Tonality's Purpose Today

What school did you go to? I'm just curious.

I don't care about the discussion. It's done and over.

Gotcha.

That's all I needed to see, I was wondering how long it'd take to make you say exactly that!

Test of time fallacy is one of the most hilarious and stupid things you can say in any debate or discourse of art, period. I'm personally a little offended you went there, but hey, you do what you can right?

PS: Fallacy: Appeal to Tradition In case you don't know what I'm talking about.

LOL!!! You equivocate my position with...

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because the age of something does not automatically make it correct or better than something newer. This is made quite obvious by the following example: The theory that witches and demons cause disease is far older than the theory that microrganisms cause diseases. Therefore, the theory about witches and demons must be true.

I commend you on being more subversive than I could ever hope to be, SSC! Really, this is good! I could never hope to so grossly undermine the position of someone else than you just did with this kind of tactic.

Touche!

------------------------------------------

That being said...

In making value judgments about art, where time is definitely a measure of subjective valuation, it is most certainly a qualifying factor and always has been! If you read the full brief on Appeal to Tradition, you would also find...

It should not be assumed that new things must be better than old things (see the fallacy Appeal to Novelty) any more than it should be assumed that old things are better than new things. The age of something does not, in general, have any bearing on its quality or correctness (in this context).

And...

Obviously, age does have a bearing in some contexts. For example, if a person concluded that aged wine would be better than brand new wine, he would not be committing an Appeal to Tradition. This is because, in such cases the age of the thing is relevant to its quality. Thus, the fallacy is committed only when the age is not, in and of itself, relevant to the claim.

But, you know, let's just not worry about writing great music anymore. Let's not try to make something that will last as our legacy after we are gone. Instead, let's be selfish and disingenuous and cling to our rights to expression instead of learning about music at all! That's the answer, isn't it?!

Forget about music theory. gently caress music history! God DAMN music composition. Let's just tell every student, "Hey, I don't give a scraggy what you write or how well you do it. Just give me all your money, sucker!"

You're a trip, SSC!

Oh, I forgot that you never mean what you write and you're always "misinterpreted" when you maneuver yourself into a completely nonsense position, and in this case a well known logical fallacy which you so pathetically try to weasel yourself out of by saying:

In making value judgments about art, where time is a definitive measure of subjective valuation, it is most certainly a qualifying factor and always has been!

Seriously, do you expect anyone to buy that? Are you just THAT stupid?

Definitive measure of subjective valuation?

Subjective valuation.

Subjective.

Have a nice day, thanks for the laugh!

Definitive measure of subjective valuation?

Subjective valuation.

Subjective.

Yeah, except for the well-known fact that the history of the performance of these works is well-documented for a very good reason - to show that the work demonstrates a benefit to studying it.

This is why, in music history, you can learn about where works first premier, then approximately how many performances that work received throughout history, and even write full articles for well-established music journals on why performances declined at certain points in history and compare that to the cultural climate of the time.

Yeah, except for the well-known fact that the history of the performance of these works is well-documented for a very good reason.

Mm? Oh you mean the study of music history? Like Schoenberg and Xenakis are also part of music history. Not sure about you, but where I come from music history and musicology don't play favorites.

So what is your, ahem, "Definitive measure of subjective valuation," again? The fact people know music history? Oh, must be those "very good reasons" you mention there. Too bad you don't give any examples of those "very good reasons."

Curious, since they're "very good reasons" after all, they must be some really damn good reasons if you're basing your entire argument on them, right?

There. Fixed.

As for Schoenberg and Xenakis, if their music creates interest, people are probably inclined to study it. AGAIN, you're creating an argument from me that I'M NOT MAKING. Please stop.

There. Fixed.

As for Schoenberg and Xenakis, if their music creates interest, people are probably inclined to study it. AGAIN, you're creating an argument from me that I'M NOT MAKING. Please stop.

I'm trying to make sense of this gibberish you're posting, sorry if it may be inaccurate but I have NO idea what you're trying to say at this point.

You still haven't said what those "very good reasons" were.

Wait wait, let me guess!

