Tonality's Purpose Today

So there is a lot of talk every so often about tonality and its "relevance" to today, and I often take some very extreme positions on the topic. But I'd like to step back and look at what relevance tonality might have to others.

It's fair to say we often focus much of our attention on tonality as a "language." I'd like to approach it from the standpoint of tonality as a "system." What is unique for us today as composers is the notion that we are developing our own systems with which to express ourselves and create our voice.

What I consider to be unique to tonality as a system to meet the goal of expression is that, in and of itself, tonality is a completed system. What do I mean by this?

I will offer that this is by no means a "hard and fast" rule of music or that exceptions do not exist; however, tonality does appear to provide the composer a model, or template, that can be used as a guidepost for forming a system unique to one's own creative intuition. This is to say that where the language may not apply to one's ambitions, the system underlying the language can be used to facillitate this process in the composer.

While the language may not suit the aspirations of a composer today, the system appears to leave trace amounts of its heritage in the systems more commonly used today. Transposition in tonality will often not represent transposition in serial 12-tone works, but the systemic use of both is fundamentally the same even if we assume the purpose for using transposition in the latter is not to achieve the same objective of the former.

Tonality as a system can apply itself in a variety of respects to the ways in which composition is created today, from aspects of form and timbre to melody and harmony, even if the language itself is not compatible with the ambitions of the individual composer and the expression s/he wants to create.

This leads one to ask, "What makes tonality so complete that it can have such a far reaching effect on other systems? Are you saying that other systems have no such effect on other systems?" Be assured that this is not the argument I'm making. This leads into what I believe to be a more important purpose that these other systems of music have grown to create for the tonal language (note the distinction here between "language" - what is heard; and "system" - the underlying structure that creates what is heard).

The contemporary trends of music and the systems that developed out of the 20th Century have taken some very important steps forward. My push for more emphasis on tonality comes from a desire to integrate newly established systems back into the language of tonality, but this requires a more solid understanding of the methods of tonal composition in order to move to this step. Can such interval relationships like tri-tone resolution that established a tonic be implemented in your language? Can it be done to create a different effect, perhaps with a different purpose? Can a similar effect be created using a different interval?

What do you use from the tonal system to incorporate in your language?

Why? Just why? Don't we have enough of these threads? Everytime I see one of these "relevancy of tonality" threads anymore, I just want to punch a kitten in the god damned face. At least, since SSC has you blocked now, there's a chance this thread won't escalate into a 20 page flame fest. But still... *sigh*

Why? Just why? Don't we have enough of these threads? Everytime I see one of these "relevancy of tonality" threads anymore, I just want to punch a kitten in the god damned face. At least, since SSC has you blocked now, there's a chance this thread won't escalate into a 20 page flame fest. But still... *sigh*

Well, I can't say I'm surprised at your reaction, but really...

I don't see what you find so offensive about this, other than your personal distaste of the topic itself and your apparent distaste of my opinions. But I do have to ask: Did you actually read the post, because all you seem to be doing is replying to the title of the thread.

The problem with your post is that you're not really saying anything. There are lots of "catch phrases", and that's about it.

Yes, tonality is a system. Most atonal music utilizes some form of system or another as well.

What exactly are you trying to ask? or talk about?

All I see is more of the same from you. You're filtering everything through YOUR view of how contemporary music is conceived and perceived.

In my opinion, the only place where the issue of "relevance" comes into play is when one considers "historicist" practice. I think my views on the topic have always been clear.

Other than that, what is there to discuss?

There are myriad forms of "tonal" music in the 20th and now 21st centuries.

What exactly is this "issue" regarding tonality, such that you so desperately need to start flame-bait threads every month?

"Tonality is a completed system"... which means absolutely nothing. It's not "completed". It's just been around forever (obviously an exaggeration).

In what way are other forms of non-tonal music "not completed"?

I say that you are wrong in putting a "completed" sticker on tonality. It is FAR from "completed". If it were, there would be no interest in continuing to use it, no avenues for exploration, no possibility of expansion.

Besides, very few composers in our day write music that is either purely tonal, or purely non-tonal.

So, again, what do you hope to accomplish with this thread?

The problem with your post is that you're not really saying anything. There are lots of "catch phrases", and that's about it.

Yes, tonality is a system. Most atonal music utilizes some form of system or another as well.

