A little history

[Florestan]

Bottom line, as to not derail the thread (not that there is much to derail, though): that atonal / atonality are losely defined terms and can have different meanings in different contexts, it is perfectly true --- one thing is clear, though: any music which is tonal is not atonal and any music which is atonal is not tonal. 

What is not true is Monsieur Croche's claim that "the academic world" loathes / despises / dislikes the term.

[Mahlerian]

Bottom line, as to not derail the thread (not that there is much to derail, though): that atonal / atonality are losely defined terms and can have different meanings in different contexts, it is perfectly true --- one thing is clear, though: any music which is tonal is not atonal and any music which is atonal is not tonal. 

That, of course, depends on the definition of both terms.  There are plenty of definitions of tonal that include atonal music as well.

[Florestan]

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.

Good grief!

I'll repeat the whole damn thing as clearly as I can.

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.

So, we have a class of objects P (atonal compositional practices) who is defined by two features: (1) the absence of the normative and interrelated procedures of tonality, and (2) the absence of the basic concept of serialism.

According to this definition, any object which has features (1) and (2) belongs to P and any object which lacks one, or both, of the features (1) and (2) does not belong to P.

Serial music lacks feature (2) because the absence of the basic concept of serialism is conspicuously not one of its feature.

Therefore, serial music does not belong to P, ie serial music is not atonal.

This is false, and the whole reasoning has nothing whatsoever to do with the assumption that serial music has to be atonal, which is nowhere to be seen in the above.

If you do not understand it this time either, too bad: I really can't present it in a more clear manner, but I call as my witness anyone who has had a basic course in logic.

[Mahlerian]

According to this definition, any object which has features (1) and (2) belongs to P and any object which lacks one, or both, of the features (1) and (2) does not belong to P.

Serial music lacks feature (2) because the absence of the basic concept of serialism is conspicuously not one of its feature.

Therefore, serial music does not belong to P, ie serial music is not atonal.

This is false, and the whole reasoning has nothing whatsoever to do with the assumption that serial music has to be atonal, which is nowhere to be seen in the above.

Why is it false?  Serial music is not atonal.  That's fine with Perle in his article.

What's wrong with serial music not being atonal by definition?  As I said, a definition of atonal that excludes serial music is common in the academic world.

Look, the logic is as follows:

If C, then A and B
Not B [that is, it is serial]
Therefore not C

This is a standard modus tollens argument.  In itself, the logical form is indisputable.  In order to dispute it, you have to bring in an outside assumption that the first premise is incorrect.

(Clarified logical form)

[Florestan]

There are plenty of definitions of tonal that include atonal music as well.

I'm out of here, in dire need for a strong drink.

[Florestan]

What's wrong with serial music not being atonal by definition? 

Ask the writers of that article. It is they who claim that serial music is, by the first definition, atonal. You cited that claim yourself.

Now, I need a double one.

[Mahlerian]

Ask the writers of that article. It is they who claim that serial music is, by the first definition, atonal. You cited that claim yourself.

Yes, by the first definition of three set out at the beginning of the article.  The definition you've been raking over the coals is from the conclusion.

The three definitions set out at the beginning are:

1 - All music that is not tonal.

2 - All music that is neither tonal nor serial.

3 - The post-tonal, pre-serial music of Berg, Webern, and Schoenberg.

Their article uses definition 2, not definition 1, and the conclusion is based on the contents of the article, not on definition 1.  When they say atonality "roughly delimits a wide range of compositional practices," they are using their second definition for this, and, in line with the introduction, ignoring serialism.

As I said, both this definition and definition 3 are in common use.

[millionrainbows]

I agree with sanantonio on this:

Floristan, serial music is a subset of atonal music.  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.  Somewhat like all kittens are cats but not all cats are kittens.  also, the Grove article is alluding to the historical development of atonal music: first there was free atonal music then there was serial music, which had specific structural and compositional aspects not shared by free atonal music.

What's confusing things here is Mahlerian's very academic, specific use of "tonal" to mean only functional CP-era music. "Tonal" must be used in a general sense to indicate any music with harmonic tone-centricity (CP tonality, all folk & ethnic music, popular music, Indian raga, etc).

"Atonal" is not a specific indicator or defining term, but should be used only to generally exclude music which is not derived from a tone-centric hierarchy (this includes Forte's use to indicate music or analysis based on set theory).Therefore, any music which exhibits tone-centricity, whether it is CP tonal or not, cannot be called 'atonal' without confusion, if Mahlerian's definition is used.

Also note that tonal hierarchies are created with scales, not sets or rows or series, because of the generally tonal characteristics of scales: usually, scales are presented as having a starting note (indicating the tone center or tonic), they usually cover an octave (indicating a set of in-octave relations to a tonic pitch, which automatically produces a set of "functions"), and they are unordered (meaning that notes can be repeated, and also that they have a "place" identity in the octave which is fixed to that specific note name).

[some guy]

I for one would like some notice that things are confused around here.