Your very good reasons are the fact some people took interest to X or Y pieces or X or Y composers and championed them so they actually "stood the test of time."

I HOPE they're not because you'd be going right to... You guessed it! Another wonderful logical fallacy: Appeal to popularity!

Fallacy: Appeal to Popularity

Man I love this little page.

PS: Honestly I think you've ALREADY made this fallacy before, but let's just ignore that for the sake of argument.

I'm trying to make sense of this gibberish you're posting, sorry if it may be inaccurate but I have NO idea what you're trying to say at this point.

You still haven't said what those "very good reasons" were.

Wait wait, let me guess!

Your very good reasons are the fact some people took interest to X or Y pieces or X or Y composers and championed them so they actually "stood the test of time."

I HOPE they're not because you'd be going right to... You guessed it! Another wonderful logical fallacy: Appeal to popularity!

Fallacy: Appeal to Popularity

Man I love this little page.

Nope. I'm not going to get sucked into this, SSC. You're not going to make this discussion a shallow fallacy argument and close down this thread. This is the last time I will correct you on your use of argumentative fallacy in this topic.

Appeals to Popularity are significant to those arguments where the popular opinion directs one to accept as truth something that is not based in truth.

There is no "truth-finding" in music because the qualifying factor being measured is not the truth of a particular work's intrinsic value. The qualifying factor is whether something has been created in a work that generates interest and if it can be learned or studied.

So, you would be correct in using this fallacy if I were to make the claim, "Beethoven is the most important composer because he is the most popular." In the context of this discussion, no such claims are being made.

So, you would be correct in using this fallacy if I were to make the claim, "Beethoven is the most important composer because he is the most popular." In the context of this discussion, no such claims are being made.

OK, so you're not making such claims. Alright.

But what were those really good reasons, then? You're still dodging that.

OK, so you're not making such claims. Alright.

But what were those really good reasons, then? You're still dodging that.

I fixed it in the post you were addressing...

...to show that the work demonstrates a benefit to study it.

I fixed it in the post you were addressing...

...to show that the work demonstrates a benefit to study it.

I was hoping that wasn't the case since that's circular-logic at it's best.

"People study this which was found to be beneficial to study it, because other people were taught that it was beneficial to study it because in turn other people were taught that it was beneficial to study it--" etc.

That's in itself a non-argument, sorry to say. There are books written about both Ligeti and Bach, go figure, by your reasoning everything recorded in history, by the mere fact it's recorded in history, demonstrates that it's beneficial to study it.

You'll have to try harder than this.

You'll have to try harder than this.

Unfortunately, the lack of effort is entirely your own.

But I'll do the work and waste the time in a last ditch effort to salvage the last two pages of my thread... funny how this happens every time I try to include you in the discussion. Highly reconsidering that.

So, here we have selections from the past two pages:

What must be overcome is TRADITION and POPULARITY. Because Bach's style is more popular than Xenakis' does not mean it's "better to teach it first." That's an entirely different question. One has nothing to do with the other.

Fact of the matter is that the playing field is NOT even' date=' it's NOT fair and it's slanted HEAVILY towards the ol' warhorses like Bach, Beethoven, Wagner, etc. There's a lot of pull in tradition here, a lot of pull in things which work AGAINST artistic freedom and making people realize that popularity is by no means a standard of artistic value or judgment.[/quote']

Welcome to reality. Did Bach, Beethoven, or Wagner ever have to deal with the "unfairness" resulting from this issue of tradition and popularity? Of course! Their music stands the test of time because of the artistic value of their works. This, by no means, implies that at the time they were composing, the public mainstream was required to accept them or judge them to hold intrinsic artistic value.

That's all I needed to see' date=' I was wondering how long it'd take to make you say exactly that!

Test of time fallacy is one of the most hilarious and stupid things you can say in any debate or discourse of art, period. I'm personally a little offended you went there, but hey, you do what you can right?[/quote']

And we're off to the races in another discussion that has no significant value to the point being made... how stupid of me to give you any credit for it.

Then in replying to your bullshit, this exchange followed...

In making value judgments about art, where time is definitely a measure of subjective valuation, it is most certainly a qualifying factor and always has been!

