Relevancy of tonal compositions in the 21st century.

First:

You're the reason I keep posting.

Then:

You and these "qualified" individuals you speak of... whoever they are... aren't my concern.

Protip: Reading your own posts is sometimes a good idea.

we could do it in a cellar, dim lights, nice girls, half naked, bringing the round numbers, let's make it 12 round match.

the dog fight: SSC vs. ANTIATONALITY

take a film, do the youtube, be popular

in the background the bug (afx remix) - run the place red http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rxyuv2OU950

that'd make a fight

why i get the feeling i've been there...:hmmm:

Protip: Reading your own posts is sometimes a good idea.

Newsflash: Perhaps the advice of you "qualified folk" is something I disagree with and feel it necessary to post an alternative point of view. Maybe I think it helps, and maybe people actually appreciate that.

In fact, I know people do because I have PMs and posts that speak to that effect. But they must be "ill-equipped" to form opinions of their own as well, huh? I suppose anyone who disagrees with you just doesn't have the intelligence to handle such high level discussions.

Or maybe you just have a higher opinion of yourself because out of over 5,000 members, all of about ten of you disagree with me. Somehow, you seem to think this makes you more qualified and everyone else, well, not qualified?

You can come down from your Ivory Tower now and join the rest of society. Actually, stay right where you are. The peasants in the market are doing just fine without you.

Newsflash: Perhaps the advice of you "qualified folk" is something I disagree with and feel it necessary to post an alternative point of view. Maybe I think it helps, and maybe people actually appreciate that.

Oh, oh! I know, an alternate view like atonality being poorly voiced jazz?

mrowr... hiss.... crash...

girls, chill. Debate or don't, but stop flaming each other.

the problem is not reinventing the tone (which derives from physical phenomena that have always existed) but not to exclude the possibility compositional.

Agreements for the fourth are considered tonal or not?

agreements for the second?

It depends on the context in which it operates.

Mode as the considerariamo?

I believe that continuing to seek new extra tonal languages, or extra shifts just to have something new finally away from the public composers.

Not so do not rule out the use of new languages for expression.

Oh, oh! I know, an alternate view like atonality being poorly voiced jazz?

More like an alternate view that tonality is just as relevant today as it was 100, 200, 300, or even 400 years ago.

More like an alternate view that tonality, atonality, serialism, spectralism, or any number of other stylistically defined methods of composition are not tools to be pulled down off the shelf only when you need them.

More like an alternate view that the foundations of music are still fundamentally sound and relevant today.

More like an alternate view that in order to create expansiveness in music, we must grow music from our roots.

You cite a single conversation I had with a Jazz Theory professor that we had over the time span of less than 15 seconds - a joke or sarcasm that we chuckled over. I'm citing the positions I advocate time and again here at this site and in countless conversations I've had with people over the better part of 10 years.

Way to once again diagnose my position and prove yourself incapable of engaging in this kind of discussion.

Read. Comprehend. Rinse and repeat. It's just that simple.

More like an alternate view that tonality is just as relevant today as it was 100, 200, 300, or even 400 years ago.

More like an alternate view that tonality, atonality, serialism, spectralism, or any number of other stylistically defined methods of composition are not tools to be pulled down off the shelf only when you need them.

I actually agree with the above. No discussion from me there.

More like an alternate view that the foundations of music are still fundamentally sound and relevant today.

More like an alternate view that in order to create expansiveness in music, we must grow music from our roots.

Ah here we go again, "Foundations of music"? Which foundations? What's "our roots"? Weasel words don't help make an argument strong, they just mud up what you're really trying to say.

Define what you mean by "foundations of music" and what you mean by "our roots." Maybe then what you said makes any sense. In an academic level, you never bring in such subjective words when you're trying to establish a position, since they aren't really needed. You can be perfectly clear about what you mean without them. That I'm asking you to clarify wastes time. It's generally the same way, always, that you state things to which what you actually really mean is hard to decipher.

Try to be more direct and it'll do wonders for your arguments, even if they may or may not be all that great at least you can avoid the "What do you mean with *term*?" questions.

PS: OR, rather simply don't assume that everyone means the same you do when they use words like these, communication problems should be avoided by explaining terms that may be conflictual (foundations, roots, etc always are.)

