What tonality/atonality means to me

Methinks someone needs practice their scales...

:whistling:

I ment that augmented scale: Marc Sabatella's Jazz Improvisation Primer: Melodic Minor Harmony

As for the blues scale: there are many different blues scales and thats the one I use. Bluestonleiter ? Wikipedia

I ment that augmented scale: Marc Sabatella's Jazz Improvisation Primer: Melodic Minor Harmony

OH...Lydian Augmented....very different.

As for the blues scale: there are many different blues scales and thats the one I use. Bluestonleiter ? Wikipedia

Granted, it's A bluesy scale...but THE Blues Scale omits the major 3rd. You've just mashed together the Blues and Mixolydian scales. ;)

Anyway, I was just being picky. ;)

I think Tonality itself should be narrowed down to just a basic definition (music with a tonal center) - the historical ideology that pervades the word.

"Tonal centre" is anything but clear though. It only takes a modulation in a perfectly traditional 19th century piece to shift the tonal centre to something different. What if it modulates to a different key every bar? Or every two notes? What if there are two ambiguous tonal centres at once? What if there are five? Or twelve?

The problem with all this is that we have no criteria to define what is absolutely required to establish a "tonal centre", and it ends up becoming quite subjective. I actually -do- hear a lot of Sch

^That's why I suggested tonal to mean something which it's more useful to analyze in terms of having a tonal center (even if it frequently shifts). Still vague, considering that it's hard to determine what's more useful, and they may even be "equally useful" - but it works better than the definition of tonal music as having a tonal center.

There is also the argument of bitonality not being possible - in the sense of hearing two tonal centres as being active at the same time and thus hearing any note played at that point as having two different functions in the respective keys. So bitonality might exist in the form of two juxtaposed tonalities, functioning separately of each another (or overlapping or whatever), but you can't hear those two tonal centres as being active simultaneously.

But that's just an idea that floats around, haven't really gotten a lot into any research behind this, and I haven't listened to much "bitonal" music myself (just a little bit of Ives and Milhaud here and there), so I can't really say :x

*throws some fat in the fire*

...

My perspective - I don't pay attention to "Tonal" or "Atonal". I filter it in regards to "Inside" and "Outside". Whether that means anything to you guys is a different matter.....perhaps I'll elaborate, later.

"Tonal centre" is anything but clear though. It only takes a modulation in a perfectly traditional 19th century piece to shift the tonal centre to something different. What if it modulates to a different key every bar? Or every two notes? What if there are two ambiguous tonal centres at once? What if there are five? Or twelve?

The problem with all this is that we have no criteria to define what is absolutely required to establish a "tonal centre", and it ends up becoming quite subjective. I actually -do- hear a lot of Sch

My perspective - I don't pay attention to "Tonal" or "Atonal". I filter it in regards to "Inside" and "Outside". Whether that means anything to you guys is a different matter.....perhaps I'll elaborate, later.

I for one would appreciate that. I don't understand those terms at all.

When most people refer to modality they are referring to the 'church' modes. There are other types of modes which are resultant in other forms of tonality (synthetic scales, etc.); this are only mode in name only and should not be confused with the actual designation.

Yes, many people think of the church modes when they think of modality. That doesn't make it the "actual designation" however. The modalities of traditional music of India, Arabic tradition, etc. belong to the "actual designation" quite as much as the church modes, and so do modes invented by single composers. I haven't yet found a convincing definition of "modality" which you couldn't also apply to total chromaticism - even if this is an aspect that is generally avoided.

In my statement, what was intended was that tonality should only refer to music that has the impression of a tonal, organizational center. Whether that tonal center is different per section of piece, bar of piece, note of piece is irrelevant really (the fact that there is an underlying tonal organization of some kind would make a work tonal - whether it uses functional/diatonic tonality, poly-tonality, synthetic tonalities derived from synthetic scales, etc.)

The first problem is the word "impression". What gives the "impression" of a tonal centre to one person, doesn't to another. It's not something we can base an objective distinction on. And what do you call an "underlying tonal organisation"? That tones are organised? (Which they clearly are in serial music.)

The problem is that you're first mentioning the subjective term "impression of tonality" and then base the distinction on the more technical aspect of "tonal organisation" - but those two don't always go hand in hand. You can perfectly organize a complex piece with shifting tonal centres that are superimposed and everything, but which will sound entirely random to most people. And you can play the white keys on a piano in random order which doesn't really constitute any "tonal organisation" - but it will still sound like a piece in C major to many.

