Atonal and tonal music

[Ken B]

Well excuse me.  Your remarks are very, very unfair

I thought I clearly stated that I was referring to all of the discussions I have read or experienced over the years from two other classical music forums as well as this FORUM.  I also remember reading about this in some of the music history texts that I read in college.  This is also based on my many experiences as an amateur musician.  A few years ago I played with a group where some of the members objected to our programming Hindemith's Symphony in Bb for band.  They though that the word was too atonal, their word not mine.  (Note: It ended up being the most popular work on the concert.)  I was not critiquing this specific thread which I find interesting.  I though I was being clear about that.  I tried to explain myself as best I could.  Sorry if my observations are not good enough for some of the members.

Oy. Orfeo was just pointing out that *this* thread originated in someone objecting to the word atonal because someone somewhere sometime used it as a pejorative. 

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Well excuse me.  Your remarks are very, very unfair

I thought I clearly stated that I was referring to all of the discussions I have read or experienced over the years from two other classical music forums as well as this FORUM.  I also remember reading about this in some of the music history texts that I read in college.  This is also based on my many experiences as an amateur musician.  A few years ago I played with a group where some of the members objected to our programming Hindemith's Symphony in Bb for band.  They though that the word was too atonal, their word not mine.  (Note: It ended up being the most popular work on the concert.)  I was not critiquing this specific thread which I find interesting.  I though I was being clear about that.  I tried to explain myself as best I could.  Sorry if my observations are not good enough for some of the members.

Your posts seem very clear to me, and I agree with your points.

I think the misuse of the word is just something that irks people in a similar way as when someone says 'Beethoven's 5th is the greatest classical song,' however the pejorative use of the misapplication of 'atonal' is common enough to be considered problematic. In music theory and analysis I don't really care about what connotations it holds....it can have its uses and other times it might not say anything much about any given work at all. Personally, I have no interest in calling a piece 'atonal' because there are more useful umbrella terms to describe stylistic movements. For Hindemith, I guess Post-Romantic or Neo-Classical, depending on the piece in question. A description of Bartók's music might mention the folk music influence. For Webern it might be useful to mention sparse textures and aggregate completion influencing factors in his avoidance of pitch centrality in his miniatures. All three of those composers have had their music described as 'atonal' no matter if that word is an appropriate descriptor or not. Does it say anything much about the music? No, not really. Does it say anything about the listeners who use the word in that way? Yep I think it does.

[Ken B]

Your posts seem very clear to me, and I agree with your points.

I think the misuse of the word is just something that irks people in a similar way as when someone says 'Beethoven's 5th is the greatest classical song,' however the pejorative use of the misapplication of 'atonal' is common enough to be considered problematic. In music theory and analysis I don't really care about what connotations it holds....it can have its uses and other times it might not say anything much about any given work at all. Personally, I have no interest in calling a piece 'atonal' because there are more useful umbrella terms to describe stylistic movements. For Hindemith, I guess Post-Romantic or Neo-Classical, depending on the piece in question. A description of Bartók's music might mention the folk music influence. For Webern it might be useful to mention sparse textures and aggregate completion influencing factors in his avoidance of pitch centrality in his miniatures. All three of those composers have had their music described as 'atonal' no matter if that word is an appropriate descriptor or not. Does it say anything much about the music? No, not really. Does it say anything about the listeners who use the word in that way? Yep I think it does.

And the thread hits a new low. Does it say anything about listeners who DON'T use the word that way? No, but maybe it says something about you trying to pretend it does. Stop telling us what we can and cannot say.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

And the thread hits a new low. Does it say anything about listeners who DON'T use the word that way? No, but maybe it says something about you trying to pretend it does. Stop telling us what we can and cannot say.

I said I didn't care about who uses it or how, but some people who get up in arms about its alleged misuse do have a point when it is used in the pejorative.

I don't really use 'atonal' because I think there are more interesting things to examine in music than whether something is tonal or atonal.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

BTW I think it shows something about arpeggio when he says who is 'favourite atonal composers' are: he likes music which he understands to be atonal, and he can group the music of those composers together to point out something they have in common stylistically.

