Tonality's Purpose Today

Thank you Robin. You are often my beacon of hope on these forums for someone that will steer the conversation where it needs to go.

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.

I'm curious about this. Would it be correct to say that with serial process, "any resemblance to harmonies, functional or not, is purely coincidental" ? If that's the case, then wouldn't it mean that the concept of harmony is irrelevant in serial music, as a matter of definition?

I'm curious about this. Would it be correct to say that with serial process, "any resemblance to harmonies, functional or not, is purely coincidental" ? If that's the case, then wouldn't it mean that the concept of harmony is irrelevant in serial music, as a matter of definition?

No, it would not be correct.

Harmony, in this context, is the density of notes played simultaneously... it is not "functional" harmony in the sense of common practice harmony. In other words, one would not analyze it using the same defining characteristics.

For example, the four first notes of your series might constitute a "chord" which recurs in that form throughout the piece. It is not "irrelevant" when it is part of the compositional process.

You could take your series and play it as a series of 3 or 4 note chords. This wouldn't be "coincidental". It would be exactly what you have planned out.

The coincidence would be if it ALSO happened to sound like some sort of common practice harmonic progression. If it DID sound like a common practice progression, you would have to be aware that the process by which it came into existance was not the same as if it WERE common practice harmony.

One might be tempted to analyze that progression using "standard" chord symbols, but since the process by which those chords came into existance was not one of "harmonic progression", then that analysis would be, in a way, irrelevant. Without taking into consideration the originating tone-row, it is pointless to analyze serial music as though it were something else.

This is the issue which AA appears to be having difficulty grasping. You can call a cow a "duck" all you want, it still won't lay eggs for you.

"atonal" according to my Oxford dictionary means "not conforming to any system of keys or modes" - it doesn't mean "without notes" or "without sounds" or "without a system". One can argue that it isn't a good term but it is what is in use today, for better or worse.

The Berg violin concerto is almost entirely a serial tone row, 12-tone, composition, based on the tone row G, Bb, D, F#, A, C, E, G#, B, C#, Eb, F so it contains triads for G minor, D major, A minor, E major and then four notes of a whole tone scale. It has no key so it is atonal by the common meaning of the term. But it can suggest tonality (as in having a key) because of the presence of the triads.

Exactly what QCC says.

Analysis is done for the purpose of exploring what the composer intended (even if it's very difficult to do that).

Here's a lovely 12 tone series:

CEbGBDF#BbDbEFAG#

Break it in 4 3-series notes and you get:

CEbG (C minor)

BDF# (B minor)

BbDbE (Bb dim)

FAG# (non triadic, or if you prefer F maj/min)

It is a row and by no chance anyone will start going I VI I 64 V7 I or whatever simmilar. But, on the context of the row one could very well go: C minor, cluster, B minor, cluster, Bb dim, cluster, thin cluster, thick one, etc... They could very well have counterpoint based in 3rds or 5ths.

This would certainly sound consonant, with such nice intervals everywhere. But it wouldn't be tonal, not by a million, not by any stretch of any sense.

The matter of harmony is simply put in one word: COHERENCE! If you want to play it coincidencial, by all means do so, but make sure you do it all the way. If you want to follow a plan to follow the series, do so. If you want to add maj chords following the whole series, do so. It's composition, it's creativity.

In strictly serial concept all of the above would be irrelavent since serialism aims to bear little resemblance to 3rds, triadic chords, etc.

But as I said, it's composition, not following the rules! ;)

I'd like to play devil's advocate here. Just as serial music can be misconstrued as bearing functional harmonies, is it outside the realm of possibility that a piece bearing functional, albeit non-common practice harmonies, be misconstrued as serial? If classification of a piece depends on the knowledge of the creative process behind its conception, I'd say it's difficult to assess the functionality of 'harmonies' with absolute certainty. After all, a composer is not required to lay down all his cards - which is I think one of the most delightful privileges of being a composer.

On that, an interesting example is Elgar's Enigma Variations. The composer said that the set is based on a well-known tune, which nevertheless never reveals itself throughout the course of the work. Speculations still abound about the identity of the tune.

Not to argue or anything, but in German musicology Atonality is A: The formation of chords or vertical sound masses which do not conform to the 3rd-built chords and B: ignoring what "consonances" or "dissonances" are, so as to get only a concept of "sonance" going.

