A little history

[millionrainbows]

Explain the "deep, system-wide system" of tonality in this, if you can.

This Philip Glass piece, "Music in Fifths," is tonal in a very general sense. It's certainly not atonal, because it keeps reinforcing a tone center.

[Mahlerian]

This Philip Glass piece, "Music in Fifths," is tonal in a very general sense. It's certainly not atonal, because it keeps reinforcing a tone center.

That's just restating the conclusion.  You said that in order to be tonal, it has to have a deep, system-wide system of tonality.  How is that achieved in this piece, which lacks in any kind of harmony in the traditional sense?

[millionrainbows]

That's just restating the conclusion.  You said that in order to be tonal, it has to have a deep, system-wide system of tonality.  How is that achieved in this piece, which lacks in any kind of harmony in the traditional sense?

The piece is melodic, not harmonic. In that sense, it has no "deep, system wide" harmonic consequences (chords, functions, voice leadings, and other harmonic devices) which result. Since it is totally melodic, like Thai or Indian raga, it has no harmony, but is still tone-centric, and thus tonal.

You're really trying hard to find a way around this, aren't you? 

[some guy]

As I was reading this:

The piece is melodic, not harmonic. In that sense, it has no "deep, system wide" harmonic consequences (chords, functions, voice leadings, and other harmonic devices) which result. Since it is totally melodic, like Thai or Indian raga, it has no harmony, but is still tone-centric, and thus tonal,

I was thinking this:

You're really trying hard to find a way around this, aren't you? 

Funny how apt it is for the attempt to describe Glass's piece as "tonal," especially coming after the begrudging admission that since (since!) modal music is melodic it would be referred to as "atonal."

[arpeggio]

I am baffled with the bru-ha-ha over the word atonal.  It is a simple word, really, that is usually applied to music written in the 20th century that uses freely devised combinations of notes, instead of harmonies people have grown accustomed to for centuries.  It also is not written in a "key", i.e. one of the major or minor keys.  It also avoids using diatonic triads or other recognizable chords in any fashion.  Often atonal music is more linear with the harmonic combinations almost accidental.  Atonal music was a gradual development as composers began to stretch the boundaries of tonal music more and more until the connection was severed entirely.

As a consequence some unsophisticated listeners have heard atonal music as "ugly" since it frustrates their expectations about how music should sound.  After all, the music they've heard was in some degree tonal and when confronted with music that does everything to avoid adhering to tonal expectations they can't help but lash out with some trite dismissal.  Once they knew that the music they did not like was called atonal, well, they now had a convenient term to fling about in derision.  That listener is completely irrelevant, imo, and should not be held up as the standard bearer of how the word atonal is mostly used.  Even though I know that it is used like that by ignorant people, I don't think that is the primary usage of the word.

Also, the academic tendency to define labels as narrow as possible has complicated this discussion since most people aren't aware of the specialized usage in academic circles for words like atonal or serial.  For me, 12-tone music and serial music, e.g. Schoenberg, Webern, Berg and their later followers, is certainly atonal and if you need another label, sometimes also serial.  I don't concern myself with academic conceits.

However, I don't use either word much when I talk about music since I avoid labeling music in general and prefer to simply describe what it sounds like to me, or if I like it or not, or other music it is related to in sound.  At the same time when I hear someone say that Schoenberg's music is not atonal, or that no music is atonal - I cringe and then laugh.  That kind of statement is just ridiculous, in my opinion.

Wow.  This exactly how I feel about it.

[Mahlerian]

As a consequence some unsophisticated listeners have heard atonal music as "ugly" since it frustrates their expectations about how music should sound.  After all, the music they've heard was in some degree tonal and when confronted with music that does everything to avoid adhering to tonal expectations they can't help but lash out with some trite dismissal.  Once they knew that the music they did not like was called atonal, well, they now had a convenient term to fling about in derision.  That listener is completely irrelevant, imo, and should not be held up as the standard bearer of how the word atonal is mostly used.  Even though I know that it is used like that by ignorant people, I don't think that is the primary usage of the word.

You have it precisely backwards.

The music of Mahler, Debussy, Reger, and Schoenberg, among many others, was called atonal by "ignorant people" who thought it was ugly because it frustrated their expectations about how music should sound.