[arpeggio]

BTW I think it shows something about arpeggio when he says who is 'favourite atonal composers' are: he likes music which he understands to be atonal, and he can group the music of those composers together to point out something they have in common stylistically.

Thanks.  It appears that there may be some who understand what I was trying to say.

[Madiel]

I said I didn't care about who uses it or how, but some people who get up in arms about its alleged misuse do have a point when it is used in the pejorative.

But what point, precisely, do they have?

Seriously, if I go around talking about how much I hate jazz, does that somehow affect the ability of the word "jazz" to be used as a descriptive term about a kind of music? Cannot people who like that kind of music use the same term?

Indeed that seems to be exactly the point that arpeggio is making, that it is perfectly possible to like composers/music that is referred to by a term, even though that same term is being used by other people to describe music that they DON'T like. That was in fact the same point that several people including myself were making at the very start of this rigmarole.

There's just this total confusion between the function of a term to describe or classify a kind of music (where yes, I agree the boundaries and definition may well be blurry) and the TOTALLY separate question of whether or not any given person likes or dislikes that music. Describing a piece of music as baroque, romantic, country, jazz, atonal, death metal, house, folk, prog rock... it really tells you ABSOLUTELY NOTHING on its own about whether or not I like or dislike that piece of music. It tells you about certain qualities of the music, but not what I think of those qualities.

Really, it's not difficult. People who hate broccoli didn't invent a new term for broccoli. They used the same term as everyone else precisely because they needed a common understanding of what broccoli was in order to accurately communicate what thing they didn't like to eat so it wasn't put on their plate. But someone who wants the stuff piled high on their plate is going to tell you that they love broccoli. The association of like or dislike is down to the individual and the OTHER words they use with it.

[Madiel]

Thanks.  It appears that there may be some who understand what I was trying to say.

I understood it just fine. Please do stop being a martyr when no-one was trying to persecute you.

EDIT: And yes, now I'm criticising you, for your subsequent reactions to my reply to your first post. Did I not clear that up? So why are you still acting this way?

[Ken B]

I understood it just fine. Please do stop being a martyr when no-one was trying to persecute you.

That's the most fun time to be a martyr.

[Karl Henning]

"This is supposed to be a happy occasion! Let's not bicker and argue about 'oo martyred 'oo ...."

[Florestan]

Please do stop being a martyr when no-one was trying to persecute you.

That's the most fun time to be a martyr.

This reminds me of an old Romanian joke from the times of Ceaușescu.

Question for Radio Yerevan: Is it true that comrade Ceaușescu was in his youth outlawed by the bourgeois regime?

Answer: Yes it's true, only he was semi-outlawed.

Question: What do you mean?

Answer: Well, he did go into hiding, but nobody was seeking him out.

[millionrainbows]

...They thought that the work was too atonal, their word not mine.

Now, that's a new twist, the term being used to denote certain degrees of tonality (or atonality). That doesn't quite work for me;

I would say "not tonal enough" instead, but I see what they mean, and such a distinction, actually, can be  true:

there is music which is "less tonal" because it is more chromatic, and the tonal centers might be more localized.

I reserve the term "atonal" as an absolute term, not comparative, which denotes music made outside the bounds of the tonal system. This means not harmonically-derived.

As well, "atonal" means music not derived harmonically, from scales with functions, i.e., music which creates a tonal hierarchy, even if that tonality is exotic and different from CP major/minor, including all tonalities which can be created synthetically by such means.

[Karl Henning]

Except you've already been ON this thread a whole lot, way after November.

Unless you're claiming to be an entirely different person to the previous "millionrainbows", who before leaving has mysteriously changed to "PotashPie" but my memory is good enough to know who that was and the editing marks still show.

So the "I just replied to old threads" line is misleading. What you actually did is revive an argument you'd been heavily involved in for pages. As much I have sympathy for your arguments, I'm going to lose that sympathy if you play the wide-eyed innocent.

Yet another circle, by gum 

[Monsieur Croche]

When a person misuses the word atonal to describe a piece that is, technically, not atonal....