"As an organisational entity, Vox S

BOLANOS said this: "I agree with you to a certain extent that tonality has not been "exhausted" as some may have argued in the past, but the common-practice idiom is a thing of the past and we should get over it and move on."

This is the sort of explanation which tends to confuse me. I was of the impression that tonality and its established harmonic/chordal relationships was the center of "common practice". Is this not so? If it is not, then what did common practice mean when compared to today's practices? Do you mean use of forms such as 'sonata'? If you mean that (which I don't think you do), then I direct your attention to the many sonatas and sonata-form movements still being written today.

The separation of "tonality" and "common practice period" is most confusing to me, because they are so very integral to each other, or so I thought. What does it really mean after all? What does any of this classification and bitter argument mean? I rather like echurchill's statement about music, but since we are only human beings it appears inevitable that we argue over who's toy is better. :)

(If SCC's approach to piano writing (as valid as yours or anyone else's, I think) bothers you, then why not describe your approach instead of attacking his?)

Uh, Ernst.... There was no attack other than questioning SSC's assertion that somehow one's interest in composing for piano shouldn't wisely necessitate them actually learning piano.

I've got no opinion whatsoever upon what other people write for their music nor a need to validate what I do. However aggression and ignorance the likes of which SSC seems to enjoy to spout, seem to be asking for some type of response....

The separation of "tonality" and "common practice period" is most confusing to me, because they are so very integral to each other, or so I thought. What does it really mean after all? What does any of this classification and bitter argument mean? I rather like echurchill's statement about music, but since we are only human beings it appears inevitable that we argue over who's toy is better. :)

Tonality of course mostly means the music has a key or tonal center, be that using major or minor scales or even modes. The "common practice period" however implies following the rules for composition which were in use from about 1600 to the early 20th century. So for example the music of Debussy and Satie isn't necessarily following the rules of "common practice" but IS for the most part tonal, as is most rock and pop music, country, folk etc. etc....

Uh, Ernst.... There was no attack other than questioning SSC's assertion that somehow one's interest in composing for piano shouldn't wisely necessitate them actually learning piano.

You never supported your arguments, and saying they are "wise" and so on don't make it true. Nevermind the VERY OBVIOUS problems with your advice were completely dismissed by you, which led me to believe the sole purpose of the exchange was troll-feeding.

Which it was and continues.

DO NOT feed the troll, peoples.

You never supported your arguments, and saying they are "wise" and so on don't make it true. Nevermind the VERY OBVIOUS problems with your advice were completely dismissed by you, which led me to believe the sole purpose of the exchange was troll-feeding.

Which it was and continues.

DO NOT feed the troll, peoples.

Once again, I have yet to see where you have explained how it is unwise for someone to learn to play piano in order to write for it. And as you say, YOU never supported your arguments, and when you couldn't think of anything else to say in your own defense, you had to stoop to accusations of "trolling" rather than offering a rational case for your opinion. And now in this very post you can't think of anything better than "yelling?" And yet you are attempting to have your position be that learning to play a piano in order to write for it has "very obvious" problems? The only trolling going on here is my amazement that you continue to reply when your initial position was so obviously weak from the start.

Troll troll troll

Anyways, all this crap is in ANOTHER THREAD, so let's not cross-post bullshit and let's not feed the troll.

Obviously anyone interested in the troll can look here: http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/pianistic-writing-16902-6.html

Wonderful, but honestly haven't we seen enough of these newbs comin' in guns blazin'?

Anyways, all this crap is in ANOTHER THREAD, so let's not cross-post bullshit

Yup, amazingly enough this crap IS in another thread. One minute I'm looking at a poll being done one the pros and cons of tonal vs. atonal music and low and behold I yet again find you, SSC, giving your same scallopy pissy attitude to yet another person besides me. Maybe the non-newbies think your need for condescension and foul mouthed attitude are somehow endearing and part of your overall charm. So far I haven't seen it....

Why the gently caress do you care if some people don't want to write tonal music? Nobody is forcing you to listen to it, so why are you trying to force your ideas on them? I bet you secretly wished you had the ability to write good non-tonal music, and you're just bitter and jealous of those who can... otherwise, why would you be so obsessed with the subject? Why would you be spending so much time in this forum? You're like the little kid who makes way too many homophobic comments that it becomes clear to everyone that he is, in fact, himself a homosexual.

