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

I've performed contemporary works by such composers as Berlioz or Boulez.

:laugh:

The clear harmoniousness, and natural association with human emotion of tonal music does not exist in atonality.

Let me also remind you that atonality is not an "alternative" to tonality. Tonality is something that is artificial, atonality is more of a clear state than tonality is.

Yeah, I think there's a lot of atonal music that's very "emotional", and a lot that doesn't try to be. In any case, saying something has less association with emotion hardly means it's worse.

Atonal is not a style of music. It's not a method of writing music. It's just the absence of tonality.

I'm getting tired of people claiming "non-tonal music has no audience". Not having the audience Beethoven or Britney Spears have doesn't mean much. I go to a lot of concerts of contemporary, not traditionally tonal music and as long as they are organized well, the concert halls get easily filled with people and you have to be early to still get a good seat (or even a seat at all). Just try getting tickets for a festival like Donaueschingen if you're not very early. That's a lot more than most composers of the past centuries had during their time. And when "aged stars" of contemporary classical music such as Pierre Henry, Henze, Carter, Boulez etc. appear in a concert, they get standing ovations by huge crowds just for being there. I don't think that ever happened to Bach.

I'm not saying that non-tonal music has no audience, though. I'm saying that the audience that exists for the classical, common-practice, tonal music concerts generally doesn't pay to hear contemporary, non-tonal works on the same concert. And many of the orchestras out there where it's difficult to get new music performed that aren't programming as many contemporary works have a reason for not doing it. You don't just walk in off the street, hand them a score of some cerebral, non-tonal music and automatically expect these groups to program your work. Blaming the tonal language or the way it is offered to composition students and musicians is just a blatant attempt to undermine the reality that certain audiences have preferences of what they expect to hear when they pay to attend a concert.

Sure, there are festivals and other offerings specifically for contemporary composers. There are celebrities like Carter or Boulez that appear at these events and get wild ovations. But it's certainly not a phenomenon that exists across the creek on the more traditional side of music. And likewise, the contemporary tonal composers today will get some of the same wild ovations at the concerts where their works are performed. John Adams or David Del Tredici are two good examples of composers who are wildly applauded in concert halls, and both these composers write... tonal music. Should they expect the same, wild applause at the Donaueschingen? Probably not.

But all these composers had to work to get where they are, take criticisms well, overcome performance obstacles, and find an audience for their works. If you want to get more performance opportunities as a non-tonal composer, write tonal music in addition to what you're doing. Otherwise, stop complaining when your work sometimes isn't programmed or otherwise recognized by the larger music community because you've chosen not to embrace the traditions that got all of us here. I have no pity for the positions of people like Ness, who blame the way tonality is taught as a basis for why tonal works are given some sort of "privilege" over non-tonal works. It's meaningless drivel, and people who buy into it lock, stock, and barrel don't stop to ask why some groups won't program their non-tonal works. They'd rather adopt positions like Mr. Ness's and pass the blame onto another group of people.

Let me also remind you that atonality is not an "alternative" to tonality. Tonality is something that is artificial, atonality is more of a clear state than tonality is.

Ok. THAT is about the most bogus statement made yet! Please think before you write, if you can.

Contemporary ≠ atonal.

Cripes, is it 1950 again and the post-it about it left on my screen lost its glue?

oh. here it is.

Ok. THAT is about the most bogus statement made yet! Please think before you write, if you can.

Actually, no. THIS is:

Guys, it goes like this:

Tonality is the height of all music. As a result, audiences love tonal works. Write tonal works. Period.

:whistling: I suggest you follow your own advice.

Contemporary ≠ atonal.

Cripes, is it 1950 again and the post-it about it left on my screen lost its glue?

Agreed. Contemporary music, ironically, is majority tonal these days. Look at the output on this site for example. The majority is tonal music; that which is atonal is either an "experiemet" or written by older composers still stuck in the 1950s.

Woah woah, now I wouldn't call a lot of the new music I hear to be tonal either.

And I wouldn't call this site in ANY way representative (moreso because I'm ignorant than because it's not, though I suspect it's not...)

