A Discussion About Tonal and Atonal Music

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

Cut off?

Just for the record, most authorities on the theory of 'Tonal Harmony', from Rameau to Riemann tend to agree that 'tonicization' - the creation of a 'tonal center' in music from early Baroque through Post-Romantic periods - occurs through the resolution of a tri-tone to its related major or minor third. Take the Tritone B-F. When you collapse this interval (or through inversion expand it), it could form a major third (C-E) or a minor third (C-Eb). The 'C' in this example is the pitch center. The E/Eb defines the mode that ultimately determines the tonality. This is how we can say that a work is in C Major or C Minor (except in cases of a Picardi Third, where a whole piece might play out in a Minor mode and cadence in a Major key).

Sure, it's theory. It's 'subjective'. But it's a good way to look at it that tends to account for a LOT of music we analyze.

Heya glass000,

welp.. at least the thread has somewhat gotten back to your original intent. :) On the bright side, its at least 6 pages long now and more people will come in to look at it based on the number of replies alone. Hopefully they will simply answer your question rather than fine tune what you meant and then argue over it. :P

However, the funniest post here hands down was when Antiatonality interjected...

Fixed for accuracy.

priceless! hahaha.. :P You cant buy the kind of laughter that it provided for me... hahahaha

Cut off?

Someone silenced him before he could blaspheme Tonal Compositions name :shifty:.

Cut off?

Uhh...yeah.

It kind of ruined my joke, too.

Anyway, to finish: If you're a tonal composer, what's your tonal center?

I guess you could say, I'm mixed? I like atonal music, so I write some stuff atonal. Sometimes I write tonal. It's a mix. I write the kind of music that sounds good at the time, or how I feel can change the music.

That is all!

I guess you could say, I'm mixed? I like atonal music, so I write some stuff atonal. Sometimes I write tonal. It's a mix. I write the kind of music that sounds good at the time, or how I feel can change the music.

That is all!

aka extended tonality

Why don't we just compose music with how it sounds rather than what to name it.

Why don't we just compose music with how it sounds rather than what to name it.

This.

I don't tend to try and classify what I am writing, mostly because my music centers on diatonic crunchies. lol. Not really complex, just doing what I feel like doing. But, a LOT of knowledge goes into it. My music wouldn't be nearly as simple if I didn't know HOW to communicate my idea effectively. I feel that the less knowledge of theory and harmony you have, the harder you have to work to make your music evoke whatever it is you want to show. Seriously, I wholeheartedly believe if you are WELL versed in the many types of atonal music and tonal music and modal and ethnic and eastern and african... etc... you can create the simplest melody without the hardest endeavor.

If you take the time to learn your stuff, you can spend less time classifying and more doing what you SHOULD be doing: Applying what you know in any combination to achieve a specific sonic scape that you can use and manipulate to build your creation.

If you take the time to learn your stuff, you can spend less time classifying and more doing what you SHOULD be doing: Applying what you know in any combination to achieve a specific sonic scape that you can use and manipulate to build your creation.

Well put.

Not to go off on a tangent and do even more thread hijacking than has already been done when the member simply asked a question...

I agree with you whole-heartedly about less time time being spent on figuring out what to do and how to find what sounds best. If I only knew these things I wouldnt have to struggle so hard to find the next logical step in the progression of a composition. Of course, this is not within the scope of the thread and therefore should not be debated or replied to here at all. I just wanted to completely agree with that statement. Again, well said. :)

As for the classification.. This thread started by very simply posing a question, nothing more when you get right down to it. I really wish more people would simply answer questions when asked rather than go on for pages in an endless "I will have the last word" debate, or try to find an alternative way to think about a question that was pretty clear and concise to begin with (unless asked for by the thread starter of course)... We aren't doing brain surgery here or calculating the best way to navigate the stars... This thread has a relatively simple question that could easily be answered in a few sentences.

This isn't pointed at any one person, just more of an out-loud thought for when/if this should happen again. Question asked = answer given. Not that hard to do. Sorry if I stepped on any toes. It is absolutely not my intention. I am interested to see what other peoples answers are as well.

This isn't pointed at any one person, just more of an out-loud thought for when/if this should happen again. Question asked = answer given. Not that hard to do. Sorry if I stepped on any toes. It is absolutely not my intention. I am interested to see what other peoples answers are as well.

