Atonal and tonal music

[Madiel]

Meanwhile, all the fans of "atonal" are falling into exactly the same complaint that every person invested in a subject makes against those that are not invested in the subject.

I've raised this before when people have made sweeping statements about pop music. But it doesn't matter what the subject is. Anything you are interested in, you will subdivide and make finer distinctions in. Anything you are not interested in, you will generalise.

It's driven by a whole bunch of factors that boil down to: you can't expect everyone to make maximum effort all of the time. They just won't.

I could jump up and down every time I see someone write Nørgård as Norgard, but I don't because you're not all learning Danish like I am and you might not have bothered to install the relevant software.

The way to make people stop using words you don't like isn't to berate them into submission, the way to make people use better terminology is to make them more interested in the subject.

[Madiel]

Erm...I already do live with "atonal" music. Probably. Depending on who is defining it. Its the blanket term for what has become far too disparate styles and composers that I have a problem with, and the lazy way the term is used - unmatched in this respect by any other term in music criticism that I can think of.

But what of the question I asked? Can you say with any confidence and certainty of wide support which of the composers / works in that link are "atonal"?

It doesn't matter one iota what I as one individual think. Words don't have rigidly defined outer boundaries. 

[SimonNZ]

It doesn't matter one iota what I as one individual think. Words don't have rigidly defined outer boundaries.

Well, I think it does matter what you think, and if there was some broad consensus among numerous individuals such as yourself, the way there is with any other musical term, then I'd be happy to use that going forward. But this one I see only used for its vagueness, and little or no agreement on definition. It seems an anachronism, something that perhaps was once useful, but whose subject has outgrown it.

[Ken B]

People have been failing to describe music accurately since before Schoenberg was even born. These days you can get a job writing liner or programme notes.

If you can live with the Moonlight Sonata, you can bloody well live with atonal music.

*chortle*

[Madiel]

Well, I think it does matter what you think, and if there was some broad consensus among numerous individuals such as yourself, the way there is with any other musical term, then I'd be happy to use that going forward. But this one I see only used for its vagueness, and little or no agreement on definition. It seems an anachronism, something that perhaps was once useful, but whose subject has outgrown it.

Broad consensus is exactly how it works. But you won't be able to determine the broad consensus by asking me, as an individual, to answer your question. Which is what I thought you were trying to do. I see now your understanding was better than that. I am merely one blip in a wider graph.

I would still say, though, that the boundary will always be blurry. You might get broad agreement at the centre about some pieces (with a few iconoclastic holdouts), but further out you'll get a strong minority opinion, then fairly even and potentially heated disagreement, and on the outer edges you get a person applying "atonal" to Mozart and most people thinking WTF.

What I can't predict for you is the degree to which I, personally, will correlate with majority opinion on each piece.

[Monsieur Croche]

If you can live with the Moonlight Sonata, you can bloody well live with atonal music.

When a sonata is composed and its composer titles it "Moonlight Sonata," we'll all have to live with the title given that piece.  Until then... :-)


Best regards.

[Ken B]

When a sonata is composed and its composer titles it "Moonlight Sonata," we'll all have to live with the title given that piece.  Until then... :-)


Best regards.

So if sanantonio writes a sonata for piano entitled "atonal is a useful word stop telling me what I can or cannot say about music" will that settle it?

[Madiel]

When a sonata is composed and its composer titles it "Moonlight Sonata," we'll all have to live with the title given that piece.  Until then... :-)


Best regards.

Wow. It's almost as if you think I was discussing a hypothetical situation rather than an actual situation where we know where the title of the piece came from. 

The ENTIRE POINT being that the title persists even though the composer didn't come up with it and even though many people find it inaccurate.

Make your own goalposts instead of moving mine.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Wow. It's almost as if you think I was discussing a hypothetical situation rather than an actual situation where we know where the title of the piece came from. 

The ENTIRE POINT being that the title persists even though the composer didn't come up with it and even though many people find it inaccurate.

Make your own goalposts instead of moving mine.

