What tonality/atonality means to me

This isn't going to end well, and it's not for your lack of trying, JW. SSC tried to make the argument that the test of time concept is flawed somewhere on this forum. It fails, but SSC insists that he is right, that his opinion is actually fact in spite of the evidence to the contrary - namely that there ARE pieces that survived after hundreds of years and these pieces all have the same underlying structural music components.

This is sort of how it goes with every point of the discussion with him. It may seem like he's responding to what you said, but he really probably stopped reading after your first sentence and just assumed you made an argument that he's already written some stupid three page rebuttal for. Be prepared. It sucks (the whole 'Read. Comprehend. Repeat.' thing just never sunk in for SSC, I guess), but at least you've been warned.

If I may interject, our discussion has touched upon another fertile topic: why do composers write music? I think we all would benefit from a separate thread dedicated to the fundamental philosophy of music making.

This isn't going to end well, and it's not for your lack of trying, JW. SSC tried to make the argument that the test of time concept is flawed somewhere on this forum. It fails, but SSC insists that he is right, that his opinion is actually fact in spite of the evidence to the contrary - namely that there ARE pieces that survived after hundreds of years and these pieces all have the same underlying structural music components.

This is sort of how it goes with every point of the discussion with him. It may seem like he's responding to what you said, but he really probably stopped reading after your first sentence and just assumed you made an argument that he's already written some stupid three page rebuttal for. Be prepared. It sucks (the whole 'Read. Comprehend. Repeat.' thing just never sunk in for SSC, I guess), but at least you've been warned.

No, I'm not going to debate SSC on something that I view to be a personal view on music. He has his views and I have mine and I'm sure the two of us can agree to disagree on something. So far, unless I'm mistaken, this discussion has been about tonality/atonality distinction and meaning.

Jaw: Alright, I don't really have a problem with what you're saying about serialism, nor that you consider modal music also tonal. I'm just talking about the details, or why one should be careful generalizing or applying terms to things they weren't intended to explain.

As for writing for analysis and the "test of time," both are nonsense. I have written pieces "Only for analysis" and indeed so have a bunch of people, specially when you get in to the realm of conceptual/process/etc music which the only thing you have left is analysis. In fact, I can write a piece write now only intended for analysis just to mess up your point.

As for the test of time...

One final issue that must be considered is the "test of time." In some cases people might be assuming that because something has lasted as a tradition or has been around a long time that it is true because it has "passed the test of time." If a person assumes that something must be correct or true simply because it has persisted a long time, then he has committed an Appeal to Tradition. After all, as history has shown people can persist in accepting false claims for centuries.

However, if a person argues that the claim or thing in question has successfully stood up to challenges and tests for a long period of time then they would not be committing a fallacy. In such cases the claim would be backed by evidence. As an example, the theory that matter is made of subatomic particles has survived numerous tests and challenges over the years so there is a weight of evidence in its favor. The claim is reasonable to accept because of the weight of this evidence and not because the claim is old. Thus, a claim's surviving legitimate challenges and passing valid tests for a long period of time can justify the acceptance of a claim. But mere age or persistance does not warrant accepting a claim.

None of this matters if your argument isn't geared towards saying music that survives = better music. If you agree that there's no such thing, then why the hell use "test of time" since every time it's invoked it is precisely to point out a sort of inherent superiority in what has withstood said "test" against things which haven't.

So explain what you mean by this.

1. I have yet to say 'test of time' or 'appeal to tradition'. What I said was we write something that is in turn listened to by people (I used more florid language, but this is in short what I said). And it is those people who will either reject or love our music not the musicologists. If anything, what I said could be construed as populist in sentiment - not an 'appeal to tradition'. And that is not anything against any form/style of music really - there are just as many people ardent about tonal music as there are about atonal music.

2. As for 'writing for analysis', we've all written for analysis... BUT ... it is not the sum of your work. Again, I should have been more specific cause I see that you like to pick and peel ;p

I am trying to be careful in what I say, believe me. I don't want to discuss something I know nothing about - hence why I distanced myself earlier from non-western forms of music. And if I make a statement in regards to something I perceive as factual - I've done so only after rechecking my facts (example, the definition to IDEAL).

*joke* I could always use footnotes if you like!

1. I have yet to say 'test of time' or 'appeal to tradition'. What I said was we write something that is in turn listened to by people (I used more florid language, but this is in short what I said). And it is those people who will either reject or love our music not the musicologists. If anything, what I said could be construed as populist in sentiment - not an 'appeal to tradition'. And that is not anything against any form/style of music really - there are just as many people ardent about tonal music as there are about atonal music.

