Views concerning atonal music

[stevel]

For me "tonal" defines anything with a tonic center, so early church modality, Greek modality, African, Indian, Native American and Indonesian gamelon are all tonal.

Then you are using the word "tonal" to mean "centric", which is what theorists call that music. Music of the early church is Modal, music of the CPP is Tonal. Music which has a pitch center, or even point of rest or goal but does not meet the more stringent definition of tonal is called "centric". A lot of Phillip Glass for instance is Centric - there's a pitch or harmonic goal established through repetition (and repetition and repetition) but it's not established through any of the traditional means of Key and Cadence - which is what Tonality is.

What you seem to be calling tonal is anything bound by common practice period rules.

Basically yes.

Debussy ignores those rules and uses whole-tone scales, octatonic scales, pentatonic scales and more, but because of the clear center in his works I feel that he is tonal.

You may feel that way, but most theorists disagree with you. The clear center is called "Centric", not Tonal (not that there aren't tonal elements in his and other's works obviously).

Similarly Messiaen almost always comes back to his center and I believe him to be tonal, but to me he requires a lot more attention than Webern who is relatively easy to hear (but notoriously difficult to understand).

Neither of these composers are considered Tonal (though again they may have tonal or near-tonal works) by theorists.

Terminology in music is really lousy sometimes, it means different things to different people so we really don't understand each other.

Well that's true, but we should look at all the definitions of a term, not just the one we were taught, or what it is "to me". Tonality has a very definite definition amongst theorists. It is pop musicians and people who don't understand (that's not a personal attack - I'm speaking of people in general) it who have watered down the definition of Tonality to include anything with a Key, a Scale, Major and minor chords, or a "center" of some sort.

Best,
Steve

[Student]

Originally Posted by stevel

Then you are using the word "tonal" to mean "centric", which is what theorists call that music. Music of the early church is Modal, music of the CPP is Tonal. Music which has a pitch center, or even point of rest or goal but does not meet the more stringent definition of tonal is called "centric". A lot of Phillip Glass for instance is Centric - there's a pitch or harmonic goal established through repetition (and repetition and repetition) but it's not established through any of the traditional means of Key and Cadence - which is what Tonality is.

Well that's true, but we should look at all the definitions of a term, not just the one we were taught, or what it is "to me". Tonality has a very definite definition amongst theorists. It is pop musicians and people who don't understand (that's not a personal attack - I'm speaking of people in general) it who have watered down the definition of Tonality to include anything with a Key, a Scale, Major and minor chords, or a "center" of some sort.

Best,
Steve

My undergraduate theory prof disagrees with you, so I went obsessive compulsive looking for definitions. There is a lot of debate apparently in the theory community. The Grove encyclopedia (not the best source, it is only an encyclopedia, but it is usually fairly accurate) has a substantial article on tonality and I'm going to take a few quotes out of it to show the different views. Yours and mine are only two of the many perspectives, unfortunately.

Originally Posted by Grove Music Encyclopedia*

It is nevertheless possible to sort uses of the term into two basic categories, corresponding to its noun and adjective forms, and while its noun forms suggest a greater degree of abstraction and therefore tend to be more controversial, in practice the two forms often converge:

(a) As an adjective, the term is often used to describe the systematic organization of pitch phenomena in both Western and non-Western music. Tonal music in this sense includes music based on, among other theoretical structures, the eight ecclesiastical modes of medieval and Renaissance liturgical music...

(c) Within Western musical traditions, ‘tonal’ is often used in contrast with ‘modal’ and ‘atonal’, the implication being that tonal music is discontinuous as a form of cultural expression from modal music (before 1600) on the one hand and atonal music (after 1910) on the other.

(d) At the same time, music historians sometimes describe pre-modern music as being tonal on the grounds of (a) above. Here it is assumed that important historical continuities underlie music before and after the emergence of musical modernism around 1600, and that the crucial difference between tonalité ancienne and tonalité moderne is one of emphasis rather than kind. In this sense, tonality is a generic term that refers to music based on the eight modes of the Western church as well as the major–minor complexes of common-practice music, repertories that share common melodic gestures and cadential formulae, coordinate successions of intervals or harmonies with conditions of dissonance and consonance, and evince a basic textural stratification into a treble melodic voice over a supporting bass line with inner voices that fill out harmonic sonorities.

(h) Perhaps the most common use of the term, then, in either its noun or adjective forms, is to designate the arrangement of musical phenomena around a referential tonic in European music from about 1600 to about 1910. However this arrangement is conceptualized. Musicians agree that there are two basic modal genera, major and minor, with different but analogous musical and expressive properties.

So I'll admit that your definition is perfectly correct and used by many theorists, but Schoenberg (and he was as good a theorist as he was a composer, albeit a very difficult one to understand) and other theorists use the wider definition.

Similarly atonality is difficult to describe, but I really don't know of anyone who calls modality atonality:

Originally Posted by Grove Music Encyclopedia**

A term that 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.

*Brian Hyer; Tonality; Grove Music Encyclopedia; [5/18/07]
**Paul Lansky, George Pearl; Atonality Grove Music Encyclopedia; [5/18/07]

[reith]

An interesting discussion. Definitions aside, my concern as a composer is music that lies on the border, if such is possible (namely by strict definition, music is either tonal or atonal). Some of my compositions clearly have long atonal passages. They (seem to) cohere for reasons beyond the organisation of pitches. But none are completely atonal. Tonal centres are brushed against often but change quickly.

