Atonal and tonal music

[Ken B]

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.

This is funny, because your second paragraph proves it is not a strawman.

[Cato]

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.

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.

And others could easily find the chord unpleasant in any context, not because theory says so, but because they hear a chord unpleasant to their ears.  One could tell them that according to a certain theory the chord is a consonance, but will they change their opinion?  I think not.

Sooo...?

[Mahlerian]

And others could easily find the chord unpleasant in any context, not because theory says so, but because they hear a chord unpleasant to their ears.  One could tell them that according to a certain theory the chord is a consonance, but will they change their opinion?  I think not.

Sooo...?

So we should be able to discuss our perceptions using terms which are best suited to expressing perceptions, and separate that from discussion of theory.

Like I said, I can both hear the chord as containing dissonances and also as pleasant.  Clearly my own idea of what a dissonance is does not preclude hearing it as pleasant (and in plenty of cases a triad will sound unpleasant, if poorly used).

[Mahlerian]

This is funny, because your second paragraph proves it is not a strawman.

Really?  You think that I was saying that people will be singing Pierrot lunaire at birthday parties if they actually hear it correctly and not with that idiotic word atonal in their minds (never mind that the work isn't sung anyway, but neither are other melodramas like Strauss's Enoch Arden)?

Obviously they wouldn't.  If they familiarized themselves with it, they would recognize how many recurring motifs there are, and the delicate counterpoint, and the subtle interplay of instruments, but none of that would change the nocturnal, mysterious, and macabre atmosphere of the piece which is contrary to a celebratory occasion, and none of it would make the work easier to perform for amateurs.

Of course, the solemnity and gravity of Bach's work isn't suitable either, which is why your jab was nothing more than a cheap joke and not a serious attempt at representing my position.

[Cato]

So we should be able to discuss our perceptions using terms which are best suited to expressing perceptions, and separate that from discussion of theory.

"Should," but I do not it see it happening because of what I mentioned earlier.

[arpeggio]

So what if we are biologically inclined to like a perfect fifth?

My favorite chord is a C major chord and a C minor chord played at the same time.  Some people like augmented fifth chords.  Others diminished seventh chords.  There are even a few who like demented fourteenth chords (This is a joke ).

I do not understand why all music must be consonant.  I do not understand what is wrong with music that is primarily dissonant. 

When I see an image of Bambi prancing in a field of clover, I think of Debussy.  When I see an image of Godzilla eating the Empire State Building, I think of Xenakis.

[Monsieur Croche]

There are even a few who like demented fourteenth chords.

I like it!  "Dementochord."  What will be the symbol in a formal analysis... " ?"

So what if we are biologically inclined to like a perfect fifth?

Puleeeze!  We are not "biologically inclined to like a perfect fifth" any more than any other interval (as if a perfect fifth organically fits in our ears any more or better than a pencil fits in our ears.)
If we are so 'naturally inclined' to like a perfect 5th, what explains away the several centuries of earliest classical music when monophony ruled the roost, with its aesthetic wherein any and all simultaneously sounding intervals are 'just too much' (and, to be sure, considered both dissonant and unnatural) --eh???  If this little historic fact is used as a basis of argument -- and why not, it held for centuries and is no different from the canard of centuries of tonal then atonal -- we are then biologically inclined to find only pleasing that music which uses but one note at a time, without any harmony at all, and those monophonic melodic lines which assiduously avoid both the interval of the fifth and fourth even as sung in sequence in a single line.  By the semiotic habituation of several centuries of the monophonic style being 'all of classical music to that moment,' any later developments, the introduction of two simultaneously sounding discrete pitches, any and all harmony using two or more discrete pitches in any combination... are all predominately dissonant. 
 

I do not understand why all music must be consonant.  I do not understand what is wrong with music that is primarily dissonant.

... well, unless what is being listened to is a unison drone, there is no music which is not dissonant. ;-)

When I see an image of Bambi prancing in a field of clover, I think of Debussy.  When I see an image of Godzilla eating the Empire State Building, I think of Xenakis.

I bet this fell out of your head by a next to knee-jerk reflex, but it does go to show how much people think the Semiotic De Siècle is objective vs. just how completely subjective and conditioned it is. i.e. "Let's choose the least familiar of non-traditional / newer classical music to disorient the audience and keep them on their toes during the suspense / horror / mystery scene" (not that such an 'aesthetic' was not also used in the past, while any of us having grown up with movies and television are more deeply and globally affected by our exposure to this practice than the entire population of the west could have been affected via only attending live performances of opera, Wagner especially); to think there is anything 'subjective' or 'natural law' about any level of dissonance is as good a choice in argument as is buying the Brooklyn Bridge from some guy selling second-hand trash spread out on a blanket on the sidewalk a good investment, i.e. both are literally and figuratively UNSOUND :-)


Always best regards

P.s. When I think of Bambi, I think of orchestral choral music with a chorus heavy on tenors over altos, slick and cheaply sentimental popular schlock all the way.  To me, that is anything but 'consonant;' rather, it is gratingly annoying -- which to hear from some quarters "= dissonant" :-)

[PotashPie]

Expressed as ratios, intervals are consonant or dissonant in relation to the ULTIMATE CONSONANCE, which is 1:1.