Note that I'm not saying time is the ONLY qualifying factor, just that it IS a factor. Should have used "definitely" instead of "definitive" because, GOD KNOWS, SSC is going to find a way to take issue... with something completely off-topic.

Definitive measure of subjective valuation?

Subjective valuation.

Subjective.

Sure enough' date=' you did. I didn't even include the part where you called me stupid.

Yeah, except for the well-known fact that the history of the performance of these works is well-documented for a very good reason.

Did you really expect me to type another three paragraphs explaining this? Really?! Something that is ALREADY OFF TOPIC ENOUGH?!!

Curious, since they're "very good reasons" after all, they must be some really damn good reasons if you're basing your entire argument[/b'] on them, right?

But what were those really good reasons, then? You're still dodging that.

Yep, you expected me to explain it, probably in several paragraphs. Rather than do that, I just amended my previous post.

But, even trying to save myself a little time in replying to your OFF TOPIC demands isn't enough...

I was hoping that wasn't the case since that's circular-logic at it's best.

"People study this which was found to be beneficial to study it' date=' because other people were taught that it was beneficial to study it because in turn other people were taught that it was beneficial to study it--" etc.

That's in itself a non-argument, sorry to say. There are books written about both Ligeti and Bach, go figure, by your reasoning everything recorded in history, by the mere fact it's recorded in history, demonstrates that it's beneficial to study it.[/quote']

And here you are dismissing MY WHOLE DISCUSSION. You aren't asking me to defend my position or cite a source. You're taking issue with something not even critical to the actual case I make and building it up to be more than it should be. Whether or not we agree on history's judgment of compositions doesn't mean DICK to whether or not history judges compositions. This is where survivability in music comes from... at least as a catch phrase.

Which is why I highly doubt you ever try to challenge people to defend their ideas. You try to discredit someone by pointing to some non-relevant detail in some sadistic ploy to get them to admit your original argument is correct when, in the context of the discussion, it is far from it!

I'm pointing to this post EVERY TIME you respond to anything I post from here on out. This represents precisely what happens when I engage in discussion with you. Thanks for wasting my time and two pages of otherwise useful discussion in my thread. I hope it stays open, but if not, I'll just have to start another one I guess.

Schools have a proven reputation for discouraging tonality? Bullshit.

Not bullshit in my experience. Of course, I was in college in the early 1980s when anything but atonality and the wildest possible avant garde was outside the curriculum. My suck-donkey teachers during that period are the reason I don't have a degree today. It may not be the way things are now necessarily, but 25 to 30 years ago it was unthinkable to have so much as a passing triad in a composition presented for university evaluation. Thank the good Lord we're getting back to some semblance of sanity in academia, though in my opinion we're still not where we ought to be since that tired old mantra of "relevance" - whatever that is supposed to mean - is still jammed down everyone's throat.

To AA: Poor you, I guess you shouldn't have made the "test of time" comment, eh?

Yeah, I will call you on it because if your arguments are made with LOGIC ERRORS in them, why bother trying to read them seriously? Honestly I could've just let it be and laughed but I rather point it out to see if you actually NOTICED what you were writing.

But you obviously don't. Then you attempt to backpedal, save face, whatever until it gets to some redundant thing, but you can't UNDO it and worse is that you simply won't admit you screwed up. Honestly, nobody bought it, nobody WILL buy it and it makes you look RIDICULOUS to say crap like "Definitive measure of subjective valuation" when all really did was blurt out a logic fallacy, rendering that point you were making completely irrelevant.

Oh, but don't think that was the ONLY irrelevant and flawed point you made in that post, oh no. I was actually very kind to only point out the most awful one, but I could've written an ESSAY explaining the broken reasoning from which you approached half of what you wrote AND still write. Why should I bother though if you can't acknowledge a VERY OBVIOUS example of your own flawed reasoning, your ego/pride/whatever forbids you to acknowledge or even think that maybe your point there wasn't as strong as you would've hoped.

It's not my fault you can't form arguments without errors in them so don't blame me our discussions get nowhere. But fine, y'know. Embarrass yourself all you want, more comedy for the rest of us anyways.