Yes, many people think of the church modes when they think of modality. That doesn't make it the "actual designation" however. The modalities of traditional music of India, Arabic tradition, etc. belong to the "actual designation" quite as much as the church modes, and so do modes invented by single composers. I haven't yet found a convincing definition of "modality" which you couldn't also apply to total chromaticism - even if this is an aspect that is generally avoided.

The first problem is the word "impression". What gives the "impression" of a tonal centre to one person, doesn't to another. It's not something we can base an objective distinction on. And what do you call an "underlying tonal organisation"? That tones are organised? (Which they clearly are in serial music.)

The problem is that you're first mentioning the subjective term "impression of tonality" and then base the distinction on the more technical aspect of "tonal organisation" - but those two don't always go hand in hand. You can perfectly organize a complex piece with shifting tonal centres that are superimposed and everything, but which will sound entirely random to most people. And you can play the white keys on a piano in random order which doesn't really constitute any "tonal organisation" - but it will still sound like a piece in C major to many.

I'm not referring to music outside of the western tradition - and I won't pretend that I know what I am talking about when it comes to non-western music traditions either (I will leave that to someone who has studied in that tradition to ponder.) And I neither touched upon nor expanded your inclusion of the chromatic scale either, largely because I don't feel that the chromatic scale really classifies as a scale in the fullest sense of the term (that is my own personal opinion based on my own personal views on music and really need not be discussed.) And isn't the impressions of tonality in all tonal situations subjective? We're not discussing certainties here, we're discussing theory... subjection and theory go hand in hand at times - just as much as objectivity and theory go hand in hand at other times. What I mean by tonal organization is that in most tonal music chords go towards each other - *progression*. I've yet to see a serial piece use chord progression or focus inherently upon progression in harmonic situations - nor would I say that a serial row is 'modal' in that it conveys a sense of some sort of tonality (which ironically is contrary to the intention of serialist ideal).

The problem with all this is that we have no criteria to define what is absolutely required to establish a "tonal centre", and it ends up becoming quite subjective. I actually -do- hear a lot of Sch

And isn't the impressions of tonality in all tonal situations subjective? We're not discussing certainties here, we're discussing theory... subjection and theory go hand in hand at times - just as much as objectivity and theory go hand in hand at other times. What I mean by tonal organization is that in most tonal music chords go towards each other - *progression*. I've yet to see a serial piece use chord progression or focus inherently upon progression in harmonic situations - nor would I say that a serial row is 'modal' in that it conveys a sense of some sort of tonality (which ironically is contrary to the intention of serialist ideal).

Uh.

You would do well to remember that music that is actually written down and played, the actual physics of it (and it in itself), exist objectively. You can separate musical elements objectively quite nicely, so what gives something a "tonal" impression CAN be seen as something to a good degree objective as we're dealing not with just the perception of the listener but the actual sound being produced (which isn't a democracy, as is the opinions of people actually hearing it.)

If we consider, for the sake of example, that a C major chord is a musical element that reminds or has the potential to remind people of "tonality," we are only considering it on the basis of statistic evidence that this is the reaction (subjective) to the actual phenomenon (objective.)

Other terminology being thrown around there isn't adequate, you won't find a "chord progression" in serialist music unless you look for exactly that. I can write a serial "chord progression," as can anyone if they know what seralism actually means. Like I've said numerous times, terms mean nothing if we aren't using them properly or in the context they were designed to exist.

For instance, take Messiaen's "Mode de valeurs et d'intensites." That you can find "chord progressions" in it is really a matter of saying what we're defining as chords or harmonic progression, as the piece certainly isn't static. Applying a term like "harmony" here, or even "chords" at all, would be a waste of time, but if we're really intent on it we'd have to clearly define what we mean by those since the "traditional" meaning doesn't apply. If we consider the "chords" to correspond to harmonic progression altogether, there's plenty to find in this piece. The point is, is this observation meaningful at all?

So really, like I've said, it's much better to separate things post-19th century as having a "tonal character" in that they share elements related or directly taken from that specific tradition (which we're calling "tonality," but better defined would be major/minor tonality, as Modal being in the same bag as this major/minor tonality is also somewhat of a stretch, not even considering all the tuning system problems it rises.)

