A Discussion About Tonal and Atonal Music

Look here:

http://www.youngcomposers.com/pg/profile/AntiA

Look here:

http://www.youngcomp...g/profile/AntiA

Yes, that's the profile of Antiatonality.... not "Antiatonlaity". I still will look for this elusive member!

You're right. Huh. You think you know someone...

Okay guys, let me say something.

Atonal is something in which a piece does not "lean" twords or based on a note (editing my first comment) and also, atonal has no real basis of what chords you should or should not use, or any form needed or any order, ect.

Tonal music has a form, rules, and leans to or is based on one note.

Of course, there's Bitonal, Polytonal, Ditonal, and a lot more, but that's not the point of this thread now is it?

If you were to say something about composers that are "tonal" or "atonal" or somewhat in the middle, here are a few:

Tonal:

Mozart

Bach

Atonal:

Messian

Stravinsky

So, to sum it up, the more modern day you get, the more atonal composers, and the farther back you go, the more tonal. Until you go really far back, like 1300s, 1400s, 1500s, then you get some weird stuff, but it's not atonal.

If a piece of music makes an old person cringe, then, probably it's atonal. ;)

Heklaphone

If a piece of music makes an old person cringe, then, probably it's atonal.

Wow.

Okay guys, let me say something.

Atonal is something in which a piece does not "lean" twords or based on a note (editing my first comment) and also, atonal has no real basis of what chords you should or should not use, or any form needed or any order, ect.

Tonal music has a form, rules, and leans to or is based on one note.

Of course, there's Bitonal, Polytonal, Ditonal, and a lot more, but that's not the point of this thread now is it?

If you were to say something about composers that are "tonal" or "atonal" or somewhat in the middle, here are a few:

Tonal:

Mozart

Bach

Atonal:

Messian

Stravinsky

So, to sum it up, the more modern day you get, the more atonal composers, and the farther back you go, the more tonal. Until you go really far back, like 1300s, 1400s, 1500s, then you get some weird stuff, but it's not atonal.

If a piece of music makes an old person cringe, then, probably it's atonal. ;)

Heklaphone

Stravinsky didn't start utilizing atonality into very late in his career.

Atonality is as useless a label as atheism. How can you be defined by lacking something? It doesn't make sense. One can't just "lack a belief in God" because they must have a predetermined belief of what god they lack, thus believing in a god that doesn't exist. :blink: Same with atonality. You must have a predetermined idea of what tonality is before you can say that you lack it.

Yeah. I went there.

Umm, I have never met anyone who had a problem with understanding the usefull-ness of the term. "Athiesm" I don't understand your logic.

What is so hard to understand about "A lack of belief in supenatural beings/gods."?

By your logic, does the term "Perfect Vacuum" make no sense? How can you define something as "The lack of matter."

And before here, the only gripe I've ever heard someone have about Atonality was Schoenberg:

The word 'atonal' could only signify something entirely inconsistent with the nature of tone. . . . to call any relation of tones atonal is just as farfetched as it would be to designate a relation of colors aspectral or acomplementary

Now, the question is, what exactly is Schoenberg getting at? Is he saying; The term Atonal isn't acurate, because it still has tones. (implied by his comparison of calling a painting 'aspectral')

Or is he saying; The term Atonal isn't acurate because it is impossible to have music that lacks a tonal center, it can just be highly ambiguous and quickly morphing. (implied by; "The word 'atonal' could only signify something entirely inconsistent with the nature of tone" Assuming that the "Nature of tone" means tonality.

His original intent may have very well also been lost in translation.

Let me just state it simply for who don't understand:

atonal music is bad, tonal music is good.

That's also how you tell the difference.

Let me just state it simply for who don't understand:

atonal music is bad, tonal music is good.

That's also how you tell the difference.

Please tell me you are joking. >.>

Okay guys, let me say something.

Atonal is something in which a piece does not "lean" twords or based on a note (editing my first comment) and also, atonal has no real basis of what chords you should or should not use, or any form needed or any order, ect.

Tonal music has a form, rules, and leans to or is based on one note.

Of course, there's Bitonal, Polytonal, Ditonal, and a lot more, but that's not the point of this thread now is it?