Tonality is a system based on relations of all scale steps and the triads built on them to the "tonic" or key note, which is 1:1.

"Atonality" is music which is NOT BASED on the tonal system, but is based on sets. This is why the textbooks call it "Atonal Theory."

Schoenberg's 12-tone music is atonal for two reasons:
1.) it is music not based on the tonal system, and
2.) it SOUNDS atonal because it reflects this in its gestalt; it is not based on harmonic relationships for its primary structure; it is based on fixed intervallic relationships which do not refer to any 1:1 tonic consonance.

Plus, the fact that the "method" requires that all 12 notes be in circulation, and that it is based on linear successions of notes, doesn't help matters.

HARMONIC MUSIC is music based on TRIADS which are built on SCALE STEPS. It is "harmonic" because it is based on triads, not single notes or lines. This is the meaning of "HARMONY."

This is why GREGORIAN CHANT is not harmonic music; it is usually monophonic, based on linear melodic constructs. There is no "harmonic function" in such linear music.

[PotashPie]

...to think there is anything 'subjective' or 'natural law' about any level of dissonance is as good a choice in argument as is buying the Brooklyn Bridge...

There is SOME natural law involved. After all, our eardrums are like ponds, and "waves" appear on them.
Remember the film footage of that suspension bridge which was destroyed by getting into a "resonance wave" created by strong winds? It destroyed itself.
The simpler a wave (1:1), the stronger the consonance and resonance. Dissonance is a gradient which involves ever-increasing complexity of waves.
It could be said that the more complex "dissonant" waves of sound which hit our eardrums can become physically uncomfortable, no matter which tribe you're from.

[Monsieur Croche]

There is SOME natural law involved. After all, our eardrums are like ponds, and "waves" appear on them.
Remember the film footage of that suspension bridge which was destroyed by getting into a "resonance wave" created by strong winds? It destroyed itself.
The simpler a wave (1:1), the stronger the consonance and resonance. Dissonance is a gradient which involves ever-increasing complexity of waves.
It could be said that the more complex "dissonant" waves of sound which hit our eardrums can become physically uncomfortable, no matter which tribe you're from.

The only sound waves that can become physically uncomfortable would be when the decibel level is too extreme; otherwise, if you rethink what you've said, I think you would agree what you really meant to say was 'psychologically uncomfortable.'  Certain sounds and timbres can unnerve us, set us on edge, which is not necessarily a bad thing ;-)


Best regards

[Ken B]

Certain sounds and timbres can unnerve us, set us on edge,

Which gives the game away. You cannot simultaneously deny certain sounds have a predictable effect and that no sounds have a predictable effect.

[some guy]

Which gives the game away. You cannot simultaneously deny certain sounds have a predictable effect and that no sounds have a predictable effect.

I know that M. Croche is perfectly capable of pointing this out himself, but maybe it will have more value if someone else notes it: there is nothing in monsieur's post about whether or not sounds have predictable effects. The word "can" connotes possibility only. The important thing is that the effects will differ from listener to listener.

Maybe--maybe--one could predict how any given individual will react to certain sounds. But that is a point I am making in this post. Nothing to do with the post of Monsieur Croche's that you are responding to.

[Madiel]

I like minor 2nds and flattened 5ths in my major scales 

I also prefer non-chordal harmonies in my chords 

I like Cyrillic letters in my Latin alphabet.

[Monsieur Croche]

Which gives the game away. You cannot simultaneously deny certain sounds have a predictable effect and that no sounds have a predictable effect.

When I lately looked at the last few pages of this thread, in quickly scanning those entries I saw what to me was a veritable tempest in a tea-saucer semantic quibble going on which was entirely moribund insofar as saying anything worthwhile re: the OP. 

I recall saying nothing about claiming certain sounds having predictable effect, nor that none were predictable.

I'm convinced there is no sound that has no effect, and just as that is true, there are no sounds that are fully predictable as to their effect, i.e. there is neither black or white when it comes to sound and its effect upon the listener, because there will forever be the subjectivity of the listener in play.

If the effects on the listener of any harmony, tuning, or dissonance were universally predictable, composers would have had that formula down pat long ago and then written their music -- with its intended affect on the audience -- uh, using said formula.

In one listener, a particular dissonance in a piece might repel them; to another listener the same sound in the same context might instead give them a frisson / chill of pleasure / excitement, while, in yet another listener that same dissonance could be heard as less relatively dissonant -- or even be heard as consonant.   

Same goes for any sort of dissonance relative to the harmonic context it is in.

