Relevancy of tonal compositions in the 21st century.

Greetings my new friends,

I am new to this forum (it is very good, by the way!) and one reason I signed up is to attempt to find an answer to my question: "is tonality 'relevant' to composition in the twenty-first century?" I realize that this is a question which requires very subjective thinking, but please bear with my curiosity.

Through the last four months or so, as I delve deeper and deeper into music study (having begun in late 2006), I find increasingly disturbing articles, rants, and quotations which declare tonality "irrelevant" to modern composition. These ideas perplex me, as my mind thinks of new harmonies, progressions, melodies, and the like only in a tonal subtext. For me, to think of composing a piece based only on algorithmic relationships (i.e. Nomos Alpha) or only on mathematical matrices would be out of the question. I believe very strongly in tonality and its intensely human relationship to itself! Yet, as I progress I find more and more opinions from people such as Boulez giving the notion that tonality is as dead today as Bach's style was in Mozart's time.

In general, would you (the musician/composer/listener) say that it is 'irrelevant' to compose in a tonal idiom today, as a serious expression of our art? On the flip side, would you say that you disown a-tonality, serialism, dodecaphony, etc. and embrace ONLY music which resolves? I realize, again, that 'resolves' could mean through rhythmic and not tonal pathways, but just imagine that "resolve" means a tonal cadence. The common practice period is over, apparently (?), so does this mean that to venture back to tonality makes those who do so 'dinosaurs'? This word and others are used so much today, as if there is a huge hostility coming from the dissonant camp.

At the same time as I feel tonality is central, I also think we can't just go back to 1700, 1800, or 1900, and pretend that the ways Telemann, Mozart, and Rachmaninov worked are the ways we work today. I suppose the crux of this matter is: "as human experience changes, must the music change de facto, to symbolize the change, or can music stay forever in stasis as tonal, rather than atonal?". You see, I think of atonal music not as a real expressive tool, but a cynical reactionary ideal by people who experienced the world wars and the increasing industrialization of humanity, and re-acted by creating robotic and machine-like music based almost entirely on mathematics, as they thought their world was becoming.

My question, put in secondary words, is: "can the change from tonal music to atonality be seen as a definite progression into "higher" forms of complexity and humanity in music (such as the shift from primarily monophonic to primarily polyphonic music around the 1600's), or is atonality merely perceived as progress, and both idioms are equal in their relevance to humanity?" I.e. is the sense of progress from tonality to atonality a factual human evolution to a higher way of computation and understanding of music, or is it just a social phenomenon that we think and imagine to be so? What makes tonality relevant to me is its intense feeling of "coming home" (as Andras Schiff says) and the great explosive sense of "humanity" that it gives me. Tonality is so expressive and abstract, whereas atonality is far too literal and logical!

I hope I have not offended anyone... this is meant as a legitimate question. Are we (myself and others who revere the harmonic ideas of Bach to Beethoven to Brahms) dinosaurs? Is it RELEVANT to want to compose tonal music today? Why? Why not? I would be saddened to think that tonality isn't accepted or is 'below' modern standards. Please, please give me all the sides of this argument. :)

Welcome to the forum, first of all.

Second of all, the question is worded in such a way that it polarizes an issue that doesn't need polarization. There's no need to pick one or the other and of course there's no need to maintain an absolutist view that either one is "wrong." Art isn't about wrong or right, trendy or not trendy.

People kept writing baroque sonatas well into Beethoven's time, and interest in old idioms has ALWAYS been a huge factor in the most influential of composers, from Bach to Mozart, Cage, Berio and Schnittke. A separatist attitude is damaging and while it may be the opinions of people, to have one or opt that one "must" pick a specific stylistic or aesthetic conception does nobody any favors. Furthermore, it's silly to talk about "tonal" and "atonal" and expect this encompasses the huge variety of music that exists that does not fit in either category.

Who gives a flip about what Boulez says? Who gives a flip about what Brahms said? Historical importance does not mean their personal opinions about art are any better or worse than anyone else's. Furthermore, this has more to do with trends than with something concrete or based in fact or objectivity. To this extent, I'd say that the subject is completely irrelevant and people who scallop about either modernism or historical recreations, postmodernism, etc etc etc being old-fashioned or anything is wasting their time.

