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

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.

No, composers of atonal music felt "disenfranchised" a long time ago, and Milton Babbitt is a perfect example of this (see Who Cares If You Listen/The Composer As Specialist). There are no assumptions, you're just taking another statement out of context... again.

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...

You can stop right there. No, I said it could be argued just as successfully that tonal music is more natural than atonal music because of the composer's ability to intuitively compose a large quantity (if not all of the music) internally before ever taking pen to paper. This is not saying that either one IS more natural. It's an examination of two levels of abstraction.

Assuming the rest of this is expounding on what I just responding to, I'll move on.

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

Right. Well, what I know and how I'm perceived here is my failure to be clear about my position to some degree (I'll wholeheartedly admit that), but I can only go so far to explain it before someone else has to take the reigns and process that information.

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...

He made mention that these "rules" of music contribute to the artificiality of tonal music. I'm simply correcting him on the grounds that these "rules" aren't really rules at all. They are aesthetic principles that created a foundation for how composers of the time were creating music.

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

To make the claim that tonality is artificial because of its rules really doesn't make logical sense at all. If the "rules of aesthetic" existed before the music that led us to understand the aesthetic principles underpinning the method, I could see the case being made to a limited degree that an artificiality exists in some tonal music. But it's just not the case. The aesthetics, and subsequently the THEORY explaining the aesthetics, came AFTER the music was written. The history of notation points to this. Monks were singing sacred music long before they ever started writing it.

Antiatonality: You just leveled up!

Yay!

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".

I feel tired... the discussion has degraded to me repeating myself and clarifying misinterpretations.

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 things you say among that incorrect bull you've been passing on as facts.

Oh, I really hope you're not still relying on the Moors conquering Spain as your basis for this, because you're really going to HAVE to explain how that fact, and that fact alone makes all the things I say "incorrect bull I've been passing on as facts." Please, do tell.

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.

Right, because it's a huge, HUGE mistake of fact pertinent to this discussion, that the Moors conquered Spain instead of Spain conquering the Moors. Because I misstated this fact, and this one alone, all of a sudden I'm not proving my point. Forget about the fact that it's not a pivotal discussion point. You're almost as bad as SSC, but at least you have some capacity to think independently from what you read in text books and take as truth. It appears I've underestimated how much of a crutch that information is for you, though. What a shame.

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"[/b']. 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.

This really annoyed you, that I didn't say anything other than I agree with QCC's assessment of the tonal/atonal discussion? Hmm... I wish you'd just digest this one more time before you respond. Really, I do.

Personally, I would say that if you hold tonality in a high esteem because it is based on aesthetics[/b'], 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 analyzing them.

I don't hold tonality in a high esteem because it is based on aesthetics. I hold it in high esteem because the music of the tonal system appeals to me, inspires me, and there are still things to learn about it. You really, REALLY need to work on your comprehension. I've not taken a position that tonality is any better or that atonality is any worse. Let me repeat that.

I've not taken a position that tonality is any better or that atonality is any worse. I'm not making a value argument. I never made a value argument in this thread. You're putting words in my mouth.

I hold it in high esteem because the music of the tonal system appeals to me, inspires me, and there are still things to learn about it.

Ah. Can you please show me where else in this forum have you presented this thought as your own, personal opinion, as opposed to "facts", or "the way everyone should think (like me) and if you don't then I'll keep posting (because I disagree, and that's the only reason I'm posting anyway) until you agree with me"? Because I think that's the main problem with these quote wars (as SSC pointed out, the discussion died out ages ago).

That, and your attitude and the way you express yourself by trying to diminish other people's opinions or by attacking them. Which again you even refused ever took place. Or by trying to pass your flawed reminisces as "facts", and using them to support your arguments.

And yes, I am making a big fuss about "Spanish conquering the Moors as opposed to the Moors conquering the Spanish - what's the big deal?". You wouldn't really say "Hitler killed the snow in Russia as opposed to the snow killed Hitler in Russia - what's the big deal?", would you?

Imagine the world without snow :(

xxx

And yes, I am making a big fuss about "Spanish conquering the Moors as opposed to the Moors conquering the Spanish - what's the big deal?". You wouldn't really say "Hitler killed the snow in Russia as opposed to the snow killed Hitler in Russia - what's the big deal?", would you?

Imagine the world without snow :(

xxx

Now, now. We all know that Hitler did kill the snow when he peed on it...

:whistling:

"Don't you eat that yellow snow." -Frank Zappa

Ah. Can you please show me where else in this forum have you presented this thought as your own, personal opinion, as opposed to "facts", or "the way everyone should think (like me) and if you don't then I'll keep posting (because I disagree, and that's the only reason I'm posting anyway) until you agree with me"? Because I think that's the main problem with these quote wars (as SSC pointed out, the discussion died out ages ago).

