A Discussion About Tonal and Atonal Music

The reason why I write atonal: I don't really. I tried but I find it way more difficult than composing tonal. Reason being (might just be me) is I find making atonal sound "good" (IMO) is like an experiment. I test different pitches together until I find what I want. I find it hard to find the balance between making it sound purposeful, or a cat running across the piano (unless of course that's what you are trying to portray). For example, Charles Ives has some atonal music that I enjoy, like his very atonal Sonata No.2. Atonal can seem very powerful to me, even more so than tonal music. If it's done well, it can be as good as any tonal music. It may be because of its unpredictability that comes with it.

On the second question, even though I'm mostly a tonal composer, or I like to think I am, I do not think tonal music can cover every emotion. The reason being, most if not all composers create music to express their view on life and the emotions they have. Not one person can share the same view on life and emotions, so theoretically, no single style can be considered an emotion. This all makes sense in my head but I can't get it out very well in words, so, I'm just going to stop there. I think this makes sense for the most part.

Hope you found some sort of answer you're looking for. :)

Keep in mind this is an opinion thread, not a debating thread. I absolutely hate when good threads like this are ruined by stupid arguments. :angry:

Ooh, stingy.

But fail all the same. So now I want to see you struggle to tell me what "the tonic" is in dozens of Debussy pieces... otherwise, they don't have a "tonal center," right? Therefore they're ... atonal, right?

Another wonderful problem with "tonic" as well is that, woopee, terminology made up in the 1730s didn't account for music written centuries before that either. So, where IS the tonic in the music of the ars antiqua again?

Unless you are hilariously implying that a mode = tonic. You certainly wouldn't be that silly, would you?

Right, I agree with you 100% SSC... the pieces of Debussy dont have tonal centers... and yes, they are atonal.

Also, I agree with you as well... 100% the terminology made up in the 1730s didn't account AT ALL for the music written centuries before it. And, yes, whatever you say on the music of the ars antiqua... your obviously the most well educated person in the history of the western tradition - and for that matter the world. So I will take what you say completely as fact - even when the topic really has no facts, but only opinions.

And no, I am not implying at all that a mode has a tonic. Though, if you would like to think I am - go ahead. I know my 29 year old beginner/amateur, completely uneducated AT ALL, mind can barely comprehend the utter musical knowledge you hold.

Right, I agree with you 100% SSC... the pieces of Debussy dont have tonal centers... and yes, they are atonal.

I hope you're kidding.

And no, I am not implying at all that a mode has a tonic.

Funny thing is, you are. You said:

Tonal: music that is rooted in a tonal center.

TONAL CENTER: the tonic

and before that:

Modal music is tonal in very simplistic terms.

So it follows that you are implying it has a tonic. In "very simplistic terms," whatever that may mean.

Debussy uses tonal centers... several in fact. Sometimes he uses more than one at the same time... hence, Polytonality.

I don't get this intellectual worship of SSC, JW. OH WAIT! You were being sarcastic! I get it now! (I don't think SSC did, tho)

I hope you're kidding.

Funny thing is, you are. You said:

and before that:

So it follows that you are implying it has a tonic. In "very simplistic terms," whatever that may mean.

In very simplistic terms, means that yes, it does have a tonal center or a tonic. And keep in mind the definition of tonic! Modal music, as Ive said earlier is linear in nature as opposed to vertical. So you aren't necessarily going to have functional harmonic traits - like you would in that comparative piece of Liszt you presented earlier. But, you already know all this anyways. I'm sure you already have a comeback for this very elementary and probably WRONG view on modal music. I'm sure your more than qualified to correct me on this - so have at it.

I'm sure your more than qualified to correct me on this - so have at it.

Ha. I'll throw you a bone. If you wanted to make a parallel between tonic and a modal piece's "center," you can argue that the finalis of a mode can function as the establishing character and thus center for the mode.

But you're completely ignoring the entire point of functions: context. Tonic means absolutely nothing without the other functions. Likewise, this has nothing to do with a piece being perceived as "tonal" or not. German expressionism is "tonal" yet sounds quite the opposite of Debussy (being closer to free Schoenbergian atonality, which was just around the corner,) and the irony is that those pieces from the expressionism period were indeed based on functional harmony, despite their complexity.

And, here's another bit from Grove, on tonality this time:

A number of musical and discursive factors have contributed to a profusion of definitions for the term. There has been indecision about what musical domain the term covers: whether it applies to both Western and non-Western music, or whether, within Western musical traditions, it should be restricted to the harmonic organization of music from the so-called common practice (1600

jawoodruff -

Honestly, you would benefit from a more open mind. Your opening post's wording contains highly subjective language. If you wish to ask a question objectively than toss the value judgments. If you wish to pose a question and compare your value and taste with others than it makes sense to include your judgments.