I think this is the best definition to set it apart, since you can have a tone center in something atonal, you can have all sorts of chord formations and what not, but if you are ignoring that 2nds and 7ths are dissonant (for example) and using them alongside the classical consonances you will most likely produce a whole different set of textures since you're not limited to an interval hierarchy (also explains why counterpoint becomes very, very important during the 20th century since most composers were working entirely with interval relationships.)

It's wrong to think that something is "atonal" because it has no functional harmony, for example. You only need to look at Bartok, Debussy, the early Schoenberg even. Likewise, you can't say something is atonal because it lacks a "tone center" because you can keep returning to C, for example, but the entire piece is being build on the above parameters you will never get a "tonal" sound to it.

But what shouldn't happen is defining atonality so that you have to put Wagner in the same bag as Schoenberg, for example. It's true that Wagner's music contains sections which are function-free, but the majority of his music DOES conform quite well to functional harmony despite these little sections. What happens is that the function-free sections keep winning more and more ground and by Schoenberg's early tonal compositions the "function free" sections are now the majority, with the function defined portions being in the minority.

Normally, the "leap into atonality" example is Schoenberg's Op.11 for piano, which contains the characteristics I previously described (chord formations not in 3rds, no traditional use of dissonance or consonance, etc.) But for other pieces he wrote previous to this DO conform, if only after thorough analysis, to the anatomy tonal pieces generally have.

Also important to remember at the time that nobody was telling Schoenberg "omg that's atonal." The whole thing seemed quite like a natural process if you were familiar with what tonality in it's most advanced state really sounded like back then. Schoenberg's early atonal pieces sound a whole lot like his late tonal pieces and this is also completely logical from a historical perspective.

From then on I guess everyone did their own thing (not that everyone was doing the same thing to begin with) some tried to distance themselves even further from tonality, others tried to approach it in different ways and in the end it's obvious we're all the better for it.

Anyways, that's what the general consensus here in Germany says about this, more or less. :x

PS: And what Penderecki does in the Threnody, or Ligeti in Atmospheres, etc, is defined as sound-mass composition which is neither tonal or atonal, haha. I think classifying it as something else is quite alright since the handling of the musical parameters and elements IS totally different than what comes before. Likewise, I think classifying by process isn't such a bad idea rather than trying to fit any piece to either tonal or atonal molds, it ignores a great deal about it and what the composer intended. I wouldn't put Stockhausen or Boulez' serial compositions under tonal or atonal terminologies, for example. Historically I'd have to call Berg atonal rather than serial, but it's due to the processes rather than if it sounds like X or Y for a second or two.

OH, don't get me started on Schnittke or Arvo P

AA - what about the music of the Futurists? Stockhausen's noise music? Cage's noise music? Electronic noise music (Musique concrete)? Any unpitched percussion music? Such music cannot be said to have a tonal system of any nature. I understand what you are trying to argue, but it's an argument of semantics, not of reality. I also disagree with the term "atonality" when applied to serial or systematized music, because it implies either 1) a lack of concrete organization (using "tonal" in reference to the system) or 2) a lack of concrete tone (using "tonal" as an adjective describing the definitive pitch present in the work), which is clearly false. I could apply "atonality" to graphic-score pieces, or to noise work, as I mentioned before. For serial music and other such music deemed "atonal," I prefer the word "non-tonal" or "post-tonal," in specific reference to the particular system of common-practice music (similarly, I would call early music "modal" or "pre-tonal" for the same reasons).

And your argument about Wagner is false. If anything, Wagner's deceptive resolutions and hyperfunctionality (that is, functionality that operates to such a degree that predictability is decreased) prove that he IS working within the common-practice system of tonality. Wagner walks the line, certainly, as does Mahler, and as did Schoenberg in his early work. But his fundamental idiom is still common-practice tonality, stretched. As with all systems, there is a tendency towards complexity over time, and it certainly holds true with tonality.

It's such a blurry line with Wagner, at least for me. There are elements within the harmony that are just obscure. For me, once the bubble is burst and you can't use "common-practice" harmonic analysis to get you to the answer, it's time to call it a game and move on. But, like you say, the fundamental idiom is the common harmony, mostly in his earlier operas of the Ring Cycle.

Gotta go to work. I'll edit this with more later.

If anything, Wagner's deceptive resolutions and hyperfunctionality (that is, functionality that operates to such a degree that predictability is decreased) prove that he IS working within the common-practice system of tonality.