PS: I didn't even take the next sentence which is also problematic to say the least:

Their music stands the test of time because of the artistic value of their works. This, by no means, implies that at the time they were composing, the public mainstream was required to accept them or judge them to hold intrinsic artistic value.

Oh, so it by no means implies the public mainstream was required to accept them? SO it means basically that whatever caused these works to survive was just DUMB LUCK that someone was around that actually liked and kept them. Yeah, that really shows how "artistic value" has made them stand the test of time, really!

You're disqualified from even HAVING a discussion on this if you can't see that this position is indefensible, sorry!

Furthermore, you would have to provide substantial proof that "Their music stands the test of time" BECAUSE of the artistic value, as opposed to just dumb luck or championing by a select few in influential positions (or by the masses, as it turns out!) How does this have to do with "artistic value" at all, anyways? That's the appeal to popularity fallacy right there, no matter who or how many people have liked X, it doesn't make X "have more ARTISTIC value." Artistic value is subjective, and even so, the fallacy stands even it WASN'T a subjective value (you would have to prove and explain how it was OBJECTIVE for this to make any sense.)

But like I said, you're just simply wrong here and no matter how much you try to convince anyone of the opposite, you will STILL be wrong. Furthermore! IF you talk about "the test of time" you really should then predict the next 300 years, since you use it as an argument leveled AGAINST modern music which we still haven't had the time to, haha, test.

Seriously, I think you're overestimating the strength of your positions by a rather large and embarrassing degree.

SSC: You're entitled to your opinions, and I will respectfully disagree with you on the following:

Oh, so it by no means implies the public mainstream was required to accept them? SO it means basically that whatever caused these works to survive was just DUMB LUCK that someone was around that actually liked and kept them.

The public was not expected to accept the intrinsic value of these works in order to appreciate them. It wasn't just DUMB LUCK...

THESE WORKS CONTAIN MATERIAL THAT IS WORTH STUDYING! THAT IS WHY THEY ARE STILL STUDIED TODAY!!

THESE WORKS CONTAIN SOMETHING WORTH PAYING TO HEAR PERFORMED! THAT IS WHY THEY ARE STILL PERFORMED TODAY!!

Whether you like it or not, these are the breaks. These works had to go through the same trials and tribulations YOUR works go through. Eliminating that filtering process only weakens the subjective value of music written today. This "test of time" is what helps in determining why YOUR music should be studied INSTEAD OF JOE BLOW'S music long after you're dead. Popular or not, if a composer's music draws an audience and the public (educated or not) has grown to appreciate it, there MIGHT JUST BE something worth studying. GOD FORBID we actually grow to accept this reality, because oh noes! If we do, we might just be able to express ourselves more intelligently than we already do.

SHOCKING!

But like I said, you're just simply wrong here and no matter how much you try to convince anyone of the opposite, you will STILL be wrong. Furthermore! IF you talk about "the test of time" you really should then predict the next 300 years, since you use it as an argument leveled AGAINST modern music which we still haven't had the time to, haha, test.

You are outmatched and outgunned here when it comes to comprehension of the English language.

The very "test of time" discussion implies that NO SUCH PREDICTIONS are applicable. This was more than proven when our predecessors of the 20th Century thought making these "Avant Garde" works would draw the audience of popular music (assuming that audience was always looking for "new music")... boy were they wrong! Then composers were left with no music education in the traditional sense whatsoever, writing music that wouldn't even draw an audience at all... and they cried foul because the public, by and large, wasn't interested in what they were doing! Composers like Babbitt turned to the universities and said, "If you don't commit to studying our music, it will die and music will fail to evolve, and we just can't have that..."

I'm not making ANY of this up. It's in the history book of ANY credible authority on the matter! But I wouldn't expect you to know that because, as you have already proven, you don't comprehend what you read. I doubt you even know the American History of Music that I am referring to. You probably don't even understand that we've BEEN discussing the American situation all along, which is probably why you have NO IDEA why this is an issue HERE IN AMERICA!