What exactly are you trying to ask? or talk about?

Considering the demise of the last thread on tonal 'relevancy', I'm offering a position on what relevance tonality does have. I'm assessing agreement or disagreement with the position. I'm asking for input, reaction, and further discourse. In short, I'm posting an OP and hoping to stimulate intellectual discussion (and hoping it doesn't go down in flames in the process because of the attitudes that are prevalent among those here who seem to think it's not worth talking about).

All I see is more of the same from you. You're filtering everything through YOUR view of how contemporary music is conceived and perceived.

You expect me to filter my view through your view? SSC's? What are your expectations and how would you have me meet them, QCC?

In my opinion, the only place where the issue of "relevance" comes into play is when one considers "historicist" practice. I think my views on the topic have always been clear.

Other than that, what is there to discuss?

I disagree with your opinion, QCC (really, I do). So, there is apparently more to discuss.

There are myriad forms of "tonal" music in the 20th and now 21st centuries.

What exactly is this "issue" regarding tonality, such that you so desperately need to start flame-bait threads every month?

I didn't start the last thread, I just posted my opinion on the matter. Then SSC went on the offensive (not even addressing my content, mind you) and started attacking me.

I'm not popular among a handful of the regular posters here (SSC, Corbin, You), but I'm entitled to participate and offer my opinion and support for it.

If you can't get past your own (and others') disdain for my interest in music, I would not expect you to even "get" the "issue" here. You have no grasp of this because you have no appreciation for the plight of those who have an interest in learning more about tonality in higher education. You seem content to just make judgments about this as an attempt to create another "flame" thread instead of openly discussing the topic.

I find it really contradictory to claim it is such a non-issue when you get these threads as often as you do. This is my, what, third thread on the topic? How many are there? Dozens over the past year or so maybe? Want me to dig one of those up instead?

"Tonality is a completed system"... which means absolutely nothing. It's not "completed". It's just been around forever (obviously an exaggeration).

In what way are other forms of non-tonal music "not completed"?

I say that you are wrong in putting a "completed" sticker on tonality. It is FAR from "completed". If it were, there would be no interest in continuing to use it, no avenues for exploration, no possibility of expansion.

Really? Another discussion point?

What happened to...

In my opinion, the only place where the issue of "relevance" comes into play is when one considers "historicist" practice. I think my views on the topic have always been clear.

Other than that, what is there to discuss?

If there's nothing more to discuss, then why offer so many more points to discuss the "non-issue?"

Besides, very few composers in our day write music that is either purely tonal, or purely non-tonal.

So, again, what do you hope to accomplish with this thread?

Purely tonal? Purely non-tonal?

I say that you are wrong in putting a "completed" sticker on tonality. It is FAR from "completed". If it were, there would be no interest in continuing to use it, no avenues for exploration, no possibility of expansion.

First, you talk about the only way 'relevancy' is applicable is in what is considered 'historicist' practice.

Then, you say there are a myriad of tonal forms of the 20th and 21st Century.

Next, you criticize me for using "completed" as a descriptive term for tonality as a system.

Finally, you claim there is such a thing as "purely" tonal or "purely" atonal.

You're making an argument and claiming I'm posting a "flame-bait" thread with nowhere to go. I'm a bit confused. Is there or is there not something to discuss here?

---------------------------------------------

I can't help but marvel at how personal people get about such discussions. At the end of the day, I may get irritated over how blatantly stupid and argumentatively fallacious some responses to my opinions may be, but I don't take dissenting opinions with obvious intelligence behind them as offensive. It's a forum. People are going to disagree. That's the breaks.

For those of you who just take "personal offense" to my views, you're free to respond in an intelligent way and discuss it rationally. Those who can't meet that criteria (for whatever reason) just need to go post in other threads and leave this one alone. Those with an interest in this subject matter who feel it is an issue worth their time, this thread is here for you to discuss the topic.

First of all, AA, you obviously completely misunderstood my post. I don't know if it was on purpose, or if you are subconsciously expecting to ahve to disagree with me.

You confuse apples and oranges, then turn it all around, and accuse me of being "confused".

I'm sorry. You obviously don't actually understand the topic, which is pushing you to make claims and assertions not supported by any evidence. I really see no reason to "discuss" this with someone who doesn't have the necessary tools to actually advance intelligent discussion.

