Atonal and tonal music

[Ken B]

I don't understand the connection.  You and others are agreeing that resolution of dissonances is not necessary for tonality (ie Debussy or Stravinsky, the entire effect of which depends on unresolved dissonances).

My point here Mahlerian isn't about music theory.

[Mahlerian]

My point here Mahlerian isn't about music theory.

What is it, then?  What is the connection between consonance/dissonance and atonality?

[Madiel]

Sorry, Mahlerian, but when you suggest that a metre is "objective", you ARE using it to mean "defined that way". It is a defined length. Not an observable quality of the world. It's ARBITRARY. It's been defined in slightly different ways over time.

And to suggest that this is not "universal" just because the whole world or universe doesn't measure things in metres is again a very strange conception. People are not using different kinds of "metres" in different places. The definition of a metre doesn't miraculously change in the USA just because people there don't typically use the metric system. There is no such thing as an "American metre" that is different from a "French metre".

I just don't think using objective/subjective language is at all appropriate for something like that. It's defined, it's arbitrary, and the question of perception simply doesn't come into it.

[Mahlerian]

Sorry, Mahlerian, but when you suggest that a metre is "objective", you ARE using it to mean "defined that way". It is a defined length. Not an observable quality of the world. It's ARBITRARY. It's been defined in slightly different ways over time.

And to suggest that this is not "universal" just because the whole world or universe doesn't measure things in metres is again a very strange conception. People are not using different kinds of "metres" in different places. The definition of a metre doesn't miraculously change in the USA just because people there don't typically use the metric system. There is no such thing as an "American metre" that is different from a "French metre".

But likewise, a third sounds the same anywhere in the world, so in a system that qualifies a third as a consonance, the sound in terms of vibration will not be any different than it is in any other culture (yes, yes, issues of tunings and such aside).  I thought that we were discussing just those types of things where the thing measured is identical and it is only the way of measuring it that differs.

At any rate, traditional music theory provides an objective standard, if not the only objective standard, by which we can make judgments, just as the metrical system provides an objective standard, though not the only one, by which we may measure things.

[Madiel]

But likewise, a third sounds the same anywhere in the world, so in a system that qualifies a third as a consonance, the sound in terms of vibration will not be any different than it is in any other culture.  I thought that we were discussing just those types of things where the thing measured is identical and it is only the way of measuring it that differs.

At any rate, traditional music theory provides an objective standard, if not the only objective standard, by which we can make judgments, just as the metrical system provides an objective standard, though not the only one, by which we may measure things.

Again, that's a DEFINED standard. This is what I'm trying to get through to you. The fact that you have "a system that qualifies as a third as a consonance" is, as far as I'm concerned, a perfect demonstration that the "consonance" part is not something as objective as the "third" part. You're continuing to use the word objective to mean "something not personal to me because I read it somewhere and other people read the same thing so we can all use that definition".

[Mahlerian]

Again, that's a DEFINED standard. This is what I'm trying to get through to you. The fact that you have "a system that qualifies as a third as a consonance" is, as far as I'm concerned, a perfect demonstration that the consonance part is not something objective.

But I'm not calling the fact that it's called a consonance objective, but rather the use of that defined standard to make judgments about whether this or that thing is consonant.

Again, the unit is not under discussion.  The measurement is.

[Madiel]

But I'm not calling the fact that it's called a consonance objective, but rather the use of that defined standard to make judgments about whether this or that thing is consonant.

And you wonder why we're confused, when you're trying to make a distinction between the name "consonance" and the quality "consonant"

[Mahlerian]

And you wonder why we're confused, when you're trying to make a distinction between the name "consonance" and the quality "consonant"

There, consonant simply meant "defined as a consonance in the terms of the system under discussion."  What I am trying to make a distinction between is consonance/dissonance and pleasantness/unpleasantness because the former can be discussed in objective terms (with the understanding that a specific system and its designations of consonance/dissonance are accepted for the terms of the discussion) while the latter remains resolutely subjective.

[Ken B]

What is it, then? 

Language.

It's like you are trying to say that "hot" and "alluring" are objective but "sexy" is meaningless.

If we can say, objectively, that something is dissonant then why can we not say that some piece of music lacks a tonal centre? Aren't they both a judgment? What is your warrant for saying one of the words is not merely useful and meaningful but actually objective, while the other is meaningless?

[Madiel]

I give up. Not because I don't get what you're saying, but because I can't make you grasp that your own choice of language makes the conversation more difficult and confusing than it otherwise would be.

When you say something like "defined as a consonance in the terms of the system under discussion", and the whole point was that we were talking about Amazonians who weren't actually part of that system, is it any wonder it becomes a mess?

You seem to have a strong desire to use terms in a systematic way, but what you can't see is that your own usage of terms is sometimes failing that test.

[Mahlerian]

I give up. Not because I don't get what you're saying, but because I can't make you grasp that your own choice of language makes the conversation more difficult and confusing than it otherwise would be.

I'm explaining this in the absolute simplest terms I possibly can.

When you say something like "defined as a consonance in the terms of the system under discussion", and the whole point was that we were talking about Amazonians who weren't actually part of that system, is it any wonder it becomes a mess?

You missed the point of bringing that up.  It was specifically brought up to show that the system of consonance and dissonance we are using for our discussion is not to be equated with pleasantness or unpleasantness on an objective level, as indeed it often is (and hence why the study overturns previously held ideas).