2. As for 'writing for analysis', we've all written for analysis... BUT ... it is not the sum of your work. Again, I should have been more specific cause I see that you like to pick and peel ;p

I am trying to be careful in what I say, believe me. I don't want to discuss something I know nothing about - hence why I distanced myself earlier from non-western forms of music. And if I make a statement in regards to something I perceive as factual - I've done so only after rechecking my facts (example, the definition to IDEAL).

*joke* I could always use footnotes if you like!

Well, I'm used to kids like AA being all "Well Mozart survived, he must be better than Schoenberg!!!" (In case you don't know how this went down: http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/thread-end-all-x-relevant-threads-ever-17079-6.html ) So I wanted to make sure you weren't in that group cuz otherwise I might as well ignore you from that point onward.

But you indeed used "test of time." It was in your post.

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.

Be careful with saying "test of time" as it has a rather obnoxious implication, and it is generally an argument-killer if we're talking about music. You could've instead said "determine whether our music survives or not." It's still arguable, but it's much more in accord with what you're trying to say apparently. The point against this is simply that survivability of music these days is muuuuuuuuuuuuch better than it was 200 years ago, which means that even if only one person keeps X piece, no matter if anyone else likes it or doesn't like it, they can copy/ensure that the piece survives for undetermined lengths of time, even after their death. So, musicologists may well be the only ones keeping a lot of music alive, including actually old music itself.

I think what shouldn't be confused here is that popularity may make something more likely to "survive" but it's not the only condition. Far from it. Indeed, don't we even have a clich

Well, I'm used to kids like AA being all blah blah blah...

Right. Like I said, stating opinion as though its fact when subjectively, there's so much more to discuss. Survivability and "test of time" are one in the same, by the way (you agree with one and not the other, it's pretty obnoxious). In the context of music, there is no distinction other than the petty semantic games that result, which is just epic failure for your argument at the start, SSC.

Twisting language to serve your opinion and to sound factual doesn't actually make your opinion fact. I'm just wondering who the "kid" is here, because you're the one playing childish logic games and appointing yourself as an expert on it without understanding any of the arguments for survivability and the 'test of time' in music. Like I said, epic fail for SSC.

...without understanding any of the arguments for survivability and the 'test of time' in music....epic fail

But....there are no arguments for "test-of-time" in music. It can't exist. Give me a call when time stops, and we can all look back and decide what music was best. Now, unless you have a crystal ball or have traveled here from the end of time, stop saying "epic fail" ...no one failed, nor was it epic.

AA:

I have no idea why I gave you so many chances for you to explain yourself, when all along all you ever wanted were to pick fights that you couldn't win. I have no idea why you aren't banned yet either, considering that EVERY single thread where you've posted in has spiraled into a troll fest, and I have yet to see any contribution to the site or to any discussion at all from you. It's very clear that nobody takes you seriously, but who can?

Not only this, but didn't you already leave once?

Why did you come back? Bored?

In the other thread, I got asked to "tone it down" because having logical superiority (and real arguments) didn't give me the right to badmouth you, which I also think is true. But at this point in the narrative, what else is there to do? You have left all the options I've even given you to actually prove your points and argue them properly behind. It wasn't just me, but this has been going on in every thread where you've arrived on the scene to be outraged and start trolling others, etc etc.

The test of time thing is just ONE of the huge errors you've made, but it's the most significant because all you had to do to avoid it was to really think carefully (it wasn't a matter of even having any sort of knowledge, just plain ol' logic would do.) I'm going to give you just one more chance to redeem yourself by asking one more, final, time.

If you want to "prove me wrong" or, as you so elegantly put it, "tear into my argument," you would have to prove that there is something objective in all the pieces that have, ahem, "survived the test of time" which we can measure, quantify and therefore prove that any piece containing those characteristics, by those characteristics alone should be able to therefore always survive any length of time or it's destruction.

Do this, and it's settled.

Can't do it, admit it and it's settled. No buts, no ifs, nothing. Can you (and will you please) or can't you.

It really is that simple, as Rob just said, there ARE no "arguments for the test of time" or any of that, it's all a big misunderstanding of how cultural and traditional processes work. I hope you'll be serious and honest just this once, I don't particularly care about your opinion, but I want to at least have a sense of conclusion that you TRIED to put your money where your mouth is, or at least honestly admitted that you can't.

