Atonal and tonal music

[Overtones]

Tonality is being used in two different senses, and I'm sorry that I didn't make that clear enough.

1 - Tonality as defined by Millionrainbows and some others I've known online, including just about all music ever except Schoenberg and those that followed him.  I think this definition is ridiculous for the reason that the works he defines as atonal seem to have no properties in common that they do not also have in common with works he defines as tonal.  So, given that definition, tonal and atonal music are not distinguishable except on the basis of his say-so.

2 - Tonality as defined in academic dictionaries, etc.  Tonality in this sense was a product of the 17th century revolution in musical language, and continued up through to the early 20th century.  Also known as common practice tonality.  This kind of tonality is distinguishable (if blurry at both edges) from the modal music that preceded it and the post-tonal music that followed it on the basis of its use of functional harmony.

I'm trying to follow the long and difficult debate...
Is it correct to say that what you call "post-tonal music" corresponds to what some people call "atonal music"?
And that you refuse to use "atonal" because you think it is ethymologically incorrect and it favours a negative perception of such music?

[Florestan]

As I said earlier in this thread, I would be perfectly fine with grouping all of them together as "post-tonal,"

Then by all the Greek and Hindu gods!, do group them all as "post-tonal", do use the term instead of "atonal" and be done with this silly kerfuffle. But no, you won't be done with it, because actually you'd be perfectly fine with "post-tonal" only on the condition that everybody, everywhere use it instead of "atonal", which should be discarded from usage all over the world, right?.

Really, man, can't you sleep well at night, is your heartbeat higher than normal and do you have difficult digestion because someone, somewhere uses "atonal"?

[Florestan]

At this point, the thing most likely to cause me to have a negative association with certain music is the behaviour of the people claiming to defend that music. I have plans to do a survey of all of Schoenberg's opuses. It's on the list. It simply wouldn't be on the list if I thought it was all a load of crap. I may well have to push it down the list so that I don't risk wrongly tarring Schoenberg with the behaviour of his "fans".

Actually, I can't stand the look of young Mahler anymore... 

[Mahlerian]

I'm trying to follow the long and difficult debate...
Is it correct to say that what you call "post-tonal music" corresponds to what some people call "atonal music"?
And that you refuse to use "atonal" because you think it is ethymologically incorrect and it favours a negative perception of such music?

No.  It is a wider category that includes basically all music that has been written since the early 20th century.

As I explained, the problem is not the etymology of atonal, but the usage and the concept, which are inconsistent and incoherent.

[Overtones]

Which is the subject of your first "it"?

[Mirror Image]

Then by all the Greek and Hindu gods!, do group them all as "post-tonal", do use the term instead of "atonal" and be done with this silly kerfuffle. But no, you won't be done with it, because actually you'd be perfectly fine with "post-tonal" only on the condition that everybody, everywhere use it instead of "atonal", which should be discarded from usage all over the world, right?.

Really, man, can't you sleep well at night, is your heartbeat higher than normal and do you have difficult digestion because someone, somewhere uses "atonal"?

I've come to conclusion by reading Mahlerian's continuous onslaught of commentary that he's just not going to accept anything that anyone says because it doesn't coincide with his own opinion. In other words, fellow GMGers, stop wasting your time with him.

[Mahlerian]

Which is the subject of your first "it"?

Post-tonal music.  Sorry that wasn't clear.

[Mahlerian]

I've come to conclusion by reading Mahlerian's continuous onslaught of commentary that he's just not going to accept anything that anyone says because it doesn't coincide with his own opinion. In other words, fellow GMGers, stop wasting your time with him.

I would be perfectly happy to reconsider my opinion if a better argument were presented.  As it is, the personal attacks and mockery that have characterized much of this thread do not constitute arguments or even discussion.  Most of what I've been doing is clarifying my views in the face of misrepresentation.

[Ken B]

So Richard Rodgers is post-tonal?

"Don't use atonal. It's a bad bad word. I'd be happy with post-tonal. Don't use that bad word, use my value-laden term post-tonal."
"Post-tonal does not refer to the music that many others call by that bad word. It just means anything written after 1900."

Huh?

I've come to conclusion by reading Mahlerian's continuous onslaught of commentary that he's just not going to accept anything that anyone says because it doesn't coincide with his own opinion. In other words, fellow GMGers, stop wasting your time with him.

Aye.

[Florestan]

In other words, Lehar, Rachmaninoff, Schoenberg and Ketelbey all wrote post-tonal music, which should be evdence enough for the term being much more consistent and coherent than "atonal"...

John is right, folks! Let's stop feeding the troll!!!!!!

[Mahlerian]

So Richard Rodgers is post-tonal?