If you were to say something about composers that are "tonal" or "atonal" or somewhat in the middle, here are a few:

Tonal:

Mozart

Bach

Atonal:

Messian

Stravinsky

So, to sum it up, the more modern day you get, the more atonal composers, and the farther back you go, the more tonal. Until you go really far back, like 1300s, 1400s, 1500s, then you get some weird stuff, but it's not atonal.

If a piece of music makes an old person cringe, then, probably it's atonal. ;)

Heklaphone

My goodness you ARE a 10 year old.

Almost everything here is wrong, wrong, wrong! Let's break it down:

Atonal is something in which a piece does not "lean" twords or based on a note (editing my first comment) and also, atonal has no real basis of what chords you should or should not use, or any form needed or any order, ect.

That's about the only thing you got right.

Tonal music has a form, rules, and leans to or is based on one note.

No it doesn't. It has a tendancy to have similar constructs, but besides that there is no "rules" besides it simply having hierarchy of pitches. What the hierarchy is is irrelevant. Form can be related to said hierarchy but doesn't have to be. That's why there's "modern" music that sounds completely tonal yet is "through-composed" without any real form to it.

Tonal:

Mozart

Bach

Depends on who you ask. They were predominantly CPP but Bach and Mozart wrote some really wacky Chromatic stuff in their later careers.

Atonal:

Messian

Stravinsky

Neither of these were atonal. Stravinsky only did a little bit at the end. Messian was just adding onto the original system, but he always pointed to a specific tone. Listen to his organ works and you'll see a leading to the a specific tone or chord often representing something to do with heaven or transfiguration.

So, to sum it up, the more modern day you get, the more atonal composers, and the farther back you go, the more tonal. Until you go really far back, like 1300s, 1400s, 1500s, then you get some weird stuff, but it's not atonal.

Nah. Modern composers write tonal stuff too.

If a piece of music makes an old person cringe, then, probably it's atonal. ;)

I'd be a lot of old people today would easily cringe at Rap or the Grosse Fugue too.

Umm, I have never met anyone who had a problem with understanding the usefull-ness of the term. "Athiesm" I don't understand your logic.

What is so hard to understand about "A lack of belief in supenatural beings/gods."?

By your logic, does the term "Perfect Vacuum" make no sense? How can you define something as "The lack of matter."

The "lack of belief in supernatural beings/gods" is a belief in and of itself. I have no problem with the word Atheism, however, because in this context we're talking about the subject of something that may or may not exist. In the context of music, calling music that uses tones "atonal" makes no sense. There is no debating the use of tones in this context... yet the literal meaning of the word implies that no tones are being used when clearly these works use tones.

And before here, the only gripe I've ever heard someone have about Atonality was Schoenberg:

It's such a great quote. One of my favorites, merely because I appreciate the irony Schoenberg points out.

Now, the question is, what exactly is Schoenberg getting at? Is he saying; The term Atonal isn't accurate, because it still has tones. (implied by his comparison of calling a painting 'aspectral')

Or is he saying; The term Atonal isn't accurate because it is impossible to have music that lacks a tonal center, it can just be highly ambiguous and quickly morphing. (implied by; "The word 'atonal' could only signify something entirely inconsistent with the nature of tone" Assuming that the "Nature of tone" means tonality.

The "nature of tone" refers to, I believe, the mechanics of sound and pitch, not the system of tonality. A tone cannot be called "atonal", therefore a work comprised of tones cannot be said to be atonal either.

His original intent may have very well also been lost in translation.

In this case, no, I don't think so. Schoenberg has proven to be, at least to me, quite clear and articulate in his explanations of his views and theories on music.

"Let me just state it simply for who don't understand: atonal music is bad, tonal music is good. That's also how you tell the difference."

Please tell me you are joking. >.>

Look at his music, talk to him for three minutes. He's joking.

The "nature of tone" refers to, I believe, the mechanics of sound and pitch, not the system of tonality. A tone cannot be called "atonal", therefore a work comprised of tones cannot be said to be atonal either.

I don't think anyone argues that the term "atonal" is meant to be taken literally in the sense of the etymology of the word, "without tones." In that case, only non-pitched percussion ensemble and 4'33" qualify as "atonal" pieces.

I'm pretty sure everyone understands that "atonal" refers solely to the style of music which aims to confound the establishment of a tonal center. Or those pieces which historically have been specifically labelled "atonal."