You can call Bach a dinosaur all you want, it won't prevent Boulez from being a Dinosaur 200 years from now. This argument goes nowhere as passage of time (which is inevitable) plays no factor in any of this. In terms of aesthetics, is there anyone who can seriously say that they know what is "modern" this day and age? That they can define what is truly "up to date" or "avant guarde"? Just asserting that Bach is old is by no means proof that anything else is otherwise new or avant-garde, these things have nothing to do with eachother.

So, I attack the separatist attitude and the poll should have an option "None of the above." You can't narrow the entire spectrum of musical experience to "tonal" and "atonal." Nor can you for a single second seriously consider that "tonality" is a dinosaur after people like Arvo P

I have to agree with SSC. Liking atonal music does not mean that you have to hate anything with a tonal center. It's very possible to enjoy both. As far as composition goes, I think common practice tonality is pretty much dead... at least in the sense that there is nothing radical you can do with it anymore. However, tonality, in general, I think is still very relevant. What I don't understand is why everyone feels the need to classify everything as "tonal" or "atonal". Not all atonal music sounds the same and I'm pretty sure I'd be a laughing stock if I claimed that all tonal music sounds the same. I'm really starting to get sick of this "Toanlity vs. atonality" mindset. There is plenty of music out there that can't readily fall into either category. And honestly, atonality is well over a hundred years old at this point... why people still make a big deal of it, I haven't a clue.

All it basically comes down to is, what is most relevant to YOU? I think all composers' main goal is to simply find absolute freedom of expression. They want to be able to freely write what they want without feeling confined to any intellectual straight jacket. For some, atonality is that aforementioned freedom. Others are more than content to stay well within the bounds of common practice and adhere to hundred year old forms. The beauty is that, as long as you are writing music that you enjoy, you're right. Don't worry about what is culturally "relevant". Think of this way... if you were to be remembered 200 years from now, would you want to be remembered for deeply, personal music that you slaved over but were very proud of or music that you cared nothing for and simply wrote out of a need to be original?

You see, I think of atonal music not as a real expressive tool, but a cynical reactionary ideal by people who experienced the world wars and the increasing industrialization of humanity, and re-acted by creating robotic and machine-like music based almost entirely on mathematics, as they thought their world was becoming.

I think this is true to an extent, although you have to factor in the approach of the classicists in the 18th century whose music, which we tend to find quite beautiful, was written in a fairly mechanised fashion and probably not intended to evoke an emotional response, particularly. (I can't remember why I think I know this, so someone is likely to correct...) Just to be clear, though, I think you go much too far with the idea here, particularly in the case of atonal music not being a "real expressive tool" but a "cynical reactionary ideal". You're entitled to your perspective, naturally.

As has been pointed out, "tonal vs. atonal" is a bit of a red herring in that the line is so very blurred. For example, I could write a piece consisting of major 7/9 chords rooted in a random ordering of all 12 notes of the scale, and that would be atonal...yet, people may well say it sounded nice. So really, I suppose it's about the sounds you produce, as opposed to simply the notes on the paper. ("Notes", and indeed notation, are not much help when you're working with musique concr

Yes, narrow-mindedness can certainly lead to odd places...

When one of my profs did his undergrad work at Ball State U. back in the 80s (which, interestingly, had both Schoenberg and Copland teaching at that time), they were riding a wave of throw-out-the-old-stuff avant-gardishness. Their theory department ONLY taught serialism, aleatoric music, electronic, etc. He didn't do any harmonic analysis for his degree!

For a 4th-year final project, he composed a piece for "Radio, Coat-hanger, and Aerosol Spray Can."

Need I say more?

Vive la difference!

You see, I think of atonal music not as a real expressive tool, but a cynical reactionary ideal by people who experienced the world wars and the increasing industrialization of humanity, and re-acted by creating robotic and machine-like music based almost entirely on mathematics, as they thought their world was becoming.

So, it's not a 'real' expressive tool, it's just a tool certain artists used to express themselves and their ideas/opinions.....

Every once in a while we get threads like this...

It's a different technique and a different aesthetic, but it's all music.