Look, both you and Monsieur Croche have made interesting posts in this thread. You don't need to really get so hot headed about him misunderstanding a point you are making.......I'm sure there are nicer ways to communicate what you mean.

[Madiel]

Look, both you and Monsieur Croche have made interesting posts in this thread. You don't need to really get so hot headed about him misunderstanding a point you are making.......I'm sure there are nicer ways to communicate what you mean.

It's not misunderstanding I object to. Talking about a composer-titled Moonlight is a conscious and deliberate reversal.

If someone wants to talk about the significance of composer titles, then pick a work titled by a composer. It's not as if there aren't any to choose from.

Instead we get a total muddying of what I was saying. Is there any possible doubt that I picked Moonlight precisely because it was not titled by the composer?

[Madiel]

Oh sod it, the fact is this whole topic makes me grumpy. I have to deal with these issues about language (including that appropriate language depends on your audience) for a living, and seeing it being mangled here is just frustrating all round.

I'd probably hate dancing about architecture as well.

[Monsieur Croche]

So if sanantonio writes a sonata for piano entitled "atonal is a useful word stop telling me what I can or cannot say about music" will that settle it?

It would certainly settle what the name of that particular SanAntonio Piano Sonata is, at any rate, while at the same time it settles nothing else but the question, "What is the title of this piece?"  It would not settle anything more than, say, "The title of this piece is 'I'm prone to finding imaginary personal insults, ukases, orders and commands where none exist.'" would settle anything... because, hey, its just a title, not the thing itself.


Best regards

[Monsieur Croche]

So if sanantonio writes a sonata for piano entitled "atonal is a useful word stop telling me what I can or cannot say about music" will that settle it?

I like it.

Thank the man for his proffered trigger of the concept for your next piano sonata, then write that piano sonata :-)


Best regards

[Jo498]

Oh sod it, the fact is this whole topic makes me grumpy. I have to deal with these issues about language (including that appropriate language depends on your audience) for a living, and seeing it being mangled here is just frustrating all round.

But you of all people should be able to understand how frustrated people can become if a term neither coined by composers nor precise and often used with polemical intentions has stuck and they are told to shut up about the problems with the term.
It is roughly the same as if a lot of people routinely called accidentally killing someone in a car accident murder. Wouldn't that provoke your protest as a legal professional? Would you like being called out as a pedant or revisionist with an agenda because who are you with your legal definitions to contradict something that is common, despite wrong from a professional pov?

[Madiel]

But you of all people should be able to understand how frustrated people can become if a term neither coined by composers nor precise and often used with polemical intentions has stuck and they are told to shut up about the problems with the term.
It is roughly the same as if a lot of people routinely called accidentally killing someone in a car accident murder. Wouldn't that provoke your protest as a legal professional? Would you like being called out as a pedant or revisionist with an agenda because who are you with your legal definitions to contradict something that is common, despite wrong from a professional pov?

I'm not telling people to shut up about the problems so much as I am telling people to stop trying to make other people change a widely used term in a general context.

Context is everything. My protest as a legal professional would be if people tried to suggest that their terminology could determine the outcome of a case. If they're speaking in a clearly colloquial context, I'm not likely to mount much of a protest about it. It's only when people start trying to declare that they know what a judge's decision should be that I start getting picky about understanding exactly what the law does and does not say.

Specialists cannot demand that non-specialists use the "right" terminology when they are speaking outside the field. It just doesn't work. It's about context and communication. If a person is successfully communicating - if you understand what they meant - constantly pulling them up on precisely what they literally** said is of no real benefit unless your goal is to make people so self-conscious that they don't want to say anything anymore. Berating people for using "atonal" in a way that a specialist in 20th century Western art music wouldn't use it isn't going to turn people into experts in 20th century Western art music, it's going to turn them into people who avoid any conversation about 20th century Western art music because they're afraid of being told how wrong they are.

