Igor Stravinsky - Rite of Spring

I too agree that Rite of Spring is not atonal. It just feels that way. It's wildly polytonal in places, and the harmonic structure is nothing if not complex, but a lot of it is quite tonal indeed, especially the melodies. I like Rite of Spring because while it's modern, it is also highly structured. If I'm going to go that far into the unknown, I want a firm rock to stand on, and ROS gives me that. My favourite piece of Stravinsky's, with "Firebird" running close second.

Yeah, it's not technically atonal or completely lacking in tonality... maybe "distonal" could describe it. There's bits of what seems to be from relatively diatonic scales, but they keep shifting, so it's hard to really say.

A rift opens in the thread. Shall we discuss Stravinsky, or shall we discuss atonality?

Atonality! That feeling of zero gravity, nothing to hold on to, at least not for long enough to get one's bearings, ever falling, ever rising? Schoenberg's desire for a non-hierarchical set of intervals (do I have this right?) is at odds with the ever-present circle of fifths out of which our pitches lifted (NOT from the overtone series as some say, or at least limited to the first 3, a silly limit we can blame on prudish Pythagoras), and yet it succeeds, perhaps because twelve notes per octave is enough to override our pitch sense, even my own near-perfect pitch. More on that and more over here (look for "Miller limit").

Is any of that discussable?

As we know, Stranvinsky wrote only a few atonality works after the 1960s.
The achievement of 'Rite of Spring' is the complex of beat and the mixture of harmonic scale and diatonic scale.
And, as a piece for an orchestra of such large scale, the use of intruments is also remarkable, expecially the wind(of course. he love wind).

A rift opens in the thread. Shall we discuss Stravinsky, or shall we discuss atonality?

Atonality! That feeling of zero gravity, nothing to hold on to, at least not for long enough to get one's bearings, ever falling, ever rising? Schoenberg's desire for a non-hierarchical set of intervals (do I have this right?) is at odds with the ever-present circle of fifths out of which our pitches lifted (NOT from the overtone series as some say, or at least limited to the first 3, a silly limit we can blame on prudish Pythagoras), and yet it succeeds, perhaps because twelve notes per octave is enough to override our pitch sense, even my own near-perfect pitch.* More on that and more over here (look for "Miller limit").

Is any of that discussable?

I'd love to be able to discuss this intelligently. Why can't I? I read that article, and I didn't have any more of an idea what the author was talking about than I did before I began...and I'm not a stupid guy. *sigh*

I find this really interesting in theory - honestly - but I can't cut it up into small enough chunks to digest. And the jargon is a pain in the ass, frankly. But when you're talking about something on the cutting edge, I guess you have to invent new ways to articulate it.

Two points:

1. As far as I can recall, the reaction from the audience at the first performance of "The Rite of Spring" was mostly in objection to the staging of it. It was this that was thought to be most vulgar: the music was very much secondary.

2. "The Rite of Spring" is also very much not atonal, as has been pointed out. Truly atonal music is a most wonderful experience (wonderful, though I don't find it enjoyable neccessarily), as there is no sense whatsoever of key or even which note is which. I have only ever imagined truly atonal music in my head, as I believe that it does not exist in real life. Serial music is also not truly atonal, as each moment shifts from one note or chord to another and therefore has tonicism of some sort. It's not traditional tonality, of course, as it doesn't follow even simple rules such as cadences: however, a chord sequence doesn't have to be made out of specific rules. C/Db/Eb/Fb/G --> C#/D/Eb/F#/A/Bb (for example) would be considered atonal by many, but still has some following of tonality about it.

"I'm pretty sure that it's atonal at at leats some point (when you have 4 tonalities at the same time you must call it atonal). And i didn't know that atonality is supposed to be "without harmonoy"."

Where's this come from? I've never heard of this. If you have four tonalities at the same time, then it has four tonalities at the same time! It is tonal, as it has four systems of tonality. A piece can have as many systems of tonality as the composer wishes and it's still tonal: it uses tonal principles. Once the composer stops using tonal principles can a piece be considered for its atonal properties. (Atonal means not tonal, not 'without harmony'. All music, so long as it has more than one sound at any one time, has harmony.)

I'm pretty sure that it's atonal at at leats some point (when you have 4 tonalities at the same time you must call it atonal). And i didn't know that atonality is supposed to be "without harmonoy".
Oh and my favorite is Glorification of the Chosen One and the Sacrificial Dance of the Chosen One.

[attachmentid=144]

Hmm, is it a good idea to post copyrighted material on this forum...?

!

**Removed**

Originally posted by J. Lee Graham@Aug 9 2005, 12:58 AM
[b]I'd love to be able to discuss this intelligently.* Why can't I?* I read that article, and I didn't have any more of an idea what the author was talking about than I did before I began...and I'm not a stupid guy.* *sigh*

I find this really interesting in theory - honestly - but I can't cut it up into small enough chunks to digest.* And the jargon is a pain in the ass, frankly.* But when you're talking about something on the cutting edge, I guess you have to invent new ways to articulate it.

Yep, tuning theory is one of the most terminologically muddled up cesspools of our time. But this chart is what I wast hoping to point to ("tones" means "tones per octave to keep track of":

tones * effect * * * * * * * * * * *propriety * * * * * *music
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 *2-4 * too easy * * * * * * * * * little importance * *chant
 * * * *less interesting * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *ritual song
 * * * *more "join in" potential

 5-12 * tracking starts to slip * * most important * * * polyphony
 * * * *mind has fun trying to * * * * * * * * * * * * * parallel harmony
 * * * *keep its place * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * melody over chords

11-22 * tracking the entire scale * some importance * * *parallel harmony
 * * * *impossible: mind "chunks" * * * * * * * * * * * * melody over chords
 * * * *scale into proper subsets * * * * * * * * * * * * melody over drone
 * * * *and tracks within/between
 * * * *those

23-34 * inability to focus or * * * no importance * * * *conceptualism * * 
and up *mind begins to fuse 
 * * * *individual simuli and
 * * * *re-interprets as if
 * * * *hearing 5-9 tone scale

And let me try and clear up "propriety" - in a proper scale, for example, the sum of any two adjacent steps has to be bigger in size than any one step. So, equal scales like the chromatic and wholetone are this, and also things like the major scale (where "one step" is either half or whole and "two steps" is always larger, either m3 or M3).

"I'm pretty sure that it's atonal at at leats some point (when you have 4 tonalities at the same time you must call it atonal). And i didn't know that atonality is supposed to be "without harmonoy"."

Where's this come from? I've never heard of this. If you have four tonalities at the same time, then it has four tonalities at the same time! It is tonal, as it has four systems of tonality. A piece can have as many systems of tonality as the composer wishes and it's still tonal: it uses tonal principles. Once the composer stops using tonal principles can a piece be considered for its atonal properties. (Atonal means not tonal, not 'without harmony'. All music, so long as it has more than one sound at any one time, has harmony.)

Heh, the term for it is polytonality. The most famous example of this is probably in Honegger's Le Roi David, where the "marching of the feet" of the Israelites is in a different tonality as the chant they're singing, and another different tonality for the echoes against the mountains. Definately tonal.