A little history

[Mahlerian]

Piece of cake. Your position is that "atonal / atonalism" originated and are used as derisive and highly inaccurate terms and their use should be discarded.

The negative connotations are really secondary.  The main reason is that the terms atonal and atonality are meaningless, and describe no quality about the music whatsoever.

Also, that there is no difference whatsoever between "tonal" and "atonal" music, twelve-tone included.

Here you are incorrect about my views.

There are differences between tonal and non-tonal music.  Tonality is a specific system of using triads in functional progressions, as developed in Europe from the 17th through 19th centuries.

All other music is non-tonal, including that sometimes called "atonal."  Music written using the 12-tone method can be tonal or otherwise, though because the technique developed after the 19th century, it's usually not.

What music called "atonal" does have in common with tonal music is the presence of centers, points of rest towards which the music gravitates.  I suspect the confusion comes because many people think that the presence or absence of centers is what distinguishes tonality and atonality, and because I hear centers in "atonal" music, they think I am saying that it is tonal.  In their definition, perhaps that is true, but that doesn't mean that I don't make a distinction between tonal and non-tonal music.

[Florestan]

There are differences between tonal and non-tonal music.

And yet in another thread you wrote:

Except that that's not the way any of Schoenberg's, or anyone else's, 12-tone music actually works.  Why don't people just use their ears and hear that it's exactly the same as any other music, aside from the term?

and

Yes, it is different from other pieces of music in the same way that other pieces of music are different from each other.

You should not interpret this as an invitation to further elaborate your theories*, God forbid! I have zero interest in them. I just wanted to point out the inconsistency of your approach.

* although, of course, you will do exactly that.

[Mahlerian]

And yet in another thread you wrote:

and

You should not interpret this as an invitation to further elaborate your theories, God forbid! I have zero interest in them. I just wanted to point out the inconsistency of your approach.

I admit that I was overgeneralizing for effect.  Yes, it is distinguished from some music, like that of Mozart, Mendelssohn, or Mahler, by the fact that it does not use functional triadic progressions.

But it is not distinguished from, say, Perotin or Josquin or Debussy or The Beatles or dance-pop or Shostakovich or Prokofiev on that basis.  In fact, like their music, Schoenberg's has melody, harmony, form, and everything else that makes music musical.  The fact that it doesn't use that specific system of functional triadic progressions is not especially meaningful or relevant.

If you are so uninterested in my position, why the constant ridicule and personal attacks?

[Mahlerian]

For you, maybe, but for others that is the main reason they do not like it.

So they dislike all of those other things I listed for the same reason?

[Florestan]

If you are so uninterested in my position, why the constant ridicule and personal attacks?

I neither ridicule nor attack you. What I find annoying --- and I am far from being alone in that, although I might be the only one to openly object to it --- is your not missing any opportunity for coming back again and again to, and going on again and again about, this topic which admittedly seems to be of the utmost importance for you but which has zero relevance for the GMG community at large and for most people's enjoyment of their preferred music.

[Mahlerian]

I neither ridicule nor attack you. What I find annoying --- and I am far from being alone in that, although I might be the only one to openly object to it --- is your not missing any opportunity for coming back again and again to, and going on again and again about, this topic which admittedly seems to be of the utmost importance for you but which has zero relevance for the GMG community at large and for most people's enjoyment of their preferred music.

In all truth and honesty, I am sorry if it is annoying.  I don't want to decrease anyone's enjoyment of this forum, and I apologize to anyone who feels that I have done that.

But I am a composer, and also a lover of Schoenberg's music.  These issues reflect directly on my artistic life, and a discussion of them is anything but a mere play of abstractions to me.

[Turner]

In all truth and honesty, I am sorry if it is annoying.  I don't want to decrease anyone's enjoyment of this forum, and I apologize to anyone who feels that I have done that.

But I am a composer, and also a lover of Schoenberg's music.  These issues reflect directly on my artistic life, and a discussion of them is anything but a mere play of abstractions to me.

Though the techical aspects go beyond me, I think there's absolutely nothing annoying in you popping in - and this actually not very often - with some usually interesting and informed entries. I think the vast majority will agree.

[Florestan]

In all truth and honesty, I am sorry if it is annoying.  I don't want to decrease anyone's enjoyment of this forum, and I apologize to anyone who feels that I have done that.

I must have sounded more drammatic than I intended. There's no need to apologize, really.

Instead, look at it this way: you have stated your position multiple times by now. People either already agree or disagree with you. Further discussion will result only in your stating the same position again and people again agreeing or disagreeing with you. No settlement of the matter will ever be reached, because it is unreachable. Dead end for both parties. I'm sure you have better things to do than to correct each and every error, real or perceived, that comes under your eyes.

But I am a composer

Then I think that it would be much more interesting to post some of your music than to theorize about it.