That tag can only be useful however if we define what "tonal elements" actually are objectively and that's pretty simple. Not only through statistic observation can we recognize what is perceived as "tonal" but we can isolate the elements that objectively trigger these reactions. Things like specific usages of chords (and chord formation,) movement of the voices, particular rhythms, all these things together in different ways give different "feels" of "tonality," without being either here nor there, which is a pretty accurate description of what neoclassical/neoromantic and so on actually is. Again, think Arvo P

[re: Inside, Outside] I for one would appreciate that. I don't understand those terms at all.

Think of music like a house - surrounded by fields, mountains, forests, etc...

All music exists in this strange place, with this house.

Some music is very straight-ahead, and lives inside the house....never leaving. Perhaps they are agoraphobic, or allergic to sunlight. This music lives by the rules, doesn't play with fire, watch scary movies and always goes to bed at 9pm.

Other musics may live at the house too, but they might go out to mow the lawn, or wash the car, or occasionally visit friends or relatives.

Still other musics may only be occasional visitors to the house. Perhaps having brunch before heading out again.

Some music can only just barely see the house, perhaps whilst foraging on the mountainside for berries and moss.

Finally, some musics are so far away from the house, that they never have any hope of finding it...."far out".

...

Make any sense?! Inside, outside? This can be applied to music/compositions, composers/performers, or even just particular melodies or phrases... There are varying degrees of "out-ness"; a sliding and constantly evolving scale, different for each listener.

Robin's Post

Oh boy! Now we get to see a slew of topics arguing how "inside the house" music is! :D

Now, I'm loving the discussion <3!

Uh. You would do well to remember that music that is actually written down and played, the actual physics of it (and it in itself), exist objectively. You can separate musical elements objectively quite nicely, so what gives something a "tonal" impression CAN be seen as something to a good degree objective as we're dealing not with just the perception of the listener but the actual sound being produced (which isn't a democracy, as is the opinions of people actually hearing it.)

If we consider, for the sake of example, that a C major chord is a musical element that reminds or has the potential to remind people of "tonality," we are only considering it on the basis of statistic evidence that this is the reaction (subjective) to the actual phenomenon (objective.)

Yes, which is why I said: subjection and theory go hand in hand at times - just as much as objectivity and theory go hand in hand at other times. What I mean by tonal organization is that in most tonal music chords go towards each other. A composer writes out his/her composition in an objective, definable realm whereas the listener takes in the composition in a subjective realm. Much as a painter paints objectively and the viewer takes subjectively. Is this not true? We can not have a discussion about tonal/atonal definition and 'forget' about the listener here. Ultimately, all our theory and all of our 'ideals' are for not if the piece does NOT relay what was intended.

Other terminology being thrown around there isn't adequate, you won't find a "chord progression" in serialist music unless you look for exactly that. I can write a serial "chord progression," as can anyone if they know what seralism actually means. Like I've said numerous times, terms mean nothing if we aren't using them properly or in the context they were designed to exist.

All the definitions of serial music I have seen and all the musical training I have received can be summed up in one sentence: a compositional method where various musical elements such as pitch, rhythm, dynamics and tone colour may be put in a fixed order, an extension of the 12-tone method. Albeit, this is a rather 'generic' description, if its wrong let me know so I can sue my alma mater.

For instance, take Messiaen's "Mode de valeurs et d'intensites." That you can find "chord progressions" in it is really a matter of saying what we're defining as chords or harmonic progression, as the piece certainly isn't static. Applying a term like "harmony" here, or even "chords" at all, would be a waste of time, but if we're really intent on it we'd have to clearly define what we mean by those since the "traditional" meaning doesn't apply. If we consider the "chords" to correspond to harmonic progression altogether, there's plenty to find in this piece. The point is, is this observation meaningful at all?

This piece takes Schoenberg's theory of serializing pitches a whole leap forward whereby Messiaen effectively serialized all musical parameters i.e. pitches, durations, dynamics and articulations. Thus each note has a character and identity all of its own which is maintained throughout the piece. So your subjectively taking from this piece a sense of 'tonal center' when one is not there to begin with???

So really, like I've said, it's much better to separate things post-19th century as having a "tonal character" in that they share elements related or directly taken from that specific tradition (which we're calling "tonality," but better defined would be major/minor tonality, as Modal being in the same bag as this major/minor tonality is also somewhat of a stretch, not even considering all the tuning system problems it rises.)

