Atonal and tonal music

[Mahlerian]

No,you didn't say even remotely that. Either you are a shameless liar, or you think we are idiots.

Neither.  I said that I meant "concert music" in line with the definition I quoted a few posts later, and given that this is a classical music forum I thought it was assumed that the Western classical tradition was under discussion.

If I thought you or anyone else here was an idiot, why would I endeavor, in the face of personal insults and abuse, to convince you and others rationally?  To engage in logical debate is a sign of respect, not of bad faith.

[Mirror Image]

Neither.  I said that I meant "concert music" in line with the definition I quoted a few posts later, and given that this is a classical music forum I thought it was assumed that the Western classical tradition was under discussion.

If I thought you or anyone else here was an idiot, why would I endeavor, in the face of personal insults and abuse, to convince you and others rationally?  To engage in logical debate is a sign of respect, not of bad faith.

But you're not debating anything, Mahlerian. You're basically telling everyone that you're going to use whatever term you want while ignoring what terms that are now a part of our musical vocabularies. You don't like the term atonality? Okay, fine, but stop being argumentative and feeling the need to prod the cattle just because we're not inline with your thinking. Go listen to some music and be happy.

[Florestan]

Neither.  I said that I meant "concert music" in line with the definition I quoted a few posts later, and given that this is a classical music forum I thought it was assumed that the Western classical tradition was under discussion.

"Concert music" and "Western classical tradition" are not synonyms, not by a long stretch.

[SharpEleventh]

As I explained many times, there cannot be a replacement for the word atonal that applies to only the things now called atonal because they have no connecting qualities which are not also common to things not called atonal.

Same applies to the term "classical music", btw. Or the word "game". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_resemblance Though I'm pretty sure I've made the same point before..

[PotashPie]

I see "tonality" as having two definitions, ranging from general to specific:

1. Tonality as general sense of tone-centricity, which includes any drone-based and modal ethnic musics. Almost all harmonically-based music is tonal in this sense. The harmonic series itself gives rise to an hierarchy of tones which is the model for all tonal functions: the fundamental, or main tonic note is most prominent, followed by its subsidiary overtones: the fifth, the flatted seventh, the major third, and so on. However, the harmonic series should not be seen as a strict blueprint for these possible models of tonality; they are models, based on these principles.

2. Tonality as a specific academic term, also called common practice tonality. This is the major/minor scale system, so does not include modes, although modes are very clearly tone-centric scales, as any jazz player or modernist will tell you.

Also I see "function" as not exclusive to CP tonality; it is a general abstract concept which can be applied to any scale or mode found under number one.

[Mahlerian]

Same applies to the term "classical music", btw. Or the word "game". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_resemblance Though I'm pretty sure I've made the same point before..

I'm aware of Wittgenstein's linguistic theories, and your point that categories will always be messy is true.

But the works called atonal differ from each other in precisely the dimensions that are supposed to separate them from works called tonal, and often are more similar in those dimensions to tonal things than other "atonal" things.  A category that includes both Schoenberg and Xenakis but not Debussy, Scriabin, or Stravinsky is untenable, while one that includes Schoenberg, Xenakis, Debussy, Scriabin, and Stravinsky makes far more sense, given that despite their differences, they have some key elements in common.

The former is messy and arbitrary, while the latter is messy but not arbitrary.

[PotashPie]

...the works he defines as atonal seem to have no properties in common...

Not true. Atonal music is highly chromatic, and this negates clear tonality.
It is a music which uses all 12 notes continuously, in sets, and this inclusivity is a result of using sets, and exploring all possible sets.
Its principles are further based on the "given" of a chromatic set of 12 notes.
This manifests as other "modern" principles, such as symmetry, division of the octave at the tritone, and interval projection used to sub-divide the octave in various ways.

Tonal music, by contrast, is ostensibly based on harmonic principles, such as the fifth and major third. Tonal music is based on 7-note scales, as this encourages tonality more than 12 notes can.

