Rant: Do You Compose "tonal Music"?

Short answer: yes.

Slightly longer answer: yes, but without fully mastering it, and whilst enduring the claims that I shouldn't be doing it at this stage.

Yes 

Hi Austenite,

It's unfortunate that you've had to endure claims like this. You are not alone! I have been the recipient of a good deal of criticism in the past, some of it actually fairly severe, and it always hurts, but whenever possible I try to consider the source. I am glad that this forum seems to be such a supportive community in any event. "Mastery" is always the goal for all of us, but who among us can ever claim to have achieved "mastery"? As T.S. Eliot said, "For us, there is only the trying."

Ezra

http://www.music-composition.org

Short answer: yes.

 

Slightly longer answer: yes, but without fully mastering it, and whilst enduring the claims that I shouldn't be doing it at this stage.

I suffer from the opposite problem. I am criticized when I try to write tonally ambiguous music. I compose at the piano in my church sanctuary and when the older people hear my music (especially the ultra-conservative worship ministers with seminary doctorates in sacred music), I can hear them talking about how shameful it is that the church staff and the pastor let me bring that unholy garbage into a place of worship.

Hi KJthesleepdeprived,

Yeah, I can imagine that is a difficult tightrope to walk. For what it's worth, I don't believe any music is inherently "holy" or "unholy"--it's in the eye (or ear) of the beholder. I don't know what denomination your church is, but if anyone asks, you can always introduce them to the sacred music of Stravinsky or Messiaen, both deeply religious composers.

Ezra

http://www.music-composition.org

I suffer from the opposite problem. I am criticized when I try to write tonally ambiguous music. I compose at the piano in my church sanctuary and when the older people hear my music (especially the ultra-conservative worship ministers with seminary doctorates in sacred music), I can hear them talking about how shameful it is that the church staff and the pastor let me bring that unholy garbage into a place of worship.

You're my hero.

P.S. I'm religious

See this related topic.

:O Ezra! You make an appearance on a forum I used to be a moderator of! Woah!

It's Connor, from IU. :D (btw- your opera was awesome, sad I couldn't have been in it.)

Yeah, I think that I don't think about these kinds of things anymore. I wish we could transcend terms like atonality. Doesn't it seem like a dated concept? It's just so far behind the aesthetic. But, I think many people are so stuck on the innovations of the time that they can't move past them. YES: The second viennese school was innovative. Great, so now what? They're dead. It's in the past. 

Where I am right now? I'm not thinking about my place in history. I'm writing what I like. Sometimes my music sounds to me like atonality... sometimes it sounds like it lies perfectly in a key. 

I almost never set out to write a piece (anymore) as an exercise in tonality or atonality. Every now and then, I will compose "in the style of..." to figure out a puzzle. Like, when I wrote my preludes and fugues for string quartet. But, for the most part, I write to a program of some kind. Sometimes, that program will ask me to write atonally, sometimes, it will ask me to write tonally. Whether or not I am in either convention... I have no clue sometimes.

I often think of tonality and atonality as "math". In many ways, tonality has just as much "math" involved as atonality does. Serial composing... and then the careful art of the perfect authentic cadence. 

If you look at anything I've written, you will see a lack of academic approach. I don't like to approach my music with a purely academic mindset. I never go in thinking: "I want to use a tone row". I just don't do it... 

I always go in with a sound I want to hear, and I just recreate that sound. 

Sometimes, it fits within an established aesthetic. Sometimes, it does not. But, always, it does not feel like adhering to the rules of the prescribed philosophies.

And, that's how I view them. I think tonality is a philosophy of believing in centricity. It means that there is a hierarchy of sound, and people agree on that hierarchy. I think atonality is a little like communism... it values all sound equally, and does not force a hierarchy in conventional ways. Though, generally secondary parameters play a role in structure (I'm thinking of Berg's free atonal works, where his romantic tendencies make his atonal works sound like german masterpieces of the 19th century). The actual harmonic content is not viewed in a traditional hierarchy.

On the other end of the spectrum, think about this... What if tonality and atonality are philosophies... of hierarchy and non-hierarchy. I would probably lie in the tonality circle. I would consider Berg's works to be tonal in that sense, in a similar way that I'd say Peter Grimes is tonal. 

What is atonal, then? Cage's 4'33", where the traditional pitch content is thrown by the wayside, and we are invited to just experience life as it is. No imposed hierarchy, just experience. 

I'm merely waxing curious... just thinking and mulling on the topic. But, honestly, it's not an issue that comes up in my compositional process anymore.

I compose tonal music, but not exclusively.