Why try to divide it (and I know I'm repeating SSH, largely)

I am not sure how to word my response to the varied but unified responses so far. SSC, your response is gleefully hostile and full of true, un-bigoted passion for all music. However, Nirvana69's post is much more... re-assuring to me, giving me less a feeling of "wow, I really am stupid" and more "perhaps I should learn before I speak". I always think it should be better to let someone down quietly than to rip their heart out and force them to look at it. Then again, I did just the latter in my harsh words about atonality. I apologize, but after listening to music from Bach to Rachmaninov (which for all its variation at least shares something which I do not perceive atonal works as sharing with the preceding era) for years and having never experienced atonality, I am very biased.

It was very offensive to me to bump into several modernist works. Many of these seem to be obsessive mathematical groupings and formulae, which are, to my inexperienced mind, nothing but for the purpose of mathematical exercise, and not for the true "human" expressive purpose so totally explosive in tonality. It is subjective of me, arrogant of me even! Despite this, the way my nervous system works (I have synaesthesia... it is no voucher to greatness, but it defines me as different, at least in how I sense music) makes enjoyment of atonal music an incredible challenge. Common practice "block chords", if you want, and the key systems that I was accustomed to as I grew up (and, admittedly, as I continue grow up) are everything to me and my perception not just of music, but of the universe.

You see, this thread was not at all meant to be a question of whether atonality is better than tonality is better than atonality! I am deeply sorry for making that impression, though when I look back I see that in my zeal I was too hostile. My concerns were voiced out of the fear that the music which stimulates my nervous system has been totally pushed aside by music (generally, atonal) which gives me absolutely no pleasure. It was not meant as a judgment or qualifier, but as a question: will any critic care about music I might make in a personal style that happens to be tonal? You may scoff and say that I should not be so separatist, but you have misread me! Critics are influential in whether someone succeeds, and if those critics who are most influential happen to reject tonality so utterly as my nerves reject atonality, then I am undone for no reason other than their bias. It was a feeling out of what to expect on my part, not meant to be as hostile as it sounded.

I KNOW that I love tonality and that it will be my vessel, at least until I age enough to appreciate all music as completely as I do 17th-19th century music. Again, it's biased... and I really feel like a pig giving others such a headache as I did, but synaesthesia and strict tonal colours are so natural to me, it's like riding a bicycle. To hear music like 'Synapha

Just keep in mind that every once in a while we get threads like this... Not so nicely worded I have to admit but still!

This is part of the reason for SSH's hostility (and his general online personality of course! :D)

I was just reading Youtube back-and-forth .. opinions on "4'33" by John Cage, and the vehemence surrounding this subject of music vs. not music is very broad indeed. I feel terribly ignorant to take up peoples' time with this argument, because in the end NOTHING is music, and nothing is art. Then again, everything is musical and everything is artistic. You must forgive me for being so absolutist, but for some reason this disheartens me.

...because...NOTHING is music, and nothing is art.

You mean: Anything can be music, and anything can be art.

;)

You mean: Anything can be music, and anything can be art.

;)

Well, anything can be anything! A 'dog' can be called a 'cat', if you want. However, nothing is always nothing! Hehe. Humans are so fascinating.

Well, anything can be anything! A 'dog' can be called a 'cat', if you want. However, nothing is always nothing!

Yes...but you said:

...NOTHING is music, and nothing is art.

Nothing can be art. Likewise, something can also be art.

Either way, when addressing the tonal v. atonal thingy you've got going on here - Everything and anything is relevant today. As long as one person subscribes to the idea of "that thing" (i.e. atonal music, invisible sculptures, inside-out burritos) being art, then it MUST be so.

Tonality is simply one tool at your disposal as a composer...so is atonality; or serialism; or indeterminany; or improvisation... It's all just one segment of this big ball of music.

;)

Well, you have me there. So the answer to my question, then, is that everything is a psychological relative today. If you had asked anyone what music "is" back in 1800, they'd probably just walk away or they'd probably give you some rational answer about melody, rhythm, harmony, et. al. Today, only after Freud and the founding of string theory, breaking atoms apart, and the massive leaps in scientific and psychological knowledge, is EVERYTHING being doubted. The urge to say that 'everything' is music because every conceivable thing has at least one person on earth who could call it music is a democratic one, then. It's based on the recent obsession we in the west have with democracy, and the overall human urge to understand the mind.