You and KenB seem to believe that whatever consonance and dissonance mean, it must be identical with or related to pleasantness or unpleasantness, but this is not true across cultures, and it is not even true within a given culture.  Theory defines what is consonant or dissonant.  Perception (which is influenced by culture, musical context, etc.) determines what is pleasant or unpleasant, and while both are useful, they are distinct.

[Mahlerian]

Language.

It's like you are trying to say that "hot" and "alluring" are objective but "sexy" is meaningless.

If we can say, objectively, that something is dissonant then why can we not say that some piece of music lacks a tonal centre? Aren't they both a judgment? What is your warrant for saying one of the words is not merely useful and meaningful but actually objective, while the other is meaningless?

The fact that some given word is meaningful does not imply that some other given word is also meaningful.  We cannot create dragons by determining that lizards exist.

We can determine dissonance and consonance because there exists a standard by which these may be judged (traditional theory).  On the other hand, there is no objective standard by which tonal centricity may be judged, and you have denied that something which is perceived as having tonal centricity necessarily is tonal.

[Madiel]

IIt was specifically brought up to show that the system of consonance and dissonance we are using for our discussion is not to be equated with pleasantness or unpleasantness on an objective level, as indeed it often is (and hence why the study overturns previously held ideas).

Do you seriously believe anyone here thought that pleasantness or unpleasantness was objective?

[Cato]

There, consonant simply meant "defined as a consonance in the terms of the system under discussion."  What I am trying to make a distinction between is consonance/dissonance and pleasantness/unpleasantness because the former can be discussed in objective terms (with the understanding that a specific system and its designations of consonance/dissonance are accepted for the terms of the discussion) while the latter remains resolutely subjective.

You are asking that a person suspend his subjectivity for the former, which I find illogical, (if I understand what is happening here  ).

For example:

Alexander Tcherepnin based a theory of composition on his subjective experience that a major and a minor triad sounded together were a consonance!  e.g.  He said that from "earliest childhood" he found E-G-G#-B  to be consonant, with which I can almost guarantee very few people will agree.

And so what will be the point of going on to the "subjective pleasant/unpleasant" part, when practically nobody will agree that the fundamental assumption of consonance is correct anyway?

[Mahlerian]

You are asking that a person suspend his subjectivity for the former, which I find illogical, (if I understand what is happening here  ).

Where we are discussing things like the "emancipation of dissonance," it is naturally necessary for participants to understand what was meant by going back to conceptions of consonance and dissonance in traditional theory.

For example:

Alexander Tcherepnin based a theory of composition on his subjective experience that a major and a minor triad sounded together were a consonance!  e.g.  He said that from "earliest childhood" he found E-G-G#-B  to be consonant, with which I can almost guarantee very few people will agree.

And so what will be the point of going on to the "subjective pleasant/unpleasant" part, when practically nobody will agree that the fundamental assumption of consonance is correct anyway?

And I find a chord such as D-E-A-C sounds extremely pleasant (beautiful, even) and, depending on context, not at all in need of resolution, though I am perfectly aware that according to traditional theory it contains multiple dissonances.

[Mahlerian]

Do you seriously believe anyone here thought that pleasantness or unpleasantness was objective?

Given that I had seen the view that there was an objective, universal component to perceptions of pleasantness and unpleasantness in harmony in a multitude of scientific papers, I would not be the least bit surprised.  In my experience, people who believe that atonal music exists tend to think that it universally sounds harsh to everyone, or at least to all "normal" people.

In the context, I was simply trying to steer the discussion clear of equating consonance/dissonance with pleasant/unpleasant, which unfortunately led to an extended discussion about that exact point.

[Madiel]

In my experience, people who believe that atonal music exists tend to think that it universally sounds harsh to everyone, or at least to all "normal" people.

Oh I see. So we're back to that canard. Whereby fans of certain 20th century music that have experienced elsewhere the equation of "atonal" with "unpleasant" have decided to project that association onto anyone on THIS forum who uses the word "atonal".

I had thought we had exploded that idea on the previous thread, weeks ago. But apparently not. Apparently we need to keep boxing with that shadow in order to kill it.

I can't speak for anyone but myself here, but when I use the word atonal, it is not to convey my dislike of the music concerned. Okay? Can I be excused from class now?

[Madiel]

The liner notes for my recordings of Shostakovich's string quartets use the dreaded word "atonal" in relation to particular passages of his 12th quartet.

I bloody love his 12th quartet. It's one of my top 2 favourites. The idea that either myself or the writer of those liner notes associates "atonal" with "unpleasant" is a nonsense to me.

[Ken B]

Oh I see. So we're back to that canard. Whereby fans of certain 20th century music that have experienced elsewhere the equation of "atonal" with "unpleasant"

We never got away from that. That is the real basis of the objection to "atonal": that the word prevents the masses from singing Pierrot Lunnaire at birthday parties.

[Mahlerian]

We never got away from that. That is the real basis of the objection to "atonal": that the word prevents the masses from singing Pierrot Lunnaire at birthday parties.

Yay for straw men!  They don't require justification, and they're great to pull out for insults.

Obviously Schoenberg's music is difficult for a number of reasons (non-repetition and a lack of focus on diatonicism chief among them), but the concept of atonality has historically been used to mark it off as being something other and apart from tradition.  It's just an extension of tonality.  That's it.  The masses won't be singing Bach's St. Matthew Passion at birthday parties, either.