/me is proudly "stuck 30-50 years before he was born."

... right...

Let me also remind you that atonality is not an "alternative" to tonality. Tonality is something that is artificial, atonality is more of a clear state than tonality is.

It depends on how you are qualifying artificial. Any procedure of sound manipulation creates artificiality. The real question is what qualifies as "more" artificial. Tonality is a template for composers to intuitively create (assuming they have good ear training) without using procedural methods like math to produce a work. Atonality is more rooted in the mathematical process of creating relationships among different sonorities. What is the more artificial process? The humanistic, intuitive process, or the mathematically-based process?

This pendulum swings both ways. You're making a very un-intelligent argument here, and you should redefine what makes one artificial while the other less artificial. In truth, both are EQUALLY artificial given the nature of artificiality.

Agreed. Contemporary music, ironically, is majority tonal these days. Look at the output on this site for example. The majority is tonal music; that which is atonal is either an "experiemet" or written by older composers still stuck in the 1950s.

This site really isn't representative of what is happening in Contemporary music today. The site is called YOUNG composers. Most of us have not reached a fully matured style yet. Generally, it is easier for an immature composer to write a decent common-practice work than a decent harmonically complex/atonal one so some people are prone to use it as a crutch.

Woah woah, now I wouldn't call a lot of the new music I hear to be tonal either.

And I wouldn't call this site in ANY way representative (moreso because I'm ignorant than because it's not, though I suspect it's not...)

/me is proudly "stuck 30-50 years before he was born."

... right...

Fine. This site isn't representitive. Whatever.

But that still doesn't negate the fact that new music today IS tonal music. And I'm not talking about stuff by big hitters like Adams or Corigliano and stuff. I'm talking about new music by the new generation of composers which have embraced post-modernist thinking. Modernism is dead in new music today. It has been replaced by the neo-romantic movement that has made serious strides in the last 15 years or so. Just now is it beginning to get some popular attention. And who was the first true neo-romantic? I'd hate to say it, but John Williams. Be brought romanticism back to the mainstream and ever since young composers have wanted to write tonally. Those that write atonal works were taught to like them. I was taught it too, and firmly rejected it because they are not consistent with good music. How does atonality present muisc that is "pleasing" to the ear? It's a bunch of disorganized mush.

This site really isn't representative of what is happening in Contemporary music today. The site is called YOUNG composers. Most of us have not reached a fully matured style yet. Generally, it is easier for an immature composer to write a decent common-practice work than a decent harmonically complex/atonal one so some people are prone to use it as a crutch.

So atonal is harder to write than tonal? One would think the removal of heiarchy between tones would make it easier, if anything.

Fine. This site isn't representitive. Whatever.

But that still doesn't negate the fact that new music today IS tonal music. And I'm not talking about stuff by big hitters like Adams or Corigliano and stuff. I'm talking about new music by the new generation of composers which have embraced post-modernist thinking. Modernism is dead in new music today. It has been replaced by the neo-romantic movement that has made serious strides in the last 15 years or so. Just now is it beginning to get some popular attention. And who was the first true neo-romantic? I'd hate to say it, but John Williams. Be brought romanticism back to the mainstream and ever since young composers have wanted to write tonally. Those that write atonal works were taught to like them. I was taught it too, and firmly rejected it because they are not consistent with good music. How does atonality present muisc that is "pleasing" to the ear? It's a bunch of disorganized mush.

At first I thought you were just trolling/joking. But the more you post, the more I wish to cry.

At first I thought you were just trolling/joking. But the more you post, the more I wish to cry.

Why? Because I represent the concensus of opinion? Unusual for me, I know. :)

Modernism is dead in new music today.

I agree.

Those that write atonal works were taught to like them.

As opposed to those who like... tonal works? Or indian music?

It has been replaced by the neo-romantic movement that has made serious strides in the last 15 years or so. [...] And who was the first true neo-romantic? I'd hate to say it, but John Williams. [...] [atonality] is a bunch of disorganized mush.

I disagree. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. And I'd rather not waste my time with someone who doesn't even have the slightest clue about a topic as sophisticated as that.