They discovered that this music ignored the common consonances and progressions and reveled in dissonances, and thus called it atonal, to connote its musical anarchy.

The colloquial understanding of the word has it linked with ideas of unmusicality, screeching noise, tunelessness, and so forth.  Don't believe me?  Look at the page of synonyms brought up by Dictionary.com: discordant, harsh, loud, strident, cacophonous, dissonant, inharmonious, jarring, squawking, and finally, unmusical.

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/atonal?s=t

Any attempt to salvage the term as a technical one is foolhardy, because it's untrue if taken literally and too overladen with negative connotations to communicate anything else.

At the same time when I hear someone say that Schoenberg's music is not atonal, or that no music is atonal - I cringe and then laugh.  That kind of statement is just ridiculous, in my opinion.

I didn't say that no music is atonal.  I said that I have never heard atonality in the sense that people seem to use the term, and that I have never seen a definition of "atonal music" that wasn't either self-contradictory or a subset of the user's definition of "tonal music."

[Mirror Image]

It completely puzzles me as to why Mahlerian is still putting up such a fight over this word. The only person who views the word negatively is you, Mahlerian. Everyone else here on GMG doesn't have a problem with the word and has accepted the term as everyday language or, at least, as this ongoing discussion has indicated thus far.

[Mahlerian]

It completely puzzles me as to why Mahlerian is still putting up such a fight over this word. The only person who views the word negatively is you, Mahlerian. Everyone else here on GMG doesn't have a problem with the word and has accepted the term as everyday language or, at least, as this ongoing discussion has indicated thus far.

What good does the word do you or anyone else?  It's meaningless, tells you nothing whatsoever about the melodic or harmonic construction of the music, and is misleading if taken literally.

The only thing I've ever seen come out of it is misunderstanding and negativity.

If you say it helps you to communicate, tell me what, precisely, it serves to communicate.  What aspect of any music whatsoever does the word atonal convey?

[Mirror Image]

What good does the word do you or anyone else?  It's meaningless, tells you nothing whatsoever about the melodic or harmonic construction of the music, and is misleading if taken literally.

The only thing I've ever seen come out of it is misunderstanding and negativity.

If you say it helps you to communicate, tell me what, precisely, it serves to communicate.  What aspect of any music whatsoever does the word atonal convey?

If someone doesn't understand the term then it's not your problem, it's the problem of the person who doesn't understand it. The term simply means 'without a tonal center.' That's it.

[Mahlerian]

If someone doesn't understand the term then it's not your problem, it's the problem of the person who doesn't understand it. The term simply means 'without a tonal center.' That's it.

But as I've said before, defined broadly, Schoenberg's music (and that of Boulez, Carter, etc.) does have tonal centers, while defined narrowly, pre-Baroque music, folk music, or pop/rock music would be considered atonal under your definition.

I am aware that that's what people understand atonal to mean, but it has no relationship to the way it's used.

[Mirror Image]

But as I've said before, defined broadly, Schoenberg's music (and that of Boulez, Carter, etc.) does have tonal centers, while defined narrowly, pre-Baroque music, folk music, or pop/rock music would be considered atonal under your definition.

I am aware that that's what people understand atonal to mean, but it has no relationship to the way it's used.

Well, don't worry about other people's usage of the word. Accept that some people have to put a label on something in order for them to understand it. I'm by no means a musical illiterate, but I also don't find it useful to argue with people who want to use a term I don't agree with.

[Mahlerian]

Well, don't worry about other people's usage of the word. Accept that some people have to put a label on something in order for them to understand it. I'm by no means a musical illiterate, but I also don't find it useful to argue with people who want to use a term I don't agree with.

How can the term help people with understanding if it leads them not to hear tonal centers in some music?  You would think that being able to hear the centricity, the tendencies of the musical material and the way it is employed, would be more helpful.

[Mirror Image]

How can the term help people with understanding if it leads them not to hear tonal centers in some music?  You would think that being able to hear the centricity, the tendencies of the musical material and the way it is employed, would be more helpful.

That's to be left up to the individual. Good night.

[some guy]

It completely puzzles me as to why Mahlerian is still putting up such a fight over this word. The only person who views the word negatively is you, Mahlerian. Everyone else here on GMG doesn't have a problem with the word and has accepted the term as everyday language or, at least, as this ongoing discussion has indicated thus far.

