Atonal and tonal music

[Ken B]

The problem is always that tonality is a moving target.

Is a Palestrina motet atonal (or "pre-tonal") because it was written before Common Practice?  Is the Hindemith Flute Sonata atonal because the harmonies are not tertian?  Is Le sacre atonal?  If a piece of minimalism repeats an A Major triad for five minutes, is it tonal?

Good points. Still I think we all know what "modal" broadly refers to. 
The argument seems to be applicable to any single word though, right? What's contrapuntal? What's sonata form? They have blurry edges, like all words. One word cannot do it all. No-one using the word here pretends it can.

[Karl Henning]

. . . blurry edges, like all words. One word cannot do it all. No-one using the word here pretends it can.

The fact that all music cannot be easily classified is icing on the cake.  It gives us something to discuss.

Aye.

[Karl Henning]

I'm also in sympathy with Mahlerian's point, because of the many times the word atonal has been misused. (Trout Mask Replica, atonal?  Not to these ears.  The word is being used to mean . . . something else.)

To be sure, the ready objection will be, the frequent misuse of a word is an offense, but the word itself is innocent 

[arpeggio]

What is atonal music? I do not know and I do not care.

I like Elliott Carter.  I do not care what you call it: Atonal, pantonal, non-tonal, quasi-tonal, serial, cereal, ingrown tonal, whatever.

Bach, Beethoven, Berg, Boulez are what they are whatever one wants to call them.

I also ignore most atonal/tonal posts.

[ahinton]

Dear me!

This thread, supposedly about post-1950 cycles of string quartets, seems to have run into buffers unconnected with its topic. The point about "tonality" and "atonality" is that each are relative terms, not absolute ones and perceptions of them are in any case dependent to some extent upon the aural skills and experiences of each listener; they are also usually called upon in descriptions of music or passages in music that inhabit major/minor tonality, as if this was the only criterion for their correct usage. I recall pointing out as a student in an aural training class, where we were sight-singing extracts from Webern's Second Cantata, the particularly tonal-sounding nature of a particular passage in four parts comprising two pairs of perfect fourths moving semitonally in contrary motion (D-G-B-E moving to C#-F#-B#-E#) and being told "but you're not supposed to listen to it like that", as though tonality and atonality involved rules for the listener!

Much also depends in some people's minds on the idea of a "home key" as an essential indicator of the presence of tonality, yet this can be as true in some instances as it is misleading in others. How many bars of Mozart's K465 Quartet in C or Chopin's G minor and F minor Ballades does the listener hear before those respective "home keys" are established? What of Schumann's Fantaisie for piano, which is in C major, yet there's hardly a bar in its substantial first movement that is in that key! And never mind the famous opening of Tristan - in what "key" is the opening of Liszt's A Faust Symphony? All that said, no one in his/her right mind would describe any of those works as "atonal". What of the notion of "progressive tonality", to which Nielsen had recourse and which also features in Mahler's symphonies? Mahler's first and third symphonies are in D minor and end in the tonic major, the second in C minor ends in the relative major and the sixth and eighth end in the keys in which they begin, yet nos. 4, 5, 7 & 9 end in different keys not immediately to those in which they begin and, whilst the outer movements of the tenth each have F# major as their principal tonality, the first movement's expansive monodic opening continues for quite some time before any harmony at all is heard to confirm that F# major tonality.

If "tonality" is to be used as referring only to music that embraces major/minor harmonic bases and is rooted in a lingua franca in which octaves are divided into 12 equal semitones, its relative nature as a term becomes obvious; just as Orwell's "some animals are more equal than others", so some music is more tonal that other music. OK, avoidance of the octave and perfect intervals in any aurally obvious ways will likely reduce the sense of "tonality", but of course "tonality" can be perceived in music where no predominant tonality is intended.

Now can we get back to discussing the thread topic, please?!

[ahinton]

It has also been stated that Schoenberg hmself rejected the term atonal.  He also had a phobia concerning the number 13.  Does his phobia call into question the use of the term thirteen?

But who suggested that it might. Schönberg deplored the term "atonal" but did not deplore the word "thirteen"; the former relates to the composer's dislike of the use of terms that can only obfuscate whereas the latter related, as you rightly point out, to a phobia of his; he had no phobia about "atonality"!

[ahinton]

"Atonal music" is an umbrella term, in the same way that "classical music" is an umbrella term.

Indeed - and, when storm force winds blow, umbrellas risk turning inside out...

[ahinton]

What is atonal music? I do not know and I do not care.

You are far from alone in that!

I like Elliott Carter.  I do not care what you call it: Atonal, pantonal, non-tonal, quasi-tonal, serial, cereal, ingrown tonal, whatever.

Nothing "ingrown" (or "ingrowing") about Elliott Carter. His works up to the mid-late 1950s are generally more tonal than most of his later music but, like Schönberg, he had ample experience over a long period of time in writing such music before his language developed away (to some extent) from his earlier persuasions; I would very much like to find a copy of his first piano sonata if it still exists - it's supposedly quite ambitious and he showed it to Ives although I'm not aware if Ives wrote any comments about it and Carter was going though influences including Scriabin at that time (the piece dates, I believe, from 1923-24 and I am, tempted to wonder what he'd have thought before embarking upon it about the prospect that he'd still be composing almost 90 years later?!)...

Anyway, back to those quartet cycles!