I have seen some wilful obscurantism, but none of it's been particularly confusing. It has all been clearly in the service of humpty-dumptyism.

Otherwise, if--IF--things were confused here, it certainly wouldn't be a specific, academic thing, quite the contrary. it's the loose, vague, non-academic fuzzinesses that make for confusion, which is why there has been a fairly consistent push-back against terms like "atonal" ever since it was coined.

Otherotherwise, what is up with these locutions (unsupported, too, what's worse): "must be used" and "should be used only"?

To which the only possible response is not "oh, OK" but "why?" or perhaps "says who?"

[Monsieur Croche]

The thread in question:

Well met indeed!

[Parsifal]

it's the loose, vague, non-academic fuzzinesses that make for confusion

Vague, non-academic fuzzinesses is what makes language a living thing.

[Uhor]

And then a surge of gamma rays hit the Earth, the end.

[Turner]

I for one would like some notice that things are confused around here.

I have seen some wilful obscurantism, but none of it's been particularly confusing. It has all been clearly in the service of humpty-dumptyism.

Otherwise, if--IF--things were confused here, it certainly wouldn't be a specific, academic thing, quite the contrary. it's the loose, vague, non-academic fuzzinesses that make for confusion, which is why there has been a fairly consistent push-back against terms like "atonal" ever since it was coined.

Otherotherwise, what is up with these locutions (unsupported, too, what's worse): "must be used" and "should be used only"?

To which the only possible response is not "oh, OK" but "why?" or perhaps "says who?"

Your posts generally gain a lot from dealing more specifically with the subject matter.

[bwv 1080]

I agree with sanantonio on this:
What's confusing things here is Mahlerian's very academic, specific use of "tonal" to mean only functional CP-era music. "Tonal" must be used in a general sense to indicate any music with harmonic tone-centricity (CP tonality, all folk & ethnic music, popular music, Indian raga, etc).

"Atonal" is not a specific indicator or defining term, but should be used only to generally exclude music which is not derived from a tone-centric hierarchy (this includes Forte's use to indicate music or analysis based on set theory).Therefore, any music which exhibits tone-centricity, whether it is CP tonal or not, cannot be called 'atonal' without confusion, if Mahlerian's definition is used.

Also note that tonal hierarchies are created with scales, not sets or rows or series, because of the generally tonal characteristics of scales: usually, scales are presented as having a starting note (indicating the tone center or tonic), they usually cover an octave (indicating a set of in-octave relations to a tonic pitch, which automatically produces a set of "functions"), and they are unordered (meaning that notes can be repeated, and also that they have a "place" identity in the octave which is fixed to that specific note name).

Mahlerian's usage of the word is within accepted definitions - tonal refers to functional harmony not simply all music with a central tone.  Modal is the common term there.  Now, I think he is overly restrictive in what he terms functional harmony - most Jazz and popular music styles derived from it use functional harmony and are therefore tonal.  All of this is a gray area as theory is extracted post ante from existing musical styles.  Renaissance music is a gray area, sort of pre-tonal / modal where you do have cadential formulas that dont appear in Medieval music and form the basis of Baroque styles.  Then there are modal 20th century pieces, like Miles Davis' So What which uses triads and 7th chords but with no harmonic function, just to outline the dorian mode.  Then you get into terms like pandiatonic to describe alot of neoclassical stuff like Stravinsky where diatonic scales are used without any regard for traditional harmony.   While the narrow theory definition is legitimate, most people casually use the word tonal to describe anything that seems to audibly pull to a central pitch, which is fine for most purposes

[some guy]

The problem with anecdotal evidence is that it's anecdotal.

So San Antonio has been talking about music for 50 years with people of various backgrounds (trained musicians/composers or not) and everyone knew what was meant when the word "atonal" was used.

OK. Hard to gainsay anecdotal evidence without calling people liars, but the thing is I too have been talking about music for a little over 55 years with people of various backgrounds (trained musicians/composers or not) and no one agreed about what was meant when the word "atonal" was used.

So now it's just San Antonio's anecdote against mine. And that level of discourse is indeed a bit silly.

But there you have it. I remember when I first ran across the term "atonal." It seemed to be used to refer to certain kinds of music, but by what I could derive from the definition itself, it could equally well have been used to describe other kinds of music. I never understood why Varese's music was never referred to as atonal, for instance.

And by the time I saw his music referred to as atonal, I was so over that word. I have observed at least six different meanings for the word, ranging from the "music I don't like" meaning to "music that does not use the logic of tonality to produce its effects." (With varying references to dissonance and chromaticism in some of the other meanings.)

The problem with all of them, as indeed is the problem with the term itself, is that they're all more or less negative. Even the most strictly neutral still has the "not this" air about it. Not what it does, whatever "it" is, but what it does not do, what it "avoids." This does not (!) seem to me to be a useful way to go about defining things.

"A tree is a kind of thing that does not have fur and does not mate with other trees" just doesn't give any useful information about what a tree is. And there are lots of things--the other problem with "atonal"--that don't have fur and that don't mate.... And that are quite remarkably different from trees.