I'm sorry. You obviously don't actually understand the topic, which is pushing you to make claims and assertions not supported by any evidence. I really see no reason to "discuss" this with someone who doesn't have the necessary tools to actually advance intelligent discussion.

Thread over.

PS: Notice how I didn't really say anything this time? I rather like this course of action.

My 2 cents:

Sometimes I'm amazed by how rhythm as a musical element can have such lasting impression. Time and again I find myself subconsciously tapping on desktops etc. with my hands and fingers only to realize that I was simulating the rhythm of music I first heard going back >15 years. I guess what I'm trying to say is sound pitch may not be the most important musical element at all.

Well, I can't say I'm surprised at your reaction, but really...

I don't see what you find so offensive about this, other than your personal distaste of the topic itself and your apparent distaste of my opinions. But I do have to ask: Did you actually read the post, because all you seem to be doing is replying to the title of the thread.

Yes, I did. And no, actually I don't have a distaste for your opinions. I think they hold a certain amount of truth. I don't agree entirely but then again... I never agree entirely with anyone. But you've also started and particpated in these type of threads before and honestly, there really isn't anything you've said here that you haven't said in the past. If I was being offensive, it's just because I'm tired of this discussion. I don't think anyone is saying tonality is dead and no longer relevant at all. Maybe close-minded, 21st century elitists but they make up a very small, small, small portion of this community and the overall music community in general. For as long as the major-minor system has existed, tonality has been relevant and it doesn't appear to be dying any time soon.

My 2 cents:

Sometimes I'm amazed by how rhythm as a musical element can have such lasting impression. Time and again I find myself subconsciously tapping on desktops etc. with my hands and fingers only to realize that I was simulating the rhythm of music I first heard going back >15 years. I guess what I'm trying to say is sound pitch may not be the most important musical element at all.

Didn't Elliot Carter have a somewhat similar interest in expression using rhythm to create a free-flow kind of style?

I think you're right that rhythm is an important musical element, but I wouldn't say it is any more or less important than pitch. I think the cohesion of the elements including the instrumentation used, melodic contour and development, harmonic relationships, rhythmic manipulation of the pulse, and overall form combined create events in music.

QC: You can PM me if you want to carry on any further discussion about whether or not this thread is worthwhile (and only because you're a moderator and your comments can't be ignored). I have already pointed to a number of statements you make that are debatable, but you make these statements with the apparent attempt to stifle discussion of the topic - not to discuss it. It's just not worth the time to sit here and point to every one of these statements. You believe what you do. Fine. Good for you. But the discussion has yet to be had without it degrading into some mudslinging contest. I have no intention of the sort for this thread.

SSC: You're ignored. I'm not about to waste another 20 pages of posts on you.

Nirvana: I wasn't offended at your post and didn't mean to imply it if I did. If the general census among the musically educated was that tonality is still relevant today, none of these discussions would even come up among those who didn't feel there was a problem to be solved. If you're tired of the discussion of the topic, there are plenty of other threads.

Anti -

Nice to see you posting. Hope your orchestral work you were working on is finished. Please post.

As for the topic, I have one problem. Your language is rather broad. It leaves me with several questions:

1) Please differentiate language and system in reference to tonalities? I ask as language and system are interdependent in my view - you have a system of rules and exception to have a language.

2) Transposition is mentioned. Would this be a characteristic of a system? Or as in some spoken tongues (Mandarin, wherein the pitch of a word changes its meaning) ) a language.

3) System does not necessarily apply to tonality - it can apply to form. You can develop a music structure without tonal relations being the primary building material.

3) Finally, I disagree that composers need to return back more to "older" concepts of tonality (if that is what you meant at the end of your post) to enrich and guide development of our compositional systems. The history of 20th and 21st century music has been a looking back and reappraisal of Western art music's past and ancient music from non-Western cultures. And this exploration is far from over asQC said (in fact in something such as Indian Classical music which has been around longer than Western art music those musicians still find new ways to use well worn material).

BTW, some of the reactions to your post also stem from the utter vastness of this topic and how it falls into aesthetics and other topics. Many of us here are not experts in the study of aesthetics. Plus musical psychology and perception which your topic leans into are very young fields and not well understood. Add to the broad terms you use and you will get this reaction. With this type of topic you actually benefit from greater clarity in your language and examples.