No walls of text, nothing. A simple "yes" or "no" answer will do. Are you capable of that, or is it asking too much? Think of it as a public challenge. If you believe that I'm a self-appointed "king of logic", here's your chance to "destroy" me!

But, say, if you were to decline... well, I suppose that just makes it all the more obvious you're running away, eh? You don't want that! You want to prove me wrong! Show me who's boss here, come on. It's your last chance, make use of it.

A "yes" answer is to be followed with your alleged evidence (in a different post, take your time.) A "no" will be followed by, uh, nothing. Seriously, I won't say a single word about it and we can all forget about this crap then.

Deal?

hmm.. perhaps me using 'test of time'... was wrong. Survivability does seem to be the better word.

Well, I don't think survivability is an indicator of good music, either. I have a feeling that there has been tons of good music lost or forgotten over the ages, just as Bach was until Mendelssohn revived his music.

In any case, what "the people" think is relevant to the composer's ability to eat, but not relevant to the quality of the music.

Well, I don't think survivability is an indicator of good music, either. I have a feeling that there has been tons of good music lost or forgotten over the ages, just as Bach was until Mendelssohn revived his music.

In any case, what "the people" think is relevant to the composer's ability to eat, but not relevant to the quality of the music.

Very true. The reason why I said perhaps I used the wrong word - was the quasi-debate and argument being started by the phrase 'test of time'. I thought the intention of this thread, as stated by Cygnus, was to avoid the petty debates and arguments of previous threads on the topic - in the hopes of defining a definition of tonality/atonality.

Very true. The reason why I said perhaps I used the wrong word - was the quasi-debate and argument being started by the phrase 'test of time'. I thought the intention of this thread, as stated by Cygnus, was to avoid the petty debates and arguments of previous threads on the topic - in the hopes of defining a definition of tonality/atonality.

Pretty much!

If you want to "prove me wrong" or, as you so elegantly put it, "tear into my argument," you would have to prove that there is something objective in all the pieces that have, ahem, "survived the test of time" which we can measure, quantify and therefore prove that any piece containing those characteristics, by those characteristics alone should be able to therefore always survive any length of time or it's destruction.

It's a bullshit question to start with, and I'll tell you precisely why. First, let me point out how you load your questions:

"...prove that there is something objective in all the pieces that have, ahem, 'survived the test of time'..."

AND

"...prove that any piece containing those characteristics, by those characteristics alone should be able to therefore always survive..."

All 'A' is 'B' does not mean all 'B' is 'A'. This is basic Logic 101. You loaded the entire question with a logical fallacy. And if that isn't enough, I don't have to prove part B. I only have to show part A to support the 'survival/test of time' argument. This is what you do, SSC. You create logically fallacious conditions and require people to meet them before you will accept that they've made a valid argument. But the absurdity doesn't end there.

You rely on this position that some composers only survive after they die because much, much later someone comes along and revives the interest in their music. As if this just haphazardly happens, that interest in this music just sporadically pops up and goes away. By simple observation, there's nothing accurate about this position. If it were true, if it just sporadically occurs and goes away, then why are we still studying Bach today? Why is there STILL interest? By both logic AND observation, your argument falls flat on its face.

Remember, this is your argument, something I've refuted already that you just absolutely refuse to acknowledge because you use BAD LOGIC. Bad logic is NOT logic. Simple. I refuse to argue with people that use NO Logic. Hence, I stopped arguing with you about this because you refuse to be reasonable, or logical, in discussing this material. You have no business making such assertive positions if you can't grasp how to create valid, logical positions about it. It's difficult, abstract material, and it's above your head... by a lot.

The test of time thing is just ONE of the huge errors you've made, but it's the most significant because all you had to do to avoid it was to really think carefully (it wasn't a matter of even having any sort of knowledge, just plain ol' logic would do.) I'm going to give you just one more chance to redeem yourself by asking one more, final, time.

I love, just adore, how you position yourself in discussions on this high and mighty, "I am right, you are wrong," when you don't know what "plain ol' logic" is. What's so ironic and what makes you absolutely intolerable is how you fail to recognize your weaknesses. I can admit when I make mistakes, I can get in a hurry sometimes and say something that's inaccurate. I can admit that, "Yes, I screwed that up, and I went back to change it." What do you do? Do you correct yourself? Do you even acknowledge that you are weak in the realm of logical discussion?? No, you placate and pander. You win this war of attrition because people don't know how to deal with your irrationality.

Like I said, I really enjoy being on your ignore list. It makes my life here... very relaxing.