You're German, yes? You studied in Europe, yes? Are things different in Europe? Without a doubt! Speak from what you know and stop pretending your worldview should apply to me! You have no right.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I just don't have time to correct you on your comprehension abilities. Most people have to TRY to make such aggregious assumptions like the ones you are making, so either you are really TRYING to misunderstand everything, or you need to go back to school. Either way, you're wasting my time. I won't be discussing this further with you for these and other reasons already mentioned earlier.

Good day to you.

The public was not expected to accept the intrinsic value of these works in order to appreciate them. It wasn't just DUMB LUCK...

THESE WORKS CONTAIN MATERIAL THAT IS WORTH STUDYING! THAT IS WHY THEY ARE STILL STUDIED TODAY!!

THESE WORKS CONTAIN SOMETHING WORTH PAYING TO HEAR PERFORMED! THAT IS WHY THEY ARE STILL PERFORMED TODAY!

Says you.

If you can objectively prove this, be my guest. Until then, it's simply a matter of opinion and again, appeal to popularity. You think it's worth studying because it's always been studied, if we had entirely different composers, culture, etc, you wouldn't think the same thing.

But the truth is, it's dumb luck that Bach's music survived, we could've lost much more of it (or ALL of it) if it weren't plain luck that other people decided it was interesting. They could've as well decided it wasn't worth looking at. But then, who knows what other composers are not part of the canon because their pieces were lost, weren't "found interesting" or who knows what.

This argument of yours is very silly because you're essentially saying "this X music is just BETTER, because it just IS! It's OLD! And TRADITIONAL, it survives because it's BETTER!" This is absurd, quite honestly. It's a logical fallacy, you have no evidence that what you're saying is supported by objective evidence, it's just your opinion and your opinion ALONE. The actual causes are quite well understood by any expert in both history and musicology (or not even, whoever knows a thing or two about culture and sociology can explain it to you quite clearly...Though you'll probably not listen, like usual.)

I can also simply apply your argument backwards, Xenakis just as important as Bach as far as studying him goes, because he just IS. Otherwise we would've forgotten about him entirely, but the fact we haven't is because he's worth studying! People still play his pieces because there's something worth hearing in them, despite that I don't make clear what that something IS!

You do NOT have an argument here, just your heavy-handed opinion which, really, doesn't matter. I don't just respectfully disagree, I think this is plain'ol gibberish. There's no logic behind any of this and it's sad you don't realize how crippled you are by thinking this way.

Haha, what a joke.

PS: Want to continue this little pathetic discourse of yours, why not prove what's so "worthwhile" and how it's better to study Bach/Mozart/Brahms/?? before, say, Ligeti/Xenakis/Cage/??. Prove it, scientifically. Quantify this magical "THERE'S SOMETHING THAT--" that you so love to speak of, show it in actual scientific terms why it's simply "better." Go ahead!

PS2: Oh, the purpose of all this retarded exchange was to blow your pseudo-intellectual cover and expose just how simply WRONG and misinformed your core opinions are. All this "the modern condition of bla bla bla" and tonality's purpose or whatever, all this crap you write, why bother? You can just say what you just to me now! Don't try to hide it, your ENTIRE opinion is "Old is better cuz I say so." EVERYTHING you say is based on this, but now you've said it yourself and I'm just glad you came out with your true colors. Writing pretty and knowing what you're talking about are two different things, yay!

PM me if you have anything further to say, SSC. I'm done correcting your abilities to comprehend.

But the truth is, it's dumb luck that Bach's music survived, we could've lost much more of it (or ALL of it) if it weren't plain luck that other people decided it was interesting. They could've as well decided it wasn't worth looking at. But then, who knows what other composers are not part of the canon because their pieces were lost, weren't "found interesting" or who knows what.

Ridiculous. Not even close. Your "dumb luck" argument is almost as bad as your ability to comprehend English.

This argument of yours is very silly because you're essentially saying "this X music is just BETTER, because it just IS! It's OLD! And TRADITIONAL, it survives because it's BETTER!"

I'm making no qualitative statements about these styles of music whatsoever. All I am pointing to is the imbalance among composition curricula.

Read. Comprehend. Repeat.