[Parsifal]

I neither ridicule nor attack you. What I find annoying --- and I am far from being alone in that, although I might be the only one to openly object to it --- is your not missing any opportunity for coming back again and again to, and going on again and again about, this topic which admittedly seems to be of the utmost importance for you but which has zero relevance for the GMG community at large and for most people's enjoyment of their preferred music.

In all truth and honesty, I am sorry if it is annoying.  I don't want to decrease anyone's enjoyment of this forum, and I apologize to anyone who feels that I have done that.

But I am a composer, and also a lover of Schoenberg's music.  These issues reflect directly on my artistic life, and a discussion of them is anything but a mere play of abstractions to me.

Florestan let you off easy, I would have said again, and again, and again, and again, and again.

Your war against the dictionary is indeed tedious. You can't seem to recognize that the word "atonal" used informally has a meaning which is easily understood by almost anyone familiar with classical music, and that your notions about a technical definition of tonality are irrelevant to this.

It is a matter of context. There are many words (energy, catalyst, translate, object) which have a very specific technical definition in a narrowly defined field, but which have a different but related definition in general usage. If a chemist can't understand the use of the word "catalyst" in a general context and starts spouting equations, then it is the chemist who fails to understand, not his or her interlocutors. If you can't understand the meaning of "atonal" in a general context, then you are the one who is incapable of using the word correctly, even though you are "a composer."

[Mahlerian]

Florestan let you off easy, I would have said again, and again, and again, and again, and again.

Your war against the dictionary is indeed tedious. You can't seem to recognize that the word "atonal" used informally has a meaning which is easily understood by almost anyone familiar with classical music, and that your notions about a technical definition of tonality are irrelevant to this.

It is a matter of context. There are many words (energy, catalyst, translate, object) which have a very specific technical definition in a narrowly defined field, but which have a different but related definition in general usage. If a chemist can't understand the use of the word "catalyst" in a general context and starts spouting equations, then it is the chemist who fails to understand, not his or her interlocutors. If you can't understand the meaning of "atonal" in a general context, then you are the one who is incapable of using the word correctly, even though you are "a composer."

I understand what is meant, but what is meant does not apply to the music it is used to define.  That is to say, atonal music is not actually "atonal," as that term is understood by the general population.

[Parsifal]

The word "atonal" is defined by the music that it is applied to. Atonal music is Schoenberg's dodecaphony, and anything that sounds like Schoenberg's dodecaphony.

And Florestan is right, this is pointless.

[Mahlerian]

The word "atonal" is defined by the music that it is applied to. Atonal music is Schoenberg's dodecaphony, and anything that sounds like Schoenberg's dodecaphony.

But I thought the word atonal was supposed to mean "lacking in any kind of centricity whatsoever."  Judging by articles and Youtube videos aimed at lay audiences, this is the way the term is understood.  And yes, this definition doesn't apply to Schoenberg's music.

Also, it's routinely applied to plenty of things that don't sound even remotely like Schoenberg: Cage, Xenakis, Messiaen, spectralism...

[Parsifal]

But I thought the word atonal was supposed to mean "lacking in any kind of centricity whatsoever."  Judging by articles and Youtube videos aimed at lay audiences, this is the way the term is understood.  And yes, this definition doesn't apply to Schoenberg's music.

Also, it's routinely applied to plenty of things that don't sound even remotely like Schoenberg: Cage, Xenakis, Messiaen, spectralism...

Merriam Webster:

marked by avoidance of traditional musical tonality; especially :organized without reference to key or tonal center and using the tones of the chromatic scale impartially

Now I'm finished.

[Mahlerian]

Merriam Webster:

marked by avoidance of traditional musical tonality; especially :organized without reference to key or tonal center and using the tones of the chromatic scale impartially

Now I'm finished.

Where does that definition say "sounds like Schoenberg's dodecophony," which is what you said the definition was two posts earlier?

It's true that Schoenberg's music avoids traditional musical tonality, but it does distinctly have centers, just not in the sense that functional progressions do.

[Parsifal]

Now I'm finished.


Where does that definition say "sounds like Schoenberg's dodecophony," which is what you said the definition was two posts earlier?

It's true that Schoenberg's music avoids traditional musical tonality, but it does distinctly have centers, just not in the sense that functional progressions do.

The term was coined to describe Schoenberg's music. The dictionary definition tries to describe what aspects of Schoenberg's music are relevant. It fleshes out "sounds like."

[some guy]

Um, no. The term was coined before Schoenberg had written any of his pantonal pieces. The term first appeared in a graduate thesis that inveighed against the highly chromatic (but still tonal) musics of Wagner and immediately after. Good example of the value of having accurate historical facts upon which to build one's opinions.

Otherwise, I would say that "avoids" gives a false impression of things. Creators are generally more positive in that they make things, they do things. Nothing to do with avoiding. Everything to do with making. Sometimes there are trends which historically involve reactions against previous patterns, but to make those reactions into the whole reason for doing things fundamentally distorts the situation.