Hello, I'm new here :-)

For me, tonality was a short period in music - ca. 250-300 years... And that's NOTHING if we compare it to the whole history of human music - just another music style. Moreover, the twelve-tone-well-tempered system is falsifying the actual pitch of the sound. Whom are we going to deceive then?

I'd like to write my OWN compositions and in fact I don't care whether in 17th century a bunch of people said that eg. 12 tones in the chromatic scale would be better than 31...

But that's my own opinion and I don't want to offend anyone :-)

Anti -

Nice to see you posting. Hope your orchestral work you were working on is finished. Please post.

Not finished yet. Back to the drawing board on it a bit, but when it's ready I'll let you know.

1) Please differentiate language and system in reference to tonalities? I ask as language and system are interdependent in my view - you have a system of rules and exception to have a language.

See the OP. There are no hard and fast rules I'm referring to, just that the tonal system offers a great deal of musical aesthetic choices one can use even if they do not intend on recreating the language (or a specific composer's language, take your pick).

2) Transposition is mentioned. Would this be a characteristic of a system? Or as in some spoken tongues (Mandarin, wherein the pitch of a word changes its meaning) ) a language.

Transposition has not been a language that I'm aware of, at least not in the sense that it wholly defines any style. It is one of many characteristics of the tonal system that has helped to define one's language - where I could see your point having some merit. But with regard to the broader sense where transposition applies, it need not create the same aesthetic or serve the same purpose in a system other than tonality for the characteristic to still apply.

3) System does not necessarily apply to tonality - it can apply to form. You can develop a music structure without tonal relations being the primary building material.

System absolutely applies to tonality, but I agree with you that music structure can be developed without tonal relationships as long as some relationship is formed within the context of a piece.

3) Finally, I disagree that composers need to return back more to "older" concepts of tonality (if that is what you meant at the end of your post) to enrich and guide development of our compositional systems. The history of 20th and 21st century music has been a looking back and reappraisal of Western art music's past and ancient music from non-Western cultures. And this exploration is far from over as QC said (in fact in something such as Indian Classical music which has been around longer than Western art music those musicians still find new ways to use well worn material).

I think this is an opinion of preference more than that of a qualifying statement. I respect your preference, but I also think this kind of thinking weakens one's ability to be more expressive in their music. That's not an indictment of your music, CO, just an observation of your opinion.

BTW, some of the reactions to your post also stem from the utter vastness of this topic and how it falls into aesthetics and other topics. Many of us here are not experts in the study of aesthetics. Plus musical psychology and perception which your topic leans into are very young fields and not well understood. Add to the broad terms you use and you will get this reaction. With this type of topic you actually benefit from greater clarity in your language and examples.

The reactions to this post, specifically, stem from the existence of a previous thread that certain member(s) more or less annihilated as s/he/they do every time s/he/they enter into a discussion about the topic. I think my language was pretty clear, and even though the subject matter is as broad as it is, it need not be treated as a topic that cannot be reasonably debated. As it impacts so much of how a composer today is trained and influenced, even if it can only be discussed more broadly than specifically here (to encourage different perspectives and discussion), it's worth a shot.

I don't really take the reactions I've received as 'negative' as I am sure some are intended to be (from the usual suspects here, at least). But there are those who genuinely post to express their opinions and give their insight, and that makes the discussion a worthwhile endeavor. I can respect that we all have different backgrounds and interests, but if it really is a problem of clarity... well, it's a forum. People can post and ask for clarification.

Hello' date=' I'm new here :-)

For me, tonality was a short period in music - ca. 250-300 years... And that's NOTHING if we compare it to the whole history of human music - just another music style. Moreover, the twelve-tone-well-tempered system is falsifying the actual pitch of the sound. Whom are we going to deceive then?

I'd like to write my OWN compositions and in fact I don't care whether in 17th century a bunch of people said that eg. 12 tones in the chromatic scale would be better than 31...

But that's my own opinion and I don't want to offend anyone :-) [/quote']

Welcome! Don't worry about offending anyone here... you've done nothing to offend.

It's interesting you bring up the twelve-tone-well-tempered system. Though I don't agree that the "falsification" you speak of is an act of deception, I think you bring up a pretty good point. If we have a 31 tone tuning system, does a tonal system apply? If so, how?

