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

I never said you were being disingenuous TO SCHOENBERG.

I take issue with your hair!

Hey, nice debating technique.

You said it, and now you're saying you didn't?

"Schoenberg hated the term "Atonality", so your quoting him in your signature and argument is disingenuous."

Wow. Just wow.

CAN someone please enable an Audio Preview function on YC?

Let me paraphrase:

"I never said oranges are horrible"

You said it, and now you're saying you didn't?

"Attacking oranges is horrible, so your quoting him in your signature and argument is horribble."

Wow. Just wow.

Wow. Just. Wow.

Daniel's hair is sexy... for the record.

You're right, it is.

I never said you were being disingenuous TO SCHOENBERG.

In making the argument and quoting Schoenberg, you're telling me I'm being disingenuous... to WHOM?

Oh, you mean I'm being disingenuous to the flying spaghetti monster? Sorry, I forgot about the FSM... I should have known he was lurking in the shadows.

First, a word of moderatorial warning:

If the tone of this discussion does not become quickly more civilized, the thread will be closed.

Second, while Sch

I'm sorry AA had such a rotten time with his university experience. I can only say that his experience does NOT reflect the majority of composition students' experiences.

Sadly, it does reflect the experiences of any students who draw inspiration from the likes of Wagner or most tonal composers pre-Debussy, if you want to just define the time when common-practice ended (which is fine by me).

I enjoyed learning about as many non-tonal means of composing as I could while I pursued my studies. It doesn't mean I need to enjoy them, nor employ them. But just KNOWING them and understanding them, gives me more material to work with, and expands my palette of colours, and opens up avenues to me that would NOT have been there had I refused to learn about them and insisted on closing my ears and mind to anything that was not "tonal".

I just hope you're not directing that at me and instead asking others to keep their minds and ears open. I'm sorry, but I didn't get much out of being required to write atonal music (my last semester of Masters, I was told in a composition lesson mid-semester that my work sounded 'too tonal'), or music that didn't inspire me at all. That's really what my experience was like, and please don't treat it like it's a one-time thing because it's not. It happens to everybody, but not all of them are happy with being herded like sheep into a 20th Century aesthetic, or prodded into abandoning one source of inspiration for a 20th Century source.

You're so special Antiatonality.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pfFRv_1XdDM

You're so special Antiatonality.

Group hug? No? Fine.

And as usual, AA misses the point completely.

We need a "whoosh" smiley just for these occassions.

Wow.. just... wow.

And as usual, AA misses the point completely.

No, I agree with your assessment of the tonal/atonal discussion. I actually agree with just about everything you said, which is why I didn't reply to it.

We need a "whoosh" smiley just for these occasions.

I don't agree with you bringing up my experience and making the claim that I'm "just a special case," but you're free to believe what you want where that is concerned. I felt I was robbed, sure. I'm of the opinion that any composer should be given access to and support for any of the styles that are inspirational sources to him/her. Take that away, and you cripple the composer. I don't think that's difficult to compute, but people seem to think that having an open mind or ear factors into this whole position I stand by when open-mindedness and inspiration are two completely different things.

So, if you are directing your previous comment at me (the one I quoted), then this is my response. Imagine that you gained your inspiration from John Corigliano or Dello Joio (I don't know if you did, honestly, but you mentioned them so let's use them in an example). How pissed would you be if you were paying money for private study and attending a university that supported professors telling their students not to use Corigliano or Dello Joio as inspiration for your work, use Handel or Bach instead. Notice I'm inverting the example to prove the point. It's an era issue, not a relevance issue. It's this insistence on being "new", "modern", "post-modern", "contemporary", or whatever you want to call it that's the problem. It's not even tonality that's at issue. But you've got people like Ness coming along and assigning artificiality to a previous time, and what's the purpose of this if not to undermine the very music of those time periods?

You tell me, QCC. What point am I missing, because from where I stand, you and I are the only ones that seem to be talking any sense here. I don't know how much of the conversation you've observed, or if you just stepped in when I reacted badly to being trolled by Juji. The whole discussion in this article, at least to me, is a regression in musical thought and attitude, not progress towards tolerance of every style. I am vehemently opposed to intolerance. You could say I'm intolerant of intolerance.

In other words, there are two definitions of "tonal" in music. There is music that is tonal by its adherence to the "rules" of common-practice, and there is music that is, in a wider sense, "tonal" through its use of an anchoring harmonic centre and a form of hierarchy of harmonic material.