Add that all up and the variables are too many to be able to predict very much about listener perception or reaction at all, and I thank Apollo there are no set formulae, for either composer or audience.


Best regards

[Madiel]

I think that's true, M. Croche.

Although, it should be noted that people are now using computers to write hit pop songs, having analysed the common factors of the biggest hits. It's a fairly sad development.

[Ken B]

I know that M. Croche is perfectly capable of pointing this out himself, but maybe it will have more value if someone else notes it: there is nothing in monsieur's post about whether or not sounds have predictable effects. The word "can" connotes possibility only. The important thing is that the effects will differ from listener to listener.

Maybe--maybe--one could predict how any given individual will react to certain sounds. But that is a point I am making in this post. Nothing to do with the post of Monsieur Croche's that you are responding to.

Actually you have missed the thread and the point. "Can" means various things in various contexts. In that comment it refers to the capacity of some sounds to "unnerve us, set us on edge", and the choice of pronoun makes it plain this is a general statement, like "cyanide can kill us" or "ceremonies can bond us with each other". So M Croche has made a statement that certain sounds have the capacity to affect us predictably. Which it seems to me he has denied in other comments.

[Monsieur Croche]

I think that's true, M. Croche.

Although, it should be noted that people are now using computers to write hit pop songs, having analysed the common factors of the biggest hits. It's a fairly sad development.

And look what those computer programs yield... similar to all the results of computer programmed Bach, Mozart, etc.  Nothing with a spark as from those composers, while all 'well done and sounding like.'  Even if you programmed in the idiosyncratic elements, they show up too regularly or too often, i.e. it is very difficult to program in the spontaneous whim of a genius, no matter how much you think you've fed in 'all their habits.'  Lol.

I can see using a computer to generate a number of possibilities, the composer then choosing 'the most interesting' and personally tweaking it... especially in the commercial arena of pop, where time is money even more so than in classical.

[Madiel]

And look what those computer programs yield... similar to all the results of computer programmed Bach, Mozart, etc.  Nothing with a spark as from those composers, while all 'well done and sounding like.'  Even if you programmed in the idiosyncratic elements, they show up too regularly or too often, i.e. it is very difficult to program in the spontaneous whim of a genius, no matter how much you think you've fed in 'all their habits.'  Lol.

I can see using a computer to generate a number of possibilities, the composer then choosing 'the most interesting' and personally tweaking it... especially in the commercial arena of pop, where time is money even more so than in classical.

Again, I agree. But I only bring it up because they are relying on notions of "if we follow this formula, enough people will like the result".

[Monsieur Croche]

Actually you have missed the thread and the point. "Can" means various things in various contexts. In that comment it refers to the capacity of some sounds to "unnerve us, set us on edge", and the choice of pronoun makes it plain this is a general statement, like "cyanide can kill us" or "ceremonies can bond us with each other". So M Croche has made a statement that certain sounds have the capacity to affect us predictably. Which it seems to me he has denied in other comments.

Actually, I have not missed the thread and the point (nor has SomeGuy)... I do think you have become near to obsessively side-tracked by a pedant and sophomoric argument via a willful misreading of the pronoun 'us.'
us
pronoun
1. the objective case of we, used as a direct or indirect object:
They took us to the circus. She asked us the way.
2. Informal. (used in place of the pronoun we in the predicate after the verb to be):
It's us!
3. Informal. (used instead of the pronoun our before a gerund):
She graciously forgave us spilling the gravy on the tablecloth.
(thinking on it now, I've never used that pronoun in any other way.)

N.B. I wrote, "Some sounds," i.e. none were named specifically, no particular attributes were concretely assigned.  (You then went all concrete and specific, where I deliberately and assiduously avoided anything concrete or specific, because if you run that hard with it as per the subject, well, splat!)  I then parsed out three different reactions to a 'dissonance,' not naming any specific interval or harmony as dissonant while more than implicitly stating that listeners' perceptions of dissonance are subjective and vary, including my example of the third individual hearing the dissonance as consonance.
~ Paraphrased for your benefit:  "Listeners can perceive the same sound, the same piece of music, in a myriad of ways."

I then said that whatever the sound, there is no general accuracy in predicting its effect, exactly since the effect is subjective; the reaction to a sound is relative to and dependent upon the individual who hears it.

Your contextual usage of 'us' -- highly qualified and not the prime definition as generally understood to boot -- is nothing I said, nor could it at all reasonably be found implicit in what I said. 

Indeed, you had to go out of your way to assert the pronoun in an entirely different context than the one I used in my post.  That assertion, and misreading of my post, is entirely your own.  It appears as a personal projection and a total and willful misread of what I said, hinging on your particular assertion as to the meaning of the pronoun 'us.'  It makes absolutely no argument at all.  Side by side, contrasted with my usage it only further demonstrates that context is everything, in language used by a writer, in music by a composer, and in the perceptions of the audiences.


Best regards

[Karl Henning]

I like Cyrillic letters in my Latin alphabet.