If you are in the know, and in that sort of conversation, one of the best and most polite rejoinders is, imo, to say, "You mean dissonant.  Atonal is something other, and pretty specific; this piece doesn't meet the qualifications."

Because, ya know, not every avid and somewhat informed classical music lover is an in-depth music theory adept :-)

Within the Music Theory community, it is gloves off and no-holds barred, as even the prime group of the second Viennese school, subsequent composers and theorists, and theory teachers in music schools and conservatories around the world pretty much agree "Atonal" is quite the ghastly misnomer, and one of the more-most generally misleading terms at that.  Of course, that is the stuff of which generates pages and pages on a music forum... lol & ho-hum!

[Madiel]

Entirely sensible approach, M. Croche.

[arpeggio]

When a person misuses the word atonal to describe a piece that is, technically, not atonal....

If you are in the know, and in that sort of conversation, one of the best and most polite rejoinders is, imo, to say, "You mean dissonant.  Atonal is something other, and pretty specific; this piece doesn't meet the qualifications."

Because, ya know, not every avid and somewhat informed classical music lover is in depth music theory adept :-)

Within the Music Theory community, it is gloves off and no-holds barred, as even the prime group of the second Viennese school, subsequent composers and theorists, and theory teachers in music schools and conservatories around the world pretty much agree "Atonal" is quite the ghastly misnomer, and one of the more-most generally misleading terms at that.  Of course, that is the stuff of which generates pages and pages on a music forum... lol & ho-hum!

I also agree.

[millionrainbows]

I think music is a precise field in many ways, and the real reason "atonal" is not liked is because it is too general. It is a term which excludes, and doesn't define that which is "not tonal." It doesn't have to; it's a general term of convenience.

Tonality sprang off in so many directions that tonality itself is now a general description, denoting harmonically-derived music which creates harmonic hierarchies and, therefore, "tonalities."

"Atonal" is all those musics which did not go in that direction, but are non-harmonically derived and linear.

[Karl Henning]

". . . to use that awful and frequently misunderstood word":

http://www.youtube.com/v/olwVvbWd-tg

[Madiel]

Aw, it was a good rant.

As much as I am a highly analytical person, I really don't like analysing music to death. Some of that stuff is definitely useful when playing music, but when listening to it it can get in the way.

It ruins the fun of Haydn's false recapitulations for starters.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

People give both tonality and atonality too much credit, seriously. One of the things that frustrates me over classical music is that regardless of era (medieval to contemporary), classical music analysis' fetishise EVERYTHING. Dude, who cares if it resolves to the tonic? who cares if it inverts the 9th degree of the tone row? who cares if it "borrows" a note from the dominant key? who cares if it stacks a few chords over the whole tone scale? who cares if it has some irregular rhythms using chords based on the minor 2nd and tritones? (relative to the lowest note) who cares if it uses it's own system to generate a set of pitches to manipulate for whatever artistic purpose? people give it way too much credit, really.

I too find myself completely alienated from a lot of the seemingly insincere opinions I come across about music on the internet (primarily), people are literally TRIGGERED about trivial things that are ancient controversies. It's like there's nothing else to discuss or debate, I can't stand it.

I thought you enjoyed analysis and now you somehow hate it? What happened? Personally, I care about analysis whether it be Schenkerian, Reimanniann, formal or whatever. It generates interesting discussion and debate and the myriad of ways anyone can analyse and view a piece of music is testament to how good it is.

To use that hijacked word (and I hate that it has been hijacked to trivialise and stigmatise its meaning when used seriously), it sounds like you are 'triggered' (frustrated) more than anyone else here.

But seriously, I'm curious as to why you've changed your position on theory and analysis. I remember discussions we have had outside of GMG where you told me about all these analyses you've written up and how you impressed a professor at your university with your great wealth of knowledge about 20th century repertoire—repertoire you have told me you enjoy studying—and now you seem to be on the same path as people who advocate and even glorify music illiteracy. I've always felt you are way ahead of me in analysing music from the last century and I had hoped to learn things from you because I really admired that. But I don't know how sincere you are being now, or if this is just some weird phase, or if you really believe that musical analysis is not even worth discussing.............