I believe that a tonal system exists in any "x-tone" tuning system. How it works, what it sounds like, and the possible languages that could develop from it are vast and unknown. That being said, could such characteristics of the tonal system we know so well be applicable in a different tuning system? Could transposition or key center, modes and harmonies relate to one another in a different tuning system? Sure they could!

Tonality has existed for much longer than 250-300 years - just the common-practice of tonality appears to have developed over that period of time that we see from the Medieval to the mid to late 1900s. Tonality still exists, it's just not given as much attention as other methods of composition today. Just my two cents.

Thanks for posting.

The reactions to this post, specifically, stem from the existence of a previous thread that SSC more or less annihilated as he does every time he enters into a discussion about the topic.

I'd appreciate if you refrained from talking about me or referring to me at all. I ALREADY have you on ignore and the fact I have to check to see if you're saying this type of garbage is simply absurd. Do not talk about me. If your opinions and so on were found lacking, then that's just too bad! Nevermind this thread is irrelevant and pointless, as has been stated over and over and over. But well, continue to do whatever and I will continue to ignore it but PLEASE do not talk about me specially if all you have to say is this sort of butthurt nonsense.

As for me "annihilating" them threads, what can I say, I have a low tolerance for bullshit.

No, SSC, I'm not having another pointless argument with you about anything. I was giving composerorganist the background, as I see it, to why this thread is getting the reactions that it does.

As for me "annihilating" them threads, what can I say, I have a low tolerance for bullshit.

You have a low tolerance for critical thinking. If you really have something intelligent to say, feel free to send me a PM. I see ignoring you doesn't really do anything but give you free reign to troll every thread I post in. So, you can PM me if you have something to say. Otherwise, stick with the topic of the thread. I'll redact your name from the previous post and we'll just call it even.

Fair enough?

No, SSC, I'm not having another pointless argument with you about anything.

GOOD!

Not that you're capable of anything OTHER than pointless arguments, Mr "Modern music shouldn't be taught because it's only taught to create a demand for it."

Good luck with that.

GOOD!

Not that you're capable of anything OTHER than pointless arguments, Mr "Modern music shouldn't be taught because it's only taught to create a demand for it."

Good luck with that.

That wasn't my argument. AGAIN, you misrepresent my statements and context.

Your statement in the previous thread:

How many people got into composition by listening to Ligeti? Stockhausen? ETC? Just a hunch' date=' but I don't think a whole lot. How many got into composition because they liked Mozart? Beethoven? Brahms? Schubert? ETC ETC ETC? Oh, well, just about everyone else?

[b']So, the fact composition education is bias against what is so well known has also a pretty simple reason, it needs to fight an uphill battle of teaching people that music doesn't end after the 19th century[/b], and that there are many, many, many possibilities which don't imply either throwing the past away or being radical or whatever.

My response:

This assumes that [fighting] such an uphill battle should be the mission of the university. THAT battle is the responsibility of the composer.

Your position seems to be that it's okay for people to pay large sums of money to become educated to appreciate music that has little to no audience otherwise so that composers like yourself are ensured that such an audience for this music will exist.

Modern music should be taught ALONG SIDE music that is so well known. No bias should apply, popular or not!

Whether your position is stated accurately or not (it appears to be) is something you should address. But taking my rebuttal to your argument and twisting it to take more jabs at me and my opinions is just another example of your poor abilities to argue with any critical thought to support it.

Like I said, you have a low tolerance for critical thinking.

Modern music should be taught ALONG SIDE music that is so well known. No bias should apply, popular or not!

dude.

You're right. You're totally right. There should be no bias.

We're just saying that there is no bias now.

The prevalence of a certain style of composition, or philosophy, or whatever of music in a certain, singular spot doesn't reflect the philosophy of the whole, or likely even the majority.

The prevalence of a certain style of composition, or philosophy, or whatever of music in a certain, singular spot doesn't reflect the philosophy of the whole, or likely even the majority.

If this were the case, if it was likely a majority position held by most people or even a minority position held by some, this would be reflected even in the activity here on this forum.

The problem is, when it comes down to teaching composition, tonality takes a back seat to other methods - either in the interest or the knowledge of the instructors teaching composition.

