Tonality's Purpose Today

My composition curriculum also left out common-practice harmony, for the simple reason that my theory classes taught it.

However, I did learn both 16th-century and 18th-century counterpoint in composition, first in the style of Renaissance and Baroque music, and then experimenting with its application to contemporary serial techniques - so I did learn the roots of tonality.

In my experience, what composition programs do is they PUSH contemporary and atonal music during early composition education to broaden students' aural experience, since the majority of the music students these days listen to is pop or common-practice. Then after a couple of years, they really slack off. I have been able to write tonal music for my degree recital (March 8, at 8 PM, for those of you willing to come to Oberlin...).

And the problem with saying that a certain type of music stands the test of time is that you are not taking into account individual proponents of the music. A mid-90s survey of students at Oberlin Conservatory, Juilliard, Peabody, and Curtis found that of all the music they played, approx. 80% was German. The remaining 20% was EVERYONE ELSE. When my composition teacher was at school, it was almost ALL German music. Hitler virtually erased Jewish German music. That's the reason why Mendelssohn isn't as well-known these days. Bach's work was forgotten for years, before scholars in the mid-1800s picked it up again. Gesualdo was also largely forgotten, until Stravinsky espoused his theories of chromaticism. The "test of time" doesn't exist, because fallible humans are doing the testing.

Well, to me the opening of the adagio movement of Barber's Piano Sonata is as "lullaby" as it gets.. so 12-tone can quite evidently express that sort of tenderness.

Likewise, there are incredibly tender sections in Berg's violin concerto.

Sure, but Berg was working within a tonal system (vaguely at least) with most of his linear content coming from 12-tone systems. Some of his harmonies may have been developed through the same 12-tone process, but there is a prominence of relationships among those harmonies that form anyway. There is logic at work in that piece similar to many tonal works. It is well-executed and very pleasant to listen to, but I also think the tonal system is in full swing, even though it doesn't sound like some common-practice work.

By the way, I do love the Berg Violin Concerto a great deal. I'm glad you brought it up. I think I'll put it in and give it another listen.

And just to clear something up here, you say

...that I don't personally believe account for every level of expression one would desire to create. That's just my personal belief, though.

and therein lies the rub with much of what you have written in this thread (and I suspect what might be raising SSC's ire as well).

Maybe I could source more of my material where it comes to making more factually accurate statements, but for the most part I'm highly interested in the opinions of others. I remember giving SSC a LOT of grief for doing nothing BUT citing sources and not providing a lick of original thought.

I dunno, I have enough on my plate right now. No time to really go and work up a thesis on this stuff, and really no need either when it comes to discussing this in an informal setting like this. This is relaxation time... not academic time. I just like discussing it, and I like to hear genuine thoughts from people (agreeable or not). Guess that's just the way I roll... I dunno.

I think you might need to step back a tiny bit from your stance. If all of your statements are tainted by "personal belief" then there is not much room for any sort of dialogue or discussion.

And yes, before you mention it by lengthily quoting my previous post... I DO have personal beliefs and opinions, but then again, I'm not the one making any sort of value judgment on non-tonal music. You are.

Well, yes and no. I'm certainly not sitting here chiming, "DEATH TO ATONALITY!!!!!" I mean, my membership name aside (which deserves a much longer explanation than I gave to the members here, because there is more to it than the Jazz story - that was just the catalyst that got me thinking :)), I'm perfectly capable of writing serial music, pointillist works, and I'm intrigued by the "soundpainting" thread. It's indulgence to me. I'm very serious when it comes to execution in a work. I get ahead of myself sometimes and even go so far as to say, "Hey, you could have executed that better," before assessing the whole work sometimes (like what happened in our little tiff way back when), but by and by, I just try to help in that regard because I feel that's where I got ripped off. I'm passionate about that.

I find compositions here (no offense to anyone posting them, sincerely sorry if this is offensive in any way to anyone) that are a testament to the state of music theory - that it has been made to just completely take over instruction of tonal writing. It gets worse though, because theory is making a sure-fire effort to incorporate more 20th Century concepts into the curricula in the third and fourth semesters. I think this is great. But Composition curricula don't appear to be picking up the slack or being held accountable for picking up where theory leaves off.

Please don't read this as an attack. I'm writing this right now, in a perfectly calm state, and in as conciliatory a tone as I possibly can. I'm just asking, as nicely as I possibly can, that you take a step back and consider the possibility that your personal bias might, in this particular case, be responsible for some of the friction in this thread.