The two above-described forms of "tonality" are quite different.

I also do not like the word "atonal". For one simple reason. It means "not tonal". But what is "not tonal"? Modal music is, strictly speaking, "not tonal"... it is modal. The music of Debussy is "not tonal" by common-practice standards.

If you require "tonal" to mean "diatonic", then it must de facto be common-practice.

It's so strange to read all this bickering and arguing over these two stupid terms.

In French we don't refer to music as a dichotomy of this sort. We (sadly still) use the term "atonale" to describe music that is "not tonal". We use the term "tonale" for music that is common-practice. And we use "tonale

You tell me, QCC. What point am I missing, because from where I stand, you and I are the only ones that seem to be talking any sense here. I don't know how much of the conversation you've observed, or if you just stepped in when I reacted badly to being trolled by Juji. The whole discussion in this article, at least to me, is a regression in musical thought and attitude, not progress towards tolerance of every style.

I take offense to this. In my response to several of your posts I have corrected your history of music and world history in general. Not just in depth history but more 'generalized history' - as QC has also done.

I'm not sure what college you received your Masters from - or what your degree major is - but surely you must be able to research things in depth prior to stating 'facts'.

And the only reason this thread really has gone into very negative territory is due to your reactions to other views - as I mentioned before. Stating that you and QC are the only one's making sense doesn't really further the public discourse, now does it?

I take offense to this. In my response to several of your posts I have corrected your history of music and world history in general. Not just in depth history but more 'generalized history' - as QC has also done.

I'm not sure what college you received your Masters from - or what your degree major is - but surely you must be able to research things in depth prior to stating 'facts'.

And the only reason this thread really has gone into very negative territory is due to your reactions to other views - as I mentioned before. Stating that you and QC are the only one's making sense doesn't really further the public discourse, now does it?

My apologies. I meant to say that in terms of discussing the OP itself, which is not what your post was doing when you were responding to me, QC and I were the only ones talking sense at this juncture of the discussion (where I haven't really seen much response from you other than refreshing my history). It probably would have been better for me to preface my explanation of "pre-500 years of counterpoint rules" with, "As I recall from a conversation with a professor, which may not be 100% accurate, it's 4:30 a.m., and I should probably try to get some sleep at some point so I'm just going to state as much as I can remember from this one conversation I had two years ago." Sorry for not doing that, but it's a web forum, not a dissertation in a room full of the academic elite.

I'm glad you responded to clarify and I do appreciate what you added to the discussion, if only to refresh my recollection. And the negative side of this discussion, for my part, was directed at those who criticized my position without understanding it. It turned from the article into a "tonal or atonal, which one is better?" discussion. Please take note of how I tried to stay on topic with the thread AND answer your pop quiz on the spot. Again, sorry for offending you by not being more clear about the issues I'm addressing and who I take issue with. It's certainly not you I take issue with.

My post wasn't necessarily a pop quiz but was, instead, a means at getting you to go into depth on your arguments - which is something needed, especially in this type of passionate discussion.

My post wasn't necessarily a pop quiz but was, instead, a means at getting you to go into depth on your arguments - which is something needed, especially in this type of passionate discussion.

Fair enough, and I understand your reasons for asking. The point I take issue with isn't tonality or atonality being any more superior than the other, though (something I think others are assuming from my responses). I certainly think depth to the argument is needed. I'd actually like to hear your position on this in more depth, honestly, given what you told me.

If you're more apt to align yourself with a similar opinion unto my own, then feel free to fill in any of the gaps like you've already done. I may not agree with all of it, but I think I can maintain civility on my end if that's what concerns you. Like I said, Juji's actions (trolling) and attitude towards me, not his opinions, are what I reacted negatively towards. I usually never agree 100% with anyone here, but like they say, "I'm special."

You tell me, QCC. What point am I missing, because from where I stand, you and I are the only ones that seem to be talking any sense here. I don't know how much of the conversation you've observed, or if you just stepped in when I reacted badly to being trolled by Juji. The whole discussion in this article, at least to me, is a regression in musical thought and attitude, not progress towards tolerance of every style.

This coming from someone who said atonality is (or is just like) poorly voiced jazz and also thinks that seriously music that "stands the test of time" have some magical & mysterious property that makes them objectively "superior" to anything he happens to think isn't superior.

Juji didn't troll you, you trolled him and this entire thread.