Dodecaphony and serialism don't avoid anything. There are some patterns that they don't typically use, but that doesn't mean avoiding, which has negative connotations, no?

Defining "atonal" (and Scarpia could easily have used a music dictionary and not Merriam-Webster, which gets things like this wrong from time to time) by what it avoids misses the point of what different systems do indeed do, which is provide certain kinds of opportunities.

One might as usefully define a plant as "a living entity that avoids centresomes" or "a living entity that avoids a central nervous system." Or, even closer to this particular discussion, one might define an elephant as an animal that avoids living in the ocean or a dog as an animal that avoids having a long, long neck.

I wonder if anyone back in the day (meaning a period of time longer than twenty four hours) ever defined "tonality" as "the avoidance of melody"? That might have been fun, eh?

[Parsifal]

Um, no. The term was coined before Schoenberg had written any of his pantonal pieces. The term first appeared in a graduate thesis that inveighed against the highly chromatic (but still tonal) musics of Wagner and immediately after. Good example of the value of having accurate historical facts upon which to build one's opinions.

Um, no. The obscure etymology of a term which acquired a different meaning in common usage has no bearing. Good example of the value of not being a pedantic ass.

[Monsieur Croche]

Um, no. The term was coined before Schoenberg had written any of his pantonal pieces. The term first appeared in a graduate thesis that inveighed against the highly chromatic (but still tonal) musics of Wagner and immediately after. Good example of the value of having accurate historical facts upon which to build one's opinions.

Otherwise, I would say that "avoids" gives a false impression of things. Creators are generally more positive in that they make things, they do things. Nothing to do with avoiding. Everything to do with making. Sometimes there are trends which historically involve reactions against previous patterns, but to make those reactions into the whole reason for doing things fundamentally distorts the situation.

Dodecaphony and serialism don't avoid anything. There are some patterns that they don't typically use, but that doesn't mean avoiding, which has negative connotations, no?

Defining "atonal" (and Scarpia could easily have used a music dictionary and not Merriam-Webster, which gets things like this wrong from time to time) by what it avoids misses the point of what different systems do indeed do, which is provide certain kinds of opportunities.

One might as usefully define a plant as "a living entity that avoids centresomes" or "a living entity that avoids a central nervous system." Or, even closer to this particular discussion, one might define an elephant as an animal that avoids living in the ocean or a dog as an animal that avoids having a long, long neck.

I wonder if anyone back in the day (meaning a period of time longer than twenty four hours) ever defined "tonality" as "the avoidance of melody"? That might have been fun, eh?

This is almost too good. It is also really funny.
 
So much has been romanticized /glamorized about artists "having to destroy what came before in order to create the new," -- and I'm certain that stems from romantic era hyperbole (Ziggy Freud and Jung included) that 'having to avoid' anything while making a new piece sound new seems to be a rather popular notion.  It is absolute nonsense of course. 

When one runs to a non-musical dictionary for many a musical term which is so conditionally specific, and you find there a brief and pithy entry where the same term in a music dictionary takes up qualifying paragraphs, well, that is what you get... a layman's shortcut, because it is deemed they wouldn't get the rest anyway, or will go elsewhere to get the full and real dope.  It is rather shocking that people who allege to want to talk about classical music somewhat intelligently don't concede some terms are not to be sought in other than specialized dictionaries or other specialized tomes, and make the effort to go the distance to fully understand the term and what it does and does not cover or imply.  Romantic and atonal might just top the list of terms so misused and abused, lol.

Thanks for the post, and the chuckles.


Best regards.

[some guy]

My pleasure, monsieur.

Otherwise, Scarpia, you made a claim: "The term was coined to describe Schoenberg's music."

Then I pointed out that the term was not coined to describe Schoenberg's music. Was that really out of line?

It was in fact coined to describe the music this grad student didn't like (R. Strauss and Scriabin among others)--which continues to be one of the common usages of "atonal."

So yeah. False claim. If pointing that out gets me pegged as pedant, then OK.

As for the ass part, I should introduce you to my ex's. They would totally agree with you.

[Parsifal]

My pleasure, monsieur.

Otherwise, Scarpia, you made a claim: "The term was coined to describe Schoenberg's music."

Then I pointed out that the term was not coined to describe Schoenberg's music. Was that really out of line?

It was in fact coined to describe the music this grad student didn't like (R. Strauss and Scriabin among others)--which continues to be one of the common usages of "atonal."

So yeah. False claim. If pointing that out gets me pegged as pedant, then OK.

As for the ass part, I should introduce you to my ex's. They would totally agree with you.

Touche, I should have said "came into use" not "coined. I read somewhere the claim (perhaps not accurate) that the term was first used by music critics to ridicule Schoenberg.