Generally, it is easier for an immature composer to write a decent common-practice work than a decent harmonically complex/atonal one so some people are prone to use it as a crutch.

This is, what I call, a very stupid generalization. A composer will use tonality because it fits what they want to create, not as a crutch. If they want to write a complex, atonal work, then they can just as easily be construed as using THAT as a crutch. I dunno, Nirvana, if you write tonal music because you're afraid you're not mature enough to write a complex atonal work, that's a problem uniquely your own.

Sorry. :(

So atonal is harder to write than tonal? One would think the removal of heiarchy between tones would make it easier, if anything.

There is the added importance of creating relationships which tonality already does for a composer. At least subjectively, there is more difficulty in writing an atonal work that is truly convincing as a representation of the qualities that go into a work of music. Writing just "whatever you want" is more indicative of an immature atonal composer. Sitting down with the intent to create a quality piece of music using the atonal system and other methods takes a LOT more effort.

As opposed to those who like... tonal works? Or indian music?

People aren't really taught to like tonality, though, or most other forms of music. They're taught to appreciate them. There's a difference.

Why? Because I represent the concensus of opinion? Unusual for me, I know.

You don't represent the concensus opinion. I think you're the only one here arguing that tonality is BETTER than any other classification of music. I disagree.

But I do think advocating for tonality today is absolutely necessary if any of it is going to continue being taught. Until a more solid understanding of new styles and techniques presents itself, tonality is by far the most well-understood, prolific form of music in Western Culture. When other forms prove to be not only more dominant but also yield a much larger understanding of music (beyond the philosophical rhetoric surrounding 1950's Avant Garde), then I'm all for it. Contemporary music is, by and large, a melting pot. There is no cohesively informative body of knowledge that has proven to offer a more solid understanding of the development of music except the literature of the tonal language.

Personally, I'd like for music theory curricula to start with the application of mathematics to music and work backwards in history to make the connections to the past more familiar to others. The complexity of newer works notwithstanding, it would certainly create a different knowledge-base for composers to understand that tonality is just as important to music today as it ever was in the past. People can make their own judgments from there. It's just a case of providing the appropriate perspective (looking back rather than progressing forward) in the attempt to enhance the understanding of young composers.

I disagree. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

Then refute the argument. Don't just say I'm wrong! Provide backup.

This is, what I call, a very stupid generalization. A composer will use tonality because it fits what they want to create, not as a crutch. If they want to write a complex, atonal work, then they can just as easily be construed as using THAT as a crutch. I dunno, Nirvana, if you write tonal music because you're afraid you're not mature enough to write a complex atonal work, that's a problem uniquely your own.

Sorry. :(

Actually, I do regret saying that. I meant it much less harsh than how I worded it. Consider that statement withdrawn. ;)

Then refute the argument. Don't just say I'm wrong! Provide backup.

You amuse me. And everyone else in this forum, unfortunately.

Refute what argument? An argument is a statement with some kind of evidence/proof/support/facts, none of which you have provided. Thus it is not an argument, it is a claim. And I am not going to try and prove wrong a groundless claim made by a blatantly ignorant, immature teenager such as yourself, who does not only refuse to acknowledge the fact that he is ignorant, but continues to write meaningless things claiming that they are facts while in fact they are nothing more than merely misinformed thoughts, made into opinion.

Grow up.

Then refute the argument. Don't just say I'm wrong! Provide backup.

Berg, Schoenberg, and Webern all wrote HIGHLY structured music. The whole 12-tone system was invented was a means of ORGANIZATION. You may not like it and that's fine (I don't much care for the latter two myself) but to call it "disorganized mush" is clearly a statement made in ignorance. Or try Scriabin. All of his late piano sonatas are atonal (or at least not traditionally tonal) and they all follow classic sonata-allegro form. I'll be damned if Scriabin is "disorganized mush".

This is, what I call, a very stupid generalization. A composer will use tonality because it fits what they want to create, not as a crutch. If they want to write a complex, atonal work, then they can just as easily be construed as using THAT as a crutch. I dunno, Nirvana, if you write tonal music because you're afraid you're not mature enough to write a complex atonal work, that's a problem uniquely your own.

