A little history

[Mahlerian]

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.

It first came into common use around 1918 or so to ridicule all of modern music, from Mahler to Strauss to Debussy to Reger to Stravinsky to Bartok, and yes, Schoenberg and his school as well, including their earlier works.  You can see this broad sense reflected in an essay by Alban Berg from 1925 here:

Considered from such a universal point of view, how basically different is the image of other contemporary composers, even those whose harmonic language has broken with the domination of the triad. The musical means listed above can naturally be demonstrated in their music too. But we never find them, as we do in Schönberg, united in the work of a single personality, but distributed amongst the various groups, schools, generations and nations and their respective representatives.[...]One composer's 'atonality' consists in setting false basses under primitively harmonized periods; others write in two or more (major or minor) keys simultaneously, but the musical procedures within each one often betray a frightening poverty of invention.

http://www.schoenberg.at/index.php/en/alban-berg-ueber-schoenbergs-musik-2

The sense here is that atonality encompasses what we would today call bitonality and "wrong-note" neoclassicism as well as total chromaticism.

More from Berg in the 1920s:
https://blog.oup.com/2013/09/what-is-atonal-a-dialogue-alban-berg-music/

[Monsieur Croche]

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.

I work on fora almost exclusively from memory (for the benefit of the exercise it brings), but here goes anyway. 

The etymology of the word, is the Latin "A" (= without) coupled with "Tonal," the latter having a direct connection to common practice tonality and meant to substitute for the phrase 'diatonic triadic harmony' and that further yet specifically referring to the Tonic triad within the common practice context, i.e. 'no diatonic triad tonic' is all it really means.  'No diatonic triad tonic' IS quite applicable to music as early as Wagner (or at least, four evenings of four hours each to 'arrive back home in Eb Major is getting there, or away from, for a Very Long Duration, whichever way you care to think of it.)  We all now know Wagner in the context of our more general later current usage as 'still tonal,' while we also know he blew the lid of common practice tonality in one fell swoop within the opening measures of his Tristan und Isolde.

Without the over-elaborate qualifications, the word literally means 'Without Tones' which makes no sense or nonsense when it is applied to music.  Therein, I think, lies the rancor from many within academia / pedagogy.  It is woefully inaccurate, a misnomer that inevitably leads to a lot of additional qualifying explanations to be clearly understood.  Harmony textbooks and the teacher-lecturers all go to these lengths when presenting and explaining "Atonal," and much of that is truly unnecessary back-tracking to undo all the misconceptions that many a well-versed and prepared college music major has when presented with it.

In its originally intended meaning, it can be used to describe Wagner, Debussy, etc. so is of not much real worth or use (had nothing to do with dodecaphonic serial music because it did not exist when the term was coined), though the distinction of 'before and after Wagner' when studying harmony, common practice and later changes / developments makes it a somewhat necessary concept, at least.

I can not think of another theoretic-technical term that creates within the community such a schism, irritation, frustration etc. exactly because from the moment it came into being it was such a confused neologism, and a literally inaccurate construction at that.

Topping this all off is the gloriously ironic fact that it seems a 19th century petty pedant academic Teutonic twit grad student first coined the term to specifically use as a pejorative.  It may be the only term in the entire lexicography of musical terms to own such a dubious distinction!  (Ach du lieber, grad students, lol.)

Ergo -- all the dither and flap.


Best regards.

[Monsieur Croche]

I've been on GMG for a while and only since Mahlerian joined did the word come under attack (by him).  Somehow this community discussed music for years without it ever being a bone of contention.

If you've studied harmony formally, college level, just about anywhere, you would probably have found out differently -- it is pretty much loathed /despised as a highly inaccurate and very non-specific term within the professional musical / academic community.  (I thought I had made that clear in my post.  If not, I apologize for the omission.)  It always requires bundles of additional explanations to clarify and to undo the many misconceptions the term seems to continually spawn.  The dislike for the term is nothing new, it has been disliked as a very confusing misnomer within academe for decades.

That said, most also say how dreadfully inaccurate it is, then remind all that the term has been in use for so long that we all have to just accept it -- well, yeah, but not accept it at all passively or quietly. :-)

[Parsifal]

If you've studied harmony formally, college level, just about anywhere, you would probably have found out differently -- it is pretty much loathed /despised as a highly inaccurate and very non-specific term within the professional musical / academic community.  (I thought I had made that clear in my post.  If not, I apologize for the omission.)  It always requires bundles of additional explanations to clarify and to undo the many misconceptions the term seems to continually spawn.  The dislike for the term is nothing new, it has been disliked as a very confusing misnomer within academe for decades.

