Atonal and tonal music

[Karl Henning]

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.

I agree, but there are (or, have been) professional musicians who consider that only Common Practice music, and the harmonic functions it revolves around, can be tonal.

[Mahlerian]

And did you know that Ars Nova doesn't refer to all new art ([or] music)?

Yes, clearly.  But atonal, while it is not used in a literal sense, is treated as if it were.

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.

I understand that.  Wouldn't post-tonal be more apt, though?

[Mahlerian]

Whether a work sounds atonal to you is irrelevant.  Also, whether or not an entire work is atonal is also irrelevant. 

Here is the beginning of the subject entry for Atonality from Grove:

Atonality.
A term that may be used in three senses: first, to describe all music which is not tonal; second, to describe all music which is neither tonal nor serial; and third, to describe specifically the post-tonal and pre-12-note music of Berg, Webern and Schoenberg. (While serial music is, by the first definition, atonal, it differs in essential respects from other atonal music and is discussed in the articles SERIALISM and TWELVE-NOTE COMPOSITION; it is, therefore, not considered here.)

All that needs to be done in order to use the term in a meaningful manner is to point out which of those three senses is being employed.

The conclusion of that same article, excerpted in full to avoid accusations of quote mining:

Atonality thus roughly delimits a wide range of compositional practices whose only features are the absence of the normative and interrelated procedures of tonality and the basic concept of serialism. It remains to be seen to what extent atonality is a useful or relevant musical category.  The tendency of historical criticism to construct systems of classification which attempt to index individual entries as neatly and unambiguously as possible has certainly been frustrated so far by musical thought in the 20th century.  The individuality of the contributions of Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Bartok, Webern, Berg, and others ultimately transcends and trivializes such attempts, if it does not contradict them.

[Monsieur Croche]

Dear Mahlerian and Gurn,

Etymology is not meaning.

While it is still accepted that a string quartet requires four players, it has long since ceased to be a requirement of chamber music that it be played in a small room.

Indeed, the venue in which a piece is played does not define its genre.

Indeed, including any and all modern or contemporary developments, there is still that near to innate traditional quality of string quartet music being 'about' more 'interior' matters as opposed to the larger and grander extrovert musical ideas found in symphonies, and they are often more directly about 'a musical dialogue / conversation.' of four string players.


Best regards

[Madiel]

I completely object to this being presented as a topic that I started. I did not. I merely tried to bring some kind of objectivity to a process where one poster, in particular, decided it was vitally important to protest the use of a word by others.

The first post in this thread isn't even close to where the conversation started. (EDIT: In fact, Monsieur Croche has just demonstrated this by replying in the other thread to the same thing that I was replying to.)

And frankly, I don't want this turning up in my recent replies feed until the end of time.

[Madiel]

If Mahlerian genuinely wants to continue for several more days or weeks telling everyone why they're wrong not to use his preferred terminology, then let him start his own thread about it. And I'll stay away from it.

[Monsieur Croche]

The 'atonality' debate is Godwin's Law on classical music forums.

A-yep.

[Keep Going]

Wouldn't post-tonal be more apt, though?

It appears that people use words how they like, irrespective of exact definition and meaningfulness.

For the kind of music that we're enamoured of, Western art music would indeed be more apt ...

But Classical music it is.

[Mahlerian]

I completely object to this being presented as a topic that I started. I did not. I merely tried to bring some kind of objectivity to a process where one poster, in particular, decided it was vitally important to protest the use of a word by others.

I was explaining, in contrast to someone else who brought it up, what my reasoning is for rejecting the term.  If you want to use it, fine.  I am neither interested in stopping you from typing or saying a word, nor am I able to do so.

On this thread, others have attacked my reasoning, and I have defended it.  I am not attempting to limit anyone else's right to use it, only questioning the rationale behind the use of the term.

[Madiel]

I was explaining, in contrast to someone else who brought it up, what my reasoning is for rejecting the term.  If you want to use it, fine.  I am neither interested in stopping you from typing or saying a word, nor am I able to do so.

On this thread, others have attacked my reasoning, and I have defended it.  I am not attempting to limit anyone else's right to use it, only questioning the rationale behind the use of the term.

Then DON'T USE IT. But why did any of the rest of us need your explanation for why YOU don't use it? Did anybody actually ASK you to pronounce your reasoning?

No. You decided to object to the word "system" because of some weird notion that it means "AUTOMATED system" (the clue would have been the lack of the extra word), and this is where it got us.

You think you're defending your reasoning from others? No. What is in fact happening is everyone else is defending their use of language from you.

[Madiel]

Also moderators, having this in The Polling Station is stupid. If you don't lock it, at least put it somewhere sensible.

[SharpEleventh]

I understand that.  Wouldn't post-tonal be more apt, though?

Atonal: "total chromaticism mixed with non-triadic harmony", i.e. Second Viennese School, Boulez etc.

Post-tonal: includes atonal but also Debussy, Bartok etc.

[Ken B]

Really wanted to stay away but ...

