Atonal and tonal music

[North Star]

But the very coining and usage of "post-modernism" itself contributes materially towards the defeat of the object of such attempted codification, since everything after the so-called "modern" period would thereby inevitably be by definition "post-modern", whereas "post-modern" and its associated "ism" is itself a term in which certain musicologists have sought to invest a connotational specificity that appears to represent some attempt to define yet another particular period in musical history.

Just as Renaissance, Romantic, and Modern, referred to anything new (and in that then new aesthetic), Post-Modern will, and already does, refer to that thing which came after Modernism, and before the next thing, whatever that will be called. And these terms are hardly limited to just music history, but cover all arts.

[ahinton]

Just as Renaissance, Romantic, and Modern, referred to anything new (and in that then new aesthetic), Post-Modern will, and already does, refer to that thing which came after Modernism, and before the next thing, whatever that will be called. And these terms are hardly limited to just music history, but cover all arts.

Whilst that might conveniently appear to be true in principle, to describe something as "post-××××" risks implying that, since "××××" has been superseded, "post-××××" might continue to pertain indefinitely rather than being superseded in turn by something else; one could not, for example, as easily say the same about "Renaissance", "Baroque", "Classical" and "Romantic" (and why, for another example, might "pre-modern" be any more meaningful than "post-modern"?). Moreover, since no one of these categories has ever been wholly overthrown in the development of music, one could say that each such codified era has been richer than its predecessor by reason of its ever-burgeoning diversity.

[Rons_talking]

I've never considered 12-tone music as a manifestation of modernism. In 1910, Schoenberg, Stravinsky,  Ives and lots of others were beginning to compose music with no tonal (as in Tonic-dominant, Schenkerian-fitting constructs)centre. Surely the 2nd Viennese school sounded as modern (or more so)before serialism...at least in the innovation area.

What 12-tone isn't: a way to keep music dissonant.; a mathematical answer to composing; an easy "fill in the blanks technique", nor is there anything earth-shattering about its premise. The Pre-Renaissance isorhythmic motets use a modal, highly proscribed version of serialism that was certainly unconventional relative to the common notion of melody and harmony.

!2-tone is concerned with pitch and intervallic order. In filling out the aggregate (all 12 pitches) the order of notes undergoes various transformations with  inversion, retrograde, etc. In doing this the series of intervals in the row )these intervals could be considered a succession of "chords" as 12 notes make 4 tri-chords or two hexachords. These are linked by the ear to the "shape" or "chords" implicit in the series. Berg often composed with a series that was based on a diatonic scale and its own compliment (think white keys and black keys). Others used every interval in their series...it reflects how a composer hears music. I hear it in sets--some tonal-some not. Others like Boulez think in terms of the order of intervals. By now, composers rarely use 12-tone the way Schoenberg first did. But nearly every well-trained composer I can think of has had some subtle (or not so subtle) connection with the technique.

Some composers go out of their was to avoid "tonal" sounding chords or melodies...not just 12-tone. The list includes most of the 60s avant-guard from Penderecki, Ligeti, Cage, Carter, but its my belief that tonal constructs (used freely) make for the best recipe. All I mean by that is to say that my ear notices and looks for diatonic-sounding chords even when unrelated to one-another by any tonal means (see nearly any post-romantic composer). If one stays on the 19 th C. tonal language, however, it's likely to bore the listener. Rhythm and counterpoint are often what creates variation in intelligibility of music.. I don't abide by composers who can explain every note they compose in terms of musical architecture. That's what creates the "academic sound" (making all musical decisions based on structural properties). However one defines tonality (one of my old teachers considered Britten, Copland and Ravel to be atonal composers since they couldn't fit into the common practice model) it's a mostly personal matter. Others hear tonality in the most arcane of works (that's me), like Sessions, Petterson, and some of Schoenberg's serial works.  To me, tonality make atonal music better, but more important, atonality (or extended tonality)  has made great music out of composers from Prokofiev and Stravinsky to most every living composer.

[Monsieur Croche]

This thread is too narrow. All the attention is on "atonal", but what about "music"? I know of no crisp mathematical definition of this term. It prejudices the debate. It has connotations. People react to the word, not the thing in itself. It does not capture all the important aspects of the phenomena. Just stop using it!

A-freakin'-men to that.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

I've never considered 12-tone music as a manifestation of modernism. In 1910, Schoenberg, Stravinsky,  Ives and lots of others were beginning to compose music with no tonal (as in Tonic-dominant, Schenkerian-fitting constructs)centre. Surely the 2nd Viennese school sounded as modern (or more so)before serialism...at least in the innovation area.

What 12-tone isn't: a way to keep music dissonant.; a mathematical answer to composing; an easy "fill in the blanks technique", nor is there anything earth-shattering about its premise. The Pre-Renaissance isorhythmic motets use a modal, highly proscribed version of serialism that was certainly unconventional relative to the common notion of melody and harmony.