That said, most also say how dreadfully inaccurate it is, then remind all that the term has been in use for so long that we all have to just accept it -- well, yeah, but not accept it at all passively or quietly. :-)

Languages have use for vague terms as well as very specific terms. It is just an adjective, after all. If someone remarks that a work or passage is atonal, I have no trouble understanding what they might mean. When Mahlerian follows up with 17 posts explaining that there is no such thing as atonality, I reach for the scroll bar.

[Florestan]

It [the term "atonal"] was in fact coined to describe the music this grad student didn't like (R. Strauss and Scriabin among others)

Topping this all off is the gloriously ironic fact that it seems a 19th century petty pedant academic Teutonic twit grad student first coined the term to specifically use as a pejorative. 

The "19-th century" "petty pedant teutonic" "twit" "grad student" was actually the 26-year old Joseph Marx (an Austrian) working in 1907-09 on his philosophy doctoral dissertation. And far from being a detractor of Scriabin, he was in fact his admirer (as he was of Debussy) and his own music is influenced by the two.

As for Richard Strauss, he was so upset by Marx's dislike and criticism that even many years after he felt the urge to present him a portrait bearing the following remonstrance:

To my dear friend and adored colleague Josef Marx in heartfelt remembrance

Devotedly yours

Richard Strauss

Garmisch (Germany), 13.3.1933

Talk about accuracy and facts...

[Florestan]

If you've studied harmony formally, college level, just about anywhere, you would probably have found out differently -- it is pretty much loathed /despised as a highly inaccurate and very non-specific term within the professional musical / academic community.  (I thought I had made that clear in my post.  If not, I apologize for the omission.)  It always requires bundles of additional explanations to clarify and to undo the many misconceptions the term seems to continually spawn.  The dislike for the term is nothing new, it has been disliked as a very confusing misnomer within academe for decades.

Allen Forte was Battell Professor Emeritus of the Theory of Music at Yale. He also taught at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Yale Summer School of Music and Art, and the Eastman School of Music.

Here are two books he published by Yale University Press



Bryan R. Simms is Professor Emeritus of Musicology at the University of Southern California. He was appointed to its faculty in 1976 and served there for thirty-eight years prior to his retirement in June 2014. Before coming to USC he taught at the University of Denver and at Yale University, where in 1971 he received a Ph.D. in musicology. He was formerly editor of the Journal of Music Theory and Music Theory Spectrum, and he has served on the Council of the American Musicological Society and Executive Board of the Society for Music Theory.

Here's one of his books, published by Oxford University Press:



John Rahn is a music theorist, composer, bassoonist, and Professor of Music in the University of Washington School of Music, Seattle. A former student of Milton Babbitt and Benjamin Boretz, he was editor of Perspectives of New Music from 1983 until 1993 and since 2001 has been co-editor [...]

Here's one of his books, published by Schirmer Books



Among George Perle's books there is this one, published by University of California Press



I could go on like that ad nauseam, but I won't.

Now, either these people (with impeccable academic credentials, two of them composers themselves) deliberately misled the audience by using in the title of their books (printed by venerable academic publishing houses), without anything so much as a minimal caveat, let alone "bundles of additional explanations", a term they loathed / despised / disliked / knew it would spawn misconceptions, or they weren't aware of any pejorative / negative / inaccurate / misleading connotation it might possess (and neither were the respective editorial boards, for that matter). Pick your choice.

EDIT: typos corrected.

[Jo498]

As far as I remember in German there is/was a usage of "atonikal" for Wagner, Debussy etc. without clear functional tonality (from Tonika for tonic), "freie Atonalität" (free atonality) for e.g. pre-dodecaphonic Schoenberg to distinguish from the "stricter" Dodecaphony. Also "Serielle Musik" is usually reserved for serialism in the stricter sense that encompasses also durations etc, not only pitches. So Zwölftonmusik is usually never called "seriell".

As several by now established and neutral terms for styles and epochs started with somewhat different, often derogatory meanings and (like "baroque") might even retain these meanings in some contexts (but not in others) I do not see such a special case with "atonal".

[some guy]

Pick your choice.

Some possibilities may have been left off, the most obvious being that any caveats will most likely be inside, not on the covers.

Regardless, "the academy" is no more monolithic than "the audience." Each category is full of all sorts of individuals with widely differing ideas and points of view.