There have been threads ad nauseum on this subject and I'd expect by now YC members would construct a thread that engenders thoughtful, constructive and illuminating debate rather than "he said, she said" banter.

Now to address the "objective" question - I do NOT consider my music atonal. I just think people's taste differ in the rate they like (and conditioned ) tonal centers to change. That's all. So, I write what I hear internally and what concepts and emotions I wish to communicate. My batting average for success in doing this is still under 500 so i have much to learn.

By the way, listen to my Wind Trio and let me know if you can determine why the subtitle is certainty/uncertainty before assuming "atonal" music is restricted in its ability communicate emotion. You may not "get" the piece but many people do not get the emotional cues in tonal music. An anecdote may illuminate. Last night my roommate and I were watching Metropolis and I found it to be an opera set to film. My roommate saw it more as a great film with creative use of film technology and acting for the time. Anyway, I heard the Des Irae tune in the midst of a waltz during a scene of an erotic dancer mesmerizing her audience. The film at this point refers to the Apocalypse to communicate death and destruction is coming as a way to reinforce this foreshadowing - for my roommate it was the text and image that communicated it solely, the music had little meaning. He heard the waltz and didn't even know what the Des Irae was. I told him to listen to Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique to get a better idea of what the film music was doing. On the other hand there were some camera angles and scenes I thought quite forward looking and cool and he was very nonchalant about it because he loves and watches a ton of films and considers what I thought special as mundane.

Hope this illuminates.

How many people here are familiar with jazz harmony?

Indeed. Complicated topic is complicated.

Yes, your completely correct on everything stated above.

Also, Please ignore the fact that throughout this thread I have stated IN MY OPINION, IMO, my personal opinion. etc.

I see music, largely, as a field of theorem and not a field of fact. I view tonic as being the root of a scale - the very first in a step of intervalic relationships. To me, a synthetic scale has a tonic... a mode has a tonic...and yes, a major/minor scale has a tonic. Is this a simple of view of what tonic is? Yes! Does it make sense on a basic level? I really hope so. Just because in one system of tonality, there is a functional purpose to each and every step (tonic, dominant, etc. *not in that order*) does not mean that in other systems of tonality these steps have the same functions or functions at all. I'm not going to sit here and cram my ideas of theory and harmony down your throat... pls dont sit here and cram yours down mine.

Now to address the "objective" question - I do NOT consider my music atonal. I just think people's taste differ in the rate at which tonal centers change. That's all.

This is what I'm getting at. I can say ANY music has a "tonal center" so long as I define tonal center to agree with my statement. There is no real definition of "tonal center," there can't really be one since all of this is based on entirely subjective preference (why is the "tonic" tonal center and not something else like a recurring harmony or note, outside of functional harmony? ETC.)

That's why I avoid that kind of terminology. Instead it's much easier to just go by literature. If you want to mean Schoenberg-like "atonality," say exactly this. If you want to mean Varese-like atonality, or Henry-like atonality, then say exactly that. But then, it renders calling any of it "atonal" completely irrelevant since we're talking about actual pieces and composers.

This is a basic problem with discussing abstract scraggy like this. It's pointless unless there is clarity. If you mean Schoenberg, SAY Schoenberg, not "atonality." Generalizing is, like I said earlier, only going to cause drama and nonsense. It leads to someone saying Debussy is "atonal," when in reality his music is still very much influenced and based on many aspects of major/minor tonality such as chord anatomy, voicing, dynamic usage, phrasing, etc.

The enormous diversity of music prevents any meaningful generalization, since when it comes down to it, Bach's music sounds NOTHING like Schubert and yet they're often grouped under "major/minor tonality." This is also why I'm against nonsense like "common practice" as a term, since while it may be useful to teaching school children (and even that's arguable,) it fails to hold up as a meaningful category even under the slightest examination.

jawoodruff -

Honestly, you would benefit from a more open mind. Your opening post's wording contains highly subjective language. If you wish to ask a question objectively than toss the value judgments. If you wish to pose a question and compare your value and taste with others than it makes sense to include your judgments.

There have been threads ad nauseum on this subject and I'd expect by now YC members would construct a thread that engenders thoughtful, constructive and illuminating debate rather than "he said, she said" banter.

Now to address the "objective" question - I do NOT consider my music atonal. I just think people's taste differ in the rate they like (and conditioned ) tonal centers to change. That's all. So, I write what I hear internally and what concepts and emotions I wish to communicate. My batting average for success in doing this is still under 500 so i have much to learn.