!2-tone is concerned with pitch and intervallic order. In filling out the aggregate (all 12 pitches) the order of notes undergoes various transformations with  inversion, retrograde, etc. In doing this the series of intervals in the row )these intervals could be considered a succession of "chords" as 12 notes make 4 tri-chords or two hexachords. These are linked by the ear to the "shape" or "chords" implicit in the series. Berg often composed with a series that was based on a diatonic scale and its own compliment (think white keys and black keys). Others used every interval in their series...it reflects how a composer hears music. I hear it in sets--some tonal-some not. Others like Boulez think in terms of the order of intervals. By now, composers rarely use 12-tone the way Schoenberg first did. But nearly every well-trained composer I can think of has had some subtle (or not so subtle) connection with the technique.

Some composers go out of their was to avoid "tonal" sounding chords or melodies...not just 12-tone. The list includes most of the 60s avant-guard from Penderecki, Ligeti, Cage, Carter, but its my belief that tonal constructs (used freely) make for the best recipe. All I mean by that is to say that my ear notices and looks for diatonic-sounding chords even when unrelated to one-another by any tonal means (see nearly any post-romantic composer). If one stays on the 19 th C. tonal language, however, it's likely to bore the listener. Rhythm and counterpoint are often what creates variation in intelligibility of music.. I don't abide by composers who can explain every note they compose in terms of musical architecture. That's what creates the "academic sound" (making all musical decisions based on structural properties). However one defines tonality (one of my old teachers considered Britten, Copland and Ravel to be atonal composers since they couldn't fit into the common practice model) it's a mostly personal matter. Others hear tonality in the most arcane of works (that's me), like Sessions, Petterson, and some of Schoenberg's serial works.  To me, tonality make atonal music better, but more important, atonality (or extended tonality)  has made great music out of composers from Prokofiev and Stravinsky to most every living composer.

Thank you for this post, very informative and I think it does clear up some misconceptions people have had about dodecaphony.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

OK guys, it's official: Mozart has been labelled 'atonal.'

[Parsifal]

To give my own, perhaps atypical, view of the topic, it is all about surprise.

The "tonal" system of the music of the 17th through 19th century gives the composer a way to organize melody and harmony so that "consonant" intervals sound stable.  "Dissonant" intervals sound unstable and seem like they should resolve to consonant intervals. It the tonal system is also a good match with with the physics of sound and the physiology of the ear, since the consonant intervals tend to line up with the overtone series and blend together well. The fact that there is a system means that when I hear music progress I have an expectation at any given moment of what might come next. A dissonance should resolve. A any given point in a harmonic progression there are chords that are very likely to follow, and chords that are very unlikely to follow. The composer can give you what you expect, or give you the last thing you expect at any given moment. The composer can set up a dissonance, but resolve it to another dissonance, set up what seems to be a cadence, but modulate to a different key, etc. The composer has a good idea of how to manipulate your expectations.

In free "atonality" literally anything can happen. How can the composer surprise you when literally anything can come next? Atonal music can be dissonant or consonant, but the there are no built-in expectations of what the normal continuation of the music should be. The composer is up on the high-wire without a net. The various systems are a way to restore some structure to the music. When I listen to atonal music, such as late Schoenberg, sometimes I consciously try to anticipate the next note in the melody, or the next harmony, and see if I have any ability to foresee what comes next. Usually I can't.

[Madiel]

OK guys, it's official: Mozart has been labelled 'atonal.'

"Not strictly".

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

"Not strictly".

I see now that it was edited......

[SharpEleventh]

I'm okay with atonality. Some of my best friends are atonal.

[Ken B]

I'm okay with atonality. Some of my best friends are atonal.

And what about those who are atone deaf?

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

To give my own, perhaps atypical, view of the topic, it is all about surprise.

The "tonal" system of the music of the 17th through 19th century gives the composer a way to organize melody and harmony so that "consonant" intervals sound stable.  "Dissonant" intervals sound unstable and seem like they should resolve to consonant intervals. It the tonal system is also a good match with with the physics of sound and the physiology of the ear, since the consonant intervals tend to line up with the overtone series and blend together well. The fact that there is a system means that when I hear music progress I have an expectation at any given moment of what might come next. A dissonance should resolve. A any given point in a harmonic progression there are chords that are very likely to follow, and chords that are very unlikely to follow. The composer can give you what you expect, or give you the last thing you expect at any given moment. The composer can set up a dissonance, but resolve it to another dissonance, set up what seems to be a cadence, but modulate to a different key, etc. The composer has a good idea of how to manipulate your expectations.

In free "atonality" literally anything can happen. How can the composer surprise you when literally anything can come next? Atonal music can be dissonant or consonant, but the there are no built-in expectations of what the normal continuation of the music should be. The composer is up on the high-wire without a net. The various systems are a way to restore some structure to the music. When I listen to atonal music, such as late Schoenberg, sometimes I consciously try to anticipate the next note in the melody, or the next harmony, and see if I have any ability to foresee what comes next. Usually I can't.

Well in what you call 'atonal music' it really depends on the piece of music. Sometimes composers take a highly motific approach, sometimes the use of repetition with pitch and rhythm gives a foundation for you to listen to. A composer can create their own 'net' purely within an individual composition based on what things they like to listen to in music.  Sometimes the heavy emphasis on pitch and relationships between pitch from the CP era and even earlier mean that perhaps we listen out for things which are more or less irrelevant when a composer decides to move away from pitch hierarchies as a point of structure and maybe makes their music more rhythm based.