Confusions can arise when these modern "chromatic" principles of symmetry are used in music which is still basically tone-centric, such as Bartok. Some of his music is based on local tone centers derived from octave division into 3 and 4 (diminished). The "root" can shift within the octave to these other local centers.

Tonality's main root stations are 4 and 5, which are inversions of the same interval, the fourth/fifth. A fourth is 5 semitones, and a fifth is 7 semitones, neither is a divisor of 12 until we go far outside the 12-octave: 5x12=60, and 7x12=84. The other smaller intervals, more used in modernism and chromaticism, are all divisors of 12, and cyclically coincide with the octave when projected: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6.
Fourths and fifths encourage movement outside the octave; smaller intervals encourage local micro-divisions.

[Karl Henning]

Atonal music is highly chromatic, and this negates clear tonality.

Without contesting this point, it makes me wonder (as a composer) if it is possible to write minimally-chromatic (or even, "white-key") music, and to negate tonality.  My expectation (based on some experience) is that the brain of the listener, especially a listener whose ears are steeped in The Literature, will make some kind of pattern out of the material, will decide on some sort of tonal center.  But part of me wants to try the challenge.

[PotashPie]

A category that includes both Schoenberg and Xenakis but not Debussy, Scriabin, or Stravinsky is untenable, while one that includes Schoenberg, Xenakis, Debussy, Scriabin, and Stravinsky makes far more sense, given that despite their differences, they have some key elements in common.

I do not include Xenakis (or Varese, or Cage) in the dialectic of tonal/atonal, since their musics are not concerned with either establishing or negating a sense of tonality.

Debussy, Scriabin, and Stravinsky are easily seen and experienced as "tonally-based music" since they all use unordered scales or modes, harmonic hierarchies implied by those scales or modes, and vestiges of tonal practice and syntax: piano technique, triads, scales, arpeggios, etc.

Schoenberg is the odd man out: his particular brand of Viennese tradition, and his use of the 12-tone method at the precise time in history that the "tonal/atonal" dialectic was relevant, makes him have certain stylistic and syntactic commonalities with tonality, but at the same time he was bringing in a completely diametrically opposed method to tonal harmony: basically a polyphony based on melodic, serial constructs (12-tone rows).

[knight66]

Folks, This thread is clearly a pet project for one member here and others enter the fray at the risk of increasing your blood pressure. You might believe that there is an intent to raise your blood pressure. But you really only have yourselves to blame. However, getting annoyed and starting the insults won't do. So best to stay away if you are getting hacked off.

I am not going to edit or delete anything. But I will shortly if tempers continue to fray.

Knight

[PotashPie]

Without contesting this point, it makes me wonder (as a composer) if it is possible to write minimally-chromatic (or even, "white-key") music, and to negate tonality.  My expectation (based on some experience) is that the brain of the listener, especially a listener whose ears are steeped in The Literature, will make some kind of pattern out of the material, will decide on some sort of tonal center.  But part of me wants to try the challenge.

I think that certain things are implied by the layout of the keyboard itself; the white notes form the diatonic seven-note scale, while the "left-over" is a pentatonic scale.

Sure, I think that white-key music could be randomly assembled with little or no "tonal" center or intent to create tonality; but those white notes, in themselves, are limiters. Limiters create tonality, or suggest it in that direction. 12 notes are more likely to negate the possibility of a tonal center emerging; it's just mathematics. The more notes, the less sense of tonality; the fewer notes, the greater the sense of tonality. I have a chart which shows this.

[Karl Henning]

I think that certain things are implied by the layout of the keyboard itself; the white notes form the diatonic seven-note scale, while the "left-over" is a pentatonic scale.

Sure, I think that white-key music could be randomly assembled with little or no "tonal" center or intent to create tonality; but those white notes, in themselves, are limiters. Limiters create tonality, or suggest it in that direction. 12 notes are more likely to negate the possibility of a tonal center emerging; it's just mathematics. The more notes, the less sense of tonality; the fewer notes, the greater the sense of tonality. I have a chart which shows this.