Your interpretation of what I'm saying is significantly different than what I'm actually saying. The problem isn't what I'm saying. The problem is YOUR interpretation. So, if you would like to find instances where you interpreted a statement of mine as reading "the way everyone should think (like me) and if you don't then I'll keep posting (because I disagree, and that's the only reason I'm posting anyway) until you agree with me."

That, and your attitude and the way you express yourself by trying to diminish other people's opinions or by attacking them. Which again you even refused ever took place. Or by trying to pass your flawed reminisces as "facts", and using them to support your arguments.

Your willingness to dwell on my "reminisces" as opposed to my arguments or position are very telling of how much you can actually contribute to this discussion. If the reminisces actually meant squat to my position (which they don't), then you'd have a justified grievance. Since they have nothing to do with whether or not Ness or Tenney are regressing to intolerance in their discourse, you're only posting at this point to make disparaging remarks about me, not discuss the issue. Your attitude, not mine, is the one in need of adjustment.

And yes, I am making a big fuss about "Spanish conquering the Moors as opposed to the Moors conquering the Spanish - what's the big deal?". You wouldn't really say "Hitler killed the snow in Russia as opposed to the snow killed Hitler in Russia - what's the big deal?", would you?

Imagine the world without snow :(

xxx

This is... comical. Unless you intend for me to take this seriously, I'm just going to chuckle and move on with my evening.

So, what are YOU doing this evening?

You keep doing it - it just seems that it's always the others who are wrong, only others have misinterpreted you, it's never you who's done a mistake. And again, you just bash my comments on your memory instead of talking about your attitude a little bit. And again you've missed the point - I don't give a damn about how relevant your memories are; what I give a damn about is that you passed on this information as facts trying to use them as support for proving your opinion right and other people's opinions wrong, something which is by definition flawed and which I've told you twice already, if not more, but you don't seem to get.

Grow up.

I was doing some browsing on the web and came across this writing, seems a little pertinent to this discussion:

Tonality, Modality and Atonality

I was doing some browsing on the web and came across this writing, seems a little pertinent to this discussion:

Tonality, Modality and Atonality

I think the article, while interesting, makes a pertinant error...

tonality (as in major/minor) does not rely on the relationship of only two chords: tonic and dominant. It relies on the relationship of THREE chords, in reality.

If we ignore the key signature, and any stated "intent" (ie: "this is in X key"), then simply using two chords a 5th apart, will not firmly establish one chord as the "central" anchor of the tonality. One need only think of the prevalence of plagal cadences in so much music, which completely reverses the chord order for the cadential chord and its resolution.

For this, one needs a third chord: the sub-dominant.

So few people realize to what extent the sub-dominant is what most clearly identifies the "directionality" of the harmony TOWARDS the tonic.

And this is true whether you use the actual IV - V - I progression, or use substitution chords for any of the three.

The "preparation of the dominant" is what clearly gives it direction and intent TOWARDS a tonic.

In common practice, yes.. but, surely you must admit there is more music that has a 'tonal' center without the common practice 'designation and preparation' of a dominant.

You can maintain a 'tonal' feel to a piece with the use of many different techniques (ostinato patterns being the first that come to mind). AND while he mentions fifths in the article, the feel of tonality can be present in just utilizing two chords statically going back and forth between the two (without use of a dominant, subdomninant, etc).

That said, I do agree the article itself has many errors in writing - But the reason I thought it was pertinent dealt little with the theory in the article but more with his view on music itself (the whole thing about Beauty missing). I think that is probably why those who cling to the traditional model are begrudging in their scope of atonality. They see it as something that is not in and of itself beautiful to listen to - easy on the ears, so to speak.

In common practice, yes.. but, surely you must admit there is more music that has a 'tonal' center without the common practice 'designation and preparation' of a dominant.

You can maintain a 'tonal' feel to a piece with the use of many different techniques (ostinato patterns being the first that come to mind). AND while he mentions fifths in the article, the feel of tonality can be present in just utilizing two chords statically going back and forth between the two (without use of a dominant, subdomninant, etc).

You're getting into "modal" territory.

;) I know.

In common practice, yes.. but, surely you must admit there is more music that has a 'tonal' center without the common practice 'designation and preparation' of a dominant.

You can maintain a 'tonal' feel to a piece with the use of many different techniques (ostinato patterns being the first that come to mind). AND while he mentions fifths in the article, the feel of tonality can be present in just utilizing two chords statically going back and forth between the two (without use of a dominant, subdomninant, etc).

