Atonal and tonal music

[PotashPie]

Interesting how "atonal" is now being equated with a racial slur.

Frankly I don't know what all the fuss is about.  I've never found anyone with a modicum of experience with 20th century music who did not know what the word meant or the kind of music that would fit the description. 

Seems like much ado about nothing. 

I asked Mahlerian about this issue directly, and he denies that there is any substance to the "racial" idea in his opposition to the term.

[Madiel]

Well, thank you for all the quoting that reminds me why "some guy" went on my ignore list. Sheesh.

[PotashPie]

Well, thank you for all the quoting that reminds me why "some guy" went on my ignore list. Sheesh.

I feel better now. Some Guy has some great ideas, and is a real champion of electroacoustic music, etc, but, yes, I see. At the same time, I can see why I would be put on "ignore" as well.

[PotashPie]

Why?  What makes the major triad ending Schoenberg's Ode to Napoleon "not harmony"?  As far as I can tell, your definition of harmony is circular, so that Schoenberg's harmony is not harmony because it's atonal, and the music is atonal because it's non-harmonic.

The major triad you mention might be a harmonic entity or device, and may sound pretty, but it was not derived from a tonal system, nor do all the other chromatic elements and dissonances create a sense of tonality which pervades over a sustained time. It's atonal because it just does not have all the "gestalt" elements which happen when there is real tonality.

Yes, and Debussy also broke the chromatic scale into complementary hexads, in music which you considered obviously tonal.  What's your point?

The use of the two whole-tone scales is a modernist idea, since that scale represents a weakened sense of tonality for various reasons: unstable fifths, total repeating symmetry, six possible roots, etc. Also, it is derived from tonality, since it is a scale: it covers an octave, can begin on a starting note as its "tonic," it contains augmented triads. It is a "tonal mechanism" although it is ambiguous.

Debussy used it as a scale; i.e., it is unordered, and he could use it in any order. Schoenberg's row is not a scale, it's an ordered row.

[some guy]

Well, thank you for all the quoting that reminds me why "some guy" went on my ignore list. Sheesh.

Hahahaha, and thank YOU for reminding all of us that you cannot manage to ignore me at all at all.

As for the whole "racial" thing, what I was pointing out is that there are highly charged and offensive words that we ("we") have managed to remove from public discourse. Pretty well, anyway. It could be possible to rid ourselves of "atonal" as well, if enough of us decide to do it. That's all; just a possibility.

Reading. Such a delightful and satisfying thing, especially when done well.

And, obviously, it's easy to simply counter with "well, if you'd only learn to write...." Yeah. If you misread something, the easiest way to deflect attention from that is to blame the writer for not communicating.

Otherwise, for thread duty, I'd like to give two thumbs up to arpeggio's remark in post #241. The commonsensical (and inarguable) point. Largely ignored, probably for both of those reasons.

[Ken B]

Hahahaha, and thank YOU for reminding all of us that you cannot manage to ignore me at all at all.

As for the whole "racial" thing, what I was pointing out is that there are highly charged and offensive words that we ("we") have managed to remove from public discourse. Pretty well, anyway. It could be possible to rid ourselves of "atonal" as well, if enough of us decide to do it. That's all; just a possibility.

Reading. Such a delightful and satisfying thing, especially when done well.

And, obviously, it's easy to simply counter with "well, if you'd only learn to write...." Yeah. If you misread something, the easiest way to deflect attention from that is to blame the writer for not communicating.

Otherwise, for thread duty, I'd like to give two thumbs up to arpeggio's remark in post #241. The commonsensical (and inarguable) point. Largely ignored, probably for both of those reasons.

You seem to be boasting about being hard to ignore. Even when it would be kindness to ignore you.

[some guy]

You seem to be boasting about being hard to ignore. Even when it would be kindness to ignore you.

Um, no.

[Madiel]

Dear some guy,

In all honesty I haven't read your posts on this thread. I've read quotes of them.

That is the only reason I noticed what you were saying, otherwise I've been ignoring you just fine. In fact, the only reason I know how you reacted is because someone quoted it.

In no way do I miss being subjected to your constant patronising agenda. Cheers.

[Gurn Blanston]

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the [social] bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should [discontinue] the [actions] which impel them to the separation.

Or so said our Founding Fathers. If you please, gentlemen, we are not here to wage war, but rather to discuss two essentially different methods of creating musical blueprints. Withdrawal from the arena serves as a fine second option if 'ignore' doesn't work quite as well as hoped. Or even [gulp] achieving some sort of rapprochement, as distasteful as that might seem.

In other words, to put it most plainly, let's cut the crap and let the discussion continue.

GB

[SharpEleventh]

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the [social] bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should [discontinue] the [actions] which impel them to the separation.

Or so said our Founding Fathers. If you please, gentlemen, we are not here to wage war, but rather to discuss two essentially different methods of creating musical blueprints. Withdrawal from the arena serves as a fine second option if 'ignore' doesn't work quite as well as hoped. Or even [gulp] achieving some sort of rapprochement, as distasteful as that might seem.

In other words, to put it most plainly, let's cut the crap and let the discussion continue.

GB

Normally I would agree, but this particular topic of conversation has caused so much misery that perhaps personal attacks are a lesser evil compared to the actual discussion continuing.

(kidding, just in case)

[Karl Henning]

I'm not finding online a convenient link . . . but Hindemith ranked intervals according to their relative stability, the degree of strength with which a tonic is suggested.  OTTOMH, the perfect fifth is more "tonic-defining" than a major third, which in turn is more "tonic-defining" than a minor second.