And if they don't, they should.

:)

Okay guys, let me say something.

Atonal is something in which a piece does not "lean" twords or based on a note (editing my first comment) and also, atonal has no real basis of what chords you should or should not use, or any form needed or any order, ect.

Tonal music has a form, rules, and leans to or is based on one note.

Of course, there's Bitonal, Polytonal, Ditonal, and a lot more, but that's not the point of this thread now is it?

If you were to say something about composers that are "tonal" or "atonal" or somewhat in the middle, here are a few:

Tonal:

Mozart

Bach

Atonal:

Messian

Stravinsky

So, to sum it up, the more modern day you get, the more atonal composers, and the farther back you go, the more tonal. Until you go really far back, like 1300s, 1400s, 1500s, then you get some weird stuff, but it's not atonal.

If a piece of music makes an old person cringe, then, probably it's atonal. ;)

Heklaphone

Okay, so Tokke was even too nice on you. I'm going to say this clearly and as directly as I can because apparently, people have been way too nice to you on this forum and while I'm in full support of a constructive learning environment, sometimes harsh criticism is necessary. Every single word of what you've just typed is wrong and/or misguided. Stop trying to sound like you know what you're talking about because you don't. At all.

A few point by points

'Atonal is something in which a piece does not "lean" twords or based on a note (editing my first comment) and also, atonal has no real basis of what chords you should or should not use, or any form needed or any order, ect.'

Uh, nope. Atonality generally is charged with the task of remaining harmonically consistent just as tonality is. Granted, the pitch materials atonal pieces may be based on are generally less 'stable' and more 'dissonant' (in the common practice stance) but it's rare to find atonal pieces that do not maintain consistency in harmonic procedures. Hell, by how you word this, are you even familiar with serialism?

'Tonal music has a form, rules, and leans to or is based on one note.'

Common-practice tonality maybe but, even in such hierarchies, there is plenty of room for freedom. Once again, compare Bach to Haydn to Schumann to early to mid Scriabin and you won't find a whole lot in common with any of them. There are some underlying principles (the V - I relationship which itself became more implicit than explicit as tonality progressed) but this is so vague and quite honestly, many atonal pieces follow much more strict 'forms' and 'rules' Again, see serialism.

'If you were to say something about composers that are "tonal" or "atonal" or somewhat in the middle, here are a few:

Tonal:

Mozart

Bach'

As Tokke said, these are pretty dubious examples. Bach wrote some of the most dissonant music of the entire common-practice period (his Musical Offering uses a subject that is practically a tone row) and Mozart was one of the first to experiment with whole tone scales and bi-tonality (granted, it was meant to be in a humorous context but that's besides the point). Not to mention, the famous Dissonance Quartet opening which, while I believe still remains 'tonal', only loosely so.

'Atonal:

Messian

Stravinsky'

Uh, no. Of all the possible 20th century composers you chose, you chose two of the absolute worst examples. Seriously, this proves you have no idea what 'atonality' even is. Stravinsky didn't write 'atonal' music until very late in his career and given that it's not very popular (for good reason in my opinion), I'm guessing you're referring to the early Russian period with stuff like The Rite of Spring and Petrushka. And dear god... I don't even know where to begin if you think The Rite of Spring is 'atonal.'

As for Messiaen, again, no. For one thing, he's one of the few 20th century composers I know to still write (some) pieces in key signatures. Messiaen never completely rejected tonality. He used a lot of 'colorful' dissonance, sure that was largely derived from the modes of limited transposition (which, of course, were scales far removed from the diatonic modes). But he managed to implement their usages into tonal contexts for the most part. There's very little by Messiaen that I think you can really call 'atonal' Honestly, I can't think of anything off the top of my head but I'm not overly familiar with his music.

Seriously, how do you manage to choose these two composers over say... Webern, Berio, Varese, Boulez, Stockhausen, Xenakis, Ferneyhough, ligeti, Cage, or Feldman to name a few. Though, to be fair, I'm not sure if Berio or ligeti can even really be counted as 'atonal' composers but they'd still be better examples for your case.

Just... please. Stop pretending to have some sort of authority on concepts you seem to have very little of a grasp on.

