A Discussion About Tonal and Atonal Music

The good question to ask for someone trying to define atonality/whatever is asking if they think Debussy or Ravel are atonal.

And you can generally spot right there how much they know about what they're talking about. It's very easy to have problems if you don't understand what you're trying to say.

I've already given multiple definitions of what passes for "atonality," in rather simple and observable terms. You have music which avoids any "tonal implications," which is to say simple triads, dismissing the concept of "dissonance" as a way to qualify interval hierarchies. Even the lack of any hierarchies can be part of it.

Now then, the other side is also understanding what can pass as "tonal." This means the opposite of the above, REGARDLESS if you are using functional harmony or not. In other words, it "sounds" tonal, due to elements present that link to that tradition. The other simply avoids those elements (to some extent.) In this regard, even if modal music can't be 1:1 compared to functional harmony and whatnot, you can still claim it's close enough in many parameters for it to be "tonal" and nobody would really be bothered.

The point being, all of that is easy to explain and show without talking, ever, about a "tonal center." I still think it's a retarded term, since you could as well say that late 19th century harmony AVOIDS the "tonal center," often skirting around the key the piece is in. You can make all sorts of claims and really it doesn't matter since in the end the explanation of the term is more important than the term itself. Just saying "tonal center," again, means nothing by itself.

This could be just a definition question.

AA, do I summarize you correctly stating you think tonal center tonal center is a term applied to common-practice harmony (thus excluding modality)?

For comparison, I understand it more in the general "gravity"-sense (including all kinds of modes, tertian and maybe even quartal harmonies or implication (like the Berg concerto))

Tonal center refers to the "tonicization" of a sonority, which is to say it clearly establishes a key or even a mode. We aren't excluding modality from the discussion, we're simply making it clear where tonal center applies in music in terms of context. Modality doesn't rely on establishing "key" because modality establishes "mode", and it does so through other modal relationships, not JUST the dominant/tonic as music of the common practice does.

The good question to ask for someone trying to define atonality/whatever is asking if they think Debussy or Ravel are atonal.

No, they are not atonal composers. They aren't exactly "common practice" composers either, but they still rely on similar harmonic relationships from principles of the common practice. 

Tonal center refers to the "tonicization" of a sonority, which is to say it clearly establishes a key or even a mode. We aren't excluding modality from the discussion, we're simply making it clear where tonal center applies in music in terms of context. Modality doesn't rely on establishing "key" because modality establishes "mode", and it does so through other modal relationships, not JUST the dominant/tonic as music of the common practice does.

No, they are not atonal composers. They aren't exactly "common practice" composers either, but they still rely on similar harmonic relationships from principles of the common practice. 

Define "Key" Because as far as I'm concerned, key (as in key signature) is simply a notatonal construct. Or, something to be used to refer to whatever major/minor scale the peice is in. (This is in the key of F# major) Although I have heard people say things like "This is in the key of G dorian" Which further confuses the term.

Define "Key"...

No.

Thanks so much, Jaap... you completely revived this thread. I'm not going to comment though, I'm just going to read and watch.

To me a tone being the "tonal center" means that the other tones are heard in relation to it. For example a F-Major chord(or just the tone F ) in C-Ionian has a very different effect than in E-Phrygian, because in the first case it is heard as the 4th of C, in the other as the minor 2nd of E. HOW exactly the tone is made a tonal center is not really relevant to me. It can be done through V-I cadences, by melodically/rhytmically emphasizing the tone in some way (like in some modal-but-not-common-practice music) or by having the tonal center in the bass or whatever.

Simple.

Tonal is based on a note, atonal is not.

THREAD CLOSED

...

:happy:

Simple.

Tonal is based on a note, atonal is not.

THREAD CLOSED

...

:happy:

That was the most idotic post I've seen on YC in a long time, especially if it was trying to be a joke.

Simple.

Tonal is based on a note, atonal is not.

THREAD CLOSED

...

:happy:

sup kid

learn music

kbye

^ qft

Simple.

Tonal is based on a note, atonal is not.

In the literal sense, you're absolutely right. In the sense that this describes music many call "atonal", I think you're way off.

But given your smiley at the end, I'd venture to guess you were being sarcastic. 

In the literal sense, you're absolutely right. In the sense that this describes music many call "atonal", I think you're way off.

But given your smiley at the end, I'd venture to guess you were being sarcastic. 

uhm not even in a *literal* sense. There's plenty of atonal music 'based on a pitch' If anything, what most people refer to as 'atonality' just refers to methods of pitch relationships outside tonal hierarchies (though even that isn't a very good definition as you have modality). Varese's Hyperprism comes immediately to mind. The piece is in a somewhat loose ternary form (A- B-A'). The opening has a trombone repeatedly insist of a C. When the reprise of the A section comes, he purposefully avoids using just that same pitch, C, and it consequently doesn't show up for the rest of the piece. I'd call that 'using pitch (or lackof) as a structural element' but I don't think anyone would call it 'tonal' Or what about Berio's Oboe Sequenza where a pitch oscillator holds a drone of B for the entire duration of the piece and the oboe seems to 'grow out of' that B to reach the full chromatic and return to it in the end. I'd call that 'using pitch as a structural element' What about the 5th piano sonata by that female Russian composer whose name currently alludes me? It's in 10, somewhat short movements, based almost entirely around very stark use of clusters yet, in each movement, she makes repeated references to a certain Db in the center of the piano. Again, I'd call that 'using pitch as a structural element' but I don't think anyone would call it 'tonal' Then what about 'tonal' music like Barber's piano sonata that employs rows? What about Berg's Violin Concerto and famous row with heavy 'tonal implications'? What about Bartok? What about Schnittke?