Does it apply on the whole to each and EVERY university instructor? No (I never said it did - EVER!). I'm sure there are many out there who know what they are doing and keep their interests in music separated from their responsibilities to their students. But this is hardly the case, at least in America, for many institutions that have a proven reputation for discouraging the preference of tonality.

But what is a problem is where you find a lot of these instructors being hired from... many from universities that DO show this preference who then go on to teach at places that may encourage both. By then, it's a little late in the game to be questioning whether or not the person is qualified to teach tonal composition methods to composition students or even test their qualifications. After all, when the standard for higher-level masters and doctoral students is Modern Music, how many contemporary works show even remote interest in tonal method? I'd venture a little more than just a guess - not many at all.

It's not just a question of rhetoric - of what a particular instructor "says" s/he will do for students. It's about the commitment and the knowledge to back it up, and not to impune the careers of many a college professor, but I've known some OUTSTANDING composition instructors who just could not hack it TEACHING tonal method who admitted as much in private when questioned about it. Others said they could do it, but that wasn't the goal of the curriculum so it wouldn't be possible to focus time and attention mostly to it. Others said they would teach the method, but then it was just that... ONE METHOD... out of likely many, many methods.

One composition instructor I had who actually gave me a break and went "against the mold" was an adjunct at the time. When the head of the composition faculty learned that I was getting some instruction on tonal composition method (we had two lessons on it, tops!), he was given some harsh treatment by his colleagues and told he should not continue to encourage it. He did not keep his job (I found out later after graduating), and I have to wonder if it was, at least in part, because of me. GOD I hope not. He wasn't the best teacher I ever had, but he was the most resourceful and like-minded instructor I have encountered in my academic career.

So, I think it's a bit too deep to be a "non-issue". After you consider all the factors involved (I'm sure there are more than I have mentioned here), it's not so clear cut.

The problem is, when it comes down to teaching composition, tonality takes a back seat to other methods - either in the interest or the knowledge of the instructors teaching composition.

Same old argument from ignorance.

You're generalizing, again, the same damn thing and not giving a shred of evidence. Again, because you're acting on personal experience rather than objective knowledge.

Tonality (be it pop-music type or function harmony type) is taught MUCH MORE than ANY other system, method, and the people play the pieces of tonal composers (historically speaking) much more than anyone else. There must be a balance to compensate for tradition overrunning everything unless we don't want to give all other styles, techniques and ideas an even playing field.

You clearly don't understand this. You REFUSE to understand this, and you are always arguing from the SAME EXACT point.

What must be overcome is TRADITION and POPULARITY. Because Bach's style is more popular than Xenakis' does not mean it's "better to teach it first." That's an entirely different question. One has nothing to do with the other.

Fact of the matter is that the playing field is NOT even, it's NOT fair and it's slanted HEAVILY towards the ol' warhorses like Bach, Beethoven, Wagner, etc. There's a lot of pull in tradition here, a lot of pull in things which work AGAINST artistic freedom and making people realize that popularity is by no means a standard of artistic value or judgment.

THIS is something that institutions should work with, not "the work of the student" as you put it. If you think the work of the student is to fend off for himself, then you have no idea about education (no surprise there.) Your comment enraged me beyond help BECAUSE it demostrates SPECIALLY clear that you are NOT in favor of an "even playing field" for all styles, ideas, etc, but you want YOUR favourite styles to come FIRST and be "as important" as the others when in reality they are already suffocating EVERYTHING ELSE by virtue of tradition and popularity pull.

I'm not sure how many concerts you've organized, how many other composers you've worked with but for me it's always an uphill battle to get people to open up their minds to different things than what is "comfortable" and "traditional." This MUST start at the educational process and the reason is that you must teach people to open up their minds, to learn about things.

Your position seems to be that it's okay for people to pay large sums of money to become educated to appreciate music that has little to no audience otherwise so that composers like yourself are ensured that such an audience for this music will exist.

My position is that it's OK to pay large sums of money TO LEARN ABOUT ART. Not your favourite type of art, I mean ALL types of art, regardless if they're POPULAR or HAVE AN AUDIENCE.

Where did you study didactic and pedagogy? I'm serious, what the hell? Did you learn ANYTHING? AT ALL?

If this were the case, if it was likely a majority position held by most people or even a minority position held by some, this would be reflected even in the activity here on this forum.