No.  His music still adheres to common practice tonality, as did much popular music then (though things are different now, and popular music has drifted off in another direction harmonically).  I was referring to the vast majority of concert music of the 20th century like Vaughan Williams, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Bartok, Schoenberg, Copland, Stravinsky, Ravel, Carter, and so on.

[Mahlerian]

In other words, Lehar, Rachmaninoff, Schoenberg and Ketelbey all wrote post-tonal music, which should be evdence enough for the term being much more consistent and coherent than "atonal"...

Rachmaninoff (whose music I would not call post-tonal) and Schoenberg have more in common musically than Schoenberg and Xenakis do.

[Mahlerian]

"Post-tonal music (loosely, most Western art-music compositions since the turn of the 20th century) manifests many organizational techniques but not the processes of harmony and counterpoint that direct and articulate time in tonal music."

http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935321.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199935321-e-4

[Ken B]

Mahlerian,

You were asked "Is it correct to say that what you call "post-tonal music" corresponds to what some people call "atonal music"?"
Your response was "No.  It is a wider category that includes basically all music that has been written since the early 20th century." When asked for clarification you affirmed that the referent of it was indeed "post-tonal music".
Then you say that Rodgers is not post-tonal. You cannot use your own terms consistently from one post to the next.

If "post-tonal" does not mean what others mean by "atonal" then it's not a substitute.

You cannot have it both ways. I can imagine that "pantonal" might have been coined in place of atonal. It wasn't. I can imagine that "Huronia Magna" could have been used to name the country "Canada" when it was formed, but it wasn't. The name is Canada. The word simply is atonal, not pantonal.

And if it the coinage had been pantonal lo these many years ago then people would have been complaining about "this awful pantonal music" for decades, and you'd be demanding we use another term like -- to pick one at random -- "atonal".

[Mahlerian]

Oxford Dictionary of Music vs. Transformation in Post-Tonal Music by John Roeder

One is a standard reference book which contains, as do all dictionaries, the common usage of words and terms, in this case pertaining to music, and the other is a treatise representing one author's opinion.

I don't have access to the Oxford Dictionary of Music personally, but the New Grove Dictionary of Music, which is the primary reference source for all things musical, points out the relative meaninglessness of the term atonality in its article on atonality.



Straus's Introduction to Post-Tonal Music Theory uses atonality for the music of Schoenberg and others, but makes it into a subjective term, where the listener to the music does not hear tonal centricity.

[Florestan]

sanantonio, Ken

You are absolutely right, but....

Please, stop feeding the troll!

[Mahlerian]

Mahlerian,

You were asked "Is it correct to say that what you call "post-tonal music" corresponds to what some people call "atonal music"?"
Your response was "No.  It is a wider category that includes basically all music that has been written since the early 20th century." Whens asked for clarification you affirmed that the referent of it was indeed "post-tonal music".
Then you say that Rodgers is not post-tonal. You cannot use your own terms consistently from one post to the next.

As I said in my clarification, I meant basically all concert music.  This was intended from the beginning.

If "post-tonal" does not mean what others mean by "atonal" then it's not a substitute.

As I explained many times, there cannot be a replacement for the word atonal that applies to only the things now called atonal because they have no connecting qualities which are not also common to things not called atonal.

In other words, of course it's not an exact replacement.  An exact replacement would have the same problem of incoherence.

You cannot have it both ways. I can imagine that "pantonal" might have been coined in place of atonal. It wasn't. I can imagine that "Huronia Magna" could have been used to name the country "Canada" when it was formed, but it wasn't. The name is Canada. The word simple is atonal, not pantonal.

And if it the coinage had been pantonal lo these many years ago then people would have been complaining about "this awful pantonal music" for decades, and you'd be demanding we use another term like -- to pick one at random -- "atonal".

As I explained earlier in this thread, the things which are called atonal differ over time.  Certain pieces and composers that were once derided as atonal are only rarely now called such, including Mahler, Strauss, Debussy, and Stravinsky, in spite of the fact that as regards tonality, the music of the latter two is no less of a break with traditional methods.

I even see people saying that Berg's Violin Concerto is "really" tonal from time to time.

[Ken B]

once derided as atonal

See? we keep insisting that your objection really is that atonal has, for some, a negative connotation. You deny this while keep proving we are right. We  lots of words we use have, for some, a negative connotation. We still use them and still don't freak when others use them either.

[Mirror Image]

We're all wrong and Mahlerian is right. Case closed, folks! We all can go home. He's starting to remind me of James.

[Mirror Image]

No,you didn't say even remotely that. Either you are a shameless liar, or you think we are idiots.

He probably thinks we're all idiots. Frankly, I don't give two shits what he thinks and I'll continue to use the term atonal, because I don't think it has negative connotations at all and perhaps it once did, but who really cares? Atonal = music without a key. Period. Done. Goodbye!