Point being that it'd idiotic to say that atonality is 'defined' by a lack of concern or structuring for pitch. There is plenty of atonal music that still uses pitch as a structural reference and plenty of 'tonal' music that paradoxically seems to erode a center pitch as a structural focal point. I have to agree with SSC in saying that the distinction is mostly a useless label altogether because it tells you basically nothing about the music other than maybe conjuring some loose stereotypes about how each is *supposed* to sound.

They're talking about Schoenberg's complaint. The word. They're talking about the word.

What about the 5th piano sonata by that female Russian composer whose name currently alludes me? It's in 10, somewhat short movements, based almost entirely around very stark use of clusters yet, in each movement, she makes repeated references to a certain Db in the center of the piano.

Galina Ustvolskaya?

Love the berg concerto btw you advised me to listen some time ago ;)

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.

Did anyone mention pitch centricity and pitch-centric music?

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.

I'd go further and say that 'tonality' is a useless label as well. I mean, as SSC has pointed out, Bach, Haydn, Beethoven, and early-mid Scriabin are all 'tonal' but their music is so radically different in so many ways that what the hell is the point in all grouping them in the same category? Both 'tonality' and 'atonality' are forced to become such broad labels that they are essentially useless. For a long while (after I got past my Impressionist pastiche stage), I wrote 'atonal' music without ever realizing it. It wasn't until someone told me that my music was too 'dissonant' and 'atonal' for their tastes that I realized that what I was writing could be called 'atonal' But I still don't think it's a label that holds any personal relevance to what I'm writing. I never think to myself 'hmm, I think I'm going to write some atonal music now!' It's the result of the compositional procedures I choose, not the goal. And other than very early attempts at atonality where it was still a big deal to 'not write in a key' I think the same can be said for most 'atonal' composers. It's a result, not a goal. So what's the point in using such labels?

Words are useless. Abandon the imperfection of language!

I'd go further and say that 'tonality' is a useless label as well. I mean, as SSC has pointed out, Bach, Haydn, Beethoven, and early-mid Scriabin are all 'tonal' but their music is so radically different in so many ways that what the hell is the point in all grouping them in the same category?

I think what SSC fails to address (IF SSC made this precise claim as you say) is the syntax that each of these composers happen to work within... similarities exist in spite of the differences in styles among these composers, so much so that the expectations are the same. We expect tertian harmony, and within that we expect some kind of I-V-I harmonic structure... maybe a variant or substitution of a sonority for any of these. That's the problem with over-generalizations, we become obsessed with isolating things instead of acknowledging and understanding the commonalities. In a word, pointing out that Bach, Haydn, Beethoven, and early-mid Scriabin are so different as not to warrant grouping them practically ignores the very connective syntax these composers all used and manipulated as composers. It's important to understand the differences, just as it is important to understand the commonalities, because the commonalities help us understand other musical languages, styles, etc.

Both 'tonality' and 'atonality' are forced to become such broad labels that they are essentially useless. For a long while (after I got past my Impressionist pastiche stage), I wrote 'atonal' music without ever realizing it. It wasn't until someone told me that my music was too 'dissonant' and 'atonal' for their tastes that I realized that what I was writing could be called 'atonal' But I still don't think it's a label that holds any personal relevance to what I'm writing. I never think to myself 'hmm, I think I'm going to write some atonal music now!' It's the result of the compositional procedures I choose, not the goal. And other than very early attempts at atonality where it was still a big deal to 'not write in a key' I think the same can be said for most 'atonal' composers. It's a result, not a goal. So what's the point in using such labels?

Yeah, well, labels have a funny way of following our work more than leading us to the end result. So does music theory, but that's not really "our problem" now, is it? Nothing stops you from writing what you write or liking what you like. I think the label itself is fundamentally flawed. Tonality really is no better, since in the literal sense it refers very narrowly to something that broadly applies to almost any music we could potentially conceive that relies on pitch. I think of it this way... even if the intention is to not evoke tonality in the traditional sense, tonality in -some- sense is always there if you're using notes. Our aesthetic taste is tied to the particular "tonality" we use... and I'm using -tonality- in the broader sense as a descriptive term that can be used with "syntax." A "tonal syntax" is, to me, any language of music that uses notes and their relationships in some purposeful way. So, the only works of music I can think of that aren't necessarily tied to a "tonal syntax" are some aleatoric and electronic pieces that don't rely on "pitch" to convey a "musical idea" (aka, car horns, wind, and other non-pitched sounds, etc.). I just find this to be a more intelligent way to look at the issue of "tonal" and "atonal" music, if we're going to be using these labels at all - I tend to avoid these terms now.

Ah, but even a very noisy spectrum can be broken into sine waves!

...waves!

I love waves too! The way they crash on the shore leaving that nice foam. So gorgeous!

Don't even mention the sounds of waves!!! Cannot be recorded (well I've never heard a recording that does it justice). I've stood at the beach for hours.

[A big elegant explanation]... I tend to avoid these terms now.

Is that why you are no longer "Antiatonlaity"?

AntiA is more aesthetically pleasing to me. It's just an abbreviated form of a longer name.

Is that why you are no longer "Antiatonlaity"?

I checked for that name, Antiatonlaity, didn't find any user that used it... how odd.