WRONG!

Lots of composers use tonality for a crutch in the early stages. I know lots of them. I have done (and still do) myself.

That, OBVIOUSLY, does not mean every use of tonality is as a crutch.

Tokke: every single point you've made here has been totally ridiculous. I think we need some explanations from *you*, rather than from the rest of the sane world.

Writing non-tonally is much harder, in my experience. The system of tonality provides a pre-made structure, within which working is fairly straight-forward. When you have to think about *every* note you write, and how to organise it within an harmonic plane and overall pallete, and try to have an overall harmonic progression and structure to the piece, it is *MUCH* harder without tonality. In my experience.

That said, I'm not an advocate of serialism, but free atonality is useful.

Tokke: every single point you've made here has been totally ridiculous. I think we need some explanations from *you*, rather than from the rest of the sane world.

I love how everyone says that I'm ridiculous and yet don't bother to give any evidence to their side. At least when we all debated religion, people stood up for something and actually argued rather than just ranted back and forth saying "Your Wrong!"

But that still doesn't negate the fact that new music today IS tonal music. And I'm not talking about stuff by big hitters like Adams or Corigliano and stuff. I'm talking about new music by the new generation of composers which have embraced post-modernist thinking. Modernism is dead in new music today. [juji has this one] Those that write atonal works were taught to like them. I was taught it too, and firmly rejected it because they are not consistent with good music. How does atonality present muisc that is "pleasing" to the ear? It's a bunch of disorganized mush.

To the first part: Who? I'm not disagreeing (yet), but who? I see your point, sort of, with jazz music, but I'm not familiar with new classical.

To the second part: Try again. You're saying that I was taught to like music I had not been exposed to beyond in a textbook? That the masses of listeners of extreme metal are simply taught to have those sounds trigger positive reactions? That Coltrane was taught to like increasingly abstract music by Miles (who abhorred abstractness), or Dizzy (whose music was far from abstract).

Unless you're talking about culture, but then the exact same could be said of tonality: you were "taught" to like it.

Writing non-tonally is much harder, in my experience. The system of tonality provides a pre-made structure, within which working is fairly straight-forward. When you have to think about *every* note you write, and how to organise it within an harmonic plane and overall pallete, and try to have an overall harmonic progression and structure to the piece, it is *MUCH* harder without tonality. In my experience.

That said, I'm not an advocate of serialism, but free atonality is useful.

Blech. You have to think about *every* note whether you write tonally or atonally (as if that split were real).

Ok, simply because you don't appear to be a troll, I'll actually spend some of my time and hopefully I'll help you see how you've been ridiculous in your approach to presenting your opinion in this topic.

Here's some "evidence" against your "claims":

Tonality has survived longer than any other form of musical expression. There has also been more tonal music written than any other.

I am afraid that "tonality" as we know it lasted a bit more than 300 years. That's a very short time span from the time we know the first instrument was made (about 10,000 bc) to today. And if you dare look at the amount of music written in the last 100 years, including the music before "tonality", I would say that most music written is in fact, non tonal. Furthermore, the concept of "tonality" itself changes in time. Monteverdi's "tonality" (or "modality") is different than Bach's, which is different than Mozart's, which is different than Brahms', which is different than Scriabin's, which is different than Berg's, which is different than John Adams', which is different than Laurence Crane's. So which "tonality" are we talking about?

I'd say 90% of all concert programs today consist of tonal works, especially the classic tonal works, i.e. not the border-line tonal works of the turn of the century.

I challenge you to find me ONE concert that is not dedicated to a particular composer/era or by an ensemble dedicated to a particular composer/era, that does NOT contain at LEAST one piece by a 20th/21st century composer, whether that is Bartok, Schoenberg, Shostakovich, Boulez, Messiaen, Birtwistle or whatever. Because I have personally been to none such concert.

Being a composer, one must make money to survive. The only way to make money (being solely a composer) is to appeal to the audience's needs.