I said Mahlerian wants to impose language on us in service of an agenda. He objected. But now he suggests "post-tonal" which to me sounds fully loaded with implicit claims about Progress and Advancement. Whig History of music. So I claim vindication.

And while I'm here, plus one to Orfeo's latest.

[Mahlerian]

Then DON'T USE IT. But why did any of the rest of us need your explanation for why YOU don't use it? Did anybody actually ASK you to pronounce your reasoning?

No. You decided to object to the word "system" because of some weird notion that it means "AUTOMATED system" (the clue would have been the lack of the extra word), and this is where it got us.

As I explained, it is used with this intent frequently to disparage 12-tone music.  Sanantonio then criticized me for rejecting the term atonal because of others using it to connote ugly, nonsense, etc. and I explained that this was not the reason why I rejected the term.  This discussion started because of a misunderstanding regarding my reasoning, and that was how it continued.

You think you're defending your reasoning from others? No. What is in fact happening is everyone else is defending their use of language from you.

I do not intend to attack anyone; I would prefer that discussions have a more rigorous and precise use of terminology around inherently vague terms such as atonal.

[Madiel]

Language is vague, Mahlerian. If you want precision, go and discuss mathematics.

Alternatively, go and have a discussion with like-minded people who are all big fans of the particular kind of music that you like and who will make the same finer distinctions you will. Your behaviour is very similar to someone who objects to using "Classical" to mean something spanning from Bach up to Debussy and beyond. Yes, the term is vague. That doesn't mean it isn't useful to the person using it.

[Mahlerian]

Language is vague, Mahlerian. If you want precision, go and discuss mathematics.

Alternatively, go and have a discussion with like-minded people who are all big fans of the particular kind of music that you like and who will make the same finer distinctions you will. Your behaviour is very similar to someone who objects to using "Classical" to mean something spanning from Bach up to Debussy and beyond. Yes, the term is vague. That doesn't mean it isn't useful to the person using it.

The fact that we are not able to achieve perfect precision in our terminology is no excuse for being sloppy.  If it is possible to communicate better by clarifying what we mean when we say "atonal" through use of a different term, wouldn't that aid discussion?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

At least with using Classical to encompass the entire Western tradition there is broad agreement as to what is being referred to and what is meant by the term.  With atonal there is no such consensus, as the Grove Dictionary entry cited above indicates.

[Madiel]

If it is possible to communicate better by clarifying what we mean when we say "atonal" through use of a different term, wouldn't that aid discussion?

No, not necessarily. See my edit of my previous post. It aids the discussion of a bunch of specialists, not a bunch of generalists.

If you spent your time with a bunch of rock and roll fans with some knowledge of Western art music telling them they mustn't refer to Debussy as "Classical" because that term was properly used for Viennese music of the late 1700s, would that aid discussion? No. It would cause a massive diversion from the discussion when you knew damn well what they meant by "Classical".

And you are now completely misusing the notion of "broad consensus" to mean "two completely different definitions, both of which are acceptable in different contexts".

[Mahlerian]

Really wanted to stay away but ...

I said Mahlerian wants to impose language on us in service of an agenda. He objected. But now he suggests "post-tonal" which to me sounds fully loaded with implicit claims about Progress and Advancement. Whig History of music. So I claim vindication.

And while I'm here, plus one to Orfeo's latest.

Not intended at all.  It is simply a chronological distinction, and one that shows how the music so called came out of that which preceded it.  No qualitative or evaluative connotations are meant.

[SharpEleventh]

At least with using Classical to encompass the entire Western tradition there is broad agreement as to what is being referred to and what is meant by the term.  With atonal there is no such consensus, as the Grove Dictionary entry cited above indicates.

Eh, it is questionable which of the more modern and contemporary music is considered "classical". Same for Renaissance music for example. There is hardly anything uniting all classical music but there's a family resemblance.

With atonal there's of course disagreement about its use, but very few would consider Debussy atonal for example, which you would lump as "post-tonal" along with 2nd Viennese School etc. under your prescribed definitions.

[Mahlerian]

If you spent your time with a bunch of rock and roll fans with some knowledge of Western art music telling them they mustn't refer to Debussy as "Classical" because that term was properly used for Viennese music of the late 1700s, would that aid discussion? No. It would cause a massive diversion from the discussion when you knew damn well what they meant by "Classical".

It is not the case that atonal has a more accurate specialist definition which is being misapplied through colloquial usage so much as it's an inherently problematic term that is then made worse through poor understanding of the issues involved.

And you are now completely misusing the notion of "broad consensus" to mean "two completely different definitions, both of which are acceptable in different contexts".

No, I meant that we understand the implication of the term Western Tradition and understand it to be identical to the non-specialist usage of "Classical Music," while with atonal, the ambiguity lies at the heart of the term and in its definition, and its application is inherently vague.

With Classical Music/Western Tradition, it is understood by both parties what is being referred to, and at least on a broad level, of what is meant (Byrd and Bach, not The Beatles or Bob Marley).

With atonal, specialists may mean any number of several things, none of which is identical with or even especially similar to the definition that general audiences may have in mind.