The problem is, when it comes down to teaching composition, tonality takes a back seat to other methods - either in the interest or the knowledge of the instructors teaching composition.

Does it apply on the whole to each and EVERY university instructor? No (I never said it did - EVER!). I'm sure there are many out there who know what they are doing and keep their interests in music separated from their responsibilities to their students. But this is hardly the case, at least in America, for many institutions that have a proven reputation for discouraging the preference of tonality.

But what is a problem is where you find a lot of these instructors being hired from... many from universities that DO show this preference who then go on to teach at places that may encourage both. By then, it's a little late in the game to be questioning whether or not the person is qualified to teach tonal composition methods to composition students or even test their qualifications. After all, when the standard for higher-level masters and doctoral students is Modern Music, how many contemporary works show even remote interest in tonal method? I'd venture a little more than just a guess - not many at all.

It's not just a question of rhetoric - of what a particular instructor "says" s/he will do for students. It's about the commitment and the knowledge to back it up, and not to impune the careers of many a college professor, but I've known some OUTSTANDING composition instructors who just could not hack it TEACHING tonal method who admitted as much in private when questioned about it. Others said they could do it, but that wasn't the goal of the curriculum so it wouldn't be possible to focus time and attention mostly to it. Others said they would teach the method, but then it was just that... ONE METHOD... out of likely many, many methods.

One composition instructor I had who actually gave me a break and went "against the mold" was an adjunct at the time. When the head of the composition faculty learned that I was getting some instruction on tonal composition method (we had two lessons on it, tops!), he was given some harsh treatment by his colleagues and told he should not continue to encourage it. He did not keep his job (I found out later after graduating), and I have to wonder if it was, at least in part, because of me. GOD I hope not. He wasn't the best teacher I ever had, but he was the most resourceful and like-minded instructor I have encountered in my academic career.

So, I think it's a bit too deep to be a "non-issue". After you consider all the factors involved (I'm sure there are more than I have mentioned here), it's not so clear cut.

A good composition teacher shouldn't try and press any method or system onto you. I've never had a teacher like that, fortunately. My first comp teacher exposed me to many 20th century styles, and since he was also my piano teacher, we explored music from Bach up to the present day and discussed form, harmony, melody, etc.

If your comp teacher is forbidding you to use certain techniques... then get out! Although, sometimes we are just stuck with what we are dealt. In that case even a teacher shouldn't be able to boss you around.

^^

Those guys said it better than I...no need to restate the obvious. SO, I present the abridged version: AA - you're way off base, your professors sucked.

Schools have a proven reputation for discouraging tonality? Bullshit.

I'm not even going to address the ridiculous "former professor who got fired because he taught me to write tonal music" story...

I'll ignore the insulting remarks and try to stick wholly to the argument you make.

Tonality (be it pop-music type or function harmony type) is taught MUCH MORE than ANY other system, method, and the people play the pieces of tonal composers (historically speaking) much more than anyone else. There must be a balance to compensate for tradition overrunning everything unless we don't want to give all other styles, techniques and ideas an even playing field...

Tonality is taught HOW?! In Theory?!? Please! Even theory curricula today are more balanced than composition curricula. They have almost been forced to as well, even though the intrinsic artistic value of the more contemporary works still leave many to question just how important they are to the pedagogy. The value judgment there has less to do with quality than it does with, "Well, we need to move on..."

Really? You're a bit out of touch yourself!

What must be overcome is TRADITION and POPULARITY. Because Bach's style is more popular than Xenakis' does not mean it's "better to teach it first." That's an entirely different question. One has nothing to do with the other.

Fact of the matter is that the playing field is NOT even, it's NOT fair and it's slanted HEAVILY towards the ol' warhorses like Bach, Beethoven, Wagner, etc. There's a lot of pull in tradition here, a lot of pull in things which work AGAINST artistic freedom and making people realize that popularity is by no means a standard of artistic value or judgment.

Welcome to reality. Did Bach, Beethoven, or Wagner ever have to deal with the "unfairness" resulting from this issue of tradition and popularity? Of course! Their music stands the test of time because of the artistic value of their works. This, by no means, implies that at the time they were composing, the public mainstream was required to accept them or judge them to hold intrinsic artistic value.