That's exactly what I was thinking. It is exactly Wagner's playing with "harmonic deception" that shows us that he's in fact working in a system where there are functional relationships between harmonies and thus more expected and less expected progressions and resolutions. You rarely get such feelings of harmonic deception in Debussy's music, since the functional relationships are much less relevant in Debussy's music and you begin to hear the harmonies more as colours than as tensions. (In fact, I tend to hear lots of Sch

I would classify Schnittke as amazing... He fits quite snugly under this heading

QFT.

you can have a tone center in something atonal,

What is the German word for this system? I suspect that this definition of atonality is not universally recognized. The definition I'm more familiar with, and I think more useful, is stricter: atonal = without tonal center.

If tonal center is acceptable in atonality, then the difference between tonality and atonality is merely dissonance, as you alluded to.

AA, you are quite wrong here, for one simple reason: a "chord" is neither tonal nor atonal.

Without function (a chord leading to it, or a chord leading away from it), a chord alone does not identifiably belong to any system.

This is a common error beginners make.

So it is misunderstanding the "German" musicology if you are interpretting this on a single-chord-by-single-chord basis.

I'm sorry, but in this case, you really were badly taught. You can happily ignore that part of your education now, as it is quite irrelevant.

One cannot know whether something is tonal or not from a single chord. There are myriad processes which could account for the formation of any single mass of sound. With no antecedant and no consequant, it is quite impossible to do anything other than "assume".

I give you as an example, the opening of the "dissonant quartet" of mozart. Take any of those dissonant chords ALONE, and you would assume (wrongly) that they were from some non-common-practice piece. However, within the context of the actual piece, they can all be explained as passing dissonances (suspensions, appogiaturas, etc..).

PS, I doubt Hindemith would have ever considered himself "atonal", yet his music is not built on triads. There goes definition "A" out the window.

And most of the composers who write what they themselves consider "atonal" music are quite adamant about the control over consonance and dissonance, so the "B" section of your "definition" is erroneous as well.

You're really mixing a bunch of things together and coming to a faulty conclusion.

Not to argue or anything, but in German musicology Atonality is A: The formation of chords or vertical sound masses which do not conform to the 3rd-built chords and B: ignoring what "consonances" or "dissonances" are, so as to get only a concept of "sonance" going.

I think this is the best definition to set it apart, since you can have a tone center in something atonal, you can have all sorts of chord formations and what not, but if you are ignoring that 2nds and 7ths are dissonant (for example) and using them alongside the classical consonances you will most likely produce a whole different set of textures since you're not limited to an interval hierarchy (also explains why counterpoint becomes very, very important during the 20th century since most composers were working entirely with interval relationships.)

It's wrong to think that something is "atonal" because it has no functional harmony, for example. You only need to look at Bartok, Debussy, the early Schoenberg even. Likewise, you can't say something is atonal because it lacks a "tone center" because you can keep returning to C, for example, but the entire piece is being build on the above parameters you will never get a "tonal" sound to it.

That's exactly what I was thinking. It is exactly Wagner's playing with "harmonic deception" that shows us that he's in fact working in a system where there are functional relationships between harmonies and thus more expected and less expected progressions and resolutions. You rarely get such feelings of harmonic deception in Debussy's music, since the functional relationships are much less relevant in Debussy's music and you begin to hear the harmonies more as colours than as tensions. (In fact, I tend to hear lots of Sch

What is the German word for this system? I suspect that this definition of atonality is not universally recognized. The definition I'm more familiar with, and I think more useful, is stricter: atonal = without tonal center.

If tonal center is acceptable in atonality, then the difference between tonality and atonality is merely dissonance, as you alluded to.

Not really, the difference is not only in dissonance (under atonality there is no "dissonance" or "consonance" really, only "Sonance" as schoenberg named it,) but in the way intervals are used and how chords are built. Imagine the following, a pedal in C, and everything above that being only clusters, for example.

Is it "Tonal"? I wouldn't think it is, yet the center could as well be considered that C that keeps sounding all the time. That's one type of "center." There are other ways to do it too, but generally atonality is much more to do with intervals and chord construction rather than note centrality, which can happen in any style.

Worth noting that there's no "common practice" term in German, instead one speaks of "Durmolltonalit

Without function (a chord leading to it' date=' or a chord leading away from it), a chord alone does not identifiably belong to any system.

This is a common error beginners make.

So it is misunderstanding the "German" musicology if you are interpretting this on a single-chord-by-single-chord basis.

