Tonality - A force of nature?

Hilariously, there's also the problem that there's no natural "A 440" concert pitch, we have to arbitrarily define where in the entire spectrum we place our divisions. The only thing you can get out of the overtone sequence is the 5th, octave, and so other intervals in their "natural" state, but they are rarely if ever used as such.

I think you're just being difficult. Clearly you are intelligent enough to recognize that if we consider 440hz a certain pitch (I dont care if it's called A or not), that just because 879hz is not a its "natural" octave doesnt mean that we wont recognize it as an octave, or that we will be able to tell the difference between 880 and 879.

You're just taking advantage of a chosen word (natural) and exploiting it in an internet argument. How boring. Did you want to find something out through this discussion or are you just arguing because you dont like the point the other person is trying to make? Or even in this case, the question the other person is asking.

So, I hardly see what's so "natural" (ugh) anyways, since no tuning system is without adjustments within the western tradition, thus deviating from the "natural" overtone progression ratios. That it may have been inspired by it is one thing, but that's very much nothing to do with tonality. Hell, traditional "tonality" if we're talking about Mozart onwards DEPENDS on this non-overtone tuning!

Ok. But it is clearly based on that very tuning system we are referring to as "natural," so I'm not sure why you seem to be advocating the idea that "any deviation from the overtone series justifies any other deviation" which I dont think even makes any sense to you.

I don't see what's the big deal, people could've figured out the overtone series, so what? The leap of logic from that to making a system based on it consciously is huge, and it isn't really the case. That some intervals are recognized through all cultures prove absolutely nothing either, it's not an argument for tonality or none of that, it simply means that ...they've recognized it. Wow.

I find it rather profound that you were able to write that paragraph without any reference to the nature of music within human civilization or the notion of "enjoyment" within that.

Good'ol euro-centric view.

Oh please. At this point atonality is far more tied to European roots than tonality is.

Oh, and speaking of which, a lot of people rather like the non-equal temperament (me included) system. So saying it (the equal temperament sys) stuck around because it was "better" is nonsense, it simply allowed people to modulate freely between keys (creating real enharmonics) so it became popular by consequence of its versatility. Of course, it killed the specific characters of each key by consequence, so the baroque affects where considerably less effective.

Considering that modulation is the very beginning of what would lead to a progression from chromaticism to atonality, I'm not really sure what connection you're making.

Anyway, even if you disregard all of this, I can just point out that all is natural ever and it's only your opinion that atonality and so on are "less" natural by comparison.

Jeesh.

Who are you reassuring?

Sorry for the month old thread revival. I read "RUINED BY THE ATONALITY IS STUPID THREADS" and frankly I guess I'm just disappointed in how similar this is to the dialog I see in various gamefaqs forums. Someone makes a thread asking for genuine discussion and is met with clear hostility and anger for... whatever reason I'm sure you can fill in.

Like it or not, atonality and tonality and their "disagreements" are a very large part of music and it would be nice if here, of all places, we were able to talk about it without resorting to the same drivel that we see all over the internet.

Who the gently caress cares if there have been lots of threads on atonality and tonality? This one especially could have actually resulted in some discussion on specific aspects of music from which I'm sure everyone would have had something to learn, but posters made a rather obvious effort to reduce it into the futile atonality vs tonality argument (which somehow justifies either's existence?)

Maybe if people could accept the apparent fact that there are people that have a strong dislike for atonality, the same way that people who dislike atonality accept the fact that there are people who think that writing tonal music is a cop out, we could get past this irritating recurrence.

You're just taking advantage of a chosen word (natural) and exploiting it in an internet argument. How boring. Did you want to find something out through this discussion or are you just arguing because you dont like the point the other person is trying to make? Or even in this case, the question the other person is asking.

I came out of my little self-imposed break to say:

Silly bunny, once words stop meaning things there can't be any arguments to begin with! The original poster, nor anyone arguing for tonality being "natural" has really seriously defined what "natural" is and if they have we would have to agree with that definition BEFORE they could make their argument. Quite a problem really.

When your entire argument hangs on a word which you haven't bothered to specifically define, your entire argument is crap. "Nature" in this case is the weakest link in the argument so I rephrased it to try to fix that nonsense in a previous post and dealt with that subsequently.

But of course you don't realize that, which is I guess OK if your background in intellectual discussions about music includes GAMEFAQs for crying out loud.

Protip: Read the other threads and, hell, even this same thread before thinking you have any clue what so ever about what anyone has been saying.

I came out of my little self-imposed break to say:

Silly bunny, once words stop meaning things there can't be any arguments to begin with! The original poster, nor anyone arguing for tonality being "natural" has really seriously defined what "natural" is and if they have we would have to agree with that definition BEFORE they could make their argument. Quite a problem really.

Do you make it a point to garnish every one of your posts with that overt condescension, or does it just come naturally? Is that how you talk to people you speak to in person?

I mean, did you seriously just begin that response with "silly bunny"?

When your entire argument hangs on a word which you haven't bothered to specifically define, your entire argument is crap. "Nature" in this case is the weakest link in the argument so I rephrased it to try to fix that nonsense in a previous post and dealt with that subsequently.

Human communication relies on the assumption of mutual understandings. If you are unclear of what someone means by natural, you ask them to define it. Your biting sarcasm is hardly conducive to the smooth communication that you demand. Instead of reducing the discussion into meaningless philosophical drivel, why not try, I dunno, something constructive? If he's as much of an idiot as you're treating him, what on earth is making you so incredibly zealous and hostile in your posts? You could, maybe like, explain things to him in a normal, personable matter in an attempt to enlighten him to your correct views, but you cant be attempting to change anyone's mind with that aggressive tone of yours.

God forbid you read into the implication in the very first post that the OP was referring to the overtone series when he used the term natural. The word "overtone" was mentioned once on the first page and was not brought up again until page 8 (not by you). And nevermind that the OP stopped posting after the 3rd page, because your tone and approach to every single post hasnt changed one bit, so clearly you've lumped anyone that doesnt share your view into the exact same category as him which shows wonders of your thought process.

But of course you don't realize that, which is I guess OK if your background in intellectual discussions about music includes GAMEFAQs for crying out loud.

I'm honestly not sure what to say. Are you baiting me with a ridiculous insinuation or are you genuinely incapable of understanding the simplicity of the point that my gamefaqs comment was aiming for?

Protip: Read the other threads and, hell, even this same thread before thinking you have any clue what so ever about what anyone has been saying.

That doesnt discount anything I said, but if you're satisfied leaving it at that and ignoring any other point I made, fine :\

There we go again. Can someone lock this thread? It's like seeing a necrophiliac revive a person, kill it again just to have sex with it once more... :x