Just because contemporary music SHOULD be made available to students doesn't mean they should have any more validity than the works that have stood the test of time because of the intrinsic, artistic value of their creation that kept them from falling by the wayside. There IS NO SUCH QUALITY JUDGMENT to be made for contemporary music because these works have not had to stand the test of time. Many of the works being added to the pedagogy were being added during the lifetimes of the composers. No other such qualitative measure has been more authoritative than that of TIME, and it's not a prediction that can be ascertained simply through some analytical procedure or quantitative measure. It just has to happen.

What you seek to remove from music, the "popularism" that should not play any role in the artistic value of a work, is not something that should be entirely discarded either. All factors should play a role in assessing the intrinsic value of art. The emphasis on popularity has certainly changed (which I agree with and think is a plus for you as well), but to do away with the significance of popular culture altogether is just unprecedented. Without struggle, there is no greatness!

THIS is something that institutions should work with, not "the work of the student" as you put it. If you think the work of the student is to fend off for himself, then you have no idea about education (no surprise there.) Your comment enraged me beyond help BECAUSE it demonstrates SPECIALLY clear that you are NOT in favor of an "even playing field" for all styles, ideas, etc, but you want YOUR favorite styles to come FIRST and be "as important" as the others when in reality they are already suffocating EVERYTHING ELSE by virtue of tradition and popularity pull.

I'm not sure how many concerts you've organized, how many other composers you've worked with but for me it's always an uphill battle to get people to open up their minds to different things than what is "comfortable" and "traditional." This MUST start at the educational process and the reason is that you must teach people to open up their minds, to learn about things.

NOT AT ALL. Not even in the ballpark.

You cannot take the position that "life's not fair and it should be" as justification for education's role in music composition. Should the study of modern styles be available to students? Absolutely! Should the study of tonal methods be available to students? Absolutely! Should universities facilitate access to all these methods? Absolutely!

Are universities facilitating the exchange of knowledge for students to explore all methods in all cases? No!

My position is that it's OK to pay large sums of money TO LEARN ABOUT ART. Not your favorite type of art, I mean ALL types of art, regardless if they're POPULAR or HAVE AN AUDIENCE.

Learn WHAT about art? That if it is popular or has an audience, you should look elsewhere?! At what point does knowledge overcome the interest of your ideology in this model?!? Short answer: it doesn't!

There is no realistic view here. You would not only have students learn about unpopular music, expect them to write it, and encourage them to learn more about it than they even know about tonal method - but what happens if this music becomes popular? What then? Are you going to advocate that people continue using modern methods when concerts are flooded with it? Are you always going to take an active stance on promoting the unpopular music, or are your interests solely on the promotion of modern methods? You certainly aren't too concerned about the availability of tonal method since the market is so flooded. Would you be concerned at all if the market was flooded with modern methods?

This is where your argument falls apart for me, where I just cannot agree with you at all. You accuse me of not using objective rationality. You forget that your own rationality is skewed by the environment with which you struggle. The University, to be truly abstracted from the musical environment of popular culture (if that is possible - I do not think it is) must be able to provide such instruction in all cases, independent from popular influence. This means that regardless of the situation, whether concerts are flooded with one style or another, the university facilitates and meets the needs of the student. Should the student choose to take part in the style which appears to be more popular, they should be just as encouraged to do so as the student who chooses to take part in the style that is less popular.

You disagree with this? Really? You honestly think it's the university's responsibility to emphasize the less popular simply because, by its lack of popularity in culture, it deserves more attention? I don't agree. It's the equivalent of affirmative action, at best.

That wasn't my argument. AGAIN, you misrepresent my statements and context.

Your statement in the previous thread:

My response:

Modern music should be taught ALONG SIDE music that is so well known. No bias should apply, popular or not!

Whether your position is stated accurately or not (it appears to be) is something you should address. But taking my rebuttal to your argument and twisting it to take more jabs at me and my opinions is just another example of your poor abilities to argue with any critical thought to support it.

Like I said, you have a low tolerance for critical thinking.

Any black grandmother would just beat the Jesuses out of you right now.

Of course! Their music stands the test of time because of the artistic value of their works.

Gotcha.

That's all I needed to see, I was wondering how long it'd take to make you say exactly that!

Test of time fallacy is one of the most hilarious and stupid things you can say in any debate or discourse of art, period. I'm personally a little offended you went there, but hey, you do what you can right?

PS: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html In case you don't know what I'm talking about.