This last comment is patently untrue, not only for GMG in general but for this thread in particular. (Check your "ignore" list, maybe. Maybe the only person who has a problem with the term and is also not on your list is Mahlerian.)

But let's just say that Mahlerian IS the only one. If that were true, then I would think that that would mean that it does NOT puzzle you that he takes on those who are mistaken. I wonder. If you lived in seventeenth century Italy, would you have criticized Galileo because "everyone else here believes in geocentrism"? Surely you don't want to promote "everyone else-ism" as an argument for the validity of any idea.

In any event, I would like to point out, again, that it is not Mahlerian who is putting up a fight over this word. Mahlerian has pointed out the word's inutility, with support from theory and logic and personal experience. It is only when he mentions this that other people then react by putting up a fight over his observation. And not even over the observation but over some supposed coercion, which, on the face of it, is absurdity piled on preposterousness. How is it possible that any member of GMG could coerce any other member or group of members by simply making an observation?

[some guy]

He alleges the "word's inutility".   But what he has described is his ability to hear tonal cetners in music others call atonal, complaining that the word doesn't say anything specific about the music and pointing out how ignorant people have mis-used the word from the 19th century onward.  Both you and he act as though this argument should be definitive.   It isn't.

I suppose we are confused why are you both are trying so hard to convince us of the word's "inutility" when a number of us do not share your opinion, and will no doubt remain unconvinced.

Again, the same logic applies. There is only need to try to convince if you do not agree. If you did share our opinion, then there would be no need for any convincing. Is this really that hard? If everyone agrees on something, then logically there will be no convincing at all. Convincing is exactly and precisely and logically and plainly only for when people do NOT agree on something.

"Confused" would only be appropriate if everyone agreed and some person or persons was trying to convince the rest of the truth of what the rest already think is true.

As for definitive, anyone advancing any argument is very likely to think that it is definitive, no? If you were not convinced of an argument's validity, you probably wouldn't put any effort into its advancement.

Or?

But that's as may be. What is more to the point is that focussing on Mahlerian's and my beliefs in our arguments (as if believing in one's arguments were aberrant) and having only a laconic "it isn't" as a rebuttal to those argument is not even trying to be convincing.

[arpeggio]

I have not read every post in this thread so forgive me if am addressing something that has already been mentioned.  Also I am really not an expert about this so please forgive any weak remarks.

In a sense it appears to me both sides are right.

At times I will hear tonal centers in atonal music.  I think the reason for this is as I have gotten older I have had more experience listening to atonal music.  I never really understood Schoenberg until I was in my fifties.  Then it was like a floodgate.  Music by Webern or Sessions or Carter or Husa or many others started to make sense to me.  So it depends on an individual experiences that effect his perceptions of music.

The best description of the 12 tonal system are the Bernstein lectures on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n6p7_0g7k0&index=2&list=RDolwVvbWd-tg

In it Bernstein stated that it is next to impossible to compose truly atonal music.  He presented a few examples of Schoenberg's music that were 12-tone but still sounded tonal.  I have read other essays over the years that try to make the same point.

I keep thinking of the William Schuman story about in Macon, Georgia his music is atonal.

Some of us may hear tonal centers, some may not.  So what.  The bottom line is whether or not we enjoy the music.

[aleazk]

A lot of modern highly chromatic music has tonal centers, as Mahlerian points out. And one doesn't need to be an "expert" to  notice them.

Just check this piece: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRALrBqln8s

All of the chromatic action revolves around a center note.


Or this other example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OE7UmKmix0

Note the textural change at 2:00 minutes. At that point, after the introduction which lasts from 0:00 to 2:00 minutes and which doesn't have a stable tonal center, a clear center tone is established and everything revolves around it for a long while. This piece is serial music, something to note...

[Mirror Image]

This last comment is patently untrue, not only for GMG in general but for this thread in particular. (Check your "ignore" list, maybe. Maybe the only person who has a problem with the term and is also not on your list is Mahlerian.)