Okay... so, I didn't mean for this thread to be resurrected in this manner. What I meant by my post was that... one year ago, I held a very conservative view on music. I appreciated atonal and serial works BUT.. at that time, I felt they were inferior to the beauty I saw in the works I was more familiar with. In the course of that year, I have explored serialism and atonality (as well as polytonality and modalism). In that year.. I have come a long way in my understanding of music. Writing works whose primary focus is the material itself - independent of traditional harmonic models - is a difficult task in and of itself. A year ago, I didn't see that! I can speak from experience now and say that it is a viable form of expression and one that I would recommend every composer (no matter your personal opinion) undertake. There's a lot to learn from it. I really don't want to have to lock this thread though... so I ask that everyone here please keep the personal attacks separate. Discuss and argue with the other persons position - don't attack that person.

'Tonal music has a form, rules, and leans to or is based on one note.' - Hecklaphone

"Common-practice tonality maybe, but, even in such hierarchies, there is plenty of room for freedom." - Nirvana

First, Hecklaphone is categorically wrong. Second, Nirvana, your response doesn't seem to address why it's wrong, at least not to my satisfaction. Maybe you're going too easy on Heckla :P

Forget what we know about "prescriptive" structures in these various languages and styles of music. None of these formulaic systems of compositional style are "concrete," per se. "Common-practice tonality" DOES NOT base itself on ONE NOTE. Traditional western music centralizes and manipulates a diatonic sonority, usually either the Major or Minor tonalities of the style. A 'C' isn't the gravitational factor, it's the combination of C, E, and G or A, C, and E, for example, that are the focal points of the style, and these are only "gravitational" due to the relationship of the dominant/dissonant sonority to the tonic/consonant sonority. In short, we wouldn't say a piece is written in the "tone of C", we'd say the piece was written in the "key of C", the "key of C Major/Minor," etc. because we're referring to a sonority, whether applicable in an ensemble work or harmonically implicit in solo works.

That music is formulaic doesn't legitimate it. I could make up any set of guidelines for organizing pitches, rhythms, sonorities, etc, claim it's a language of music, and no one will have any way to say, "No, it's not." Traditional western music doesn't even require that we follow every single one of its "form, rules," etc, which is one reason why we learn about "exceptional" composers of the tradition like Bach, Beethoven, etc who more or less made their own rules rather than blindly following in others' footsteps - one good example is Wagner's Liebstod from Tristan where the climactic harmonic progression is actually a "regression" from a V to a IV - not exactly a "common practice" of traditional western music, but who honestly thinks in makes a difference at this point whether it makes the Liebstod "tonal" or "atonal" because of some "rule"? In this way, Nirvana, I think you're misunderstanding what is "legitimate" about contemporary music...

Just like these composers of traditional music just happened to refine their approach to music in an "aesthetically convincing way", so to speak, that's exactly what we do in contemporary music where no harmonic hierarchies or "rules" apply. We're losing sight of this in the discussion of tonal/atonal music. It's not an issue of whether rules are followed, whether one is more complex than the other. The greatest thing we can take away from the emergent contemporary styles of the 20th Century in western music is the understanding that these "rules" aren't rules at all... we don't need to follow them to create convincing music. We only need to appreciate why these theoretical principles exist, why they are relevant to us (if at all), and whether our music benefits from the application of these principles.

Thus ends another rant. -AA

First, Hecklaphone is categorically wrong. Second, Nirvana, your response doesn't seem to address why it's wrong, at least not to my satisfaction. Maybe you're going too easy on Heckla :P

Forget what we know about "prescriptive" structures in these various languages and styles of music. None of these formulaic systems of compositional style are "concrete," per se. "Common-practice tonality" DOES NOT base itself on ONE NOTE. Traditional western music centralizes and manipulates a diatonic sonority, usually either the Major or Minor tonalities of the style. A 'C' isn't the gravitational factor, it's the combination of C, E, and G or A, C, and E, for example, that are the focal points of the style, and these are only "gravitational" due to the relationship of the dominant/dissonant sonority to the tonic/consonant sonority. In short, we wouldn't say a piece is written in the "tone of C", we'd say the piece was written in the "key of C", the "key of C Major/Minor," etc. because we're referring to a sonority, whether applicable in an ensemble work or harmonically implicit in solo works.

