An Article To pUt To Rest Discussions of "Tonality" and its Condition

Here is one of the best paragraphs:

Tonality as the blessing of compositional abundance; as the achievement of a perfect system of expression; as a pleasure that precedes knowledge—these three assumptions encapsulate some of our strongest feelings about the nature and power of music. Together, they support a broad musical discourse, and it is difficult to make an argument about music without relying on at least one of them for support. Their wide circulation creates the impression of essential truths: they are the ideas we cling to most tightly, in fear of the void that their absence would leave. Yet tonal progress remains, for all its power, based on assumptions that are flimsy and impermanent. We are not the privileged recipients of a gift from nature, but the victims of a recent hallucination.

Here is the link to the rest of the article

NewMusicBox

Amen! Preach it brother!

It looks like JT may have missed the point, yet again.

Justin - appreciate the support but did you read th entire article? It just supports one of my pet peeves that tonality and its development (specifically European common practice) is something "inborn" or "inherently superior". When approached and used in such a way it becomes a very elaborate illusion.

Now, the study and understanding of this is a great thing to do - but to make it superior to all else is creating false Gods from dust.

JT, read the last line.

Young and Lachenmann may renounce the freedom to define themselves through common categories, but they find a greater freedom instead: freedom from the 200-year-old nightmare of tonality that continues to haunt our music.

The link's dead, but tonality shouldn't be.

And I think western tonality IS inborn in the Culture of the West. It arose in the West, it has defined Western music for centuries. I think it's a totally legitimate concept that tonality is a fundamental part of western art music, and a safe assumption that most of us on this forum are a part of that tradition. And, if you listen to my music, I'm not totally on the "TONALITY!!!!LOL" bandwagon, but it's silly to say that continuation of tonality is a "flimsy hallucination" or "nightmare" that must be avoided.

And what the heck is with all the JT hatred; he hasn't said anything of note in this thread. Mods shouldn't be involved in such cliquishness and singling out :whistling:

And what the heck is with all the JT hatred; he hasn't said anything of note in this thread. Mods shouldn't be involved in such cliquishness and singling out :whistling:

There is no hatred. People simply believe he misunderstood the article seeing as how he has made many comments in the past in favor of common-practice tonality and has gone so far as to claim anything atonal isn't music. Well, not directly but it was more or less implied. Anyway, it seems more likely that he just misunderstood the article rather than had a sudden, very dramatic change of heart.

Young and Lachenmann may renounce the freedom to define themselves through common categories, but they find a greater freedom instead: freedom from the 200-year-old nightmare of tonality that continues to haunt our music.

Nice read.

Oh please.

Good article.

And Ferkung, God is Dead. Nietzsche claims that God is Dead in his "The Gay Science" (although it's become more popular from "Thus Spake Zarathustra"), in 1882. Yet, a lot of people still believe in God and still go to Church/Mosques whatever. Just because people keep doing it, that doesn't mean that it has a place in today's society. And that's what that article is saying, that it is a faulty hallucination to continue believing in God in a time where religion has no place.

Okay Ferk and Juji - the author actually is criticizing the concept of "TONAL PROGRESS". Despite the author's hyperbolic derisive remarks about tonality, he does not say use of older practices is worthless or should be discarded - read carefully his discussion about Lachenmann. He also DOES NOT say the study of common practice harmony is not worthwhile - he is neutral on that. His invective is against putting Western harmonic practices and conceptions of consonance/dissonance on a pedestal so high as to be worshipped. He also points out common practice harmony is a codification and analysis of procedures which themselves were NOT employed by most composers to "progress" music. That idea came later and, unfortunately, was then warped beyond recognition by foolish, powerful people.

Note, this is true for any musical system - if you say a piece is inherently superior because it is based on the "sound and acoustically natural laws" of the spectralist, serialist procedures you are guilty of the same error. One of the reasons for the rise of minimalism was such a development was happening with Schoenberg's and Webern's procedures.

His major complaint is when ideas are codified by man into an object of worship we suffer delusions of grandeur and superiority omnipotence.

And please people try to read into this a little more - unfortunately the author's hyperbole does muddy his sophisticated point.

My Humble Interpretation:

My take away from this article is that the discussion between tonal versus atonal should be less of a concern because we have now music, as an organisation of sound. The extended technique, may just be the last frontier for instruments because once you break free from that, it means you could just use anything that produces sound. You can even record any sound and organise them. We can see this in electronic music and we can see the expansion to more than 12 tones and much more palette of sound. So, do we even need to master the playing of musical instruments?

