The Crisis of Tonality

[James]

There are twelve different notes in Western Music - C, C#, D, Eb, E, F, F#, G, Ab, A, Bb, B - though each note can appear at various different octaves: you can have a very high C, a very low C, and a whole number of Cs in between. This is why the piano keyboard displays a repeating 12-note pattern of black and white keys. Most passages of music, however, don't use all twelve of the available notes, instead focusing on a particular selection: a scale. There are many types of scale, but most music written between the times of Monteverdi and Mahler are based on two types - major and minor. And if a piece is based on the major scale that starts on the note D, for example, it is said to be in the "key" of D major.

Major and minor scales are the basis of tonality, not only defining how traditional melody and harmony work but also providing composers with an organizing principle. They aren't musical straightjackets, though: a piece may be based on the notes of a particular scale, but other notes, called chromatic notes, can be introduced, and though most pieces start and end in the same key, composers "modulate" to other keys in between.

In the nineteenth century, composers started using increasingly prominent chromatic notes and modulating to ever more "distant" keys. Their musical language became increasingly rich and complex - you only need to try humming along to Beethoven's Grosse Fugue to realize that chromaticism had come a long way since Mozart. The result was that music began to feel less secure and stable, and it became harder for the listener to predict what will happen next. Many composers such as Schubert, Liszt and Chopin built on Beethoven's chromaticism, but it was Wagner - specifically with the opera Tristan und Isolde - who took tonality to the edge of breaking point, with music in which there are so many and such extreme modulations that it is very difficult to keep up. The famous "Tristan chord", the first chord heard in the prelude and the musical seed for much of the rest of the opera, is the ultimate paradigm of tonal ambiguity: each time it is used it can lead the music into one of many different keys, creating a sense of moving towards ever-shifting harmonic goalposts.

Wagner's precedent was taken up by many composers such as Strauss, whose musical language is characterized by unpredictable changes of key - one can feel almost musically sea-sick listening to Metamorphosen - and Mahler, who exploited large-scale tonal ambiguity and sometimes ended symphonies in different keys to which they had begun. But for Schoenberg and Debussy, Wagner's language represented only a starting point.

In the first decade of the twentieth century Schoenberg abandoned the chromatic Wagnerian tonality of Verklarte Nacht, described by one critic as sounding as though "someone had smeared the score of Tristan whilst the ink was still wet", and attempted to let his compositions flow directly from the subconscious. But before long he began to crave for a structural principle to replace tonality, which he eventually found in his twelve-tone techniques.

While Schoenberg deliberately exhausted and then abandoned tonality, Debussy took a more evolutionary approach, gradually dissolving traditional scales and harmony in a beguiling evocative soundworld. Instead of seeking a replacement for the goal-oriented structures of traditional tonal music, Debussy placed priority on the moment, making sensation as important as ongoing development. In pieces like Prelude a l'apres-midi d'un faune and his opera Pelleas et Melisande tonal scales and chords are present, but not consistently, and not used in a traditional way.

[some guy]

So James, why all the encyclopedia articles all of a sudden? Are they yours (are you an encyclopedia writer?) or did you get them from an already existing encyclopedia?

There are little bits of "James" sprinked throughout all of them, the little remarks that we recognize as your p.o.v. on things and the selection of which details to include and which to exclude--that's clearly all you.

But the overall style is about as distinctive as... as... well, an encyclopedia article. And in this one, where's the "crisis"? I don't see no crisis in this article at all, no how.

Anyway, what's the point? -abe-, Corey, Franco, and I did try to make the Serialism article into an actual discussion thread. Don't know how well that's gonna work, though. And even as informative articles.... Aside from the selection of materials, and of course I know you can't include everything, these little articles aren't all that accurate, either. (And there was that one very odd remark in the Electronic Music thread that Cage followed the 1939 Imaginary Landscape with Music for Amplified Toy Pianos. Well, the toy piano piece did "follow" Imaginary Landscape in the sense that it came afterwards, but really. We usually take "follow" to refer to the next thing that happened, but the toy piano piece is from 1960. Twenty one years later.)

[Josquin des Prez]

you only need to try humming along to Beethoven's Grosse Fugue to realize that chromaticism had come a long way since Mozart.

Mozart's chromaticism was generally more daring then that of Beethoven. Late Beethoven usually relies on pushing intervallic relationships rather then harmonic ones.