There are obviously many people here who believe that non-tonal music has as much of a place in the world of music as tonal music.

I assure you I have no doubt in my mind of your intentions here. I'm sure my worldview is part of my frustration. I assure you that my glasses come off though, just not where it concerns my personal values.

Likewise, the simple fact that most of the people disagreeing with you have as wide a stylistic palette among them as could be imagined, should be an indicator to you that you MIGHT be off base with your assumptions regarding tonality/atonality.

I don't personally care for the music of Boulez, Carter and Xenakis... but that doesn't stop me from finding it intellectually stimulating and in a certain way inspiring as well. I still find myself wondering how I might incorporate some of those techniques into my own rather tonal-centric music, and even trying my hand at it where I believe it advances the cause of the music I am creating.

Shouldn't that be the goal of artists? Advancing frontiers, at whatever rate each of us is comfortable with?

Absolutely. I agree that advancing frontiers in music is a significant part of its growth. I don't think it is the only frontier to be reckoned, and I can see here later down your post that you don't either. That's good.

My position on tonality as a system rather than a language is more an offering than anything else.

It is essentially saying, "Look, you don't have to worry about tonality hindering your expression. It is a system that has been around for a long time that has helped other composers that sought to express themselves find a way to do it. And they succeeded. And not only did they succeed, but they made the system better in the process.

"Some composers didn't even try to use it. Some composers just plainly tried to avoid it altogether. But these composers all knew that their understanding of it improved their intuitive process in creating what they wanted to create."

That's the message I hope I am conveying, because that's really what it's all about for me.

There is great art being created by those who dare to travel the farthest reaches of avant-gardism. And likewise, there is great art being created by people who are slowly incorporating the advances of others into their own art. Not all of us are necessarily explorers of the "extreme" variety, but I always hope that all of us have at least a LITTLE bit of "explorer" in us.

A long time ago, European explorers went out and "discovered" Asia. They brought back spices and produce that were unknown to Europe at the time. What did the chefs of the period do with those spices and produce? They explored the potential for those new discoveries, adapted them to existing recipes, pushed the boundaries of the culinary arts... they didn't just ignore the new spices and produce in favour of what they had always prepared before. Nor did they reject all that had been prepared before in favour of the new foods!

There are those whose purpose in life is to explore.

There are those whose purpose in life is to integrate and create.

There is room for both.

There is need for both

Exploration without integration and creation? Does THAT have any real use?

Agreed, and well-stated.

@ Gardner, Christopher, & Bolanos: If you still want me to reply to your posts, please feel free to let me know. If my reply to QC doesn't answer your questions of me, or you feel you deserve more response from me than this, please just PM me and I'll edit the post.

I'm off to listen to more Berg.

Bolanos:

I was specifically referring to the Violin Concerto. It was a later work, it incorporated the tonal system, and that was all I was talking about. I wasn't making any broad statements about Berg's music from his entire career. I was responding to QC, who mentioned the Violin Concerto where I quoted him.

There are works of Berg's that I really don't care for as well, some incorporate the tonal system and some are purely serial. If there is any question as to my bias on this, let's just be clear that the criteria I base it on is not limited to the presence of triads or the use of scales, modes, and so forth. Moreover, I'm specifically interested in relationships, continuity, and execution in the works I like.

I generally find that a majority of the works (not all, mind you) also incorporate principles of the tonal system in some small or large way, just in case you wanted to know.

holy scraggy

actually, the Berg violin concerto does not "incorporate" any tonal processes, other than in the brief quote from Bach.

The whole thing is quite serial. He never breaks from serial technique, throughout the work. The illusion that the concerto is in any way tonal is brought about through the manner in which the tone-row is constructed.

At no point, however, is there any actual tonal centre, nor any harmonic process that is not directly attributable to serial technique.

Will somebody please kill this topic? Plzthnx

We use tonality. We use atonality. Give it a rest.

Thread over.

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

(:

(:

I guess I did really bad at that "not saying anything" bit this time, eh?

actually, the Berg violin concerto does not "incorporate" any tonal processes, other than in the brief quote from Bach.

No, I'm not referring to the quotation either.

The whole thing is quite serial. He never breaks from serial technique, throughout the work. The illusion that the concerto is in any way tonal is brought about through the manner in which the tone-row is constructed.