How is it a stretch to put modal music in the same bag as major/minor tonality? Are not the modes constructed from the Ionian scale (the basis of major/minor tonality's C major scale)? As their construction is from the same root it is quite logical to say they are in the same bag. If the modes were not constructed from the Ionian scale, please.. let me know; I'd love to also sue my high school for failing to educate me on modes (and further, my college professors).

That tag can only be useful however if we define what "tonal elements" actually are objectively and that's pretty simple. Not only through statistic observation can we recognize what is perceived as "tonal" but we can isolate the elements that objectively trigger these reactions. Things like specific usages of chords (and chord formation,) movement of the voices, particular rhythms, all these things together in different ways give different "feels" of "tonality," without being either here nor there, which is a pretty accurate description of what neoclassical/neoromantic and so on actually is. Again, think Arvo P

Think of music like a house - surrounded by fields, mountains, forests, etc...

All music exists in this strange place, with this house.

Some music is very straight-ahead, and lives inside the house....never leaving. Perhaps they are agoraphobic, or allergic to sunlight. This music lives by the rules, doesn't play with fire, watch scary movies and always goes to bed at 9pm.

Other musics may live at the house too, but they might go out to mow the lawn, or wash the car, or occasionally visit friends or relatives.

Still other musics may only be occasional visitors to the house. Perhaps having brunch before heading out again.

Some music can only just barely see the house, perhaps whilst foraging on the mountainside for berries and moss.

Finally, some musics are so far away from the house, that they never have any hope of finding it...."far out".

Make a poster of this, hand written, if possible, with your own handwriting, or Natalies, make it large enough to be printed and I'll buy it, I swear! :)

Are not the modes constructed from the Ionian scale (the basis of major/minor tonality's C major scale)? As their construction is from the same root it is quite logical to say they are in the same bag. If the modes were not constructed from the Ionian scale, please.. let me know; I'd love to also sue my high school for failing to educate me on modes (and further, my college professors).

Whoa... is that really what you were taught? You definitely should sue your teachers. Most "church" modes were in use a long time before the Ionian scale and come from greek tradition, built out of two tetrachords over each other.

Whoa... is that really what you were taught? You definitely should sue your teachers. Most "church" modes were in use a long time before the Ionian scale and come from greek tradition, built out of two tetrachords over each other.

??? I'm referring to the modes that were in use during the middle ages, each scale being created from a note in the Ionian scale:

C - Ionian (C,D,E,F,G,A,B,C)

D - Dorian

E - Phrygian

F - Lydian

etc.

The Greek model was not used, only the names, due to the fact that the knowledge was fragmented and really we today don't fully understand ancient Greek music, let alone its construction, to the fullest.

Whoa... is that really what you were taught? You definitely should sue your teachers. Most "church" modes were in use a long time before the Ionian scale and come from greek tradition, built out of two tetrachords over each other.

However, if you know Ancient Greek and would indulge us to translate the fragmented texts that remain to give us a clear indication of ancient Greek musical theory - without reference to Boethius or any of the Latin Translators of the text - I'd be much appreciative.

Think of music like a house - surrounded by fields, mountains, forests, etc...

All music exists in this strange place, with this house.

Some music is very straight-ahead, and lives inside the house....never leaving. Perhaps they are agoraphobic, or allergic to sunlight. This music lives by the rules, doesn't play with fire, watch scary movies and always goes to bed at 9pm.

Other musics may live at the house too, but they might go out to mow the lawn, or wash the car, or occasionally visit friends or relatives.

Still other musics may only be occasional visitors to the house. Perhaps having brunch before heading out again.

Some music can only just barely see the house, perhaps whilst foraging on the mountainside for berries and moss.

Finally, some musics are so far away from the house, that they never have any hope of finding it...."far out".

...

Make any sense?! Inside, outside? This can be applied to music/compositions, composers/performers, or even just particular melodies or phrases... There are varying degrees of "out-ness"; a sliding and constantly evolving scale, different for each listener.

Yeah, that makes sense...thanks for taking the time to explain that. Is that what is meant in jazz music when a musician plays "out?" Or is that something different?

You're right, what I said was some overhasty babble that is not entirely correct. The link from greek tradition to medieval modes is rather ambiguous and there are many other historical influeneces and it's true that the useage of the greek names isn't identical with the greek modes at all - which doesn't mean however that they were a new invention and that there are no connections to the Greek system. The use of tetrachords as the fundamental principle would be a pretty strong one, I think (even if it doesn't mean one directly followed from the other).