That is, I understand perfectly why Mahlerian criticizes the term. What I find very peculiar is how many people argue so vociferously and so protectively for a term that is so demonstrably valueless. What, I wonder, would Florestan or San Antonio stand to lose if they lost the term "atonal."

I really can't see that they'd lose a damned thing.

Maybe that's where we should take this benighted discussion next. Why are some people so protective of the term? What do they think they'd lose if the term didn't exist. Never mind Mahlerian's psychology. What about Florestan's?

[Parsifal]

The problem with anecdotal evidence is that it's anecdotal.

So San Antonio has been talking about music for 50 years with people of various backgrounds (trained musicians/composers or not) and everyone knew what was meant when the word "atonal" was used.

OK. Hard to gainsay anecdotal evidence without calling people liars, but the thing is I too have been talking about music for a little over 55 years with people of various backgrounds (trained musicians/composers or not) and no one agreed about what was meant when the word "atonal" was used.

So now it's just San Antonio's anecdote against mine. And that level of discourse is indeed a bit silly.

But there you have it. I remember when I first ran across the term "atonal." It seemed to be used to refer to certain kinds of music, but by what I could derive from the definition itself, it could equally well have been used to describe other kinds of music. I never understood why Varese's music was never referred to as atonal, for instance.

And by the time I saw his music referred to as atonal, I was so over that word. I have observed at least six different meanings for the word, ranging from the "music I don't like" meaning to "music that does not use the logic of tonality to produce its effects." (With varying references to dissonance and chromaticism in some of the other meanings.)

The problem with all of them, as indeed is the problem with the term itself, is that they're all more or less negative. Even the most strictly neutral still has the "not this" air about it. Not what it does, whatever "it" is, but what it does not do, what it "avoids." This does not (!) seem to me to be a useful way to go about defining things.

"A tree is a kind of thing that does not have fur and does not mate with other trees" just doesn't give any useful information about what a tree is. And there are lots of things--the other problem with "atonal"--that don't have fur and that don't mate.... And that are quite remarkably different from trees.

That is, I understand perfectly why Mahlerian criticizes the term. What I find very peculiar is how many people argue so vociferously and so protectively for a term that is so demonstrably valueless. What, I wonder, would Florestan or San Antonio stand to lose if they lost the term "atonal."

I really can't see that they'd lose a damned thing.

Maybe that's where we should take this benighted discussion next. Why are some people so protective of the term? What do they think they'd lose if the term didn't exist. Never mind Mahlerian's psychology. What about Florestan's?

Now I'm insulted that I'm not included in your menagerie of troglodytes that "vociferously" argue for the term atonal.

No one is telling you to use the word "atonal" if you don't understand it. Why are you telling me I can't use it because you don't understand it?

I know it is not a very specific term. I wouldn't expect someone to categorize music as "atonal" after studying the score for a year. I'd expect something more specific. But if I hear a piece of music and it does not give the impression of being organized around a tone center and/or traditional harmony, then I would describe it as atonal. I might also have caused to say "it is hot outside" and not that "the temperature outside is 34.3 degrees Celsius."

[Mahlerian]

I know it is not a very specific term. I wouldn't expect someone to categorize music as "atonal" after studying the score for a year. I'd expect something more specific. But if I hear a piece of music and it does not give the impression of being organized around a tone center and/or traditional harmony, then I would describe it as atonal.

You see, I have never had the experience of hearing music that didn't sound organized around some center or other.  The center may have varying degrees of clarity, sure, but the fact of a center just seems inherent to the organization of tones, period.  If I did experience that, I would perhaps understand what atonality sounds like.

Traditional harmony, on the other hand, I am quite familiar with.  I can hear it and identify its characteristics.  I can write it, I can write it in multiple parts, I can write outside of it, whether using modal or post-tonal techniques.  But atonality?  I have never heard it.

[Parsifal]

You see, I have never had the experience of hearing music that didn't sound organized around some center or other.  The center may have varying degrees of clarity, sure, but the fact of a center just seems inherent to the organization of tones, period.  If I did experience that, I would perhaps understand what atonality sounds like.

Traditional harmony, on the other hand, I am quite familiar with.  I can hear it and identify its characteristics.  I can write it, I can write it in multiple parts, I can write outside of it, whether using modal or post-tonal techniques.  But atonality?  I have never heard it.

What is boils down to, you are a colorblind person objecting to the term "red."

[Mahlerian]

What is boils down to, you are a colorblind person objecting to the term "red."

I am partially colorblind (and would never say such an idiotic thing), and no, it's not that I don't hear a lack of tonal centers, it's that I hear tonal centers.  You're telling me that red doesn't exist because you don't see it.

[Parsifal]

You're telling me you see no distinction between a classical piece where every section closes on a perfect cadence and Schoenberg dodecaphony?

I can give you a dozen mathematical expressions for energy. It doesn't mean I don't understand when Donald Trump called Jeb Bush "low energy."