Weird, I see neither a yes or a no.

Too bad.

A lot more would get accomplished if you guys would just write three sentences per post.

Cut out all the "you said I said" bullshit and just say this:

I believe this.

From what I understand, you believe this.

I feel this is wrong/right because of this.

Done. Look at that! So much easier to get stuff done, as opposed to tasteless mudslinging. You guys are acting like politicians, not musicians.

And that goes for both of you guys. Let's grow up, get past the 8th grade trash-talking stage, and actually get something accomplished.

I believe mudslinging is good when one uses the right type of mud.

I prefer mud that has sat in the sun for about an hour. The mud is still soft but yet hard enough to sting upon impact.

I feel that this is the best because when mudslinging it is best to project your hits in such a way as to sting or lightly injure your opponent. Any thoughts?

I believe mudslinging is good when one uses the right type of mud.

I prefer mud that has sat in the sun for about an hour. The mud is still soft but yet hard enough to sting upon impact.

I feel that this is the best because when mudslinging it is best to project your hits in such a way as to sting or lightly injure your opponent. Any thoughts?

LOL! :)

As if this just haphazardly happens, that interest in this music just sporadically pops up and goes away. By simple observation, there's nothing accurate about this position. If it were true, if it just sporadically occurs and goes away, then why are we still studying Bach today? Why is there STILL interest?

I asked you before, I'll ask you again, just for poo poos and giggles: Why indeed? Why Bach and not, say, Pachelbel, Bruhns, Froberger or Buxtehude? Why is there still interest in Bach?

Start numbering up the reasons, and prove they matter. State the elements which you think make Bach's music somehow worthy of surviving versus any of the others I named (which survived anyways.) I mean literally, you think you can get away with just asking "Why is there still interest?" as if implying that the answer is somehow obvious? Your argument here does come down to "X is better than Y," or?

If I may answer the question, ssc... I think the reason Bach is held in higher esteem today as opposed to the others you listed is due to the fact that his music has had such a tremendous impact on Western Music and, perhaps even more, its easier to teach his style of theory than the others. I for one, didn't care for the fact that in theory courses, Bach's music was the most predominant used for analysis and explanation of the harmonic principles themselves (especially considering the fact that with the exception of a few pieces of his, the rest put me to sleep). As a string player, I was more interested in the music of Corelli and the Italians than I was the Germanic Baroque composers - I thought that for technical reasons the Italian Baroque usage of strings was far more suited to developing string technique - not just drones of harmonic material and rhythmic filler as one encounters in Bach. But, I should probably say, that is my OWN opinion - I'd be interested to hear other opinions.

Oh... one last thought on that. The other reason why Bach's music was more esteemed after his death. Was that the composers of his time were exploring varied states of contrapuntal technique in a polyphonic fashion - whereas Bach was more devoted to exploitation of homophonic technique in most his writing (with the exception of some contrapuntal pieces, such as fugues.) With Bach though, it really depended on the piece - even more.

Funny how I didn't have to answer the question. Remarkable isn't it? Someone ELSE seems to believe there's a reason why there is still interest in Bach. And there's a lot more to understand about Bach (though I think he's a tad bit overrated on the Classical side of things) than traditionalists care to admit. It's easy to use Bach to explain the complexities of functional harmony for starters. He was also very interested in representing perfection in his sacred works, as he felt his music was written to praise God. And this idea of perfection passed from the early exploration into higher level mathematics. This led to such numeral usage like Bach's figured bass and formal usage of the Golden Mean in many of his works. There is a lot to Bach.

But, there is also Bach's fascination with equalizing the use of pitch within the tonal system that seems to peak the interests of contemporary theorists today as well. Some theorists are trying to pin another medal on Bach's repertoire that he also fathered 12-tone theory (at least planted the seed). I think it's a stretch, but hey, prove it, right?

If I may answer the question, ssc... I think the reason Bach is held in higher esteem today as opposed to the others you listed is due to the fact that his music has had such a tremendous impact on Western Music and, perhaps even more, its easier to teach his style of theory than the others. I for one, didn't care for the fact that in theory courses, Bach's music was the most predominant used for analysis and explanation of the harmonic principles themselves (especially considering the fact that with the exception of a few pieces of his, the rest put me to sleep). As a string player, I was more interested in the music of Corelli and the Italians than I was the Germanic Baroque composers - I thought that for technical reasons the Italian Baroque usage of strings was far more suited to developing string technique - not just drones of harmonic material and rhythmic filler as one encounters in Bach. But, I should probably say, that is my OWN opinion - I'd be interested to hear other opinions.