Just because you haven't understood the problems with what he's asking don't mean they aren't there. He's asking questions that automatically assume terminology which has no universal definition.

His questions, therefore, are not "easy to answer," since to answer them requires me to fill in 90% of what he's failing to actually provide along with his questions.

Lacking knowledge of something is fine, that's why people learn things, but don't you go saying that it's all A-OK and the discussion that happened was for no reason other than to pointlessly bicker. That shows you didn't understand even the most basic of what was discussed and frankly, if you don't like it, you're welcome to stay out of it.

Likewise, the OP is encouraged to actually pay attention to the discussion rather than dismiss it. He may as well learn something from it.

Just because you haven't understood the problems with what he's asking don't mean they aren't there. He's asking questions that automatically assume terminology which has no universal definition.

His questions, therefore, are not "easy to answer," since to answer them requires me to fill in 90% of what he's failing to actually provide along with his questions.

Lacking knowledge of something is fine, that's why people learn things, but don't you go saying that it's all A-OK and the discussion that happened was for no reason other than to pointlessly bicker. That shows you didn't understand even the most basic of what was discussed and frankly, if you don't like it, you're welcome to stay out of it.

Likewise, the OP is encouraged to actually pay attention to the discussion rather than dismiss it. He may as well learn something from it.

Ok SSC, fair enough. But if you actually got into the "conversation" rather that grind it to a halt with semantics, it might actually be a good thing. No matter as you have made yourself abundantly clear.

Thank you for providing me with a wealth of information. My personal apologies for somehow disrespecting your text. :) have a great day.

Just because you haven't understood the problems with what he's asking don't mean they aren't there. He's asking questions that automatically assume terminology which has no universal definition. His questions, therefore, are not "easy to answer," since to answer them requires me to fill in 90% of what he's failing to actually provide along with his questions.

Lacking knowledge of something is fine, that's why people learn things, but don't you go saying that it's all A-OK and the discussion that happened was for no reason other than to pointlessly bicker. That shows you didn't understand even the most basic of what was discussed and frankly, if you don't like it, you're welcome to stay out of it.

Likewise, the OP is encouraged to actually pay attention to the discussion rather than dismiss it. He may as well learn something from it.

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.

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.

Well said indeed... I just hope others can see(better yet -understand) this as well, not just for this post, but for ALL future posts. This is a problem on most every forum where hypercritical individuals exist. Rather than continue this discussion (the one about whether or not the OP thread was valid or not) any further here, I humbly ask that you, antiatonality, or SSC, or anyone else start a new thread on this and let us debate whether excessive semantics and/or fine tuning the question to the point that noone even cares any more is a good thing or not.

A Very good point you just made Aatonal. :)

I tried that. It's a thread doomed to failure here... Mods hate it when people bicker endlessly... and I'd rather just stay out of their way if it's all the same to you. :D

I tried that. It's a thread doomed to failure here... Mods hate it when people bicker endlessly... and I'd rather just stay out of their way if it's all the same to you. :D

And that is WHY I have been silent the last few pages ;)

Oops! My bad. That was not my intention at all. Noone wants to promote an argument (I hope?). I meant it in such a way as to civilly discuss the matter. Since I have already answered this thread, this is my last post. Sorry once again for any mis-understanding with regard to a new thread.

My English teacher told me at the beginning of the year: "Connor, EVERYTHING is an argument..."

You know what else she said? "Most of that argument, though, is purely empty rhetoric and leads to no possible end"

"Better to write just ONE sentence of pure thought than 7 pages of emotional drivel that are comprised of nothing but seamless bits of logic pieced together illogically to create a fallacy that nobody wants to read, interpret, or digest."

"Be careful what you read... and relax, 'cause your whole life will be filled with this nonsense. That is why you are in this class, to determine Rhetoric from empty rhetoric". "This way you will be able to argue intelligently and prove a point, instead of proving an opinion... which is impossible." *she winks*

I have it copied into my notes STRAIGHT from her lecture. And, I believe this fact holds true here.

Let's stop trying to prove an opinion and just STATE our opinions, acknowledge them, move on, and not argue the fact from opinion. Cause it's impossible to make an opinion fact.

My English teacher told me at the beginning of the year: "Connor, EVERYTHING is an argument..."

You know what else she said? "Most of that argument, though, is purely empty rhetoric and leads to no possible end"

"Better to write just ONE sentence of pure thought than 7 pages of emotional drivel that are comprised of nothing but seamless bits of logic pieced together illogically to create a fallacy that nobody wants to read, interpret, or digest."