That music is formulaic doesn't legitimate it. I could make up any set of guidelines for organizing pitches, rhythms, sonorities, etc, claim it's a language of music, and no one will have any way to say, "No, it's not." Traditional western music doesn't even require that we follow every single one of its "form, rules," etc, which is one reason why we learn about "exceptional" composers of the tradition like Bach, Beethoven, etc who more or less made their own rules rather than blindly following in others' footsteps - one good example is Wagner's Liebstod from Tristan where the climactic harmonic progression is actually a "regression" from a V to a IV - not exactly a "common" practice of traditional western music.

These composers just happened to refine their approach to music in an "aesthetically convincing way", so to speak. We're losing sight of this in the discussion of tonal/atonal music. It's not an issue of whether rules are followed, whether one is more complex than the other. The greatest thing we can take away from the emergent contemporary styles of the 20th Century in western music is the understanding that these "rules" aren't rules at all... we don't need to follow them to create convincing music. We only need to appreciate why these theoretical principles exist, why they are relevant (if at all), and whether our music benefits from the application of these principles.

Thus ends another rant. -AA

FROM MY OTHER REPLY, THAT GOT SWALLOWED BY ALL THIS:

Okay... so, I didn't mean for this thread to be resurrected in this manner. What I meant by my post was that... one year ago, I held a very conservative view on music. I appreciated atonal and serial works BUT.. at that time, I felt they were inferior to the beauty I saw in the works I was more familiar with. In the course of that year, I have explored serialism and atonality (as well as polytonality and modalism). In that year.. I have come a long way in my understanding of music. Writing works whose primary focus is the material itself - independent of traditional harmonic models - is a difficult task in and of itself. A year ago, I didn't see that! I can speak from experience now and say that it is a viable form of expression and one that I would recommend every composer (no matter your personal opinion) undertake. There's a lot to learn from it. I really don't want to have to lock this thread though... so I ask that everyone here please keep the personal attacks separate. Discuss and argue with the other persons position - don't attack that person.

I wasn't "attacking" anyone, just telling them both why they're wrong.

I wasn't "attacking" anyone, just telling them both why they're wrong.

I wasnt referring to you. I just wanted make sure people saw it. I was afraid with your wall of text... that people wouldnt see it, so I posted it again. Though, did you read all I wrote? Certainly you could comment about other facets of it.

I wasnt referring to you. I just wanted make sure people saw it. I was afraid with your wall of text... that people wouldnt see it, so I posted it again.

You're just trying to steal my thunder... :P

Though, did you read all I wrote? Certainly you could comment about other facets of it.

Like what? I agree with pretty much everything you said. I do think learning about contemporary music is worthwhile as long as it helps to inspire you as a composer. If you're tormenting yourself trying to "get it", you're probably not listening to the right music. Just keep opening your ears and listening to more works. The largest portion of my compositional process is actually listening to music I've never heard before and refining musical ideas and gestures in my mind before I ever start composing into Finale or what-have-you.

Okay... so, I didn't mean for this thread to be resurrected in this manner. What I meant by my post was that... one year ago, I held a very conservative view on music. I appreciated atonal and serial works BUT.. at that time, I felt they were inferior to the beauty I saw in the works I was more familiar with. In the course of that year, I have explored serialism and atonality (as well as polytonality and modalism). In that year.. I have come a long way in my understanding of music. Writing works whose primary focus is the material itself - independent of traditional harmonic models - is a difficult task in and of itself. A year ago, I didn't see that! I can speak from experience now and say that it is a viable form of expression and one that I would recommend every composer (no matter your personal opinion) undertake. There's a lot to learn from it. I really don't want to have to lock this thread though... so I ask that everyone here please keep the personal attacks separate. Discuss and argue with the other persons position - don't attack that person.

QFT

It's like I always said, people who attack the stuff often have no experience with it or are hating out of internet jerkass syndrome.

Whatever happened to trying stuff out? Oh that's right, everyone is an expert on everything always even without having given the topic any serious attention.

Seriously, stoppu.

QFT

It's like I always said, people who attack the stuff often have no experience with it or are hating out of internet jerkass syndrome.

Whatever happened to trying stuff out? Oh that's right, everyone is an expert on everything always even without having given the topic any serious attention.