Want to continue this little pathetic discourse of yours, why not prove what's so "worthwhile" and how it's better to study Bach/Mozart/Brahms/?? before, say, Ligeti/Xenakis/Cage/??. Prove it, scientifically. Quantify this magical "THERE'S SOMETHING THAT--" that you so love to speak of, show it in actual scientific terms why it's simply "better." Go ahead!

I'm not making a qualitative argument about any of these composers. The issue is balancing the rhetoric among educated musicians in the sense that all styles are given equal representation.

Read. Comprehend. Repeat.

I've already pointed out how theory curricula have moved in this direction and continue to do so. Good luck trying to prove otherwise.

Oh, the purpose of all this retarded exchange was to blow your pseudo-intellectual cover and expose just how simply WRONG and misinformed your core opinions are. All this "the modern condition of bla bla bla" and tonality's purpose or whatever, all this crap you write, why bother? You can just say what you just to me now! Don't try to hide it, your ENTIRE opinion is "Old is better cuz I say so."

Perfect example of your inability to comprehend. "Old is better cuz I say so."

No, Old is important and should be treated equally with new.

Read. Comprehend. Repeat.

------------------------------------------------

If you want to wage war with me on the "test of time" debate, we can have that in another thread. Start one up and state your case. I'll happily show, in detail, how your "pure dumb luck" argument falls short of the mark on every count. I'm not about to do that here.

Stop trolling. Read. Comprehend. Repeat.

That is all.

------------------------------------------------

I'm sorry, but SSC is right. He takes no side with it. That's pretty much it.

And you wonder why your name comes up with respect to these discussions. Without offering any insight of your own, you offer nothing more than, "SSC is the greatest guy ever!" I'm sure SSC is appreciative, but it has no place here.

This "discussion" has gone far enough.

Please rein in your tone, all of you.

Or else infractions will be handed out, all around.

This "discussion" has gone far enough.

Please rein in your tone, all of you.

Or else infractions will be handed out, all around.

My apologies for my tone, QC. Thank you for being fair and not singling me out on this either. I sincerely mean that.

-AA

This "discussion" has gone far enough.

Please rein in your tone, all of you.

Or else infractions will be handed out, all around.

I'll pretend I didn't read the threat there. As for this thread, I think my work here is done, woosh.

Not bullshit in my experience. Of course, I was in college in the early 1980s when anything but atonality and the wildest possible avant garde was outside the curriculum. My suck-donkey teachers during that period are the reason I don't have a degree today. It may not be the way things are now necessarily, but 25 to 30 years ago it was unthinkable to have so much as a passing triad in a composition presented for university evaluation. Thank the good Lord we're getting back to some semblance of sanity in academia, though in my opinion we're still not where we ought to be since that tired old mantra of "relevance" - whatever that is supposed to mean - is still jammed down everyone's throat.

Whenever freedom of expression is curtailed, I think one's sense of fairness would emphatize with the oppressed. I wonder why tonality was discouraged in your school, J.Lee. If one takes a benevolent view, could it be because the school takes the student's best interest at heart, that is, to prepare him for the reality of professional music world where tonality is out of vogue? But a cynical view would be that the academic elite was merely looking for its own self preservation, i.e., breeding new generations of composers to perpetuate its brand of modern music.

Going back to the original post, I think I understand the allusion of 'tonality' as a system. To me, this means that one can have a just the slightest mental sketch of melodic shapes, figurations, and textures, and have faith that the system would ensure 'self-assembly' of these elements, in a logical manner, into a valid piece of music. Although I'm not sure that one could venture so far as declaring a system 'complete'. If you haven't explained already, AA, what did you mean by 'complete'?

Whenever freedom of expression is curtailed, I think one's sense of fairness would emphatize with the oppressed. I wonder why tonality was discouraged in your school, J.Lee. If one takes a benevolent view, could it be because the school takes the student's best interest at heart, that is, to prepare him for the reality of professional music world where tonality is out of vogue? But a cynical view would be that the academic elite was merely looking for its own self preservation, i.e., breeding new generations of composers to perpetuate its brand of modern music.