I'd address all of your points, Bolanos, but I just don't have time so I'll address this:

Why the gently caress do you care if some people don't want to write tonal music?

I never said I care whether people write tonal music or not. What I said is that in the course of music education, tonal composition is not given the attention by professors of composition that it should be given. And I tie this into the fact that over the past century, composers have pretty much abandoned tonality as a practice to hit the reset button, which makes it more difficult today to find people qualified enough to teach the composition of tonal music from a method standpoint. Most, if not all of what I know about tonal composition is what I learned from music theory. That's not an exaggeration, and I highly doubt it's uncommon that this is the status quo today (as others might believe otherwise). That's what I care about.

Nobody is forcing you to listen to it, so why are you trying to force your ideas on them?

I'm not trying to force anything on anyone. I don't even know where you're getting this from in this whole thread or any other post.

Why would you be spending so much time in this forum?

Maybe so I can create some awareness of the issue I have with music.

Maybe so I can find others who might just have similar issues to my own.

Maybe I just like to discuss music in this way and air out my frustrations.

I don't really see why you care why I spend so much time on this forum. Why do YOU spend so much time on this forum? To learn? To study? To become better? To become more knowledgeable? I'm a human being just like you are, curious, inquisitive, and maybe a little more stubborn than most... but why I spend time on this forum was never any of your business anyway.

I'm married, by the way. Save your homophobic jokes for someone that gets off on your childish sense of humor and address the topic if you have something intelligent to offer.

Ah here we go again, "Foundations of music"? Which foundations? What's "our roots"? Weasel words don't help make an argument strong, they just mud up what you're really trying to say.

Here we go again... at least we're talking about the position now. We're moving in the right direction, at least where discussion is concerned.

Foundations of Music: The idea that music is fundamentally one art form and not many. The idea that styles do not dictate what is relevant in contemporary music. The idea that tonality is more than just the sum of its common-practice nomenclature. The sense that there is something more to it than just theory. What you ask me to clarify has no real "strict-sense" definition, but I hope this helps to define what I'm talking about.

Roots: The past. As in, before the 20th Century when tonality was still "relevant" and acceptable to use in a contemporary setting.

Define what you mean by "foundations of music" and what you mean by "our roots." Maybe then what you said makes any sense. In an academic level, you never bring in such subjective words when you're trying to establish a position, since they aren't really needed. You can be perfectly clear about what you mean without them. That I'm asking you to clarify wastes time. It's generally the same way, always, that you state things to which what you actually really mean is hard to decipher.

Or I can be overly verbose. Take your pick. This is a message board, first and foremost, not a theory seminar. While the subject matter is more academic, you also get the benefit of long-tailed discussion about the subject matter so that clarity can be provided. There's no sense in bogging everything down in the beginning when it can be explained, as it has been above, by simply asking.

Try to be more direct and it'll do wonders for your arguments, even if they may or may not be all that great at least you can avoid the "What do you mean with *term*?" questions.

Some statements just have context clues or information that can be reasonably assumed. If things aren't clear, however, you can always just ask for clarification like you did rather than attacking my credentials or my reputation as a member here.

PS: OR, rather simply don't assume that everyone means the same you do when they use words like these, communication problems should be avoided by explaining terms that may be conflictual (foundations, roots, etc always are.)

Communication problems are things that can be addressed in this format quite capably without such tarnishing remarks. It's not laziness. It's brevity. Some people may just be familiar with the subject matter and understand the position. Those that don't are free to ask for clarification for the sake of comprehension.

This goes for antiatonality as well. So, antiatonality, if you've never liked atonal music, then why not post your tonal compositions? They will surely persuade us to tonality more than these arguments, where everyone looks stupid. Or start a thread about some of your new (or old) tonal techniques.

Here.

This is the sort of explanation which tends to confuse me. I was of the impression that tonality and its established harmonic/chordal relationships was the center of "common practice". Is this not so? If it is not, then what did common practice mean when compared to today's practices? Do you mean use of forms such as 'sonata'? If you mean that (which I don't think you do), then I direct your attention to the many sonatas and sonata-form movements still being written today.