Seriously, stoppu.

Pretty much same thing I said... but not as nice. ;)

The "lack of belief in supernatural beings/gods" is a belief in and of itself. I have no problem with the word Atheism, however, because in this context we're talking about the subject of something that may or may not exist. In the context of music, calling music that uses tones "atonal" makes no sense. There is no debating the use of tones in this context... yet the literal meaning of the word implies that no tones are being used when clearly these works use tones.

Would you prefer the term "Atonalcentricisim"? Most people understand what is implied when someone says "Atonal" obiously it isn't to be taken literaly, or only un-pitched percussion ensembles and 4:33 are really atonal.

It's such a great quote. One of my favorites, merely because I appreciate the irony Schoenberg points out.

The "nature of tone" refers to, I believe, the mechanics of sound and pitch, not the system of tonality. A tone cannot be called "atonal", therefore a work comprised of tones cannot be said to be atonal either.

Can you elaborate on "The mechanics of sound and pitch"

The argument still seems to be going back to the basic idea of "Taken literaly, the term Atonal dosen't make sense because it still uses tones."

And I agree with that, the only problem is, most people won't understand you if you use less common terms like. "Free-tonality"

Now, SSC's argument if fundamentally diffrent than Shoenberg's, as Shoenberg's famous quote about atonality is all about semantics.

SSC is saying that "Atonaliy" (not taken literaly, but by it's common deffinition) is too broad of a term to be usefull. There was actually a clever post earlier resopnding to this idea of SSC's, let me see if I can find it.

Edit: Ah, it is actually you who posted it AntiA, I don't think SSC ever replied to this;

Your whole approach to this assumes that no one can agree on music terminology, so it's not worth discussing. You're taking issue for no other reason than to argue hyper-technical issues that aren't actually that relevant to the level of abstraction needed to discuss this subject.

There's little difference between this and someone posing the question, "Do you like dogs or cats better? To those who like dogs, why? For those who like cats, why?" and you responding, "There are many different types of dogs and many different types of cats, you're not being specific enough. You're not taking this into account when asking this question, and if you knew all the different breeds and their temperaments, you wouldn't need to ask this question." What's the point of even taking it to this level of abstraction if not to complicate the discussion to further your own view that discussions like these should not be had because 'it's just too complex'?

In other words, it's fine to point out that there's a deeper level to the discussion that's perfectly valid. I agree that there are more complex issues to discuss... many of which we've argued over and over again. It's a different matter to IMPOSE that deeper level on this discussion in the effort to entirely 'invalidate' the purpose of the discussion, which is EXACTLY what you're doing.

Just let it be, man. When it gets to the point that generalizations turn into judgments, then I totally think you're justified in making your case that 'tonal center' and 'atonal' are ambiguities that require more clarification. But using it to derail a thread is something else. No one, not the OP poster or anyone who replied have made such arguments. You're just hyper analyzing the subject at this point. Like I said, just let it be.

And I agree with the terms being vauge sometimes, I use the terms in a strict way, someone once called one of my peices atonal.

Papaphrasing:

"This is odbiously atonal, but it relies too much on a tonal center!..." Contradiction much? Maybe he thought that all quarter tone peices were somehow inherently atonal. But I very much agree that the terms can be vauge, but like AntiA said, do we really have to derail the thread?

So, another part of SSC's argument, the part I most disagree with; there is no such thing as a tonal center.

"Tonal can be atonal?" What is this baseless nonsense?

The deffinition for "Tonal Center" has been provided at least once in this thread, and SSC never acknowledged it.

In this case, no, I don't think so. Schoenberg has proven to be, at least to me, quite clear and articulate in his explanations of his views and theories on music.

I'll take your word for it.

Would you prefer the term "Atonalcentricisim"? Most people understand what is implied when someone says "Atonal" obiously it isn't to be taken literaly, or only un-pitched percussion ensembles and 4:33 are really atonal.