I think it is a little of both actually. Some perpetuate their brand of modern music while others react to what threatens to curtail the student's growth and development. Yet, in doing the latter, growth of a different sort tends to end up on the chopping block. I think balance is the best answer.

Going back to the original post, I think I understand the allusion of 'tonality' as a system. To me, this means that one can have just the slightest mental sketch of melodic shapes, figurations, and textures, and have faith that the system would ensure 'self-assembly' of these elements, in a logical manner, into a valid piece of music.

In a manner of speaking, yes. Music does appear to assemble itself within the system, or to be more accurate, the syntax created, but doesn't necessarily confine sound to a 'box'. But what is profound to me is the vast level of depth that can result from understanding tonality as a system instead of just as a language. After all, if we were to play on words, tonality is merely a logical organization of tone. It need not sound similar to anything to retain its germaine characteristics.

Although I'm not sure that one could venture so far as declaring a system 'complete'. If you haven't explained already, AA, what did you mean by 'complete'?

You already covered it in your previous paragraph, for the most part. Aside from the basic observations that can be made like accounting for all the pitches within a given tuning system or methods for creating relationships at the vertical and horizontal levels, your response pretty much covers it. It is a template for composers to work within, and to deny it is merely saying, "I don't want to work from a template. I want to be unique." That's fine, but I just think if something can help a composer to better express themselves as artists, denying it is harmful to that expression and not necessarily liberating.

Not every system is complete (yet). Tonality just appears to have reached such a point where no matter what you want to express, you can express it. There are some systems that I don't personally believe account for every level of expression one would desire to create. That's just my personal belief, though. Feel free to correct me if serialism can express a gentle lullaby. I'd love to learn how to do that with serialism, because that would be cool!

I can speak for myself, and for the institutions at which I studied:

My teachers taught me as much variety as they could.

My harmony teachers taught me common-practice harmony, so my composition didn't spend any time with that.

My analysis teachers taught me various contemporary techniques (I use the word technique as a "catch-all", so no semantic discussions please) such as applying Latin Squares to generate material, Cellular processes, 12-tone theory, serial technique, whole serial technique, alleatoric processes, etc..

My composition teachers aided me along the way in a larger and looser manner, encouraging me to explore as varied a soundscape as I could, applying all of what I was learning in my different classes.

And for myself, my own inate curiosity was what drove me to TRY all of these different compositional tools, and find ways of expressing what *I* wanted to express using them.

I had even tried using 12-tone processes years before entering university, mizing it with major and minor triads, with various modes. So obviously, the curiosity was there from the start, to push myself and learn new things.

That doesn't mean that I wanted to compose music like Boulez or Xenakis. (and as is rather evident from what I am writing now, more than 30 years after my 1st attempts at composition)

Of all the "working" composers I know right now in my immediate circle, most have comfortably settled into some sort of "personalized" approach to tonality. In other words, mixing elements from various "contemporary techniques" with their own take on "tonal center". A few are sticking more closely to the "contemporary techniques" eschewing tonal allusions.

The point being, there are a huge variety of approaches being taken.

Even the teachers at the university I last attended demonstrate amply this tendency.

We had guest lecturers from Europe, from South America, from elsewhere in Canada, and again, that same variety was evident.

I don't see anything wrong with expressing yourself using the tools at your disposition. And I see nothing wrong with adapting those tools to your personal compositional processes.

It would seem to me that well-written music would not shine a spotlight on whatever process was used to come by that music, but rather bring attention upon the musical expression itself.

In my opinion (emphasis on my opinion) strict adherence to any compositional process is no indication of merit nor quality, whether that be historicist adherence or process-oriented adherence (ie: whatever contemporary technique one wishes to use).

I look for proof of musicality when I listen to a piece of music. Admittedly, a difficult concept to concretize, but nonetheless. This is the point where objectivity cedes the way to subjectivity. There is no way around it: art can only go so far being viewed "objectively". With the right tools at your disposal that objectivity goes quite far, but at a certain point, you must invest subjectively.

The last paragraph is a bit off topic, but meh, it came out anyways.