As far as I know, Ionian and Aeolian were only used as variants of the other modes in the middle ages (for example using a Bb as a variant of B in D Dorian), and it wasn't until the Renaissance that they were recognized as separate modes.

I was just looking at the Wikipedia entry (I know, not entirely factual).. surprisingly they go into some depth on Greek Modality.

However, if you know Ancient Greek and would indulge us to translate the fragmented texts that remain to give us a clear indication of ancient Greek musical theory - without reference to Boethius or any of the Latin Translators of the text - I'd be much appreciative.

I don't know any ancient greek, sorry :(

I'm not saying I'm an authority on anything I said though - I don't really know much about ancient music, and you might well know more than I do.

I only reacted so taken aback because I'd never heard something like the modes being created from Ionian before, and it seemed to contradict everything I learned. But if I can learn something new, even the better!

Yes, which is why I said: subjection and theory go hand in hand at times - just as much as objectivity and theory go hand in hand at other times. What I mean by tonal organization is that in most tonal music chords go towards each other. A composer writes out his/her composition in an objective, definable realm whereas the listener takes in the composition in a subjective realm. Much as a painter paints objectively and the viewer takes subjectively. Is this not true? We can not have a discussion about tonal/atonal definition and 'forget' about the listener here. Ultimately, all our theory and all of our 'ideals' are for not if the piece does NOT relay what was intended.

One can easily argue against this by presenting the case that statistic evidence speaks rather loudly even if we were to consider it to be all "subjective" on the listener's side, tendencies do appear and they can be measured and compared.

All the definitions of serial music I have seen and all the musical training I have received can be summed up in one sentence: a compositional method where various musical elements such as pitch, rhythm, dynamics and tone colour may be put in a fixed order, an extension of the 12-tone method. Albeit, this is a rather 'generic' description, if its wrong let me know so I can sue my alma mater.

That's what it IS, not what the IDEAL is. The method is one thing, what it's trying to achieve is something else.

This piece takes Schoenberg's theory of serializing pitches a whole leap forward whereby Messiaen effectively serialized all musical parameters i.e. pitches, durations, dynamics and articulations. Thus each note has a character and identity all of its own which is maintained throughout the piece. So your subjectively taking from this piece a sense of 'tonal center' when one is not there to begin with???

I don't know if you understood what I'm saying here, so I'll assume you didn't. I use it as an example of how you can't simply apply terms like you were doing (IE, chord progressions in serial music) without the terms themselves being rendered meaningless since you have to define what you mean as the typical definitions don't apply. As for Messiaen's piece having a tonal center or not, maybe it does depending on what definition of "tonal center" is. You can full well ignore the intention or composition method in an analysis, but there has to be something to gain from doing so. Here, well, I don't see much to get out of saying it has a "tonal center" except if we define tonal center as notes which keep appearing or formations that are generated which can be defined as "central."

How is it a stretch to put modal music in the same bag as major/minor tonality? Are not the modes constructed from the Ionian scale (the basis of major/minor tonality's C major scale)? As their construction is from the same root it is quite logical to say they are in the same bag. If the modes were not constructed from the Ionian scale, please.. let me know; I'd love to also sue my high school for failing to educate me on modes (and further, my college professors).

It is a stretch because basically what you need to put both in the same bag is for them to share enough things in common, and I think that you COULD put them in the same bag if you really wanted to generalize but truth is that modal music has very different characteristics than major/minor tonality music. ... And obviously, they're different things by the actual terms I'm using! Modal music being grouped with major/minor tonality doesn't make a lot of sense considering one uses modes (favoring linear composition) and the other has a whole subsystem based on two scales and vertical harmony. You could label modal music as a type of tonality, in the sense that you can also label Hindemith's quartal harmony also a type of tonality, if that makes you happy.

This paragraph strikes me in a few ways. One, the act of objective analysis requires a separation of the human mind's feel or perception. For something to be objective it has to be recognizable to all observation. Objective in music, if I'm not mistaken, is in the composer and music analysis court in viewing, composing, or studying the musical score available. Subjective in music, would be the listener of the composition itself. Again, this is why I said that both are there in the theory of music - and should be for good reasons. We don't write music meant only for musical analysis. We write music for consumption by the masses. In the end, it's these masses that will determine whether our music stands the test of time or not. So, in that line of reasoning, one must not ignore the subjectivity of the work. (i.e. Does this chord really portray extreme dissonance? Is this progression noticeable? etc.)