I think what the "common-practice" represents is "establishment" or "order." There is no real "clear" description of it, at least none that seems to be agreeable among everyone, but I think it's the most fair description. This "practice" is what existed within the syntax of tonality, but in and of itself, the common practice is not tonality.

The separation of "tonality" and "common practice period" is most confusing to me, because they are so very integral to each other, or so I thought. What does it really mean after all? What does any of this classification and bitter argument mean? I rather like echurchill's statement about music, but since we are only human beings it appears inevitable that we argue over who's toy is better.

Tonality is much more broadly classified than what common-practice methods existed at the time. The rigid "orderedness" of tonality (leading tones MUST resolve in THIS way and DO NOT resolve THAT way) was what common-practice represents. Tonality is more like the universe of music in which this "orderedness" formed. Much like the Catholic symbolism and rigid orthodoxy of its ceremony cannot cultivate or encompass the complete picture of Christianity, and like Christianity cannot completely define religion. In effect, common-practice is merely an ideology within the overall tonal syntax and should not be viewed as a representation of tonality as a whole.

The definition of tonality - the arrangement of all the tones and chords of a composition in relation to a tonic - does not cite specific rules, only that a relationship to a central key exists. There is no rigid restriction where tonality is concerned, only that something goes somewhere and a "relationship" forms. Tonality does this by a relationship to one or more central key areas, even individual pitches now (see Centricity). The point? Tonality is not "Common-Practice" that strictly governs how the relationship is formed. It only mandates that a relationship be created. In effect, these other contemporary styles we learn about today developed as a reaction to common-practice and not as a result of the existence of tonality in music. Tonality never really aged or became finite. It just became grouped into what others classify as common-practice.

Foundations of Music: The idea that music is fundamentally one art form and not many. The idea that styles do not dictate what is relevant in contemporary music. The idea that tonality is more than just the sum of its common-practice nomenclature. The sense that there is something more to it than just theory. What you ask me to clarify has no real "strict-sense" definition, but I hope this helps to define what I'm talking about.

Roots: The past. As in, before the 20th Century when tonality was still "relevant" and acceptable to use in a contemporary setting.

OK, so, what makes you think tonality IS NOT relevant or acceptable to use in contemporary setting?

Furthermore, I need you to be more specific about what you mean with foundation, so elaborate.

Yup, amazingly enough this crap IS in another thread. One minute I'm looking at a poll being done one the pros and cons of tonal vs. atonal music and low and behold I yet again find you, SSC, giving your same scallopy pissy attitude to yet another person besides me. Maybe the non-newbies think your need for condescension and foul mouthed attitude are somehow endearing and part of your overall charm. So far I haven't seen it....

Grantco, I may be a newbie but SSC's words and ideas have been very helpful and encouraging to me. Referring to his arguments, especially in this most helpful and interesting of threads, as "scallopy" and "pissy" is really unacceptable. He's a very insightful person, if more than a little forceful. Just call it opinionated, and get back to the actual topic at hand, which is music.

OK, so, what makes you think tonality IS NOT relevant or acceptable to use in contemporary setting?

Nothing. I'm still at a loss for why composers don't learn more about it as composers in the 20th Century beyond theory classes on the common practice.

Furthermore, I need you to be more specific about what you mean with foundation, so elaborate.

What do you think I mean, SSC? Test yourself and your ability to analyze my position and give me what you think I mean by Foundation from what I have already posted. I'll be happy to elaborate further if it becomes a significant issue.

I'm not trying to dodge the question either, just the game of semantics that I know will result from this if I don't give you an opportunity to contemplate the meaning yourself and try to consider it within the context of my position.

Nothing. I'm still at a loss for why composers don't learn more about it as composers in the 20th Century beyond theory classes on the common practice.

... Um, like I've said before, this isn't a real problem in a lot of academic institutions I've personally been to, such as various Hochschulen here in Germany (Frankfurt, Hamburg, Freiburg, Dusseldorf, ETC.) I've always seen tonality considered along any other modern idiom as all very accepted and current, as what's generally the point is what is done with it, not the simple fact it's there.