[Chaszz]

I mean, does Sibelius have anything to say that wasn't said already by earlier romantics (much better, too)?

Yes. Quite a bit, actually.

[Teresa]

Yes. Quite a bit, actually.

I agree as well, Sibelius' Tone Poems are some of the most original and best music ever written IMHO.  That lie is from the Second Viennese School and their followers that everything tonal had already been written!  Perhaps less than one percent of all tonal music as been composed and BRAND NEW tonal classical works are written every day.  As evidenced by the Neo-Classical, Neo-Romantic, Neo-Impressionist, Neo-Modern and Neo-Baroque movements.

The atonal avant-garde and minimalists schools will soon be in the dustbin of history, the sooner the better IMHO!

[Teresa]

The best of the late romantics is neither Sibelius nor Rachmaninoff, it's Schoenberg. Ane the reason why that is so is because Schoenberg was able to renew, replenish romantic expression, by means of atonality and the twelve note method of composition, while his more popular contemporaries could only rehash the stale, cliche formulas of a dying past.

Only Schoenberg's very early tonal works are in the Romantic style, he left Romanticism for atonal avant-gardism when he proclaimed that nothing new could be composed in the tonal realm.  Hundreds of TONAL composers since then have proved him dead wrong.

Thus Schoenberg is NOT a Romantic composer!

Sibelius and Rachmaninoff are among the GREAT late Romantics, to even mention their names and great compositions with Schoenberg is a supreme insult. 

[jochanaan]

It seems to me, James, that you're making a big deal over a crisis that has already passed.  Although Schoenberg et al may have thought, with some reason, that tonality was a dead end, subsequent composers have proved there's still life in the old warhorse. But that pesky serialism hasn't quite died either! And musicians make lots of other choices now too--modes from all over the world that are neither Classico-Romantic tonality nor atonality nor serialism.

So the crisis is already many decades in the past.

[Scarpia]

It seems to me, James, that you're making a big deal over a crisis that has already passed.  Although Schoenberg et al may have thought, with some reason, that tonality was a dead end, subsequent composers have proved there's still life in the old warhorse.

And Schoenberg continued to write tonal works after he started using pantonality.

[Brian]

I mean, does Sibelius have anything to say that wasn't said already by earlier romantics (much better, too)? Was Shostakovich any more than a fabricator, who constructed an imitative musical world with what material he'd pilfer from everyone else?

While I have to credit you with an original and interesting point of view, it actually is so shocking to me that I find it almost repellent.

Listen to the emotional arc of Sibelius' Sixth Symphony, from springlike freshness to false confidence to a nearly bottomless sense of loss, and try to find a predecessor who was able to speak these words. No, don't answer Tchaikovsky's Sixth; that is a symphony preoccupied from beginning to end with its own doom and utterly convinced of its tragedy. Sibelius' Sixth is the tragedy of a fresh-faced innocent climbing up out of the dregs and then, through forces beyond his power, falling back down again, despairing, friendless, and completely lost. It is the eager stranger in a new land which does not extend a welcome. It is Billy Budd; it is Ophelia; it is Emily Dickinson; it is Frederic Henry.

Listen to the fear within Sibelius' Fifth. What symphony expresses fear, and absence of self-confidence, like this one does? Each of the Sibelius symphonies are like human beings, fully formed, with majestically independent personalities. The Beethoven symphonies are like nine granite columns of the temple of humanity, essential parts of ourselves; the Brahms Fourth is a Shakespearean tragedy; the Schubert symphonies are Shakespearean comedies. The mature Sibelius symphonies are people. The Fifth person is deeply troubled - can we say he is deeply troubled by Schoenberg? I would argue yes. He is deeply troubled that the world is leaving him behind, that it has devolved into chaos in the form of World War I and in the form of atonalism. He flirts with submission and defeat: the bassoon solo in the first movement, a solo which for an agonizing moment surrenders to a music without direction, without fixed forms in the traditional ways.

The story of the Fifth Symphony is the story of a man trying to reassure himself. The initial climax is a reassurance; the transition between the two parts of the first movement is an attempt to cheer himself up and march toward a happy ending. The happy ending he does arrive at is too much, too forced. It's not honest. The slow movement betrays this. Even the finale betrays it: listen to the dissonant, disagreeable trombones right before the exultant final pre-silence chord. Was it painful reaching this conclusion? Yes; you can hear the pain in the silence.