[Mahlerian]

Some possibilities may have been left off, the most obvious being that any caveats will most likely be inside, not on the covers.

Regardless, "the academy" is no more monolithic than "the audience." Each category is full of all sorts of individuals with widely differing ideas and points of view.

Millionrainbows was sent into a veritable tizzy on another, no longer existing, forum after I revealed that Forte considered Stravinsky's Rite of Spring an atonal work.

Pearle also co-signed the article in the New Grove defining atonality, and it's full of caveats.  From the conclusion:

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 category.

[Florestan]

Some possibilities may have been left off, the most obvious being that any caveats will most likely be inside, not on the covers.

Read Forte's own Preface to The Structure of Atonal Music and let us know how many caveats you have found: https://www.scribd.com/document/221113785/Forte-The-Structure-of-Atonal-Music.

"the academy" is no more monolithic than "the audience." Each category is full of all sorts of individuals with widely differing ideas and points of view.

Tell that to Monsieur Croche. It's him who wants us to believe that "[the term "atonal"] is pretty much loathed /despised as a highly inaccurate and very non-specific term within the musical / academic community.  It always requires bundles of additional explanations to clarify and to undo the many misconceptions the term seems to continually spawn.  The dislike for the term is nothing new, it has been disliked as a very confusing misnomer within academe for decades."

[Florestan]

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.

This formulation logically implies that all atonal compositions are serial, which is not true. Think of it this way: P is class of objects (atonal compositional practices) defined by features X (the absence of the normative and interrelated procedures of tonality) and Y (the basic concept of serialism). The connector *and* necessarily implies that an object in the P class have *both* X and Y features, otherwise it wouldn't belong to that class. And since we know for a fact that not all atonal compostions are serial, the above phrase makes a false claim.

[Mahlerian]

This formulation logically implies that all atonal compositions are serial, which is not true. Think of it this way: P is class of objects (atonal compositional practices) defined by features X (the absence of the normative and interrelated procedures of tonality) and Y (the basic concept of serialism). The connector *and* necessarily implies that an object in the P class have *both* X and Y features, otherwise it wouldn't belong to that class. And since we know for a fact that not all atonal compostions are serial, the above phrase makes a false claim.

You're quibbling with a source (Pearle) whom you yourself cited as trustworthy.  Furthermore, you're misreading it.   It says that atonality is separate from serialism.  It's meant to be understood as: "whose only features are the absence of the normative and interrelated procedures of tonality and [the absence of] the basic concept of serialism."

[Florestan]

You're quibbling with a source that you yourself cited as trustworthy.

You're wrong. I did not cite the article in the New Grove defining atonality. You cited it.

Furthermore, you're misreading it.   It says that atonality is separate from serialism.  It's meant to be understood as: "whose only features are the absence of the normative and interrelated procedures of tonality and [the absence of] the basic concept of serialism."

If that were the case, the phrase would still be making a false claim, because it would logically imply that no serial work can be atonal.

[Mahlerian]

You're wrong. I did not cite the article in the New Grove defining atonality.

I meant George Pearle, the co-author of the article (and edited my post to reflect this).  If you're seeking to impugn the credibility of The New Grove Dictionary, though, all I can say is good luck!

If that were the case, the phrase would still be making a false claim, because it would logically imply that no serial work can be atonal.

You're assuming that atonal has a specific definition other than the one which the New Grove dictionary provides.  That being the very point under discussion, your assumption begs the question.  At any rate, the authors set out their reasons for excluding serial music in the introduction:

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.

[Florestan]

I meant George Pearle, the co-author of the article (and edited my post to reflect this).

You mean George Perle, I presume

If you're seeking to impugn the credibility of The New Grove Dictionary, though, all I can say is good luck!

I'm seeking no such thing. I took the phrase you quoted and analyzed its logical implications. The inescapable conclusion is that it makes a false claim.

You're assuming that atonal has a specific definition other than the one which the New Grove dictionary provides.

On the contrary, I took the New Grove definition at face value.

serial music is, by the first definition, atonal

This is in stark, blatant and obvious contradiction with their own definition of atonal music as you read it,  which defines atonal music by, among other things, an *absence* of the basic concept of serialism. We have thus the curious case of an object P (serial music) which is by definition Q (atonal), yet which doesn't meet one of the necessary conditions (absence of serialism) set out in the definition of Q.

[Mahlerian]

You mean George Perle, I presume

Yes, my mistake.

I'm seeking no such thing. I took the phrase you quoted and analyzed its logical implications. The inescapable conclusion is that it makes a false claim.