[ahinton]

Krzysztof Meyer has mentioned by me, twice.  Most of the others you've named I think have been mentioned.  But keep them coming.

OK; thanks; I didn't want to trawl through the entire thread to check!

[Mahlerian]

The problem is always that tonality is a moving target.

Is a Palestrina motet atonal (or "pre-tonal") because it was written before Common Practice?  Is the Hindemith Flute Sonata atonal because the harmonies are not tertian?  Is Le sacre atonal?  If a piece of minimalism repeats an A Major triad for five minutes, is it tonal?

Thank you.  The problem with the term atonal is that both the degree of difference and the kind of difference from traditional tonality are not specified and kept vague.

Like I said before, most music in history is not tonal, but it's only a part of that not-tonal music that is called atonal.

[Mahlerian]

So?  Why is it a problem that atonal only refers to a small part of all music?  It still describes a specific kind of music.  Do you realize that Classical Music is only a small part of all the music in the world?  Seems like you have a problem with reality, not just the term atonal.

Can you drop it?  This thread has been subjected to enough.  Start your own thread: Mahlerian's Words and Terms for Discussing Music.

Because you and others keep telling me that it means literally "not tonal" (which is the general conception of what it means) while admitting that that's not the way it's actually used!

You're setting up several categories:

- Neither tonal nor atonal
- Tonal
- Partially tonal and atonal
- Atonal

Obviously in this usage atonal does not mean "not tonal" or that first category would not exist.

Of course I know that most music in the world is not classical music.  European music was the only tradition that developed the tonal system (and also the only tradition that developed "atonal music" out of that tonal tradition), and that factored in what I was saying.

[Parsifal]

I'm also in sympathy with Mahlerian's point, because of the many times the word atonal has been misused. (Trout Mask Replica, atonal?  Not to these ears.  The word is being used to mean . . . something else.)

To be sure, the ready objection will be, the frequent misuse of a word is an offense, but the word itself is innocent 

It is not surprising that people who do not have musical training might, by association, develop a defect definition of atonal music as dissonant music, or strange-sounding music, and not appreciate that there is a more precise technical definition to the term. This is true of any technical term (ask a technical person about popular use of "exponential," for example). As you point out, the fact that a term is not always used correctly does not make the term invalid.   

[Parsifal]

Because you and others keep telling me that it means literally "not tonal" (which is the general conception of what it means) while admitting that that's not the way it's actually used!

That is the way it is actually used by me and is typically used by people knowledgable about music, in my experience. Maybe you can follow Sanantonio's suggestion and create a thread for your semantic notions so that actual discussion of music can proceed on the board.

[Karl Henning]

It is not surprising that people who do not have musical training might, by association, develop a defect definition of atonal music as dissonant music, or strange-sounding music, and not appreciate that there is a more precise technical definition to the term. This is true of any technical term (ask a technical person about popular use of "exponential," for example). As you point out, the fact that a term is not always used correctly does not make the term invalid.   

Indeed.  Though of course, sananton' is a trained musician, and nevertheless favors a freer usage.

[Mahlerian]

Atonal is most often used to describe non-tonal music.  I mean, there are probably people out there who sling atonal around like an insult.  But so what?  Are we now going to empower ignorant people with an agenda to control how we talk?

The bottomline, as I see it, is the term atonal is here to stay, it is a good little word that identifies a certain kind of music.

Embrace it.

This has nothing to do with what I said.  You yourself are not using it to mean "not tonal" for the reasons I explained in my post.

[ahinton]

The bottomline, as I see it, is the term atonal is here to stay.

Embrace it.

George Gershwin would have written "Our love is here to stay" - but then he financed the world première recording of his friend and admirer Schönberg's fourth and final string quartet. Embraceable you doesn't come into it, however. Nor do "atonal" bass lines...

[Mahlerian]

Okay.  Music cannot be simultaneously tonal and atonal.  Maybe a work can have sections that float between the two, and one would have to decribe that entire work as having sections that might be tonal, other sections which are atonal and still others which blur the lines. 

But there are works which are entirely atonal.  I listened to several this morning by Webern and Wuorinen.

The term atonal is useful.

This is again misconstruing my point.  You are saying that there exist pieces which are neither tonal nor atonal.  If this is true, as it must be if you agree with me that the majority of music in history has not been tonal, then atonal means more than simply "not tonal."

I'm listening to Boulez's Structures I right now.  It doesn't sound atonal to me, because even in this totally serial environment, notes have tendencies and act in ways that imply a hierarchy of importance, even centricity, however vague or brief that may be.  It doesn't sound tonal either, because there is no articulation of key areas or diatonic scales at any point.  The entire work is based around the chromatic scale.

[bhodges]

Unlocking this topic, which is obviously of great interest. That said, keep it civil. Ad hominem attacks will be sent into the ether. Thanks.

--Bruce

[SharpEleventh]

Here's a pretty good definition for "atonal"

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,25296.msg1010119.html#msg1010119

What people really mean when they say "atonal" is total chromaticism mixed with non-triadic harmony.  That's it.

Sounds like a reasonably descriptive and useful word to me.

[North Star]

And did you know that Ars Nova doesn't refer to all new art ([or] music)?
Atonal is clearly only useful in general as a description of post-common era music, as there is no sense in describing the earlier music by its lacking (or rejecting, rather) of a feature that only appeared in later music.