There's a gray area here that I'm talking about. The "illusion" you speak of is what I'm referencing here, and it's hardly an "illusion" at all. It's intentional and indicative of a tonal system at work. Is it the common practice tonality? No. Is it SOME kind of tonal system? I think so, and maybe you don't, or maybe you do but think calling it "tonal" implies a procedure or a language. That's where I am challenging the notion that "tonality" as a system is different than "language."

I think a Vin Diagram would demonstrate what I'm talking about a little better as well, but for right now just give me the benefit of the doubt for a moment. Tonality as a system, at least as I'm applying it from this standpoint, has certain characteristic traits that are identifiable within the language. Transposition, harmonic relationships, and just about anything else that comes from the tonal language is a trait of the tonal system. But, whereas the language is restrictive in the sense that it requires someone to work within the boundaries, the system is just the opposite.

Not only can the traits of the tonal system be used identifiably, they can also be manipulated to serve different purposes. It's not a catch-all kind of approach, but even still, just because one language is being used doesn't exclude the tonal system from being applied. Think of it in spheres of influence, where the gray area in the middle of serialism and tonality is being explained. That's where I'm going with this... if that's any clearer.

At no point, however, is there any actual tonal centre, nor any harmonic process that is not directly attributable to serial technique.

Serial technique has a "harmonic process?" Not trying to be sarcastic, but the whole development of serialism as a technique originated as an effort to do away with "harmonic process," more specifically functional harmony.

Do you mind explaining what you mean by that, QC? I really am curious by what you mean here...

Do you have a job in music AA? Hopefully not education.

Yes I do. Sound the bells and whistles!!! OH NOES!!!!

I instruct and do private lessons for percussionists. I also work in insurance.

Harmonic processes in 12-tone music: process whereby harmonic (ie: vertical) material is produced from material directly derived from the tone row

Harmonic process in tonal music: triadic (or other) structures derived from the mode (tonality), which are themselves organized within parameters delineating a hierarchy (ie: tonic, dominant, etc...).

In serial music, there IS harmony, it does not function in the same way as in tonal music. It is derived from the vertical placement of tone row elements. I'm certain you were taught this. The "illusion" of tonality in Berg's violin concerto derives from the very structure of his tone row, which is structured in such a way as to imply triadic relations.

If ANY of your teachers told you that the Berg Violin Concerto was "tonal", I can assure you, they were quite wrong. NONE of the harmonic processes (progressions) implied are derived from ANY sort of harmonic hierarchy, which is required for the music to be "tonal". ALL harmonic processes in the concerto are derived purely from serialist functions, ie: the notes of the tone row, played in strict sequence.

Therefore I stand by my (and countless others before me) analysis and statement that the Berg Violin Concerto, while "giving the illusion of tonal harmonic relationships" is devoid of any such tonal functions. ALL the harmonic processes in the piece are derived strictly from serialist procedure.

Do not let the "sound" of the concerto, or "fleeting aural references", push you to an erroneous deduction regarding the compositional processes involved in the creation of that work.

Harmonic processes in 12-tone music: process whereby harmonic (ie: vertical) material is produced from material directly derived from the tone row

Harmonic process in tonal music: triadic (or other) structures derived from the mode (tonality), which are themselves organized within parameters delineating a hierarchy (ie: tonic, dominant, etc...).

Within the language, yes, the heirarchy exists but is not necessary in order to create "tonality" today. We need to immediately do away with this notion that tonality=common-practice.

Jazz harmony is tonal. The language is jazz. The system is tonal.

Modal harmony is tonal. The language is modal. The system is tonal.

The criteria for tonality as we hear it today has changed. There is no such requirement for "dominant 7th to tonic" to create a tonality. Centricity is a tonal system, but it is not common-practice. It works the same way by creating relationships between pitches and intervals whereby one single pitch is established as the central pitch of the work (either by repetition or approach).

In serial music, there IS harmony, it does not function in the same way as in tonal music. It is derived from the vertical placement of tone row elements. I'm certain you were taught this. The "illusion" of tonality in Berg's violin concerto derives from the very structure of his tone row, which is structured in such a way as to imply triadic relations.

Correct. Hanson Analysis is the measure of dissonance between these harmonies as well. But this relationship doesn't negate the principle at work. The relationship is established around dissonance, not function. But the relationship is tonal in concept.