Really, "what is music?" isn't even a question about MUSIC anymore!

... I think I'll just go study my counterpoint book now. This entire argument just seems so pointless. You have made me nihilistic. :P

Excuse me, but how would you word the question? My wonder still stands, even if worded poorly. I take no offense.

Either way, when addressing the tonal v. atonal thingy you've got going on here - Everything and anything is relevant today.

;)

on a larger scale - is it a question of personal/subjective or just outlying something bigger behind it, more massive, more basic?

for example, one could argue that there's no thing as a personal taste or choice on the basis of materialist ontology. if brain and mind are identical, there's no such thing as taste in a strict sense, taste is just a face of some brain functions, and not of anything we could call personality. and it is highly probable that our modern relevancy is just a fact of brain becoming more plastic and auto-rewiring system. so, if this is plausible, there's no use of asking questions - atonality vs. tonality or stuff like that as there's no use in taking part on any side (on a big picture). in a sense, it's just brain anarchism surfacing itself on a planet earth. and even the big questions are just a symptom of some function. and as such all are relevant as long as they don't cause collapse, which is, well, out of reach of this discussed subject.

p.s. one could easily see SSC as being prey to certain brain anarchism - that is it is hard to view world as inhabited by persons with their tastes and at the same time subscribing to materialism and objective evolutionar musicology.

as for myself, i do not stand nowhere, i just dance around in the pool of possibilities and multiples.

Plioris, this is the sort of response/discussion I had envisioned. It is better to be more abstract and philosophical about the gigantic picture, in my opinion. The ideas of music as intrinsic and mind/brain being the same are what fascinate me most of all. Behind the facades of 'taste' and 'humanity' are just biological evolutions and adaptations. Heck, maybe the music humans hear is just static noise, and we do the same thing with our ears as with those optical illusions. This raises many more questions, even more fascinating ones than those which inhabit my mind.

If there is no 'personality' to speak of, how do you account for one individual human preferring atonality to tonality, and another totally bashing atonality into the ground? Do you think music truly works on unique, individual levels, or are all humans affected in the same way by music, and the other humans just perceive others' reactions as different? I have always believed that a Tchaikovsky ballet score is simply "more human" than a musical matrix by any modernist, just because it displays a human individuality which the others cannot due to their utterly mathematical nature. I may be making a gross overstatement here, but maybe utterly mathematical music really is valid... despite my past protests, merely because humans that make it are mechanical too.

If there is no 'personality' to speak of, how do you account for one individual human preferring atonality to tonality, and another totally bashing atonality into the ground? Do you think music truly works on unique, individual levels, or are all humans affected in the same way by music, and the other humans just perceive others' reactions as different? I have always believed that a Tchaikovsky ballet score is simply "more human" than a musical matrix by any modernist, just because it displays a human individuality which the others cannot due to their utterly mathematical nature. I may be making a gross overstatement here, but maybe utterly mathematical music really is valid... despite my past protests, merely because humans that make it are mechanical too.

i'd think it's bets to stay clinical on this one.

so, in a sense there's no personality, and people account differently because of different mind/brain facades. that means only that we are supposed to be different on the basis of material level. which, if we take neuroplasticity seriously are due to change and further we go further it changes - this choosing between tonality and atonality might be just a step into further division between many many musics and logically in some time choosing will lose its grand importance, for it will be now subject just to possible ways of hearing, listening and creating. more serious and hard question would be to ask - why do some people don't like music at all? so, to sum, we should rather speak not of personality, but just a variety on material basis.

as for your tchai and math, we could view it as this - if we take brain/mind identity seriously, then mathematical music is as human as any other, we have no way of accounting for mathematics as something extraterrestrial.

it's human all too human.

now, again, on why people prefer this to that - well, their minds/brains have different histories which form tendencies. but, we might as well see it as contingent and choose to be open. forget preferences and do just anything that makes one more multidimensional. more anarchist.

and, if we take materialism seriously, of course we are machines, albeit quite extraordinary.

now, again, on why people prefer this to that - well, their minds/brains have different histories which form tendencies. but, we might as well see it as contingent and choose to be open.

to make it more clear - we are supposedly descendants of some human animals that lived 50 000 years ago, at it least it is the time in which evolution takes change. so, our preferences (intramusical) don't matter much and if evolution is right, we might get some humans that don't like music in some time.

of course there's is still the question of brain plasticity, which is open and leaves evolution losing in a sense, if we come to be as plastic as we can, personal (and racial) histories will matter less and less.