Yes, see, you can argue that and say that there are plenty of reasons why he was championed over the other people I mentioned. But none of these reasons really comes down to Bach's music being "better" objectively than these other people. You can say for example that Bach wrote more literature geared at teaching, which made him more popular to study. You can say he wrote for a lot of instruments, which ensured to some degree that SOMETHING survived even if a lot of his work was indeed lost.

If Bach's music survived anything at all, it would be simply the ever changing tides of musical tendencies which would render him obsolete even during his own lifetime only to later on give him great importance. But just like that, today Bach may be standard repertoire but a lot of the buzz now is for everyone history forgot. But why did Bach's music survive is not a question that can be laid on the music itself, but on the context in which the conditions were created for its appreciation (and consequently its survival.)

In this regard, it mattered little in the end if it was Bach, Zelenka or Couperin who "survived" or got "popular," the factors which influence the tendencies and cultural pressures that shape the mindset of people are far too many outside of even the realm of music to begin to count.

My entire point rests simply that the Zeitgeist, so to speak, is far more responsible for Bach's music surviving than Bach's music for itself. It's also not a surprise, considering all it takes is someone with subjective appreciation to champion any given composer. That, again, has less to do with the composer being championed and more with whatever motivated the person doing the championing to do it (and, dare I say, those motives are usually not motivated by the any sort of objective value judgment.)

Much like the neo-classical of the 30s and 40s in the 20th century, there was a gap between the Galante style and the subsequent romanticism, which promptly began to research old tendencies (as evidenced not only by Schumann, Chopin, Brahms, etc great interest for counterpoint, but by the tendencies almost ignoring entirely the "break off" point of the traditional counterpoint schools like the galante style ideals of simplicity. Sort of like modernism and sub-tendencies like futurism are major divisions between epochs, also succeed by a period of historical revivalism and study.)

Indeed, that Bach's music was in some way revitalized in some circles around this time is just the same game as Buxtehude's toccata form and fugue styles showing up in that late Mozart Fantasia for clock organ.

That the music itself played a role is unquestionable, but the importance of this role is severely downplayed when all these other factors come into consideration. Not only this, but it really makes the case for all the 20th and 21st century music surviving, again, not because the merit of its survival falls squarely on the piece alone, but because the survivability is something affected by outside factors sometimes even foreign to art itself!

The test of time argument is absolute nonsense in this case since there is no real "test" to speak of. Just cultural drift, political and sociological factors, etc that determine the fate of a great deal of things. Another point where it's absolute nonsense is that the statement can't be applied to anything other than history, as there is no "time" to test things which were recently made, but again we aren't really speaking of tests at all.

Music is not like a scientific theory which can be "proven wrong" by subsequent tests (as usual I cite newton's laws for their amazing survivability, as they're actually fantastic at withstanding all sorts of scrutiny and tests,) so therefore the only thing you need to create a frame where you have something as famous as Bach, etc etc, is to ensure that the actual music survives and have a cultural/political/philosophical/etc context which favors its appreciation, that's all.

You can do the same thing for ANY piece of art, and it works just the same in spite of what the actual piece of art may be. In fact, haven't we seen this already from Duchamp's "ready mades," Cage's questioning of music itself, etc?

THAT is the real formula, it has almost nothing to do with the piece of art, no matter if it's Bach or a toilet seat, you can make it famous. You can make it "worth studying," and you can make it affect society at large. All you need is knowing what it takes to do it, what the conditions are, and you're set. In a sense, it's like market research indeed, with very similar goals.

But anyways, I've said all of this before haven't I? :x

I generally agree, but I do feel that it is up to curators and individuals who have to sort through all the new work being created to make objective judgments about what is good and what is bad. The problem is that once these people die, then it is up to another individual to make objective judgments. Since people aren't perfect, true objectively will never be preserved, and once a person decides one piece (which is a masterpiece) doesn't deserve to continue forward it may be the end for that piece (and if it was a one hit wonder the end of that composer).

It is difficult to escape the tonal pallette because the structural relationships (harmonies) are so pervasive within the system, so in order to achieve pure atonality, one has to follow strict procedures. The result is that atonal pallette is much smaller than tonal pallette.

There you go, my understanding of the sound universe. I'd be interested in your take on the subject.

It's impossible to achieve strict atonality, even if no tone is repeated, certain tones, because of register, color, timbre, etc will become more centralized than others.