What do you think I mean, SSC? Test yourself and your ability to analyze my position and give me what you think I mean by Foundation from what I have already posted. I'll be happy to elaborate further if it becomes a significant issue.

I'm not trying to dodge the question either, just the game of semantics that I know will result from this if I don't give you an opportunity to contemplate the meaning yourself and try to consider it within the context of my position.

Uh. I seriously don't know what you could possibly mean, or I wouldn't be asking. Foundations seems to me just always a way to assign hierarchies where they aren't needed when it comes to teaching music, or in the best case a slight bias in any given direction (often lying somewhere between Bach and Schubert as the "foundations" of anything.)

I don't know what your position is because you're NOT CLEAR. Seriously, you aren't. I HAVE to debate this in an academic way, or at least something as close as possible to that because it ensures that we actually understand eachother's points at the very least. So clarify exactly what you mean as foundations, and I do mean very exactly and verbose.

... Um, like I've said before, this isn't a real problem in a lot of academic institutions I've personally been to, such as various Hochschulen here in Germany (Frankfurt, Hamburg, Freiburg, Dusseldorf, ETC.) I've always seen tonality considered along any other modern idiom as all very accepted and current, as what's generally the point is what is done with it, not the simple fact it's there.

QFT. did i use that right?

Same here. Music minors at my school only get tonal theory. Only majors get "modern" theory, which is largely late romanticism and 12-tone. Hardly a "new concepts only" approach.

But, to be fair, there are schools that act how he describes. I'm thinking of the New School in NYC, specifically. But that's how academia works -- there are different views that are promoted so that the aggregate body of knowledge is largest.

Which means that, so long as facts are correct, alternate and opposing interpretations and values are not only acceptable, but the only way that the whole body of knowledge can be represented.

The idea that music is fundamentally one art form and not many. The idea that styles do not dictate what is relevant in contemporary music. The idea that tonality is more than just the sum of its common-practice nomenclature. The sense that there is something more to it than just theory. What you ask me to clarify has no real "strict-sense" definition, but I hope this helps to define what I'm talking about.

See, again, this is a common point in my school. But you have to discuss a framework before you can explain the differences, even if that framework never applies in totality. You can't just study Bach chorales and expect to understand why he did all the things he did -- you have to take him in context. That framework provides the context.

But, to be fair, there are schools that act how he describes. I'm thinking of the New School in NYC, specifically. But that's how academia works -- there are different views that are promoted so that the aggregate body of knowledge is largest.

To be fairer, in order to even get a shot at a job at a University within 10 years of graduating, you have to go to schools like NYC, Cornell, Eastman, or Michigan. 10 years may seem like an exaggeration, but it's not so much today as the trend continues to postpone work for Doctoral Graduates.

See, again, this is a common point in my school. But you have to discuss a framework before you can explain the differences, even if that framework never applies in totality. You can't just study Bach chorales and expect to understand why he did all the things he did -- you have to take him in context. That framework provides the context.

What exactly is it that you're trying to advocate? I have no problem with this kind of framework being created or developed in a theory curriculum. What I have a problem with is it being taken beyond the theory classroom into the actual composition curriculum where it demonstrably influences who gets taught what and how they are expected to explore their voice in music. It seems to me you're blending a line between theory and method where one SHOULD exist. It creates a double standard:

Explore your compositional voice, be "unorthodox," challenge yourself... but don't write tonal.

And then someone like me speaks up and says, "Well, you want me to explore my voice, so LET ME EXPLORE IT and HELP ME EXPLORE IT."

And then you get responses like...

"You need to write more 'contemporary', 'relevant' music. Tonality is not relevant. It is meant to be studied in Theory and in context, but in the 'real' music world, no one uses it today."

OR

"You learned all that in Theory."

And the conversation enters this state where the quintessential argument rests on how tonality is relevant to Composers today. So, I don't really know what you're trying to point out in this discussion.

QFT = Quote for Truth. Lurk moar.

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qft LOL!)

Also, what the hell? If someone says tonal music isn't relevant today (I don't mean style copies, of course) they should be punched in the mouth. That's it. It's very simple. It's like ignoring Ligeti, P

Jeesh, how many times do I have to give this speech already!

How about we schedule you in for every 4th Friday of the month?

(well said, by the way)