By the way, listen to my Wind Trio and let me know if you can determine why the subtitle is certainty/uncertainty before assuming "atonal" music is restricted in its ability communicate emotion. You may not "get" the piece but many people do not get the emotional cues in tonal music. An anecdote may illuminate. Last night my roommate and I were watching Metropolis and I found it to be an opera set to film. My roommate saw it more as a great film with creative use of film technology and acting for the time. Anyway, I heard the Des Irae tune in the midst of a waltz during a scene of an erotic dancer mesmerizing her audience. The film at this point refers to the Apocalypse to communicate death and destruction is coming as a way to reinforce this foreshadowing - for my roommate it was the text and image that communicated it solely, the music had little meaning. He heard the waltz and didn't even know what the Des Irae was. I told him to listen to Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique to get a better idea of what the film music was doing. On the other hand there were some camera angles and scenes I thought quite forward looking and cool and he was very nonchalant about it because he loves and watches a ton of films and considers what I thought special as mundane.

Hope this illuminates.

My first post? Let me post it for you:

I write both actually. Atonal, usually when I'm in the mood for it. I don't write it that often largely due to my own personal feeling that it cannot express human emotion well. Its a very cold, dead sound - IN MY OPINION. Tonal music, on the other hand, is able to express those emotions that Atonal cannot.

It would be even more preferable to agree to disagree and allow the thread to have some sense of what the author had intended. Not this 3 pages of bickering. Sad really.

Despite how much I love a good verbal joust, I think it would be best if SSC and JW took it somewhere else so this thread can revert back to it's intended purpose. Or better yet, try offering some constructive advice to glass instead of bickering between yourselves. Seriously, before you put your foot in your mouth.

K guys, let's get this back on topic.

Atonal Composers:

What is the main reason that you write atonal?

Tonal Composers: You think that tonal music can cover all the human feelings if you have to discribe them in music?

Since atonality can be whatever we want it to be, including tonality, I say I write atonal music because it's the only thing anyone can write as I'm defining "atonal" using the famous "without tonal center" argument, and to me NO music in the entire history of humanity has had a tonal center.

The second question is irrelevant, since tonality doesn't exist.

Since atonality can be whatever I want it to be, including tonality, I say I write atonal music because it's the only thing anyone can write as I'm defining "atonal" using the famous "without tonal center" argument, and to me NO music in the entire history of humanity has had a tonal center.

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

Fixed for accuracy.

This is the most boring discussion of all time. Formalist nonsense, who cares theories are behind music.

Fixed for accuracy.

Only you would "fix" a joke for "accuracy." You must throw some killer parties, I bet.

Stop worrying. Does it portray what you want it to portray?

Only you would "fix" a joke for "accuracy."

It's only funny when you think about the topic with your criteria in mind. Just because you believe something to be 'absolutely true' doesn't make it absolutely true.

So, I corrected it. :D

You must throw some killer parties, I bet.

The best! :D

It's only funny to me, when I think about the topic with your criteria in mind. Just because I believe something to be 'absolutely true' doesn't make it absolutely true.

So, I ruined it. :D

Cuz if you want to be childish, then let's go all the way am i rite?

There are some important questions raised in this topic...

These terms - tonal and atonal - can really become vague and leave lots of room for interpretation, when there are no specifics on what one labels with these terms, when there are no specifics regarding compositional techniques, the way you shape the musical material, especially considering how people tend to associate certain 'tools' with tonality and atonality, while it is very important how composers use those tools. Despite what dictionaries say, different musicians may and do associate these words differently.

Some people think of tonal music only when it is based on the major-minor system, the corresponding scales and the TSDT functional flow, while others tend to simply think of a kind of prominent reference point... And then comes the question how the tonal center (or point of reference or progenitor tone or whatever) should be formed or highlighted in order to be labeled as such - only through certain harmonic progressions or not? What about the other important elements and forces in music such as rhythm, repetition, dynamics? And then we also have modal music, which is called modal and not tonal, even though you can read about terms such as modal tonic. ;)

So, without any clarifications, there are lots of assumptions when discussing tonal-atonal-modal topics.

Cuz if you want to be childish, then let's go all the way am i rite?

Totally! It's like you're subjectivizing my subjectivization of your subjectivization of a subject! Makes complete sense! :D

This is an interesting thread. When I hear "tonal music" I tend to think of Western music from or based on ideas from the common practice period that can be analyzed in terms of harmonic progressions (derived from the major and minor modes and their associated tertian chords) that relate to a background tonic. The background tonic may shift (modulate), causing an alteration in the available harmonic material. Harmony may be functional or nonfunctional. Of course this is a very broad conception, but it eliminates most music prior to the Baroque, which would usually be analyzed on the basis of hexachord systems and/or counterpoint. Atonal music, in its traditional sense, lacks an intelligible background tonic (or perhaps key/tonal center, depending on your definitions) around which all harmony is arranged.