I seriously hope this is a joke.

Yes, the importance of every tone. In this definition, the idea of one tone becoming central to the entire composition is not to occur. For it to occur would go 'against' the ideal of serialism itself.

Yep.

To begin with, SSC - and I really don't want to debate you. I hopefully think you are just misinterpreting what I'm writing: So, I'll begin with by defining what I mean by ideal:

Ideal:

1. a conception of something in its perfection.

2. a standard of perfection or excellence.

3. a person or thing conceived as embodying such a conception or conforming to such a standard, and taken as a model for imitation: Thomas Jefferson was his ideal.

Serial music, while largely worked out in theory prior to putting pen to paper, is a concept. The concept is to use the 12 tones equally (at its most basic). I highlighted in the dictionary quotation the precise meaning of IDEAL - so that you can see what I'm referring to. Not every serial composer in this world constructs Serial music in strict concordance to the rules of serial composition. Therefore, based on this, the achievement of a perfect serial composition is an ideal.

As for me saying chord progressions in serial music, I've yet to see it in a piece of serial music. Sure there can be passages where chords can be implied in serial music, I'll agree to that. But these are incidental and serve no 'harmonic' function unless the composer intended there to be one.

AND yes. I am saying that modal music is a type of tonality. My only main argument in this entire conversation for the last two pages is that we need to divorce the definition of tonality from the definition for functional/diatonic tonality. Tonality (-) the implied relation to ONLY functional/diatonic tonality would relegate the word tonality differently in that it would be more inclusive of other tonalities (i.e. modal, synthetic, etc.) I never said, and I looked back at my past posts, that modal tonality was anything like f/d tonality - however, I did say that they are from one and the same root and that both are tonal. Modal music is linear and, some could argue, more stringent on intervallic relationship than that in it's later cousin. The harmonies in modal music are resulting from the combination of both the scale used and the counterpoint achieved. I put them in the same bag by labeling both 'tonal' just like I place serialism in the same bag as atonal music in that neither are 'tonal' - despite the fact that a piece CAN be atonal without using serial technique.

As for the last comments, no - I'm not joking. DO you intentionally compose music just for musical analysis? I highly doubt you do - and I doubt that any composer has ever wrote solely for this purpose. The questions I used as examples are quite vague in their questioning and really are meant as an example. The questions I posed as examples are basic questions of clarity (albeit exaggerated) many composers ask themselves during the compositional phase of music.

Objective/Subjective:

I was referring to your use throughout your post of 'objective' and 'subjective' - and my own. For something to be objective, it has to be measurable in the a quantifiable way. F/D tonality fits this in the sense that an observer can view the score of the piece and see the actual notation, chordal progression, key signature, cadences, and determine based on these facts the tonality used - whether the composer stuck to the works tonal center AND whether their is indeed a tonal center to the work. Serialism fits this in the fact that an observer can actually see the notation, usage and variability of the rows, etc. A listener, however, can not objectively observe or measure the work's constituents based solely on listening. The act of listening in itself is subjective - with interpretations being rendered differently from person to person. Much as a person may listen to a piece of Dittersdorf and gather from it a sense of happiness another may listen to the exact same passage and gather from it a sense of utter upheaval. The same is applied to a composition's tonal sense. One person may listen to a piece and feel the piece to be in one sense tonal while another may listen to it and not even notice the tonal dimension altogether.

The last few sentences of my latter post, are indeed fact. Most of the composers we know and love today were only a mere handful in their day. Aside from maybe two to three others, who were Machaut's contemporaries? Palestrina's? Aside from the big names in the Baroque era, can you name all of the one's whose music fell by the wayside? How about the many composers in Vienna during Mozart's time? That said, the best audience for a composition is the composer. The work is intimate only to him and her. Despite all of our education and all of our study of other composers work before us, we also have subjective ears that hear. The only difference between us and an audience is we are the ones who write the compositions and usually have the score in front of us while composing - something objective as opposed to a concert guide (even with concert notes!). This is why I said composers should also think of the ways that a composition be can be viewed subjectively, much in the same way as we ask ourselves does this work or does that work, etc.

I hope that I've elaborated enough for you and that I've given a more clear indication of what I've been talking about.