Of course, we very plainly disagree. I don't think Sibelius, Shostakovich, Atterberg, the R. Strauss of Metamorphosen, Tubin, Dorman, Prokofiev, Barber, Bernstein, Poulenc, Milhaud, Bax, Rachmaninov, or Braga Santos were doing nothing but rehashing cliches. I don't think Schoenberg's twelve-tone music can be labelled romanticism in a way which is fair to both Schoenberg and romanticism. I think of Shostakovich as one of the Great composers; in fact, I often come close to considering him as important a voice as Beethoven or Bach, and by the end of my life will probably arrive at that conclusion and figure out why. I could talk about some works of Shostakovich, or Rachmaninov, but this post is long enough already.

Suffice to say that, in this man's view, many composers of the 20th century found ways to innovate, express new things, and reach new pinnacles of achievement without "following from Debussy and Schoenberg." Today many such artists face serious compositional problems - balancing "popular" with artistic elements, the challenge of melody, creating effective new structures, avoiding charges of simplicity or populism, and just generally finding new things to say - but the thing about great composers is that they find ways of answering such questions. And I am certain that more than a few great tonal, melodic composers have yet to be heard.

EDIT: Updated list of 20th century composers who aren't cliched, with thanks to jochanaan for pointing a few of them out in a parallel thread.

[Mirror Image]

Tonality never died and anyone who thought it did is a fool. There is still a lot to be said in tonal music. Listen to the inventive things Arvo Part is composing or the sounds that Rautavaara is coming up with. You may not care for these two composers, but to imply that tonality has reached its saturation point is absurd and simply uneducated.

[not edward]

I honestly don't believe there are many composers out there who believe tonality is dead, anyway. Take someone like Brian Ferneyhough, who's about as hardcore mainstream modernist as it gets. He refers to Sibelius' 7th as his favourite symphony, and notes that of course students should write in C major if they want to--just so long as they know why they're writing in C major and they understand just how much variety that key signature can hold.

[CRCulver]

I mean, does Sibelius have anything to say that wasn't said already by earlier romantics

Yes. Read Nørgård's analysis of Sibelius' Fifth. Sibelius was working with multiple time coordinates decades before other composers. The organic nature of the Seventh was also unprecedented.

[jowcol]

Tonality never died and anyone who thought it did is a fool. There is still a lot to be said in tonal music. Listen to the inventive things Arvo Part is composing or the sounds that Rautavaara is coming up with. You may not care for these two composers, but to imply that tonality has reached its saturation point is absurd and simply uneducated.

I believe that sentiment showed up on a lot of Schoenberg's writings and many other of that school.  I don't agree with it personally, but this notion was tossed around a lot but the serialist zealots at the time- Webern said that they had "broken tonality's neck" -- and I would not refer to a Schoenberg or Boulez as "absurd and simply uneducated".

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Only Schoenberg's very early tonal works are in the Romantic style, he left Romanticism for atonal avant-gardism when he proclaimed that nothing new could be composed in the tonal realm.

Schoenberg never proclaimed any such thing. In fact, he once said: "There's still a lot of good music to be written in C major."

[Mirror Image]

Only Schoenberg's very early tonal works are in the Romantic style, he left Romanticism for atonal avant-gardism when he proclaimed that nothing new could be composed in the tonal realm. Hundreds of TONAL composers since then have proved him dead wrong.

Schoenberg NEVER said nothing new could be written in a tonal idiom, he clearly stated that there was nothing left for HIM to say in that idiom. Don't confuse your own views with the facts.

You spend a lot of time dismissing the Second Viennese School when you could clearly be of more assistance on a thread about composers that you actually enjoy.

We all get it: you don't like atonal music. We understand you don't like Schoenberg, Berg, or Webern. We understand your sentiments regarding Mozart. You have made yourself perfectly clear. I think it's time to move on don't you?

[Mirror Image]

The atonal avant-garde and minimalists schools will soon be in the dustbin of history, the sooner the better IMHO!

Maybe in your own dreams, but serialism and atonality aren't going away. It will always be used in some form or another whether you like it or not. Again, your own distorted views are getting in the way of the facts.

[Teresa]

Schoenberg NEVER said nothing new could be written in a tonal idiom, he clearly stated that there was nothing left for HIM to say in that idiom. Don't confuse your own views with the facts.