Unlike the field of acoustics, which has had many terms and definitions standardized by the Acoustical Society of America, music lacks rigid definitions. Some compositions can be considered both tonal and atonal, depending on the arguments, with equal validity. It is not so easy to lump music into the three categories of modal, tonal, and atonal, nor should it be; music, as much as some of us wrestle with it, is ultimately subjective... although this may also depend upon your definitions!

Anywho, back to the thread topic. Most of my music is based on functional harmony, although the totality of a piece is rarely functional. I usually think in terms of key centers or collections of notes that can imply certain progressions, although I don't think about whether my music is tonal or atonal; it just is. Sometimes I try to write in a specific genre and other times I'm doing my own thing, but really what's most important to me is that I create musical unity. I want music that, as Bernstein puts it, "checks throughout, that follows its own law consistently."

I certainly think that "tonal music" has the potential to express the gamut of human emotion. However, I do not always feel that music must express emotion. Most of the time I feel as Aaron Copland did: “You compose because you want to somehow summarize in some permanent form your most basic feelings about being alive, to set down… some sort of permanent statement about the way it feels to live now, today.” Other times I just want to work out a new puzzle with sounds and focus on the composition process more than on the final outcome. In the latter case I feel more like Boulez who said, “The aim of music is not to express feelings but to express music. It is not a vessel into which the composer distills his soul drop by drop, but a labyrinth with no beginning and no end, full of new paths to discover, where mystery remains eternal.” Some people feel that atonal music alienates an audience, and in its early stages it did, particularly after World War I where it seemed to express the psychological condition of the public, the urge to abstraction, and a new search for truth and beauty in a world that had turned so ugly (an objective beauty in math and in numbers that was usually more engaging for a composer than for an audience). However today audiences are more acclimated to and forgiving of the sonic oddities that a composer may employ, and not all atonal pieces are difficult for a layman to grasp. I think "atonal music," whatever you mean by it, can express just as much emotion as any other type of music, it just depends on what the composer does with the sounds and how the audience interprets them. [schoenberg's first steps into pantonality with The Book of Hanging Gardens may have left audiences feeling alienated, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a person who knows the work well and says it is devoid of emotion. In fact the feeling of alienation and anxiety that one may get from the consistent unprepared and unresolved dissonances fits perfectly with the themes of the texts!]

"No generalization is worth a d***, including this one."

The reason why I write atonal: I don't really. I tried but I find it way more difficult than composing tonal. Reason being (might just be me) is I find making atonal sound "good" (IMO) is like an experiment. I test different pitches together until I find what I want. I find it hard to find the balance between making it sound purposeful, or a cat running across the piano (unless of course that's what you are trying to portray). For example, Charles Ives has some atonal music that I enjoy, like his very atonal Sonata No.2. Atonal can seem very powerful to me, even more so than tonal music. If it's done well, it can be as good as any tonal music. It may be because of its unpredictability that comes with it.

On the second question, even though I'm mostly a tonal composer, or I like to think I am, I do not think tonal music can cover every emotion. The reason being, most if not all composers create music to express their view on life and the emotions they have. Not one person can share the same view on life and emotions, so theoretically, no single style can be considered an emotion. This all makes sense in my head but I can't get it out very well in words, so, I'm just going to stop there. I think this makes sense for the most part.

Hope you found some sort of answer you're looking for. :)

Keep in mind this is an opinion thread, not a debating thread. I absolutely hate when good threads like this are ruined by stupid arguments. :angry:

I'm covered from your answer and thank you so much.:D

I wish more composers answer the questions exactly!!!:whistling:

My understanding was that modal music is often considered atonal because it lacks a IV-V-I relationship, but I have no real training in music whatsoever, so take this with a grain of salt. It's also my understanding that, as SSC said, "tonal center" can be interpreted in many different ways. Even in a V-I cadence, you can choose to interpret the V and I chords as having two different tonal centers, if you want to. I think the most simple/useful interpretation is the best (which, for atonal music, means an explanation not involving tonal centers), but for tons of music, "simple" and "useful" are complex, and often useless terms. Basically, as was said before, complicated topics are complicated!

It remains to be seen to what extent atonality is a useful or relevant musical category.

^I agree with this statement.

I mostly write music I consider freely atonal, but I've been shifting more toward (non-functional) tonality now, for no real reason. I'm still not in the process of making finalized pieces so much as experimenting.

Just a technicality, but I am very amused when people say "I am mostly a tonal composer". If you're a tonal com