If ANY of your teachers told you that the Berg Violin Concerto was "tonal", I can assure you, they were quite wrong. NONE of the harmonic processes (progressions) implied are derived from ANY sort of harmonic hierarchy, which is required for the music to be "tonal". ALL harmonic processes in the concerto are derived purely from serialist functions, ie: the notes of the tone row, played in strict sequence.

None of my teachers have agreed on it one way or the other, actually. But none have hands down said that this understanding is purely "wrong" as you have, even the ones who would say as you do that the work is not tonal but rather serial, through and through. Procedurally, maybe. I wasn't there when Berg wrote it and neither were you. You are probably correct that the techniques used were serial, but who knows what was going on inside that man's head as he was writing it?

Therefore I stand by my (and countless others before me) analysis and statement that the Berg Violin Concerto, while "giving the illusion of tonal harmonic relationships" is devoid of any such tonal functions. ALL the harmonic processes in the piece are derived strictly from serialist procedure.

K... I hear the piece differently.

Do not let the "sound" of the concerto, or "fleeting aural references", push you to an erroneous deduction regarding the compositional processes involved in the creation of that work.

Compositional processes? No, intuitive processes are what I'm getting at... Berg's choices reflect the same intuitive process at work in tonal music, process or not.

Within the language, yes, the heirarchy exists but is not necessary in order to create "tonality" today. We need to immediately do away with this notion that tonality=common-practice.

Jazz harmony is tonal. The language is jazz. The system is tonal.

Modal harmony is tonal. The language is modal. The system is tonal.

The criteria for tonality as we hear it today has changed. There is no such requirement for "dominant 7th to tonic" to create a tonality. Centricity is a tonal system, but it is not common-practice. It works the same way by creating relationships between pitches and intervals whereby one single pitch is established as the central pitch of the work (either by repetition or approach).

I don't know what you're trying to say here, but it sound like gobbledygook to me.

jazz harmony has a hierarchy of traidic and chordal relationships.

Hierarchy of triadic relationships has nothing to do with common-practice harmony. I ahve no idea why you're even bringing that up. As I said in my post : "triadic (or other) structures".

Quartal music has a form of hierarchy. So does secundal harmony.

Modal music (of which tonal music is part) uses hierarchical relationships. No one here is saying that any single systematic application of any particular hierarchy is what "Defines" tonality. However, the presence of any for of harmonic hierarchy, whether loose or strict, is a tonal process.

I really see no point in continuing this discussion. Either you are truly clueless about the fundamentals of harmony, or you are being purposefully obtuse. Answer if you will. I quit.

Jazz harmony has a hierarchy of traidic and chordal relationships.

Are you speaking about progression/regression relationships in Jazz? What heirarchy are you referring to?

Hierarchy of triadic relationships has nothing to do with common-practice harmony. I have no idea why you're even bringing that up. As I said in my post : "triadic (or other) structures".

I assumed too much from your response. I apologize.

Quartal music has a form of hierarchy.

What is the heirarchy?

So does secundal harmony.

What is the heirarchy?

Modal music (of which tonal music is part) uses hierarchical relationships. No one here is saying that any single systematic application of any particular hierarchy is what "Defines" tonality. However, the presence of any form of harmonic hierarchy, whether loose or strict, is a tonal process.

That is what I'm saying, except I've not seen any heirarchy being necessary for a tonal relationship to exist. Mediant relationships, for example... what heirarchy applies? What is the standard harmonic progression/approach to such a relationship? More importantly, what is not a standard harmonic progression/approach to the relationship?

I really see no point in continuing this discussion. Either you are truly clueless about the fundamentals of harmony, or you are being purposefully obtuse. Answer if you will. I quit.

Well, I know the fundamentals of harmony, and I'm not trying to mislead you in the discussion with any unclear language. I thought I was being clear on where I apply this line of thought and how I account for it with the terminology you provided.

Are you serious? This has to be a joke, there's no other explanation. I've never met anyone who studied music that is as confused as you, aa

Really? Do you know the hierarchy QC is speaking of in quartal harmony? Secundal harmony (tone clusters)?

Hierarchy in the common-practice language is pretty complex. There is a tonic, a dominant, then predominant functionality. Chords come with a sort of "classification" attached to them, and approaching a predominant with a dominant or a tonic from a predominant is not allowed.