Birtwistle, Boulez, Stockhausen, Ligeti, Xenakis, Laurence Crane, Elliot Carter, Paul Whitty - they all don't "appeal to the audience's needs". Yet they make a living out of composing.

Indeed sound it not an entity, but music is. Music is the organization of sound to be pleasing to the ear. We're talking about music here, not sound in general.

Sound is an entity. Sound is waves, transferred in media such as water, air, or solids. Music is not an entity. Music is a concept, it's organised sound in time/space. What is pleasing to the ear is totally subjective, apart from some (perhaps) biologically predispositions we have, like not liking really high-pitched sounds, or really really loud and sharp sounds. I assure you most contemporary music sounds nothing like that. And if we are talking about music, we are talking about sound. Music is all about sounds. Music IS sounds, and that's a de facto definition.

So atonal is harder to write than tonal? One would think the removal of heiarchy between tones would make it easier, if anything.

Just as 1900 says in the movie "The Legend of 1900", "the piano has 81 keys. Within those keys, I can play infinitely much music. If you gave me a piano with infinite keys, I wouldn't be able to play any music at all."

The more freedom you have, the more responsibility you have. The more constrained you are, the easier it is to produce a result that will conform to the restrains.

But that still doesn't negate the fact that new music today IS tonal music.

Wrong. Again, it all depends on your definition of "tonal", because John Adams' music is "tonal", and so is Laurence Crane's, but they are not in any way "tonal" in the way Mozart's music is. And I doubt I'll hear a lot of works in the style of Mozart played in a "contemporary concert". Have you?

It has been replaced by the neo-romantic movement that has made serious strides in the last 15 years or so.

Um, wrong again. "Neo-romanticism" is simply a label applied to the small number of composers who have returned to writing in a more romantic idiom, yet still contemporary. Take Penderecki's later works. Take some of Rihm's works (like his "Mit Geschlossen Mund", among others). They are "neo-romantic". John Williams' works are not "neo-romantic". They are mere compositions "in the style of" (and in fact, a lot of it sounds like Holst, Sibelius and a few others), most of which are composed for the purpose of dressing a commercial (usually Hollywood) film in nice, cozy music that the people will have little trouble remembering, and will enhance their "emotional" approach of the movie by "enhancing" their emotions at the moment. Occasionally, use of leit-motifs might contribute to preparing moments, or having the music develop with the characters.

Don't confuse commercial music, which by definition is music that must be appealing to as many people as possible, thus has no interest in continuing a tradition in artistic music but only tries to sell. Thus, commercial music is TRYING to go by people's tastes, instead of SHAPING them, which is the case with all of classical music up to the beginning of the 20th century (with the invention of recording media, and the division between "popular" and "concert" musics).

And who was the first true neo-romantic? I'd hate to say it, but John Williams.

Nope. I would argue that the first "neo-romantics" would be people like Barber, Delius, Warlock, Hindemith, Vaughan-Williams, even Schoenberg. John Williams is simply a film composer, composing for money and composing music that is required to be liked by the people.

On the other hand, can you please provide evidence/proof/facts/support for these claims which you've made?

Tonality is the height of all music.

Tonality has survived longer than any other form of musical expression. There has also been more tonal music written than any other.

Ok. THAT is about the most bogus statement made yet! Please think before you write, if you can.

(in reply to my comment "Let me also remind you that atonality is not an "alternative" to tonality. Tonality is something that is artificial, atonality is more of a clear state than tonality is."

But that still doesn't negate the fact that new music today IS tonal music.

Why? Because I represent the concensus of opinion? Unusual for me, I know. :)

Also, prove that by representing the consensus of opinion you represent a fact, the truth or anything related to these. Otherwise, I'd like to redirect you to these links:

Fallacy: Appeal to Common Practice

Fallacy: Appeal to Belief

Fallacy: Appeal to Popularity

and maybe you'll learn something, but probably not.

These are my last 2c I'll spend on this thread. I have more important things to spend my time on, unless a miracle happens and suddenly you are enlightened and become normal-minded (as opposed to ridiculously narrow-minded and immature), in which case I am sure the rest of the members taking part in this thread will be eager to help you.

I feel really sorry for you.