So I'm taking the view that atonal music must be based on a system that defeats the build-up to an awareness of tonal centre. Schoenberg and later the total serial writers managed to achieve this partially but it's too easy to do something that suggests a tonal centre - a long pedal note, an interval of a 5th....

Sometimes I deliberately distort what would be a tonal passage to avoid the security of tonality at that point...perhaps because shortly afterwards I want a tonal effect to stand out momentarily. Sometimes I set up a progression that would be tonal if it were resolved in that centre, but resolve it in an unexpected centre - no tonal centre could be established so presumably the passage is atonal.

The point is that where does tonal become atonal? It seems that it could briefly sound tonal without actually being tonal.

I think I'd find it difficult to write something completely atonal.

[stevel]

So I'll admit that your definition is perfectly correct and used by many theorists, but Schoenberg (and he was as good a theorist as he was a composer, albeit a very difficult one to understand) and other theorists use the wider definition

I think it still remains to be seen if the Schoenbergain (or Pistonian) school of theory will win out. Current trends seem to err on the side I'm on.

I will say it's nice that Grove gave fair due to all the definitions.

Similarly atonality is difficult to describe, but I really don't know of anyone who calls modality atonality

After thinking about this for I while, I realized the following: If we're going to use "atonality" to many anything "not tonal", then it's not really fair to limit the definition of tonality to the more specific CPP definition.

So the definition about Modality - Tonality - Atonality seems good if we want to assign "proper names" to the overwhleming stylistic attributes of the pitch/harmony material of those periods.

But for now I'll say, those other theorists need to pick up a book written past 100 years ago :-)

Steve

[stevel]

Some of my compositions clearly have long atonal passages. They (seem to) cohere for reasons beyond the organisation of pitches. But none are completely atonal. Tonal centres are brushed against often but change quickly.

Well and this is true even of most tonal music - there are often atonal sections, or sections (development sections as someone mentioned earlier in this thread) where the tonality is "fleeting" at best.

I think a lot of "modern tonalists" are just expanding upon this basic idea and probably presenting more "non" and "fleeting" sections in proportion to the whole than in the past. I mean, there are certainly parts of Petrushka that teeter between all those things.

So I'm taking the view that atonal music must be based on a system that defeats the build-up to an awareness of tonal centre. Schoenberg and later the total serial writers managed to achieve this partially but it's too easy to do something that suggests a tonal centre - a long pedal note, an interval of a 5th....

Well, and that's the reason why many theorists use a more complete (or stricter) defintion of tonality - If one simply allows that a drone, or an agogic accent can create tonality, then pretty much everything is tonal and the term, and the distinction between it and atonality lose all meaning. Thus tonality, including the use of functional harmony, teleological motion, confirmation of tonal centers by cadential formulae and so on really describes it well. Yes it limites it to basically CPP music but hey, that once again is what this terminology was designed for.

Steve

[reith]

Originally Posted by stevel

......Well, and that's the reason why many theorists use a more complete (or stricter) defintion of tonality - If one simply allows that a drone, or an agogic accent can create tonality, then pretty much everything is tonal and the term, and the distinction between it and atonality lose all meaning.
Steve

I suppose this is the difference in stance, then, between a composer and a musicologist and theoretiian - the distinction isn't quite irrelevant, let's say non-existent except by an act of will. Someone setting out to compose a "strictly atonal piece" will have to adopt a strategy (which may be some variant of serial technique, or simply make noises - or avoid the 12-notes per octave altogether). Whereas someone composing a piece on a palette broader than diatonicism will just do it and rely on taste and judgement.

I've long abandoned attempts to analyse harmonies that crop up in my stuff but, like I say, I don't regard it as atonal, just rapidly shifting tonality. But then....Schoenberg simply regarded what's called dissonance to most people as "remote consonnance".

cheers.

[nerd011235]

We can all agree on the fact that the first classical music we listened to was not 'atonal' (by whatever definition you prefer to use), and we all know that tonal composers (Handel, Mozart, Haydn, etc.) are much more popular than Berio, Cage, Ligeti, and Bussotti. Thus our first experiences with classical music were with tonality, establishing a 'reference point' of tonality that we could all come back to.
Now I'm not sure about others in this forum, but my first attraction to atonal music was its novelty; it was fundamentally different from Handel, Mozart, and Haydn. It was a different experience altogether; something I could listen to when I got bored of standard classical stuff.
Unless atonal music was the first thing you listened to, we can also agree that tonal music is more pleasent to listen to, not more interesting, or thought-provoking, or moving, but more pleasent to the ear, just because of our constant exposure to simple consonant harmonies.
Notice however, that when either tonal or atonal music is removed completely, the other looses its meaning, which is why I believe that the most effective music is music that combines both tonal and atonal elements.
Some examples:
Tristan und Isolde - one of the most genius, intricate, and effective operas ever written
Bernstien: Symphony No. 3 - a beautiful tone poem for narrator, orchestra and chorus

thanks,
geoff

[fundrazor]

I thought followers of this thread might enjoy a quote from the, then, eminent music critic and composer Constant Lambert, writing in 1934:

"The unco, a species of Malayan ape noted for its singing in quarter-tones, is, as far as one can tell, the only living creature, capable of vocal production, that possesses no sense of tonality."

We do seem to have moved on just a tad since then .....

[reith]

ooh, I don't know. While away recently, an associate recorded Ligeti's Violin Concerto from the radio. I have yet to hear it but I asked what it was like. He said, "Nice concerto but a bit short - 6 minutes. Trouble is that the orchestra took half an hour to tune up."

cheers,
reith