That said, I do agree the article itself has many errors in writing - But the reason I thought it was pertinent dealt little with the theory in the article but more with his view on music itself (the whole thing about Beauty missing). I think that is probably why those who cling to the traditional model are begrudging in their scope of atonality. They see it as something that is not in and of itself beautiful to listen to - easy on the ears, so to speak.

Again here I believe you are misunderstanding something.

Consonant music that uses triads, need not be "tonal".

This is exactly what you are describing.

And I suspect a LOT of people confuse the two.

Triadic music does not mean that it uses the hierarchical relationships of tonal music.

And consonant triadic music CAN have a "tonal root" (for lack of a better term). This doesn't make it "tonal".

And again, modal music, music that does not inherantly contain the relationship of sub-dominant to dominant to tonic, is not "tonal. It is "modal".

Again here I believe you are misunderstanding something.

Consonant music that uses triads, need not be "tonal".

This is exactly what you are describing.

And I suspect a LOT of people confuse the two.

Triadic music does not mean that it uses the hierarchical relationships of tonal music.

And consonant triadic music CAN have a "tonal root" (for lack of a better term). This doesn't make it "tonal".

And again, modal music, music that does not inherantly contain the relationship of sub-dominant to dominant to tonic, is not "tonal. It is "modal".

I'm not necessarily saying that music 'has' to be consonant with use of triads. And tonal music, in definition, does not necessarily refer to functional/diatonic (major/minor) tonality; nor does it apply strictly to modal music (i.e. music derived from the medieval modes). The association with the word Tonal is there in history and in your quite conservative view on what designates 'tonal'. Hence why I gave two examples - music based on ostinato pattern and music based on static movement between two chords (and I didn't even say triads, it could be chords based on 7th's for that matter, you'd still have an implied tonal center based on which chord predominates the texture).

Let us remind ourselves, as well, that diatonic/functional tonality rose out of modal concepts (major keys, in fact, are transpositions of the Ionian mode - minor keys, in fact, are based off of aeolian and dorian modes.) The need to separate the two comes about due largely to the transposition of the modes into various regions AND the varied use of chordal progression and designation in the latter (d/f tonality). Both systems, however, are tonal systems. As are the use of more synthetic constructs not using the same intervallic relationships used in modal tonality and d/f tonality.

That is my view on tonality in a nut shell.

inherantly contain[ing] the relationship of sub-dominant to dominant to tonic...

I like QCC's designations; "Tonality" being the strict step-mother - she's gotta have it her way, or else!

I think the article, while interesting, makes a pertinent error...

tonality (as in major/minor) does not rely on the relationship of only two chords: tonic and dominant. It relies on the relationship of THREE chords, in reality.

If we ignore the key signature, and any stated "intent" (ie: "this is in X key"), then simply using two chords a 5th apart, will not firmly establish one chord as the "central" anchor of the tonality.

Uhm, are you sure?

The tonic 6/4 prepares the dominant all the time, and you only need TWO chords, a Dominant Seventh Chord resolving to a Tonic to create the central anchor. This is due to the interval relationship of the tri-tone resolution to either a major third that establishes a major harmony or a minor third which resolves to a minor harmony. In either case, the C establishes the tonal center and the E/Eb establishes the mode you're entering.

In the case of G7 tonicizing C, you have B and F (a tri-tone) collapsing onto a C and E (Major 3rd), or if tonicizing C minor, C and Eb (Minor 3rd). I've always understood the sub-dominant as an ancillary filler that smooths out the transition preparing the dominant, or as a part of a plagal cadence that provides a weaker/gentler/consonant tonicization (in contrast to the more striking dominant/tonic relationship).

Furthermore, you don't need any sub-dominant preparation to modulate to different keys either. The indication of any modulation is the presence of the leading tone, not the sub-dominant of the new key, because it's generally outside of the diatonic scale that generates from the existing tonal center.

Respectfully, I think you are mistaken, QCC.

Uhm, are you sure?

The tonic 6/4 prepares the dominant all the time, and you only need TWO chords, a Dominant Seventh Chord resolving to a Tonic to create the central anchor. This is due to the interval relationship of the tri-tone resolution to either a major third that establishes a major harmony or a minor third which resolves to a minor harmony. In either case, the C establishes the tonal center and the E/Eb establishes the mode you're entering.

In the case of G7 tonicizing C, you have B and F (a tri-tone) collapsing onto a C and E (Major 3rd), or if tonicizing C minor, C and Eb (Minor 3rd). I've always understood the sub-dominant as an ancillary filler that smooths out the transition preparing the dominant, or as a part of a plagal cadence that provides a weaker/gentler/consonant tonicization (in contrast to the more striking dominant/tonic relationship).