Side with the mod "we're the only ones making sense", bet that if he wasn't a mod you'd be saying the same scraggy sans that remark. Transparent B& fear is transpaaaaaarent.

PS: Not that I have something against siding with anyone, but it depends on WHY you're doing it. Good arguments I can understand, sure, but B& fear, lol, hilarious but sad.

:forlorn:

And if only I could respond to SSC without sacrificing the discussion... it's just not worth it.

:forlorn:

And if only I could respond to SSC without sacrificing the discussion... it's just not worth it.

The discussion died PAGES ago....let's see your rebuttal! ;)

:forlorn:

And if only I could respond to SSC without sacrificing the discussion... it's just not worth it.

What discussion?

You said it yourself, only you and QCC are apparently "making any sense." Who are you going to "discuss" with?

This is all going to and HAS already boiled down to yet another "let's try to explain goddamn terminology for the 10490598th time to people who simply ignore everything others post and always repeat the same'ol things over and over!"

Honestly I took you off ignore just to post this, but I don't read your "arguments" or posts as not to react like I'm doing now but hot dog how many times has it been now? Seriously? Is anyone even keeping count?

And, well, indeed, no real discussion has gone on for pages and pages of this thread. Only "SHOCK!! OUTRAGE!!! PEOPLE THINK DIFFERENTLY THAN I DO I MUST BE AGGRESSIVE!! ON THE INTERWEBS!!!" has gone on since you have gotten involved (as usual.) In this particular occasion, an article that is actually about FREEDOM of COMPOSITION, you treat as a, what was it??

...a regression in musical thought and attitude, not progress towards tolerance of every style.

Troll much?

I thought AA and I were on SSC's ignore?

AA and JT, the reading below is strongly suggested.

Ok, basically the main problems of this thread are:

1) AA and JT assume everyone in history thinks like Western people of the last 300 years.

2) AA and JT are confused specifical methods of atonal composition with atonality itself.

3) AA and JT are forgetting that, as they are presenting the alternative hypothesis, they have the burden of proof that tonality is inherently better. (On the rare occasions in which they actually have tried to prove tonality is better, they ignored point 1.)

4) AA and JT ignore that there is no clear boundary between tonality and atonality (see the Berg Piano Sonata for evidence of this).

1) AA and JT assume everyone in history thinks like Western people of the last 300 years.

False. Show me where I do this.

2) AA and JT are confused specifical methods of atonal composition with atonality itself.

False. Here we go, imposing JT's position on my own when I clearly state I don't agree with him on most of what he says.

3) AA and JT are forgetting that, as they are presenting the alternative hypothesis, they have the burden of proof that tonality is inherently better. (On the rare occasions in which they actually have tried to prove tonality is better, they ignored point 1.)

Categorically FALSE. I never, NEVER made the claim that tonality has any higher intrinsic value than atonality in this thread (nor in any other pertaining to this, if people would actually take the time to understand my position BEFORE responding). I've stated my position several times, SEVERAL. There are 15 pages, I'm sure you'll find one or more occasions where I do state it quite clearly.

4) AA and JT ignore that there is no clear boundary between tonality and atonality (see the Berg Piano Sonata for evidence of this).

If you say so. I never made any statement to the contrary. My issue with the article posted in the OP has nothing directly to do with whether or not Tonality/Atonality has a higher value than the other.

I thought AA and I were on SSC's ignore?

I'm thoroughly displeased to learn that SSC took me OFF his ignore list at all, even if only to post yet another stupid response. I enjoy being on that list, in spite of the random flamebait he leaves in discussions from time to time.

I'm thoroughly displeased to learn that SSC took me OFF his ignore list at all, even if only to post yet another stupid response. I enjoy being on that list, in spite of the random flamebait he leaves in discussions from time to time.

:thumbsup:

5) AA and JT assume that composers of atonal music feel disenfranchised and are begging to have their music played. We're doing perfectly fine, thank you.

False. Show me where I do this.