So, yeah, I am serious, I'm not joking, and I'm not confused. I'm actually requesting that QC explain what the hierarchy is that applies to quartal harmony and secundal harmony.

this is exactly what I'm talking about- both of these things are " allowed" (to discuss things in terms of the word "allowed" is also a problem, but I don't have time to go into this right now)... They are in fact very common.

No kidding, they're "allowed" now (more "common" would be a better way of putting it today), but at the time they were being used they were anything but "common".

Who was including these regressions from dominant to subdominant before Wagner? Who was regularly extending harmonies beyond the seventh before Beethoven?

Sure, there are going to be some name drops... a few... but by and by it was anything but common in the common-practice era to be using these types of progressions.

This goes all the way back to the very use of the tritone and even when the subdominent was considered dissonant (different tuning system, of course, but nonetheless). You should go back and read what I am saying, Bolanos. It's tempting to jump the gun on my statements and get all up in arms over it, but I know what I'm talking about. And my language cannot be any clearer.

From statements like this one it seems abundantly clear to me that you have never analyzed a piece of music.

I'm tempted to reply. I won't because I agreed not to be so heated in these discussions.

There is always hierarchy when using a modal system (which tertiary, quartal and secundal harmony all are).

There's no reason to "explain" to you the hierarchy, as there are as many sets of hierarchical systems as there are composers who have used these particular modal flavours.

You keep coming back to "common practice" rules, which have nothing to do with this discussion. And you grossly err by stating "rules" then using the "other than Wagner, etc..." excuse.

Wagner is common practice tonal harmony.

Hindemith is tonal harmony that is not common practice.

Hindemith wrote extensively about the hierarchical set-up of his particular harmonic palette.

P.S. secundal harmony is not "clusters". It might include cluster textures, but it is not as simple as you so off-handedly toss it off to be. There can be the exact same harmonic hierarchy in secundal harmony as in common practice if you so choose. Or you can establish whatever hierarchy you want.

I really don't undertand where you're going with all this. You're all over the map. One minute talking about contemporary tonality, the next sticking to an obstinate and strict definition of tonality as being common-practice, or worse, pre-common practice.

I suspect you are yourself more confused than anything else by all of this.

Based on my (very limited) understand of quartal/quintal harmony, the tonic is most "important", followed by fifths and fourths, followed by seconds and sevenths.

Late Wagner doesn't really fit into the common-practice period of harmony. Sure, his harmony is triadic, but the hierarchy really stopped being the driving force behind his progressions. His endless chain of dominant-of-dominant relationships rendered any functionality a moot point. His misdirection from expected resolutions and his obscurity of form are other notable examples of how there was nothing common about his music.

Hindemith based his harmonic hierarchy on the same consonance-dissonance-consonance relationship as the common-practice - accounting for chromaticism and a better way to analyze his music side by side with Bach. You'll need to clarify the point you're trying to make with Hindemith and Wagner, except if all you're trying to do is supply an example of common-practice vs contemporary tonality. I'll just have to assume as much and reply accordingly.

The example of both composers pertain more to tonality as a language than as a system. The term "tonality" originated with Francois-Joseph Fetis, who spoke in general terms of musical organization and multiple types de tonalites rather than a single system. I'm attempting to get back to the basics of musical organization, so to speak.

So, I am not talking about tonality as the term is more often used today to refer to Major-Minor tonality, diatonic tonality, common practice tonality, or functional tonality. I'm getting back to the origins of the term and taking the approach of defining musical organization in more detail. David Cope defines the three basic tenets of tonality as consonance, dissonance, and hierarchy. The most basic tenet of the three is relationship. How consonance relates to dissonance, how dissonance relates to consonance, and how the hierarchy forms within this relationship.

Fetis states as much:

"For the elements of music' date=' nature provides nothing but a multitude of tones differing in pitch, duration, and intensity by the greater or least degree...The conception of the relationships that exist among them is awakened in the intellect, and, by the action of sensitivity on the one hand, and will on the other, the mind coordinates the tones into different series, each of which corresponds to a particular class of emotions, sentiments, and ideas. Hence these series become various types of tonalities.

"But one will say, 'What is the principle behind these scales, and what, if not acoustic phenomena and the laws of mathematics, has set the order of their tones?' I respond that this principle is purely metaphysical [anthropological']. We conceive this order and the melodic and harmonic phenomena that spring from it out of our conformation and education."

The essence of tonality in Fetis' view is clearly not speaking to the importance of any one language or style, but rather to all elements of music and the relationships that exist among them which comes from the intellect. I speak of balance in the same sense that Fetis does, only I think of it not only in the sense of pitch but rather the idea that timbre, rhythm, and growth are just as essential to musical organization.