I would prefer no reference to categorization, strictly speaking. I'm highlighting the points where it makes no sense to even use "atonality" as a category. Music is a cultural phenomenon, this much is clear. We should have more anthropological/ethno-musicological terminology associated with our discussions of music, in my opinion. This removes the propensity of inequity in the way we discuss and view music. We tend not to run as much of a risk in creating preferential treatment for one style of music over others. So, in the sense that we discuss "tonal" music, we should be referring more specifically to Western Classicism. When we discuss "atonal" music, I prefer to think of it as music that is "Post-Classicism" or literally "after Classicism." The sense that these styles are different has much more to do with social, philosophical, and/or aesthetic differences within culture, not the mechanical differences in the styles.

To say you've written "an atonal piece" is to say you've formed an appreciation for the philosophical, cultural, and/or aesthetic values of the Post-Classical styles of music emerging in the 20th Century, an appreciation that likely influenced your decision-making process in composing the work. Similarly, an appreciation of Western Classicism of the 16th to 19th Centuries will also share the common trait of influencing your decision-making process in composing music. Any and all styles are simply emergent systems of a musical vocabulary and syntax that incorporates a broad gamut of other influences. We can be more specific in identifying "what" from Classicism influences our music, "what" from Post-Classicism influences our music, etc. This is a much more equitable and specific way of understanding music that doesn't require us to "take sides" as though we're vying for some kind of "fan-based" popularity when we think about music. There's no reason for making mechanical, objective distinctions among styles when those observations exclude the social, philosophical, and aesthetic fundamentals on which such decisions are made.

And I agree with the terms being vague sometimes, I use the terms in a strict way, someone once called one of my pieces atonal.

Paraphrasing:

"This is obviously atonal, but it relies too much on a tonal center!..." Contradiction much? Maybe he thought that all quarter tone pieces were somehow inherently atonal. But I very much agree that the terms can be vague, but like AntiA said, do we really have to derail the thread?

I think the confusion here on whether or not your piece is "atonal" is based on a misunderstanding of aesthetics. Remember that while I think the Semantics are useless, accuracy is important. We just have to get past our misconceptions that emerge from an insufficient context and form a higher understanding based on practical application. You hear "atonal" and "tonal" thrown around in theoretical discourse, and you connect the terminology to the "mechanics" of the style being referenced instead of the "social, philosophical, and aesthetic" concepts that influence the style. Therefore, you're fundamentally misinformed by A) insufficient use of terminology, B) an improper context, and C) perpetual inconsistencies that emerge from insufficient terminology and context.

So, another part of SSC's argument, the part I most disagree with; there is no such thing as a tonal center.

"Tonal can be atonal?" What is this baseless nonsense?

The definition for "Tonal Center" has been provided at least once in this thread, and SSC never acknowledged it.

I have issues with the presentation of SSC's statement, but I see no sense in baiting a response from him on whether or not "tonal center" exists. This is an aesthetic issue where interpretations upon hearing music are as diverse as the opinions of the people listening. Everyone is entitled to their own view.

I'll take your word for it.

Take some time to review Schoenberg's Harmonielehre where he specifically advocates for the advancement of music by eliminating the barriers imposed on creativity by the functional mindset of harmony in Western Classicism. That's a good place to start, at least. You should find Schoenberg to be articulate and well-spoken on the subject, even if one might disagree with his views on the matter.

I have issues with the presentation of SSC's statement, but I see no sense in baiting a response from him on whether or not "tonal center" exists. This is an aesthetic issue where interpretations upon hearing music are as diverse as the opinions of the people listening. Everyone is entitled to their own view.

Ah, you mean like when you fixed his post earlier in the topic?

In my opinion, the second question is irrelevant, since tonality doesn't exist in how I think about music.

But I still want to discuss this, to see why SSC dosen't believe in tonal centers. If there is no such thing as a tonal center/tonic, what makes F lydian and C major diffrent?

But I still want to discuss this, to see why SSC doesn't believe in tonal centers. If there is no such thing as a tonal center/tonic, what makes F lydian and C major different?

The difference between lydian and ionian (major) modes is the raised fourth. The "tonal center" could just as easily be the same sonority (CEG) in either case... all a "tonal center" really amounts to is a harmonic focal point - where all roads eventually lead to resolve a work. There's the argument for "gravity" and whatnot - see http://www.lydianchromaticconcept.com/faq.html - but to me that's just an explanation for how some music is conceptualized. A tonal center isn't an 'objective' mechanic of all music, it's simply something that can be created and/or manipulated within a stylistic context.