I don't know about some of the other people caught up in this, but for me I've witnessed 10 pages now of disincentive to write anything remotely technical about certain types of music. Schoenberg is on my list of composers to explore. So are a bunch of 20th century musical figures, including Schnittke and Dutilleux. I've just bought all 8 symphonies of Nørgård and am trying to get to know them. I couldn't even tell you whether I would want to use the term "atonal" for any of those composers (in 2 cases I've barely heard a note). What I can tell you is that now if the word comes to mind, I'll be worried about using it in case I "get it wrong". Is that a good outcome? I don't think so.

I heard an expression earlier today: "I am silently correcting your grammar."  Doing it silently makes all the difference in the world. If I hear someone in a colloquial context misusing legal ideas, then certainly inside my head I will be translating it and thinking "what he/she really means is...".  But is it necessary for me to TELL the person that what he/she "really" means is something using my more precise words? Frequently the answer is no.


** Now there is a word that is being mucked about with a lot at the moment.

[Monsieur Croche]

I am telling people to stop trying to make other people change a widely used term in a general context.
From what I've read in this thread, no one had yet 'told' anyone anything, until ^ just now.
Specialists demand
I have not seen one demand of any sort from any specialists, alleged or otherwise.
constantly pulling people up [correcting them...]
Nope, haven't seen any of that.
goal is to make people so self-conscious that they don't want to say anything anymore.
Since that hasn't been attempted in any post yet, none of that in this thread, either.
Berating people
Likewise... none present, non-existent here.
turn them into people who avoid any conversation about 20th century Western art music because they're afraid of being told how wrong they are.
Again, none of that dynamic in the thread.
now if the word [atonal] comes to mind, I'll be worried about using it in case I "get it wrong."
zOMG is there going to be a GMG compulsory Test on this stuff?


Best regards

[Madiel]

Believe what you like, Monsieur. I know how I and several others felt about the first part of this conversation, and we conveyed it in our posts at the time.  To be honest I'm not sure which parts you read before you joined in.

[BasilValentine]

But you of all people should be able to understand how frustrated people can become if a term neither coined by composers nor precise and often used with polemical intentions has stuck and they are told to shut up about the problems with the term.
It is roughly the same as if a lot of people routinely called accidentally killing someone in a car accident murder. Wouldn't that provoke your protest as a legal professional? Would you like being called out as a pedant or revisionist with an agenda because who are you with your legal definitions to contradict something that is common, despite wrong from a professional pov?

The term atonal and its usage is well understood by specialists. It serves several useful purposes. If you don't like the ways it is commonly misused, I would suggest educating those who misuse it. Pretending there is no consensus on its meaning won't help. 

[Parsifal]

It is roughly the same as if a lot of people routinely called accidentally killing someone in a car accident murder. Wouldn't that provoke your protest as a legal professional? Would you like being called out as a pedant or revisionist with an agenda because who are you with your legal definitions to contradict something that is common, despite wrong from a professional pov?

Not at all that same. It is like the word "depressed." Psychiatrists consider the word to have a precise clinical definition, the general public uses the word is a related but less specific sense.

In general usage, atonal is an adjective meaning a passage of music that has no apparent tonal center.

[Mahlerian]

But you of all people should be able to understand how frustrated people can become if a term neither coined by composers nor precise and often used with polemical intentions has stuck and they are told to shut up about the problems with the term.
It is roughly the same as if a lot of people routinely called accidentally killing someone in a car accident murder. Wouldn't that provoke your protest as a legal professional? Would you like being called out as a pedant or revisionist with an agenda because who are you with your legal definitions to contradict something that is common, despite wrong from a professional pov?

Thank you.  I am also bothered by the tendency of people to use the term "lie" when they mean "saying something false."  Murder and lie both imply intent to kill or deceive.

Here's the Grove article, in case you or anyone else wants to read about exactly how messy the term is when one unpacks it:
http://www.musictheory21.com/documents/atonality-new-grove-dic.pdf

(A note that the article was apparently revised in 2001 after the version above, but I haven't seen the newer version.  If anyone has access, it would be interesting to know how they differ.)