I am not sure how to word my response to the varied but unified responses so far. SSC, your response is gleefully hostile and full of true, un-bigoted passion for all music. However, Nirvana69's post is much more... re-assuring to me, giving me less a feeling of "wow, I really am stupid" and more "perhaps I should learn before I speak". I always think it should be better to let someone down quietly than to rip their heart out and force them to look at it.

Many threads on the same issues and these reactions have an entirely understandable psychological background. But, doesn't mean I have to be tolerant about stuff which is based on ignorance. Plus, if you were feeling "wow, I really am stupid" with what I said, then I'd say you should already understand the problem in what you were saying. I don't need to sugar coat my criticisms for you to understand them, do I?

It was very offensive to me to bump into several modernist works. Many of these seem to be obsessive mathematical groupings and formulae, which are, to my inexperienced mind, nothing but for the purpose of mathematical exercise, and not for the true "human" expressive purpose so totally explosive in tonality. It is subjective of me, arrogant of me even!

Except, of course, that to claim "modernist" pieces are obsessed with mathematical groups, formulas, etc, is completely ignorant (what IS "modernist" really?) That some are is not proof of anything, the end result is a musical product that should be appreciated at face value rather than by an admiration for systems which can't really be heard (IE, serialism.) Or, sometimes there IS no higher organization "formula" to blame for anything (Cage, Cowell, Penderecki, Ligeti, Berio, etc etc.) Sometimes there's nothing but gut instinct and a different ear than yours, that's it. If your reason for not liking modern music is simply "Sounds like scraggy to me" it's not a bad reason, but considering your arguments I bet this is not so much about how it sounds, but how it threatens you (or rather, makes you feel threatened) in an artistic/critical way.

It was not meant as a judgment or qualifier, but as a question: will any critic care about music I might make in a personal style that happens to be tonal? You may scoff and say that I should not be so separatist, but you have misread me! Critics are influential in whether someone succeeds, and if those critics who are most influential happen to reject tonality so utterly as my nerves reject atonality, then I am undone for no reason other than their bias. It was a feeling out of what to expect on my part, not meant to be as hostile as it sounded.

And this proves my argument that you're just afraid you'll be left out if you don't "hop on the bandwagon" you barely even understand yet. Critics may be influential, but if you're basing your work based on what critics say, this shouldn't even be a real question at all. You should just write whatever the critics say is "in" regardless of what it is and that'd solve all your problems.

You see, I think of atonal music not as a real expressive tool, but a cynical reactionary ideal by people who experienced the world wars and the increasing industrialization of humanity, and re-acted by creating robotic and machine-like music based almost entirely on mathematics, as they thought their world was becoming.

From the OP, just thought I'd point out that this is not only completely inaccurate (what set the stage for atonality was rolling in way before world wars) but just has "I didn't do my research" printed all over it. If you felt I was hostile, you should understand that if you're talking out of your donkey eventually someone will call you on it.

Well, you have me there. So the answer to my question, then, is that everything is a psychological relative today. If you had asked anyone what music "is" back in 1800, they'd probably just walk away or they'd probably give you some rational answer about melody, rhythm, harmony, et. al. Today, only after Freud and the founding of string theory, breaking atoms apart, and the massive leaps in scientific and psychological knowledge, is EVERYTHING being doubted. The urge to say that 'everything' is music because every conceivable thing has at least one person on earth who could call it music is a democratic one, then. It's based on the recent obsession we in the west have with democracy, and the overall human urge to understand the mind.

Really, "what is music?" isn't even a question about MUSIC anymore!

... I think I'll just go study my counterpoint book now. This entire argument just seems so pointless. You have made me nihilistic. :P

You forget one of the main traits of the late 1800 music (Liszt, Wagner, Grieg, Janacek, Zemlinsky, Wolf, etc) is the fact that tonality was becoming increasingly blurred on purpose. It was the POINT of making it blurry and uncertain, to blur simple V-I cadences to the point where there's so much going on that you would never guess this from just hearing it.