Sorry but isn't that the same thing?    Or is he admitting that other composers can still write new and original tonal works but not him?  I fail to see any distinction here.

You spend a lot of time dismissing the Second Viennese School when you could clearly be of more assistance on a thread about composers that you actually enjoy.

This thread is titled "The Crisis of Tonality" and many of us who love modern tonal works KNOW this Crisis is OVER!  So my post is very much on target.  I will live to see the death of ugly atonal avant-garde because it offers nothing at all for the listener to enjoy.   And is perhaps the most important subject in the realm of classical music, it must be revealed for what it is so more composers are not sucked into its web!

Along with my latest article
The near destruction of Classical Music by the Second Viennese School

I offer my classical music discoveries including many TONAL works written this century 2001 - 2007. 
Delightful Classical compositions I have discovered

In time the bleakness, ugliness and depravity of the Second Viennese School will soon be in the dustbin of history.  It was a perverted era and we are outgrowing it and returning to real music. 

[Teresa]

Hey Teresa ... is Debussy also on your little "shit list".

Debussy is one of my favorite Impressionist composers.  Very beautiful tonal music, that uses the orchestra as a canvas fully exploiting the beautiful tonal colors of all the individual instruments. 

Here is my Debussy collection:

DEBUSSY, CLAUDE (1862-1918)
  Berceuse heroïque for Orchestra, L 132 (1914)
    Järvi, Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra [] Telarc
  La Cathédrale Engloutie (1910)
    Kunzel, Cincinnati Pops Orchestra [] Telarc 
  Children's Corner, L 113 (1908, Caplet)
  Clair de lune, L 75 (1890)
  Danse, L 69 (1890, Ravel)
  Epigraphes antiques (6), L.131 (1914)
    Talmi, Orchestre de Québec [] Atma
  Images for Orchestra: Ibéria, L 122 (1908)
    López-Cobos, Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra [] Telarc
  La Mer, L 109 (1905)
  Nocturnes, L 99 (1901)
    Järvi, Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra [] Telarc
  Petite Suite, L 65 (1889)
    Talmi, Orchestre de Québec [] Atma
  Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune, L 86 (1894)
    Järvi, Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra [] Telarc
  La Soirée dans Grenade, L 100 (1903)
    Talmi, Orchestre de Québec [] Atma 

[some guy]

I will live to see the death of ugly atonal avant-garde because it offers nothing at all for the listener to enjoy.

Who is this "the listener" that you refer to? I am a listener, and I enjoy modern and contemporary non-tonal musics of all varieties. These musics certainly offer a lot for me to enjoy. And have done for almost forty years now. (Thirty-eight to be exact.)

As so often happens in threads of this sort, a particular subcategory of either "audience" or "listener" is privileged and substituted for all members, leaving those who enjoy this music where? Well, in reality, leaving them right where they are, as "listeners," as part of "the audience," and enjoying all this putatively ugly music very well, thank you very much! It seems so simple to me, but it's apparently almost impossible for some people to imagine that anything they dislike can be genuinely liked by someone else.

Too bad. This music is genuinely liked by some listeners. (I happen to be one of them who also likes Sibelius' music very much, and Rachmaninoff's as well.   And is perhaps the most important subject in the realm of classical music, it must be revealed for what it is so more composers are not sucked into its web!

In time the bleakness, ugliness and depravity of the Second Viennese School will soon be in the dustbin of history.  It was a perverted era and we are outgrowing it and returning to real music.

I'd like to say, "No it won't," but I'm still stuck up there with the three adjectives. Why? Because the Second Viennese School is neither bleak nor ugly nor depraved. Nor perverted nor immature, for that matter. But there you are.

[The new erato]

It constantly amazes me how people confuses their ability to understand complex music with notions of the musics quality.  Certainly, complexity beyond comprehension is not automatically a sign of quality, but this works both ways. That is, lack of comprehension doesn't mean it's bad either. Some of the arguments of comprehension and likeability presented on behalf on Mendelssohn in the Mendelssohn vs Shoenberg thread could just as well been applied to proving that ABBA were greater composers than Mendelssohn.

I have my blind spots as well, but there's a distinction between blahing endlessly about how the music is bad versus simply stating that "I don't get it", ot "I don't like it".