All well taken.  But I think of more than one Feldman score, whose pitch content is minimally chromatic (or indeed "white-key") but because of the temporal expansion, the music does not create a tonal impression.

[Ken B]

I personally object to anyone being called a "postal worker". Some years ago "going postal" was used to describe losing your mind and grabbing a gun. Calling a mailman a "postal worker" is therefore invidious, akin to using the n word. I prefer "aal worker." Why they persist with "Postal Workers Union" is beyond me!

[Mahlerian]

Without contesting this point, it makes me wonder (as a composer) if it is possible to write minimally-chromatic (or even, "white-key") music, and to negate tonality.  My expectation (based on some experience) is that the brain of the listener, especially a listener whose ears are steeped in The Literature, will make some kind of pattern out of the material, will decide on some sort of tonal center.  But part of me wants to try the challenge.

The closest thing I can find is something like this.  I still hear "tonal" resonances in it, just like in Schoenberg and all other music, but it clearly isn't in a key as such.  There aren't any traditionally consonant or functional chords.

https://www.youtube.com/v/pbtO-NCSA14

[Karl Henning]

The closest thing I can find is something like this.  I still hear "tonal" resonances in it, just like in Schoenberg and all other music, but it clearly isn't in a key as such.  There aren't any traditionally consonant or functional chords.

https://www.youtube.com/v/pbtO-NCSA14

That's the idea.

This piece of mine is only a partial attempt, can only be partial, since the tune is a traditional hymn melody;  but my "harmonization" is not at all tonal, per se:

http://www.youtube.com/v/FfL_20Sksc8

[PotashPie]

Karl's piece is a good example of what I call "tonally based" music. It is limited to less than 12 notes, which gives it a "harmonic flavor" which is at least in the ballpark of being a tonality. Atonal music would use all 12 notes, and be "less tonal."

Just because a piece is not "tone-centric" around a tonic note does not mean it is "not tonal" in a general sense. A seven-note scale can yield an interval vector-content which gives a certain 'harmonic flavor' to the music. Also, since it uses a scale, which is unordered, there are cross-relations of all the notes to a tonic, as well as each other note. This gives a tremendous harmonic boost, and advantage to the music in the tonal direction, even in the absence of a clearly heard tonic or root.

The scale itself, by its limits (being less than 12 notes), and by its unordered nature, makes it a tonal entity in a harmonic sense.

Even a "root" or starting point is not necessary; just as an unordered set of notes, it has an interval vector which has a certain harmonic color.

[PotashPie]

Tonality is not a quality of music that is always apparent, or even defined in terms of "centricity" around a single note. It can become an abstract principle of this harmonic model, if certain other criteria are present which connect it to a scale or note set, in a harmonic sense. It thus becomes a "tonal flavor" or harmonically-derived experience.

Although atonal and 12-tone music can create harmonic sensations and effects, this will remain totally chromatic because of the use of all 12 notes on a continuous basis.

So, in the end, the quality which makes atonal recognizable to good ears, and also what separates it from any form of tonality, is its chromaticism.

[Karl Henning]

Tonality is not a quality of music that is always apparent, or even defined in terms of "centricity" around a single note. It can become an abstract principle of this harmonic model, if certain other criteria are present which connect it to a scale or note set, in a harmonic sense. It thus becomes a "tonal flavor" or harmonically-derived experience.

Although atonal and 12-tone music can create harmonic sensations and effects, this will remain totally chromatic because of the use of all 12 notes on a continuous basis.

So, in the end, the quality which makes atonal recognizable to good ears, and also what separates it from any form of tonality, is its chromaticism.

Your reasoning is circuitous.

[some guy]

But is it a circle of fifths?

[Karl Henning]

I could use a fifth, whether it's part of a circular formation or not.