What I envision for my future compositions is a kind of integrated approach which combines many topoi and techniques of older musics with contemporary techniques. Think renaissance counterpoint, dance rhythms, triadic harmonies, motives, and symmetrical phrase structures (antecedent + consequent) but also clusters, polytempos, micropolyphony, computer mediated instrumentation & quantified timbre, integrated mathematical structures, microtones, etc. In little snippets, it might occasionally sound (bi/poly) tonal, or say, have varying degrees of consonance, but may or may not put more emphasis on a single pitch (or a set of pitches) over the long term. When I say "integration" I'm not thinking of postmodernism or polystylism, but something the ties these disparate techniques/ styles together into a unified whole, while retaining the potential for being expressive and coherent. Think more late Beethoven (baroque+ classical+ "chruch modes") or Mozart (Italian opera + JC Bach + Galante style + haydn) or Bach (italian + german + french traditions), or early Schoenberg (synthesis of Brahms and Wagner) than Schnittke or Berio, say.

Hi Connor! So cool to find you here. It's late now, so I'll wait until tomorrow to write a slightly longer response, but it sounds like you and I are on the same page about a lot of these issues. Some of the best advice I received, indirectly, from a teacher was similar to something you say: "Write what you like!" I have always tried to be honest with myself and write the music that I would like to hear first and foremost. Thanks for your kind words and keep in touch.

Yours,

Ezra

http://www.music-composition.org

Sounds very interesting, p7rv! Let us know how it goes!

Hi Ken320,

It looks like there has already been a bit of discussion about the post you linked to, but in summation I would say there is good atonal music and bad atonal music, just as there certainly exists good tonal music and bad tonal music. My argument, though, is that these terms are not the most useful anyway. It's tempting to think of the world is divided into just two camps, but I believe there is a large portion of the musical spectrum that is not really very well-described by either term. Thanks for your reply.

Yours,

Ezra

http://www.music-composition.org

No... I'm an atonal avant-garde composer. 

Some interesting points here, I think it's rare tonality or atonality defines an aesthetic on its own. The Second Viennese School is a good example of a group of composers who did use atonality but their aesthetic concerns were much deeper than that. It became about purity and unity and the twelve tone system allowed for mathematically pure ideas (the strive for non-tonal purity was mainly due to the general feeling in all art forms at the time that art had to change to try and forget the first and second world wars... this created the modernist aesthetic in many art forms, not just music). You also can in no way limit atonality to these three composers, in terms of the avant-garde how about Sciarrino, Berio, Ligeti, Xenakis, Stockhausen.. but to name a few. Many of these composers chose to use atonality not to explore harmony but other elements of music. Ligeti is the classic case, he makes huge pieces all about texture and they are fascinating, Clocks and Clouds is a prime example. Berio uses atonality to explore instrumental idioms and timbres in his Sequenza's... whilst for some contemporary composers atonal harmony will always be an interest, often the use of atonal harmony is to diminish the role of harmony in a piece, because our connection with tonal harmony is too strong (not naturally, in my opinion this is a strong connection due to a social normative forced upon us).

They are useful terms for harmonic analysis, but that's it. Aesthetic's should not be defined purely by musical parameters, but social, philosophical, scientific and dare I say political ideologies, hence why many composers were friends with painters of the same style... Mozart was not a classical composer because he used sonata form, he was a classical composer because he believed in the classical aesthetic and applied that to music (the classical aesthetic being one based on symmetry and formalist ideas... which were derived primarily from ancient Greece).  

Sorry, rant over, I hope that makes sense. 

Adam

Atonal as you describe it is better labeled as serialist. It works better to label something based on what it is as opposed to what it isn't. Debussy and the late romantic early modern composers are Impressionistic or late Romantic. Early preserial second viennese school type music is modernist (aesthetically) and a lot of what is labeled as contemporary atonal is better described as postmodern, neomodern, etc.

Personally I've always thought of modern music better described aesthetically as Industrial, as the rise of dissonance followed and was in many ways shaped by the industrial revolution. This allows for an easier distinction between contemporary music which has certainly progressed to post industrial, as the information revolution is shaping the future of music in an even more direct way than the industrial revolution did.

Pitch centricity is an aspect of almost all music, even if it is just avoidance it still plays a part. Atonal is a poorly functioning word, I am intellectually offended by it.

Some great points, U238. Terms like "tonal" and "atonal" seem to imply that a piece of music has to be only one or the other, but there is a lot of good music that can be described equally well (or equally poorly) by either term, depending on who you ask. I share your frustration and agree that there are many better words that can be used when talking about music.