Furthermore, you don't need any sub-dominant preparation to modulate to different keys either. The indication of any modulation is the presence of the leading tone, not the sub-dominant of the new key, because it's generally outside of the diatonic scale that generates from the existing tonal center.

Respectfully, I think you are mistaken, QCC.

Wow. Did you go to Mannes? Sounds like my Schenkerian Analysis class. :w00t:

The tonic 6/4 prepares the dominant all the time,

The tonic 6/4 chord is considered as a variant of the Dominant. That's why you'll see V (6/4 -- 5/3).

This is standard tonal theory.

As Daniel correctly noted, the I 6/4 chord is in effect NOT a I chord, but a double appogiatura of the V chord.

It is so often badly taught this way.

I'm sorry AA, but you are the one who is mistaken here.

As Daniel correctly noted, the I 6/4 chord is in effect NOT a I chord, but a double appogiatura of the V chord.

It is so often badly taught this way.

I'm sorry AA, but you are the one who is mistaken here.

True, I didn't take that into account. But I hope you don't mind explaining everything else away in my post about this requirement for three chords to create a tonal center...

... you only need TWO chords' date=' a Dominant Seventh Chord resolving to a Tonic to create the central anchor. This is due to the interval relationship of the tri-tone resolution to either a major third that establishes a major harmony or a minor third which resolves to a minor harmony. In either case, the C establishes the tonal center and the E/Eb establishes the mode you're entering.

In the case of G7 tonicizing C, you have B and F (a tri-tone) collapsing onto a C and E (Major 3rd), or if tonicizing C minor, C and Eb (Minor 3rd). I've always understood the sub-dominant as an ancillary filler that smooths out the transition preparing the dominant, or as a part of a plagal cadence that provides a weaker/gentler/consonant tonicization (in contrast to the more striking dominant/tonic relationship).

Furthermore, you don't need any sub-dominant preparation to modulate to different keys either. The indication of any modulation is the presence of the leading tone, not the sub-dominant of the new key, because it's generally outside of the diatonic scale that generates from the existing tonal center.[/quote']

I mean, I think the I 6/4 issue is one thing, sure. But just taking that out, there's still all of THIS to sort through.

When I get bored I go to a Seven-Eleven and ask for a two-by-four and a box of

three-by-fives.

-- Steven Wright

I only wanted a five of one :(

G'huh?

What a bunch of nonsense. You (not addressing anyone in particular) realize that a whole lot of the late german expressionism IS "tonal" and conforms to all good'ol "common practice" theory, both harmonic and terms of chord formation. Does it "sound" tonal though? Hell no. That's exactly what happened, therefore the best thing to do is say X has a "tonal character" or it reminds of it, as simply saying something is "tonal" isn't cutting it anymore because it could very well be 100% in accordance to theory but sound like, well, nothing like it.

Let's not forget that "tonality" is simply an interpretation, it's a label which if we don't define with actual literature it becomes irrelevant. You can, of course, call the pre-1700 century music tonal, you can call all sorts of things "tonal," but if this is to be objective at all in the music there must be some elements in common with what we're holding as the standard for what "tonal" is, and THAT standard is completely arbitrary and really hard to define (again with the German expressionists, Wagner, etc etc.)

... Nevermind that you can spam D-T cadences or complicate them to the point you start getting clusters, hahaha. Imagine a typical D-T, with 9th, 7th, chromatic movement in all voices (passing notes, suspensions) etc etc, everything you "can do" and do this over and over, you can have an entire piece that is completely analyzable with function harmony, but it'll sound, well. Go try it, or listen to them expressionists.

History shows that "common practice" simply became so broad that, well, the term stopped meaning anything (had it existed then) by the time Schoenberg/Debussy/Stravinsky/etc came around. Hence Schoenberg's term "floating in tonality" because honestly he probably couldn't think of anything better. Hell, you can even see how you can get to pentatonic scales through quite "common practice" means and even quartal harmony (courtesy of Liszt.) What the hell kind of "common practice" is it when it's simply so absurdly allowing that music starts sounding like it had no unifying theory (duh.) Not a very common one at all, lol.

Now I have a plane to catch, ta.

PS: That's why German musicologists don't use the term "common practice" since history shows huge differences between styles and epochs, there is almost nothing unifying among them except if you generalize to the point of irrelevance. That's exactly why I also don't enjoy using this term, and I only use it because others are using it, but otherwise I'd avoid it like the plague since it undermines the huge differences between styles and epochs plus the term stops making any sense during the late 19th and early 20th century. It's an unecessary term, as well, because all can be done by simply analyzing the different tendencies and the gradual and dynamic progress of music history in the different countries. Jeesh...