In effect, pitch content is not essential to the system itself. The essence of tonality is present in other styles, including serialism, which is evident in the relationship of consonance and dissonance in established harmonies of the row. Tonality's purpose, from this standpoint, is intellectual and not at all language-based. Tonality, for all practical purposes, is the intellectuality behind music no matter the style or language being used.

It continually amazes me that we are fortunate enough to be able to bicker about such insignificant things - what exactly is being argued here? I just don't know. To me this whole thread is about splitting hairs - with a musical twist.

It continually amazes me that we are fortunate enough to be able to bicker about such insignificant things - what exactly is being argued here? I just don't know. To me this whole thread is about splitting hairs - with a musical twist.

But then there are quotes like these:

"The word 'atonal' could only signify something entirely inconsistent with the nature of tone. . . . [T]o call any relation of tones atonal is just as farfetched as it would be to designate a relation of colors aspectral or acomplementary. There is no such antithesis."

-Arnold Schoenberg

And people get angry simply over the name I chose to use as a member on this forum. Nevermind the fact that anti-atonal just as easily refers to this argument (I think of it as "Schoenberg's Monster") by Schoenberg. The word "atonal" is entirely inconsistent with the nature of tone. You have to wonder why people take so much offense to my name. I sure do sometimes.

You have to wonder why people take so much offense to my name. I sure do sometimes.

Because there are some who take atonal music very seriously. I don't know if your screen-name is satirical, or rude, or just plain honest. I don't care...

If someone waltzed in here with the name "ihatejazz" or "tbonezR4pussies" I'd likely come at them guns blazing as well... Perhaps if you were a little less confrontational your encounters on here wouldn't be so loltastic.

:whistling:

My SN is just plain honest. I disagree with anyone who insists on saying "atonality" is a possibility in music.

Excellent...some civilized conversation.

My SN is just plain honest. I disagree with anyone who insists on saying "atonality" is a possibility.

Do you disagree because you feel "atonal" is simply a natural extension of "tonal" or do you think "atonal" to be un-natural and blasphemous?

[assume I haven't read any of your previous posts...because, honestly, I didn't]

Excellent...some civilized conversation.

Do you disagree because you feel "atonal" is simply a natural extension of "tonal" or do you think "atonal" to be un-natural and blasphemous?

[assume I haven't read any of your previous posts...because, honestly, I didn't]

I disagree with "atonal" because I think what we call "atonal" is, in reality, a tonality - a system of musical organization. I do not think "atonal" is blasphemous or un-natural. I prefer to call it what it is... serialism or 12-tone... because there is more specificity in relation to the system being used.

In short, I accept serialism and 12-tone. I accept every system of composition as valid and necessary, at least the ones I've been exposed to. I had some exposure to Eastern Asian musical style(s). My last composition professor was originally from Kaohsiung, Taiwan. I didn't get enough time to spend with her, but she is an outstanding composer and several of her works caught my interest early on. I wish I could have had more time with her. My last semester was a rush to get compositions written. I remember my comprehensive exam being particularly time consuming, and after writing a 10-movement, almost 20-minute work in four days' time (on top of what I was already composing for her, I put a 5':00" marimba piece together in a day's time), I was a bit spent on composing for the final two weeks of the semester.

Suffice it to say, as extreme as I have been here, in person and as a concert attendee, I might surprise you at how enthusiastic I can be about the 12-tone works I hear (free 12-tone as opposed to more strict Serialism). But I've also heard some pretty cool Serial works, so I don't write those off either. The electronic Serial pieces I've heard (the ones that don't hurt my ears from sheer volume) are pretty exciting to me as well.

A friend of mine at my last college said he completely understood me as conflicted in the sense that my passion for the discipline of music is at odds with my desire for indulgence. I think he put it well. Reactions to some of what I say is like night and day.

I disagree with "atonal" because I think what we call "atonal" is, in reality, a tonality - a system of musical organization. I do not think "atonal" is blasphemous or un-natural. I prefer to call it what it is... serialism or 12-tone... because there is more specificity in relation to the system being used.

Oh...Okay. Cool.

SO...it's really just a terminology / semantics issue.

Why didn't you just say so?

When trying to discuss such abstract and subjective things, the written word becomes clumsy and incomplete.

:)