"Be careful what you read... and relax, 'cause your whole life will be filled with this nonsense. That is why you are in this class, to determine Rhetoric from empty rhetoric". "This way you will be able to argue intelligently and prove a point, instead of proving an opinion... which is impossible." *she winks*

I have it copied into my notes STRAIGHT from her lecture. And, I believe this fact holds true here.

Let's stop trying to prove an opinion and just STATE our opinions, acknowledge them, move on, and not argue the fact from opinion. Cause it's impossible to make an opinion fact.

I would rather argue over the issue of whether or not you know what rhetoric means :P haha... ACK! This thread is trashed! Moderators help! Please remove all this semantic and silliness stuff and return it to its former wonderful self! *sobs*

I bet it would be less than 2 pages if that were done. :) *finds a reason to go on with life now.....*

Rhetoric is just anything an author uses to prove a point. That's all.

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'?

Gee I didn't know that was my view, thanks for telling me. You can have all the discussions you want, so long as it's not based on vague terms and false generalizations. Otherwise they're not really discussions.

And yes it's a complex discussion and I don't expect most to be up to it, but that's pretty much why I tried to explain what I meant rather than just leaving it at my first post. I think I demonstrated quite clearly that the topic isn't as easy as it seems and furthermore how whatever answers you can give to the "why write atonal music" can vary wildly depending on what you're calling "atonal" which can be thousands and thousands of things.

But whatever, the thread has hilariously remained on topic considering its title of "A discussion about tonal and atonal music." If anything, it's probably been much more interesting than whatever would've come out of trying to answer the OP's questions (which in turn I suspect would've turned into yet another "tonal music is great and emotional and atonal music is ugly yucky" shitfest.)

Another thing to notice, I wasn't stopping really anyone from just posting their answers to the OP ANYWAY if they had wanted to.

Gee I didn't know that was my view, thanks for telling me. You can have all the discussions you want, so long as it's not based on vague terms and false generalizations. Otherwise they're not really discussions.

Sure they are still discussions... when someone says, "I like cats better than dogs because cats clean themselves and don't smell as bad as dogs." And you're welcome to post your reasons for why some breeds of dogs smell better than some breeds of cats. It's all about your level of abstraction and what is 'appropriate' and 'relevant' to the discussion at the time.

And yes it's a complex discussion and I don't expect most to be up to it, but that's pretty much why I tried to explain what I meant rather than just leaving it at my first post. I think I demonstrated quite clearly that the topic isn't as easy as it seems and furthermore how whatever answers you can give to the "why write atonal music" can vary wildly depending on what you're calling "atonal" which can be thousands and thousands of things.

It only needs to be as complex as it becomes necessary to explain your point. You explained that in your second post... yet six pages later you're still trolling the thread with more ranting about how you're right, the thread topic is stupid, the poster is stupid, the other replies are garbage, and music is too complex to discuss. What's your angle if it's not to derail this thread?

But whatever, the thread has hilariously remained on topic considering its title of "A discussion about tonal and atonal music." If anything, it's probably been much more interesting than whatever would've come out of trying to answer the OP's questions (which in turn I suspect would've turned into yet another "tonal music is great and emotional and atonal music is ugly yucky" shitfest.)

You assumed the worst even when people tried to make the best out of your negativity. Even Nikolas stated that he 100% agreed with you but that it was unnecessary to make the discussion so complex. Just about everyone here is saying they don't care if it's complex, they're willing to offer their opinions on the topic... but even that's not enough, is it?

Another thing to notice, I wasn't stopping really anyone from just posting their answers to the OP ANYWAY if they had wanted to.

Sure you were. Nearly every response in the past several pages has been someone defending themselves and their opinions from your hypertechnical ranting. Then they stop posting because they're tired of being trolled. If you won't take it from me, then take it from John Lennon... just "Let it Be."

Just the mere fact that the OP described himself as a "tonal composer" is enough to dismiss this thread outright.

Just sayin.

What's your angle if it's not to derail this thread?

Considering you've been helping along thus far in derailing it, I guess you should know the answer to this better than I.

Considering you've been helping along thus far in derailing it, I guess you should know the answer to this better than I.

It's not the first time you've tried to dodge a question by pointing your finger at me.

That's fine. I've wasted enough of my time on ya... moving along.