I'm sorry, but in this case, you really were badly taught. You can happily ignore that part of your education now, as it is quite irrelevant.[/quote']

Huh? Where did I say a single chord is functional? Function is always a matter of context, but context will always exist where there is musical organization. Consonance and dissonance, for example, will always be a factor that creates relationships among pitches, so it makes little sense not to do something with these relationships in serial or 12-tone music, functional or otherwise. What's the point of not doing something with a system if the purpose is to be an explorer, to advance our frontiers?

What contribution is being made to the tonality of the system you're using by ignoring these relationships? Discovery? Broader horizons? We have the potential for both already, we just need to figure out what to do with it.

This really assumes that the analytic technique we use is the only criteria to consider. As I hear Wagner's Tristan (and maybe some here might agree), I don't hear functionality or anything of the sort between the larger harmonic events. What's the point of analysis if we're going to say, "Because we can analyze it this way, that's just how it is...?"

I can analyze Wagner using Schenkerian reductive analysis. Does that mean Wagner used reductive methods to create the work? Does that mean the music creates the effect? Or does it mean that the composer, working within one idiom, was producing something recognizable to the listener at the time as "common" to the time period.

It's a very gray area because, yes, you can look at the principle at work and say Wagner was a "common practice" composer, but it really doesn't account for what most of us should be able to hear in late Wagner, especially the Tristan Prelude and Liebstod or Parsifal. Functionality was all but gone in the Tristan Prelude, as was form, the more distinct melodies, cadences all but gone (two cadential figures in the whole prelude), and development was far beyond what others were doing in the common practice. In a sense, Wagner turned the whole practice upside down. He simultaneously gives you almost infinite dominant preparation and synthesizes the common practice with non-functionality in music today.

But if you hear it differently, then fine. Analysis is one thing, but aural reinforcement is really where I base my opinion on the matter.

Yes, it all comes down to how one hears it in the end. I do in fact hear the Tristan Prelude or Parsifal functionally. And I'm certainly not saying "if you can analyse it functionally, then it is functional". Since technically, you can analyse pretty much anything functionally (even a series of clusters), it just may not be very useful or adequate. (Notice that I said: "Sometimes it becomes questionable whether traditional harmonic analysis is even adequate".) To me however, it is perfectly adequate for Wagner's music, even the late one. Take the Tristan chord for example. The special thing is not the chord in itself - the same chord already appears as early as Beethoven. The special thing is it's harmonic function in the context it appears in. (Which doesn't mean the function is clear and unambiguous.)

Concerning your last post: I really don't want to start a huge discussion about consonance and dissonance again - that's just another dead horse on these forums. But I'll just mention that consonance and dissonance are far from clearly defined universal relationships. Also, even if they were absolute principles, why does it make little sense not to make use of them? Common practice tonal music always treated certain tonal relationships with neglect, such as octavation/registration (in the sense of that a harmony is considered the same, no matter in which registers the notes are - except for the bass. Of course I'm not saying it doesn't matter to the CP music as a whole.) Or what about statistic distribution of pitches? This is also a factor that creates certain forms of tonal relationships, yet is largely disregarded by CP music. Or what about the spectral buildup of the tones? Generally it doesn't matter to CP music how strongly the seventh partial of a certain tone comes out or how harmonic the spectrum of a certain instrument is, even though these are acoustically very clear phenomenons. But exactly by disregarding elements such as these and concentrating on others (such as consonance/dissonance relationships) it became possible for composers to have a harmonic coherence on one side, while still having freedoms in their composition. You can say the very same for 12-tone music, or pretty much any other systematic approach.

And really, please stop with that stupid "if the only purpose is to be an explorer" crap. I've heard it tons of times from people who dislike "atonal" music as an argument against it, and frankly, it sounds like an insult to anyone who enjoys listening or writing this kind of music. I'm not expecting anyone to appreciate such music, but at least they should have the courtesy to accept that other people honestly and sincerely do. You said yourself you enjoy some "atonal" music. So why do you even ask "what's the point"? The point is that music in which consonance and dissonance doesn't matter sounds good to many people, including the composers who wrote it. That's all the purpose I need. (If you had asked "I do not understand why some people enjoy music without any consonance/dissonance relationship and I don't. Does anyone have an explanation for this?" I might have been inclined to go more into this.)