To illustrate, Schoenberg used Wagner's famous Tristan chord. Now, to say that Wagner was reacting to world wars, to the atom being broken, string theory or even quantum mechanics or theory of relativity, etc etc would be utter nonsense. So your reasons really fit only your own imaginary context, and I really rather wish that you become informed of what you're talking about. I'm harsh because all of this is just ignorance on your behalf which can easily be corrected if you just did your research. So, do it.

Regardless of what your taste in music is.

And, yes, the 20th century was largely responsible for "music (and art) can be anything." But of course some people like to pretend that didn't happen when it conflicts with their taste, but factual history is a harsh mistress; it doesn't really give a flip about what you think or care. All you can do is learn from what others have done and understand that the current world wouldn't be what it is (regardless of your personal opinion) without what has happened and THAT is the best reason to be informed. Some people also rather believe that the actual meaning of music was never IN question, but it's almost impossible to argue in favor of this position considering how composers themselves never really defined music all uniformly and everyone had their own take on it.

Overall, it's a typical knee-jerk reaction you should be getting over rather than thinking it's something serious and important. Everyone that comes in contact with music they don't like and are told that's the "real music" of the times they live in is surely going to be in a little bit of shock, but they also forget that these are just opinions and that the actual fact is that music of a period is defined by those writing it, not by the period itself and not by the critics.

So, if you want to write style recreations the rest of your life, you CAN. But, do it because you actually like it rather than because you're using it as an escapist alternative to get away from what you don't like or think threatens you in any way. But it'd be in your best interest as an artist to actually understand and try out on your own all the alternatives and different options that become available if you stop having seizures the moment someone says "atonal," despite how inadequate that term may be. Only after all of that anyone will really respect your style recreations or neo-baroque/classicist/romantic/etc tendencies, rather than dismissing them as a psychological defense mechanism based on utter ignorance and fear.

Search the forum for other threads on this kind of thing, there are lots of those!

"their minds/brains have different histories which form tendencies. but, we might as well see it as contingent and choose to be open. forget preferences and do just anything that makes one more multidimensional. more anarchist."

That seems to be a sensible idea that works very well for me. Just now, after exhaustively writing down arguments on what is music, what is not, what is good, what is not good, etc., I began listening to Sibelius' sixth symphony. Immediately, I forgot about everything else and the world seemed new and fresh to me. In the end, I can now see that the music I hear and make is all that matters in that very moment I hear or make it. Beyond that one moment, there is only the anarchy of what could happen in the future.

I think I'll refrain from asking what music IS, and just write down what I hear in my imagination. Even if it isn't music by any definition anywhere in time or space, I'll still write it down, because I have the urge to express the essence of "Me" to everyone else, even if we're all just robots. ;)

i'd think it's bets to stay clinical on this one.

THIS is why I tend to stay out of these discussions. Clinical...sterile and BORING. By ignoring free-thinking individuality you end up with an irrelevant, academic posturing on pointless concepts.

THIS is why I tend to stay out of these discussions. Clinical...sterile and BORING. By ignoring free-thinking individuality you end up with an irrelevant, academic posturing on pointless concepts.

Can go that way, yes.

I think Nordreise's synaesthesia just goes towards highlighting the subjectivity that's at the core of this issue. Most people don't have access to a synaesthetic plane, so there is at least one more level of subjectivity with which to contend in this particular case, no?

THIS is why I tend to stay out of these discussions. Clinical...sterile and BORING. By ignoring free-thinking individuality you end up with an irrelevant, academic posturing on pointless concepts.

A discourse on art without passion is like a restaurant critique without food.

:>

THIS is why I tend to stay out of these discussions. Clinical...sterile and BORING. By ignoring free-thinking individuality you end up with an irrelevant, academic posturing on pointless concepts.

sure, you might be existential type of free-thinker, it doesn't change nothing i've said :)

and of course academical thinking is bad, but learning music in academia is good?

so, to conclude on this little political issue, when you are part of something you naturally fill the concepts with meaning and you stop hearing it as a posture.

nevertheless, i think free-thinking individuality is an oxymoron.

and still, it doesn't stop me from thinking that i get what you mean by that.

:)