On the contrary, I took the New Grove definition at face value.

Except that you assume beforehand that however atonal is defined, serial compositions must be atonal, and the article makes no such claim.  You cannot say that you take the article at face value if you do not go along with its own basic assumptions, which are internally coherent.

This is in stark, blatant and obvious contradiction with their own definition of atonal music as you read it,  which defines atonal music by, among other things, an *absence* of the basic concept of serialism. We have thus the curious case of an object P (serial music) which is by definition Q (atonal), yet which doesn't meet one of the necessary conditions (absence of serialism) set out in the definition of Q.

That earlier quote was from the conclusion.  The quote just cited was from the introduction.  I'll expand it out:

Atonality.  A term which 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.)

http://www.musictheory21.com/documents/atonality-new-grove-dic.pdf

The authors then continue to employ definition two throughout, and the conclusion is based on this (Atonality thus roughly delimits...).

[Turner]

The thread in question:

[Florestan]

Floristan, serial music is a subset of atonal music. 

Yes, I know that.

The Grove article is stipulating that while serial music is atonal it has unique attributes from other atonal music and serial works are distinguished from the general atonal labeling.

I have no objection to that. But in whatever reading one takes it, their definition of atonal music leads to conclusions contrary to reality. Judge for yourself:

1. My reading: atonal music is defined by (1) the absence of the normative and interrelated procedures of tonality and (2) the basic concept of serialism. Accordingly, any music which is not serial cannot be atonal. This is false.

2. Mahlerian's reading: atonal music is defined by (1) the absence of the normative and interrelated procedures of tonality and (2) the absence of the basic concept of serialism. Accordingly, any music which is serial cannot be atonal. This too is false.

And then they state that serial music is by definition atonal. By whose definition, I wonder, because by their own it doesn't qualify.

  Somewhat like all kittens are cats but not all cats are kittens.

Except that their definition implies that no kitten can be cats and no cats can be kitten.

[Florestan]

Except that you assume beforehand that however atonal is defined, serial compositions must be atonal,

I assume no such thing.

Look, my logical analysis of the phrase you quoted is in plain sight for anyone to see. I even reiterate it in my reply to sanantonio. Feel free to show where I am wrong in that analysis.

[Mahlerian]

I assume no such thing.

Look, my logical analysis of the phrase you quoted is in plain sight for anyone to see. I even reiterate it in my reply to sanantonio. Feel free to show where I am wrong in that analysis.

Fine.

Yes, I know that.

I have no objection to that. But in whatever reading one takes it, their definition of atonal music leads to conclusions contrary to reality. Judge for yourself:

1. My reading: atonal music is defined by (1) the absence of the normative and interrelated procedures of tonality and (2) the basic concept of serialism. Accordingly, any music which is not serial cannot be atonal. This is false.

2. Mahlerian's reading: atonal music is defined by (1) the absence of the normative and interrelated procedures of tonality and (2) the absence of the basic concept of serialism. Accordingly, any music which is serial cannot be atonal. This too is false.

I wonder why you hold onto your misreading of the quote, because that would be horrible English syntax:  "X is defined by the absence of Y and Z" never means "X is defined by the absence of Y and having Z," because then the normal way of writing it would be "X is defined by the presence of Z and the absence of Y."  Furthermore, I showed how my reading is consistent with the rest of the article, while yours would not be.

Why would it be false, anyway?  They're defining atonal, they say serial is separate, and they proceed under that assumption.  Like I said, it's internally consistent.  It's only problematic if you assume beforehand that serial music has to be atonal.

Also, changing the wording to "is defined by" is slightly distorting the original.  It says that "Atonality thus roughly delimits a wide range of compositional practices..."  Which isn't saying that atonality has a specific definition so much as that it's a catch-all term for a whole bunch of things that have these qualities in common.  This is backed up by their saying that "It remains to be seen to what extent atonality is a useful or relevant category."

And then they state that serial music is by definition atonal. By whose definition, I wonder, because by their own it doesn't qualify.

As I showed earlier, they say that sometimes the term is used in that way.  They then say that they won't use it in that way.  No contradiction whatsoever, unless, again, you assume that serial music has to be atonal.  Then you're not taking them at face value, but inserting your own preconceptions of what the term must necessarily mean.

I'll point out that their use of definition 2 in their list is quite common in academic circles, and definition 3 (limiting "atonal" to the post-tonal, pre-serial music of the Second Viennese School) is also quite common.