Yes, it all comes down to how one hears it in the end. I do in fact hear the Tristan Prelude or Parsifal functionally. And I'm certainly not saying "if you can analyse it functionally, then it is functional". Since technically, you can analyse pretty much anything functionally (even a series of clusters), it just may not be very useful or adequate. (Notice that I said: "Sometimes it becomes questionable whether traditional harmonic analysis is even adequate".) To me however, it is perfectly adequate for Wagner's music, even the late one. Take the Tristan chord for example. The special thing is not the chord in itself - the same chord already appears as early as Beethoven. The special thing is it's harmonic function in the context it appears in. (Which doesn't mean the function is clear and unambiguous.)

Adding to what you said: I think the importance of using function harmony to analyze it is not because "It's what is done" but because, simply put, it's what fits the historical context better. Therefore analyzing a bunch of clusters with function harmony as poor a decision as analyzing modal music or that comes either earlier or later than the major/minor tonality.

But it's not only about historical context, systems of analysis are helpful when they give meaning to musical decisions made. The function theory thing is not something that people conjured out of nowhere, it's filled with the sufficient information to understand and analyze things within the time-frame it's historically applicable in. It's not void of context and on the contrary if properly understood it gives quite good and reasonable explanations as to why composers of the pertinent periods did this or that.

It's not an end-all system, and already by Mozart there are sections which cannot be analyzed functionally, as there by Bach, but in these cases they are exceptions to the norm. There's a slow progression over the 18th and 19th century where the non-functional harmony areas kept winning more and more ground until we get to Schoenberg. But, that's not all there is to it, it doesn't boil down to simple harmony and we have to take into account voice-leading and techniques such as suspensions and passing notes, all of which makes analyzing what can be reduced to a simple triad a nightmare.

Wagner's famous chord isn't so interesting only because of the harmony, there's the chromatic movement, the avoiding of the tonic, the sequencing and the way by which very traditional phenomena were used to such an extreme degree that it blurs what otherwise is a very simple harmony.

PS: I already posted an analysis of it here:

http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/lesson-voce-analysis-history-counterpoint-harmony-15977.html#post247787

so I won't continue on with Wagner's chord, lol. Not much else to say.

PS2: Oh, I forget, generally when talking a piece's "label", stylistically, nobody around here bothers to make it always referential to "major/minor tonality." Like, if you said something was post-tonal people would look at you strange, as you can just call things by their given names (minimalism, music concrete, sound-mass composition, serial music, aleatory music, process music, bla bla bla) and that's quite fine. If it has elements from the major/minor tonality system, so what? This tonal-centric line of thinking is not something I've seen around here, since apparently nobody thinks they have to compare everything to major/minor tonality...

Oh brother....

"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"

The entire quote from wikipedia, just in case. Schoenberg was more of a fan of calling what is now called atonality (as well as the function-free harmony parts in Wagner, Liszt, etc) as "floating in tonality" (schwebende Tonalit

And really, please stop with that stupid "if the only purpose is to be an explorer" crap. I've heard it tons of times from people who dislike "atonal" music as an argument against it, and frankly, it sounds like an insult to anyone who enjoys listening or writing this kind of music. I'm not expecting anyone to appreciate such music, but at least they should have the courtesy to accept that other people honestly and sincerely do. You said yourself you enjoy some "atonal" music. So why do you even ask "what's the point"? The point is that music in which consonance and dissonance doesn't matter sounds good to many people, including the composers who wrote it. That's all the purpose I need. (If you had asked "I do not understand why some people enjoy music without any consonance/dissonance relationship and I don't. Does anyone have an explanation for this?" I might have been inclined to go more into this.)

I really don't mean to be offensive. Maybe my rewording of the post in question will help. Really, I was just restating this from earlier where it was mentioned:

I don't personally care for the music of Boulez' date=' 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?

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?[/quote']

So, if there's a better way to put it, then I suppose I could do that. Saying that I don't care for it is not what I mean, though. I am more in line with QC in this way that I look for the musicality in a composition - not necessarily interested in the system being used beyond what it is.

You know what.

I'm sure that if you go to www.buildyourownstuff.com and you try the thread "Manual hammers are useless", you'll come to the conclusion that they are not: It's just a loving tool!

Why on earth is everyone discussing about TOOLS? What is SO IMPORTANT about them? WTF is wrong with using any tool you wish to end up with the result that YOU or YOUR CLIENT wants?

Jesus... This is SO tiresome. Everytime the same thing.

Dunno if this is 100% relevant, but the man has a very interesting perspective on music. An especially beautiful philosophy pertaining to math and music and the relationship and progression through/from tonality... Just throwing that out there:

Anthony Braxton on Chess, Math and Music

I hate these threads.

I never respond to them.

One of the previous statements is false.

The first? :P