Also, when it comes to using the tools of composition freely, it is only upon looking at the music in retrospect that we can notice plausible structures and patterns in any music. 

[BasilValentine]

In free "atonality" literally anything can happen. How can the composer surprise you when literally anything can come next? Atonal music can be dissonant or consonant, but the there are no built-in expectations of what the normal continuation of the music should be. The composer is up on the high-wire without a net. The various systems are a way to restore some structure to the music. When I listen to atonal music, such as late Schoenberg, sometimes I consciously try to anticipate the next note in the melody, or the next harmony, and see if I have any ability to foresee what comes next. Usually I can't.

Ooh ooh, I know! Throw in a major triad.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Ooh ooh, I know! Throw in a major triad.

Yes ... that can happen.....

[Mahlerian]

Well in what you call 'atonal music' it really depends on the piece of music. Sometimes composers take a highly motific approach, sometimes the use of repetition with pitch and rhythm gives a foundation for you to listen to. A composer can create their own 'net' purely within an individual composition based on what things they like to listen to in music.  Sometimes the heavy emphasis on pitch and relationships between pitch from the CP era and even earlier mean that perhaps we listen out for things which are more or less irrelevant when a composer decides to move away from pitch hierarchies as a point of structure and maybe makes their music more rhythm based.

Also, when it comes to using the tools of composition freely, it is only upon looking at the music in retrospect that we can notice plausible structures and patterns in any music.

Schoenberg's music is still primarily driven by pitch relationships, though, though motifs and harmonies, etc.  There are plenty of sections which may be "extremely unpredictable-sounding" at first hearing, but which actually have a relatively simple constructive principle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojpN8ZYKieI

From 0:12-0:29 we hear the exact same material three times in a row (with two notes added in the left hand to the third statement), but the elements are displaced in rhythm each time, so that the top two elements begin in unison, then the top comes first, then the lower of the two begins the statement.  The third element of the ascending motif in the bass over a G# is the same each time, but starts at different points.

When you can hear this, it's quite transparent and clear, but before that the passage may seem merely improvisatory, and indeed impossible to predict.

[Parsifal]

Well in what you call 'atonal music' it really depends on the piece of music. Sometimes composers take a highly motific approach, sometimes the use of repetition with pitch and rhythm gives a foundation for you to listen to. A composer can create their own 'net' purely within an individual composition based on what things they like to listen to in music.  Sometimes the heavy emphasis on pitch and relationships between pitch from the CP era and even earlier mean that perhaps we listen out for things which are more or less irrelevant when a composer decides to move away from pitch hierarchies as a point of structure and maybe makes their music more rhythm based.

Also, when it comes to using the tools of composition freely, it is only upon looking at the music in retrospect that we can notice plausible structures and patterns in any music.

You've said nothing I can disagree with. I would say that in the various forms of atonal music there is a greater burden on the composer to invent his or her own structures, and less reliance on structures that are "built in" to the tonal system. Of course, even composers using the conventional system invent their own structures to layer on top of the underlying system. But there is more scaffolding there.

[SimonNZ]

OK guys, it's official: Mozart has been labelled 'atonal.'

Mozart aside, how many of the works listed there are we happy labeling and agreeing are "atonal"? Because I still have absolutely no idea where the lines are drawn, and I listen to all of those composers fairly regularly.

So I continue to find the term unhelpful and lazy in general conversation. I wouldn't want it replaced with another term - I'd like people to actually describe the music with some accuracy without this or any other easy and vague and sweeping go-to.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Mozart aside, how many of the works listed there are we happy labeling and agreeing are "atonal"? Because I still have absolutely no idea where the lines are drawn, and I listen to all of those composers fairly regularly.

So I continue to find the term unhelpful and lazy in general conversation. I wouldn't want it replaced with another term - I'd like people to actually describe the music with some accuracy without this or any other easy and vague and sweeping go-to.

Yes. I don't quite get the label of 'atonal' when so much of the music I listen to kinda gets that label from people who don't listen to the music as often as I do. Every composer sounds sooo different to one another that I am sure it is easier to talk about what makes them unique and interesting.

[Madiel]

People have been failing to describe music accurately since before Schoenberg was even born. These days you can get a job writing liner or programme notes.

If you can live with the Moonlight Sonata, you can bloody well live with atonal music.

[SimonNZ]

People have been failing to describe music accurately since before Schoenberg was even born. These days you can get a job writing liner or programme notes.

If you can live with the Moonlight Sonata, you can bloody well live with atonal music.

Erm...I already do live with "atonal" music. Probably. Depending on who is defining it. Its the blanket term for what has become far too disparate styles and composers that I have a problem with, and the lazy way the term is used - unmatched in this respect by any other term in music criticism that I can think of.

But what of the question I asked? Can you say with any confidence and certainty of wide support which of the composers / works in that link are "atonal"?