You said, for example, that the tonic/dominant relationship was based on aesthetic principles (which it is - unless you're in equal temperament, which, unfortunately, most of our pianos are in), but furthermore, you implied that this relationship (and others) means that tonal music is more natural than atonal music. However, the tonic/dominant music, while not entirely constructed (first parts of the harmonic series), is not emphasized in all civilizations. Even if you take a look at pre-common practice music, most of it is MODAL! (Also known as, umm, not tonal, as per QcC's post.) Really, what we have here is a lot of different kinds of "tonalities", such as traditional modality and Messiaen's modes, all lumped together (even though they're certainly not the same), but each has different rules, and they're all equally "constructed". As composerorganist said, although his comments were ignored, people of the CPP thought Machaut's music was inept! People in Mozart's time would've been shocked to hear the modality of the music of Debussy (as well as its dissonance). And yes, there is the same historical line from Mozart to Wagner as there was from Wagner to Schoenberg to Boulez. Yet all their traditions and "tonalities" were different, and it's not accurate to treat Wagner and Mozart different from Schoenberg and Boulez in terms of how "natural" their music is. If common-practice tonality is the only good music, then all the music of India and China must be crap. And really, modality IS atonal. So do you object to it? No.

The funny thing is, I know you know all of this. You just don't realize its implications.

False. Here we go, imposing JT's position on my own when I clearly state I don't agree with him on most of what he says.

First thing I'd like to deal with: Did I really say specifical? Sorry about that...wasn't thinking. :P

Second part:

Essentially, what Juji is saying is that Atonality is natural or organic, where Tonality is artificial, because no pre-designed template exists that would influence the creation of the music. The problem is that almost all atonal works have been composed with the specific intent of avoiding tonality, which is reflected not only in the methodology but also in the very origins of the style.

Ahemm.

Categorically FALSE. I never, NEVER made the claim that tonality has any higher intrinsic value than atonality in this thread (nor in any other pertaining to this, if people would actually take the time to understand my position BEFORE responding).

See part one.

And I'm sure Tenney makes for a fascinating discussion about the "History" of consonance and dissonance, but this relationship has aural and structural reinforcement. The very essence of the dominant/tonic relationship, in every context from tonal theory to set theory produces the same resulting dissonance/consonance relationship.

In response to Juji's mention of Tenney's belief (and the truth) that perceptions of consonance and dissonance have shifted over time. You state that the tonic-dominant relationship is based in aesthetic principles, and since common-practice music is strongly dependent on the tonic-dominant relationship, you're also saying common-practice music is based on aesthetic principles. Unfortunately, the first part of this falls apart rather easily...

If you say so. I never made any statement to the contrary. My issue with the article posted in the OP has nothing directly to do with whether or not Tonality/Atonality has a higher value than the other.

Ah, but if there's no clear difference between atonality and tonality, why even treat them separately?

Antiatonality: You just leveled up!

In just a few posts, you managed to get from "annoying" to "slightly interesting, but vulgar" to "boring" to "fun and boring at the same time" and now to "tiring".

And, well, indeed, no real discussion has gone on for pages and pages of this thread. Only "SHOCK!! OUTRAGE!!! PEOPLE THINK DIFFERENTLY THAN I DO I MUST BE AGGRESSIVE!! ON THE INTERWEBS!!!" has gone on since you have gotten involved (as usual.)

And THIS is a point you've been missing out a lot. And which you denied yourself when I pointed out that the way you say things makes us lose the few interesting you say among that incorrect bull you've been passing on as facts.

And all that about "4.30 in the morning blabla", is not an excuse - if you don't know something (and assuming you have your masters, then you should know how to do essential research to have an overall point of view on a topic instead of just rambling about something someone told you and claiming it to be a fact and using it to prove your opinion right (which contradicts itself, and you also) and other people's opinions wrong), then simply don't say anything. Which you seem incapable of doing unless you agree with someone, apparently.

Which brings me to the next point, that it really annoys me when you say "I agreed with what Qc said, which is why I didn't reply". Grow up. You're essentially telling us "Oh yes, my purpose in this forum is to contradict anyone who doesn't agree with facts (=my opinion) and prove their opinion wrong because it is." If I were to choose which one of the four temperaments you are, I'd say totally choleric.

Personally, I would say that if you hold tonality in a high esteem because it is based on aesthetics, then simply the fact that aesthetics are not absolute (or nature-driven) (or, in fact, we have very little biological predispositions in terms of sounds, but those are universal among humans and animals alike, so I don't see how they should have a lot of importance when it comes to music) should just show that tonality's "inherent aesthetic value" is just flawed in itself. Even so when we're talking of "triads" (which in the equal temperament system is flawed in itself, since most intervals differ from the just ones even by a little it) - the harmonic series do not imply triads in any way - and resolving to other "triads". All the functional properties of tonality are completely artificial and hold no inherent values, aesthetic or musical, other than the ones imposed by the people using them and analysing them.

Many kisses,

juji.