Setting aside for the moment the question of how conversationally useful the word atonal may or may not be . . . my view of tonality is somewhat comparable to Hindemith's ranking of the intervals;  that in various types of music, a tonal center (center of tonal gravity, or more than one "center") may be more or less strongly established/asserted.  In my view, probably no music is "atonal" in having no tonal center, but it is a question of the gravitational pull of the center (or "centers").

[Overtones]

I'm not finding online a convenient link . . . but Hindemith ranked intervals according to their relative stability, the degree of strength with which a tonic is suggested.  OTTOMH, the perfect fifth is more "tonic-defining" than a major third, which in turn is more "tonic-defining" than a minor second.

Setting aside for the moment the question of how conversationally useful the word atonal may or may not be . . . my view of tonality is somewhat comparable to Hindemith's ranking of the intervals;  that in various types of music, a tonal center (center of tonal gravity, or more than one "center") may be more or less strongly established/asserted.  In my view, probably no music is "atonal" in having no tonal center, but it is a question of the gravitational pull of the center (or "centers").

Does this "strength" have to do with the distance of the corresponding overtone from the fundamental in the harmonic series?
The fifth is the closest (2nd overtone), then the major third (4th overtone), then the minor seventh (6th overtone) etc.

EDIT - forgive me if this is a very banal question, I am a layman

[SharpEleventh]

I'm not finding online a convenient link . . . but Hindemith ranked intervals according to their relative stability, the degree of strength with which a tonic is suggested.  OTTOMH, the perfect fifth is more "tonic-defining" than a major third, which in turn is more "tonic-defining" than a minor second.

Pointing out the obvious contradiction: The leading tone which is a minor second below the tonic has been a very important element in defining the tonic in common practice.

[Karl Henning]

Pointing out the obvious contradiction: The leading tone which is a minor second below the tonic has been a very important element in defining the tonic in common practice.

In harmonic context, yes.

[Karl Henning]

Does this "strength" have to do with the distance of the corresponding overtone from the fundamental in the harmonic series?
The fifth is the closest (2nd overtone), then the major third (4th overtone), then the minor seventh (6th overtone) etc.

EDIT - forgive me if this is a very banal question, I am a layman

Related, yes, and good question.

[Karl Henning]

Pointing out the obvious contradiction: The leading tone which is a minor second below the tonic has been a very important element in defining the tonic in common practice.

In harmonic context, yes.

Consider the modal, chant-like opening of the first movement of Stravinsky's Symphony of Psalms, and that ostinato-like wavering minor second.  It is actually the lower of the two tones of the interval which is the "tonic," yes?

[Ken B]

I'm not finding online a convenient link . . . but Hindemith ranked intervals according to their relative stability, the degree of strength with which a tonic is suggested.  OTTOMH, the perfect fifth is more "tonic-defining" than a major third, which in turn is more "tonic-defining" than a minor second.

Setting aside for the moment the question of how conversationally useful the word atonal may or may not be . . . my view of tonality is somewhat comparable to Hindemith's ranking of the intervals;  that in various types of music, a tonal center (center of tonal gravity, or more than one "center") may be more or less strongly established/asserted.  In my view, probably no music is "atonal" in having no tonal center, but it is a question of the gravitational pull of the center (or "centers").

Bravo.

In general, as I recall, even when different cultures, or the same culture at different times, have different notions of what is or is not consonant, and is or is not part of the usual "scale", there are is generally broad agreement that *some* intervals are *more* or *less* dissonant.  These things are more like a lattice than a line to use some math jargon. Not all pairs are directly comparable, but some are and on those there are some where basically everyone agrees.

[Mahlerian]

Bravo.

In general, as I recall, even when different cultures, or the same culture at different times, have different notions of what is or is not consonant, and is or is not part of the usual "scale", there are is generally broad agreement that *some* intervals are *more* or *less* dissonant.  These things are more like a lattice than a line to use some math jargon. Not all pairs are directly comparable, but some are and on those there are some where basically everyone agrees.

Naturally.  I think you would be very hard-pressed to find a single person who disagrees with that.  On the other hand, dissonance is not necessarily to be equated with pleasantness or unpleasantness; a recent study showed that a culture with almost no awareness of Western music didn't find more dissonant intervals any less pleasant than more consonant ones.

[Karl Henning]

Naturally.  I think you would be very hard-pressed to find a single person who disagrees with that.  On the other hand, dissonance is not necessarily to be equated with pleasantness or unpleasantness; a recent study showed that a culture with almost no awareness of Western music didn't find more dissonant intervals any less pleasant than more consonant ones.

There, too, we may run athwart the distinction between using dissonance as a musical term, applied however specifically, and dissonance as a general (and quite likely negative) term.

[Ken B]

  On the other hand, dissonance is not necessarily to be equated with pleasantness or unpleasantness; a recent study showed that a culture with almost no awareness of Western music didn't find more dissonant intervals any less pleasant than more consonant ones.

This doesn't follow.  A person from non-Western culture might not find what we find dissonant more less pleasurable than what we find consonant for a large number of intervals, yet still find within the scales prevalent in their own culture a link between consonant and pleasant. It might be that in their culture there is a clear link between unpleasant and dissonant, for their ranking of consonance. That they would not have the same reaction to different sets of intervals categorized differently does not justify the conclusion.

Imagine an analogy with phonemes. There are phonemes that you cannot hear, and nor can any of us here. They might be important in another language. And the reverse is true of non-Western cultures too of course.  You cannot argue "a recent study showed that a culture with almost no awareness of Western phonemes didn't find more guttural ones any less meaningful than more guttural ones."