So, do we even need to master the playing of musical instruments?

This question assumes that because we are at least theoretically free from the tyranny of the musical past, we will all choose to exercise that freedom completely. That day may be coming, but not soon.

I also find it offensive that there are people like LaMotte Young who are so insistent upon personal freedom of expression that they would actually seek to cause pain to their listeners with high volume sound as part of the "experience" of their work. While it's true that the same effect is encountered if one is close enough to the speakers at a rock concert, it is the intent that bothers me.

Anway, it was an interesting article.

Coupling this article with http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/extract-translantion-theo-brandm-llers-article-composition-13134.html generates exactly the panorama that the actual academic world should pay attention to, yet a lot of it doesn't.

The article may be harsh, but quite honestly I think that's fine. Musicians are overall rather backwards compared to all the other arts (save maybe writing, maybe.)

I really have to ask, what is freedom if all we can do with it is say we have it? What the hell is the meaning of freedom if we can't use it?

Another distinction is that playing an instrument is more like a sport, while composing is more directly related to the creative process of art. In essence, they're very different things. You can compose without playing a single note, you can compose even if you're deaf.

Articles like these shouldn't be needed. We shouldn't be needing reminders that we don't live in the 18th century or wherever the comfort zone is and that just because we think X, forcing people to think X as well is not pedagogic, no matter how you dress it up as. This is art after all.

But special attention to this:

the assumption of structural consolidation

Like I said, I can't read the article, it comes up as "Safari can’t open the page “NewMusicBox because it can’t find the server “www.newmusicbox.org”.", so if I'm taking it out of context, for once it's not out of laziness or poor reading.

Juji: Sorry, I don't read philosophy pre-Pragmatists anymore; I can just as easily say Nietzsche is dead, and say that those who buy into his books are believing in a faulty hallucination.

CO: That's exactly my point -- we're writing in the realm of Western Art Music, what makes it "better" to study or create the music from a pluralistic perspective? That's the rub with pluralism, it still asserts one thing above all else.

J.Lee: The use of pain, violence, etc. in music is a problem with pure music; if you view the arts as inseparable from each other, and music as an experiential art, then to have music that is more conceptual or performance art than "music" would allow such works. (What piece is that by the way, I'm really poorly versed in LaMonte Young...)

J.Lee: The use of pain, violence, etc. in music is a problem with pure music; if you view the arts as inseparable from each other, and music as an experiential art, then to have music that is more conceptual or performance art than "music" would allow such works. (What piece is that by the way, I'm really poorly versed in LaMonte Young...)

I have no idea what works. I only know he did it because I did some reading about LaMont Young as background research for even being able to comprehend the argument being put forth in the article. All I know is that Young was apparently famous for this aspect of several of his works. What a way to become famous.

Ferk, I'd gladly cut and paste the text of the article for you here, but I believe it would be against board rules since it's a copyrighted piece. If I'm wrong about that, would a mod let me know, and I'll post it for Ferk?

I think linking to it would be fine, wouldn't it?

Re the pain issue: I sometimes think that anything with expressive value is useful for music. Whether or not this extends to inflicting physical pain on the listener, I doubt. Also, I sometimes think this, but often that 'anything expressive is good' argument doesn't hold water. It's a grey area ... I wouldn't have it any other way, either.

Lachenmann wants to render the body audible; Young wants to render sound corporeal. To this end, he turns his TriBeCa loft into a Dream House, to embody a "continuous" work that will "ultimately exist in time as a living organism with a life and tradition of its own." This work is a sustained chord of thirty-two sine waves, its harmonic construction and relationships defined in a 107-word title, The Base 9:7:4 Symmetry in Prime Time When Centered above and below The Lowest Term Primes in The Range 288 to 224 with The Addition of 279 and 261 in Which The Half of The Symmetric Division Mapped above and Including 288 Consists of The Powers of 2 Multiplied by The Primes within The Ranges of 144 to 128, 72 to 64 and 36 to 32 Which Are Symmetrical to Those Primes in Lowest Terms in The Half of The Symmetric Division Mapped below and Including 224 within The Ranges 126 to 112, 63 to 56 and 31.5 to 28 with The Addition of 119[/i']. The title doubles as a comprehensive, if esoteric, analysis—a tonal Kaballah.