But let's just say that Mahlerian IS the only one. If that were true, then I would think that that would mean that it does NOT puzzle you that he takes on those who are mistaken. I wonder. If you lived in seventeenth century Italy, would you have criticized Galileo because "everyone else here believes in geocentrism"? Surely you don't want to promote "everyone else-ism" as an argument for the validity of any idea.

In any event, I would like to point out, again, that it is not Mahlerian who is putting up a fight over this word. Mahlerian has pointed out the word's inutility, with support from theory and logic and personal experience. It is only when he mentions this that other people then react by putting up a fight over his observation. And not even over the observation but over some supposed coercion, which, on the face of it, is absurdity piled on preposterousness. How is it possible that any member of GMG could coerce any other member or group of members by simply making an observation?

You're simply making mountains out of molehills, some guy. The negative connotations surrounding the term are those who perceive it as being this way. I don't accept the negativity and, if you do, then that's your clearly your own problem as the term isn't going anywhere.

[Mahlerian]

For an atonal work to have sections where one note is emphasized does not make it tonal.  Tonality is created from a system of harmonic movement and the establishment of key centers, not simply a "tonal center" which may focus on one note for a section of the work, or even the entire work.  The Boulez work certainly does not exhibit tonality.  Tonality exhibts an hierarchy of harmonic movement, with the Tonic triad (I) as the "home" and most stable harmony and the Dominant triad (V) being the most unstable harmony, that "wishes" to resolve to the I, or return home.

That is one use of the word tonality, but "tonal center" is often used, as it was previously in this discussion, to simply mean a point of stability to which the music returns.

It is certainly true that Boulez's music does not use the triadic progressions of common practice tonality.  Neither does Debussy in his maturity.  Or much of pop/rock music.  These use alternate hierarchies.  So-called atonality is almost always nothing other than a use of non-triadic harmonic hierarchies.

Similar to Rorschach tests people can look at ink blots and see pictures.  The things is, they don't all see the same images, which is why the test is instructive; it is subjective.

So the perception of tonality is something you consider primarily subjective, or is it rather the perception of atonality that is subjective?

You and Mahlerian may hear tonality in an atonal work such as this one by Jean Barraqué.  But I don't, nor do I care to.  I enjoy atonal music as it is, I don't try to find tonal centers, nor do I find the lack of a tonal center a deficit.  To the contrary, it is a wonderful attribute.

But why assume it isn't there?  And how are we defining "atonality" here?  In contrast to common practice tonality as above, or as meaning revolving around a central tone?

[aleazk]

For an atonal work to have sections where one note is emphasized does not make it tonal.  Tonality is created from a system of harmonic movement and the establishment of key centers, not simply a "tonal center" which may focus on one note for a section of the work, or even the entire work.  The Boulez work certainly does not exhibit tonality.  Tonality exhibts an hierarchy of harmonic movement, with the Tonic triad (I) as the "home" and most stable harmony and the Dominant triad (V) being the most unstable harmony, that "wishes" to resolve to the I, or return home.  As atonal music developed certain "rules" were created to insure that a composer could avoid this hierarchy if he wished.  You can find these basic rules in any textbook on 12-tone music. 

Similar to Rorschach tests people can look at ink blots and see pictures.  The things is, they don't all see the same images, which is why the test is instructive; it is subjective. 

You and Mahlerian may hear tonality in an atonal work such as this one by Jean Barraqué.  But I don't, nor do I care to.  I enjoy atonal music as it is, I don't try to find tonal centers, nor do I find the lack of a tonal center a deficit.  To the contrary, it is a wonderful attribute.

Yes, I know what common practice tonality is. And, then, it seems you agree with Mahlerian et all in considering tonality as a term reduced to common practice tonality. The point is that if we use a very broad meaning for the term (as, e.g., @mr here), then we can find tonal centers even in serial music, which is supposedly the "atonal" music par excellence...

Thus, to avoid this nonsense a composer of serial music should say "oh, yes, I compose 'a-commonpracticetonality music' "?. Nonsense again, just call it serial music, son. Period. It's not serial? Call it highly chromatic music. It's modal? Call it modal music then. But, please, do not put all of these very different types of music into that bag called "atonal music", aka, "just weird music I don't like and doesn't sound like tonal romantic music which I love".

As for the tonal centers in the mentioned examples, they are there, as one can easily see in the actual score...