Not every system is complete (yet). Tonality just appears to have reached such a point where no matter what you want to express, you can express it. There are some systems that I don't personally believe account for every level of expression one would desire to create. That's just my personal belief, though. Feel free to correct me if serialism can express a gentle lullaby. I'd love to learn how to do that with serialism, because that would be cool!

I don't really know what you mean with "express". It must be something really specific if you can "express everything" with common practice tonality. Your example means nothing either, since it's so vague. What is a gentle lullaby for you? Play any 12 tone row in pianissimo and you've got something "gentle". Then sing it to a baby. Or do we have any reason to believe a baby would definitely not fall asleep to that, and only to a melody in F major?

Likewise I could challenge you to "express" the identical emotions you personally feel when listening to Boulez' Structures with tonal music. You may argue this is not a valid category of expression. But who are you to define that "gentle lullaby" is an expression and "sounding like Boulez' Structures" isn't?

Believe it or not, people have used different systems (and non-systems) than common practice tonality in order to create a different musical experience than you get with tonal music. They didn't just invent new stuff to become famous.

P.S. The people who first wrote "atonal" and 12-tone music are referred to as "expressionists". Looks like they felt they couldn't "express" everything they wanted with "tonal" music...

Not every system is complete (yet). Tonality just appears to have reached such a point where no matter what you want to express, you can express it. There are some systems that I don't personally believe account for every level of expression one would desire to create. That's just my personal belief, though. Feel free to correct me if serialism can express a gentle lullaby. I'd love to learn how to do that with serialism, because that would be cool!

Well, to me the opening of the adagio movement of Barber's Piano Sonata is as "lullaby" as it gets.. so 12-tone can quite evidently express that sort of tenderness.

Likewise, there are incredibly tender sections in Berg's violin concerto.

And jsut to clear something up here, you say

...that I don't personally believe account for every level of expression one would desire to create. That's just my personal belief, though.

and therein lies the rub with much of what you have written in this thread (and I suspect what might be raising SSC's ire as well).

I think you might need to step back a tiny bit from your stance. If all of your statements are tainted by "personal belief" then there is not much room for any sort of dialogue or discussion.

And yes, before you mention it by lengthily quoting my previous post... I DO have personal beliefs and opinions, but then again, I'm not the one making any sort of value judgement on non-tonal music. You are.

Please don't read this is an attack. I'm writing this right now, in a perfectly calm state, and in as conciliatory a tone as I possibly can. I'm just asking, as nicely as I possibly can, that you take a step back and consider the possibility that your personal bias might, in this particular case, be responsible for some of the friction in this thread.

There are obviously many people here who believe that non-tonal music has as much of a place in the world of music as tonal music.

Likewise, the simple fact that most of the people disagreeing with you have as wide a stylistic palette among them as could be imagined, should be an indicator to you that you MIGHT be off base with your assumptions regarding tonality/atonality.

I don't personally care for the music of Boulez, Carter and Xenakis... but that doesn't stop me from finding it intellectually stimulating and in a certain way inspiring as well. I still find myself wondering how I might incorporate some of those techniques into my own rather tonal-centric music, and even trying my hand at it where I believe it advances the cause of the music I am creating.

Shouldn't that be the goal of artists? Advancing frontiers, at whatever rate each of us is comfortable with?

There is great art being created by those who dare to travel the farthest reaches of avant-gardism. And likewise, there is great art being created by people who are slowly incorporating the advances of others into their own art. Not all of us are necessarily explorers of the "extreme" variety, but I always hope that all of us have at least a LITTLE bit of "explorer" in us.

A long time ago, European explorers went out and "discovered" Asia. They brought back spices and produce that were unknown to Europe at the time. What did the chefs of the period do with those spices and produce? They explored the potential for those new discoveries, adapted them to existing recipes, pushed the boundaries of the culinary arts... they didn't just ignore the new spices and produce in favour of what they had always prepared before. Nor did they reject all that had been prepared before in favour of the new foods!

There are those whose purpose in life is to explore.

There are those whose purpose in life is to integrate and create.

There is room for both.

There is need for both

Exploration without integration and creation? Does THAT have any real use?