La Monte Young amuses me. A 107 word title doubling as an analysis... does anyone else think this is a bit humorous?

What a silly discussion. "Tonality is treated like a religion..." blah blah blah. Give me a break. He's in New York, OF ALL PLACES, and he's whining about Tonality being treated as some epitaph of music. "Here lies tonality, created over two hundred years, now adored by all... nonsensically."

Really, the whole idea that tonality, in and of itself, is one large progressive body is partly true, as the approach to music then was deeply rooted in music traditions that built upon one another. Composers combined different styles to create truly unique and innovative results within the syntax of a common practice language until the 20th Century. Now composers are more concerned about creating their own style, Hell!, their own tradition. La Monte Young's work is a perfect example of a micro-pedagogy, complete from start to finish in terms of a work of music and analysis. Who cares about tradition when you can just go and create several of your own?

You know, I'm not against Young's method here. I think it's admirable to show this can be done, but it's just a sarcasm. Ness is just taking another approach to rationalizing the shift in musical philosophy by pointing the finger at proponents of traditional common-practice tonality - "They're the ones at fault because they wrote the discourse, they made the rules, and they automatically left 20th Century composers in the poo poos because of it." Bullocks! (Go write your book, SSC, but don't expect it to change any opinions of the "traditionalists" on this issue because it won't, sorry).

If you feel like you have to battle the "old war horses" and feel like blaming the traditionalists and their tonal doctrine, instead, why not try writing more appealing music? If it's really that important to you, that you be given the SAME respect in concert performances as Beethoven or Mozart, then write more appealing music consistent with what an audience expects to hear. Otherwise, SHUT UP! You don't get special treatment because you're a composer of "contemporary music." Beethoven had to drudge through the same swamp of mass appeal that contemporary composers have to battle with today. One thing is clear, you don't get special treatment because you write new music. Be sure and put THAT in your book, SSC, because that's obviously the most RIDICULOUS argument yet.

This whole discussion is silly. What a bunch of whining.

*Applauds!*

Justin: boo.

Antiatonality: I don't really like your posts. And I have one question to ask you: how many pieces in concerts have you seen by composers who have made their music considerably more "approachable" or "appealing" to an "Audience" (as Gardener puts it)? I have personally seen none. You say "Contemporary composers" shouldn't get any special treatment, but I say that it's a fact that "appealing composers" do not get any special treatment - they are just left to their small circles. And for your interest, these circles are usually smaller than the contemporary ones. I have seen a lot of ensembles and orchestras dedicated to performing contemporary music, but I have seen none dedicated in performing works by composers that have been made more appealing so that they get the same respect in the halls as Beethoven and Bach. For one, Birtwistle certainly doesn't make any such compromises, and he is respected in the halls. A lot. Same for Boulez, and a few other composers. Beethoven and Mozart are certainly not composers who became famous because they compromised with what their audiences considered "appealing".

And please do look forward to SSC's reply, because I'm sure he'll pwn you.

composerorganist: I am sorry, I misinterpreted the text because of a hasty reading. Your comment was very helpful, though, and now that I've re-read it I agree with you. And I found this quote most interesting: "If tonal progress is, in fact, a myth maintained by a tremendous act of will, is it possible to acknowledge its power without becoming its casualty?".

BTW, I had NEVER noticed how much Lachenmann and Young look alike :O

Juji: Sorry, I don't read philosophy pre-Pragmatists anymore; I can just as easily say Nietzsche is dead, and say that those who buy into his books are believing in a faulty hallucination.

nietzsche is a pragmatist down to he bottoms of his tortured mind.

actually the statement 'god is dead' is to pragmatism as milk is to ice cream :whistling:

God lives!

I don't think any assertions of God being living or dead (even if not meant literally) can be considered pragmatist.

I don't think any assertions of God being living or dead (even if not meant literally) can be considered pragmatist.

how is so?

you must understand concept 'god' in a very wide sense (which was nietzsche's intention) - as a thing europe has built its history on - morals, ethics and arts. god being dead means no universal morality system, no law in a strict sense and no responsibility to transcendent principle (which was legitimated by god as existence), which directly leads to pragmatism - i.e. every being acting morally just in pursue of his own personal happiness and benefit. it's no coincidence that pragmatism took rise when religion and eurocentrism was in decline. which was a job of nietzsche as well, as analyst and prophet of death of God, Man, Truth and Morality.

I'm glad someone has written an article to put to rest discussions on tonality.