extended tonic area" is well taken.
Call it a semantic hang-up of mine, but the term
half cadence to my ear implies that the harmonic arc is incomplete; there is
somewhere else we are obliged to go. And of course, that ain't true at the end of either the
Hallelujah Chorus, nor the
Rêveries.
No.
8)
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on September 17, 2017, 02:24:10 PM
I'm the first to jump to having said this particular discussion is all 'nit-picking,' but, we all have to make our own kind of fun.
The loose, general, generic use of Tonal would include pop music.
The formal, classical ~ Common Practice matrix definition includes Tonic (triad) as the tonal center of a very rigid hierarchy of triadic chords built upon the scale degrees, all of them with a very specific "Function" within that matrix. Common Practice Tonal, in that respect, no longer includes 20th century pop music any more than it includes, say, most of the music of Debussy.
Repeating, this is all nit-picking between a loose and generic idea of 'tonal' vs. the formal (classical) meaning of "Tonal/ tonality."
Since even dodecaphonic and other serial music and set theory music is quite often tone centered (and can be and is called that), I would prefer at least some qualification added to the looser use of the term tonal to distinguish it from the formal Common-Practice definition and its meaning.
And... at what point do we decide to transfer formal theory, tonal or otherwise, to pop music, and why and to what useful end? So many of those songs that have the typical modulations by assertion (up a whole-step from the starting key, always used for and considered 'dramatic') often remain in that second key level and end there. Do we want to get seriously pretentious and then start labeling this particular niche of the pop genre as "Progressive Tonality." Lol, I think not.
I agree with MC, and point out that the formal (classical) meaning of tonal/ tonality refers to a specific era of music within a certain tradition, so this is more a label or identifier than it is a more meaningful, flexible term which refers to the actual mechanics of general tone-centricity. But, ostensibly, it was derived from such real-world considerations, and was adopted as the 'final solution' to such musical concerns as 'cadences' and resting points, establishing a tonality, etc. (but only within strictly prescribed ways. Achtung!)
In light of this, it is absurd and misleading to apply a classical label-term to an open-ended discussion of 'what makes music tone centric' or, generally, tonal.
If Mahlerian is this enslaved to strict definitions, I don't think he would make a good teacher, since his students would be constantly barraging him with questions concerning music which they have encountered on the radio, records, television, and virtually anywhere there is music being played and created. Most universities have jazz studies programs now. It's a wide, diverse world out there, and such myopic and pedantic views are outmoded, as of about 1950 at least.
Quote from: millionrainbows on September 21, 2017, 09:35:39 AMIf Mahlerian is this enslaved to strict definitions, I don't think he would make a good teacher, since his students would be constantly barraging him with questions concerning music which they have encountered on the radio, records, television, and virtually anywhere there is music being played and created. Most universities have jazz studies programs now. It's a wide, diverse world out there, and such myopic and pedantic views are outmoded, as of about 1950 at least.
The vast majority of music in the world and in history is not tonal, it is true. The music I myself write is not tonal.
But if we want a general term for tone centricity, we can just use something that we already use, and which covers everything nicely in a way that tonal, with all of its baggage, does not:
music.
Quote from: millionrainbows on September 21, 2017, 09:35:39 AM
I agree with MC, and point out that the formal (classical) meaning of tonal/ tonality refers to a specific era of music within a certain tradition, so this is more a label or identifier than it is a more meaningful, flexible term which refers to the actual mechanics of general tone-centricity. But, ostensibly, it was derived from such real-world considerations, and was adopted as the 'final solution' to such musical concerns as 'cadences' and resting points, establishing a tonality, etc. (but only within strictly prescribed ways. Achtung!)
In light of this, it is absurd and misleading to apply a classical label-term to an open-ended discussion of 'what makes music tone centric' or, generally, tonal.
If Mahlerian is this enslaved to strict definitions, I don't think he would make a good teacher, since his students would be constantly barraging him with questions concerning music which they have encountered on the radio, records, television, and virtually anywhere there is music being played and created. Most universities have jazz studies programs now. It's a wide, diverse world out there, and such myopic and pedantic views are outmoded, as of about 1950 at least.
One notes the fallacy of
ad hominem throughout this: "enslaved to strict definitions," "I don't think he would make a good teacher," "such myopic and pedantic views."
Nothing discussing the merits of the definitions, nor arguing any actual fault in definitions being strict. It's all
ad hominem and anecdote.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 21, 2017, 11:11:18 AM
One notes the fallacy of ad hominem throughout this: "enslaved to strict definitions," "I don't think he would make a good teacher," "such myopic and pedantic views."
Nothing discussing the merits of the definitions, nor arguing any actual fault in definitions being strict. It's all ad hominem and anecdote.
Funny, that....
been listening to Alfred Brendel play the Waldstein sonata for the past five minutes and it has just started to develop
Quote from: bwv 1080 on September 22, 2017, 10:07:26 AM
been listening to Alfred Brendel play the Waldstein sonata for the past five minutes and it has just started to develop
:) ;D :laugh:
Quote from: bwv 1080 on September 22, 2017, 10:07:26 AM
been listening to Alfred Brendel play the Waldstein sonata for the past five minutes and it has just started to develop
A pity it couldn't be stopped in time! 0:)
Quote from: bwv 1080 on September 22, 2017, 10:07:26 AM
been listening to Alfred Brendel play the Waldstein sonata for the past five minutes and it has just started to develop
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 22, 2017, 10:47:46 AM
A pity it couldn't be stopped in time! 0:)
It
is stopped in time ~ 1804, to be precise :-)
Quote from: bwv 1080 on September 22, 2017, 10:07:26 AM
been listening to Alfred Brendel play the Waldstein sonata for the past five minutes and it has just started to develop
I feel like I should click the "report to moderator" button, but I suspect that the moderators are not in charge of handing out rewards for brilliant posts. Anyway, kudos, from whoever's handing them out.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 21, 2017, 11:11:18 AM
One notes the fallacy of ad hominem throughout this: "enslaved to strict definitions," "I don't think he would make a good teacher," "such myopic and pedantic views."
Nothing discussing the merits of the definitions, nor arguing any actual fault in definitions being strict. It's all ad hominem and anecdote.
Mahlerian can dish it out, but he sure can't take it. He's avoided the issue by calling my posts "nonsense," and this response of Henning's is 'the pot calling the kettle black' after he called one of my posts 'next to gibberish.'
I'm ready to discuss any aspect of music, but not without questioning these academic definitions which do nothing to clarify the nature of tonality, which is easily discerned by the average listener, who is flummoxed by such pompous pronouncements as "popular music is not tonal." At least use an upper-case "T" if you make such statements.