An Article To pUt To Rest Discussions of "Tonality" and its Condition

I'm glad someone has written an article to put to rest discussions on tonality.

I disagree.

:P

Guys, it goes like this:

Tonality is the height of all music. As a result, audiences love tonal works. Write tonal works. Period.

Tonality is the height of all music. As a result, audiences love tonal works. Write tonal works. Period.

Prove that tonality is the height of all music and anything else is inherently inferior.

Prove that audiences love tonal works, and that they don't love atonal works.

Prove that what the audience wants should have any bearing on what we write.

Then we can begin to take this argument seriously.

how is so?

It would perhaps be more pragmatic (maybe not pragmatic, but you get what I mean) to say "God/western morality may/may not be dead, but who cares?". Of course, I don't really believe that...

In my opinion, both tonality and atonality are just systems of a fragmented and partial sound spectrum. A sound spectrum reduced to mere notes of musical sounds. We treat sound as a two dimensional "entity" when it is not.

Alexandros

Prove that tonality is the height of all music and anything else is inherently inferior.

Tonality has survived longer than any other form of musical expression. There has also been more tonal music written than any other. S

Prove that audiences love tonal works, and that they don't love atonal works.

I'd say 90% of all concert programs today consist of tonal works, especially the classic tonal works, i.e. not the border-line tonal works of the turn of the century. Orchestras need to make money therefore appealing to the audience. There is a consensus among audiences that tonal pieces are more pleasing to listen to and they will therefore pay to hear them.

Prove that what the audience wants should have any bearing on what we write.

Being a composer, one must make money to survive. The only way to make money (being solely a composer) is to appeal to the audience's needs. Mozart did it, Beethoven did it, Brahms, Schubert, Tchaikovsky, Pagnini, Handel, and especially Bach. It is pragmatic to write for the audience.

In my opinion, both tonality and atonality are just systems of a fragmented and partial sound spectrum. A sound spectrum reduced to mere notes of musical sounds. We treat sound as a two dimensional "entity" when it is not.

Alexandros

Indeed sound it not an entity, but music is. Music is the organization of sound to be pleasing to the ear. We're talking about music here, not sound in general.

It would perhaps be more pragmatic (maybe not pragmatic, but you get what I mean) to say "God/western morality may/may not be dead, but who cares?". Of course, I don't really believe that...

well, it is pragmatic to care less, and that's the whole point - after the event of death of god you end up in the seas of pluralism, perspectivism and pragmatism, which was a second - post-critical - moment in nietzsches philosphy. what matters is that later pragmatism would not be possible without the first - critical - step, that was taken most strongly and passionately by nietzsche. with god still alive (for a man being or wanting to become pragmatic) there arises so many problems of moral responsibility before the One, the Law and the Human. he cannot seriuosly enter the real(m) of pragmatism (pluralism, perspectivism following) believing in god (that is - supposing s/he's alive). so, yes, to be pragmatist one must be after god has vanished.

it really makes church look pretty much awful in these times where and when society took pragmatist, perspectivist, pluralist stance - that is after the death of god.

Music is the organization of sound to be pleasing to the ear.

Hey, Justin, Andrew Lloyd Webber is not pleasing to my ear. Isn't it music then?

I had been sure JT was just trolling when he made that "height of all music" comment. But it actually looks like he's serious!

P.S: lolz

I had been sure JT was just trolling when he made that "height of all music" comment. But it actually looks like he's serious!

P.S: lolz

Actually I wasn't serious. But I might as well defend it since it is the truth.

Hey, Justin, Andrew Lloyd Webber is not pleasing to my ear. Isn't it music then?

Nope.

;)

Yess because we must always do what is POPULAR and large masses of people ALWAYS know what is best! Clearly things like artistic advancement and personal expression are just myths created by rejects who couldn't write PROPER TONAL music! Remember to write TONAL music so you will be LIKED because common-practice tonality is clearly the BEST THING EVAR!!!!!

Well, one thing is sure: 6 billion people can't be wrong - DON'T EAT scraggy.

Tonality has survived longer than any other form of musical expression. There has also been more tonal music written than any other. S

This is not really logical. Just because something has been around longer does not make it better. Monarchies have existed much longer and much more frequently than democracies, is that a better form of government? Besides there were eons in which music existed before the concept of tonality was created. Our scale/pitch system is kind of an abberation in the grand scheme of things, it's been around since the greeks I believe. There was a lot more music before the greeks than after.

Being a composer, one must make money to survive. The only way to make money (being solely a composer) is to appeal to the audience's needs. Mozart did it, Beethoven did it, Brahms, Schubert, Tchaikovsky, Pagnini, Handel, and especially Bach. It is pragmatic to write for the audience.

Art isn't necessarily pragmatic. If you want to write for an audience go ahead, but why wouldn't you want to write what you actually wanted to write?

Music is organized sound over time with intent.

Flat out. Argue with me on that. You can't.

Guys, it goes like this:

Tonality is the height of all music. As a result, audiences love tonal works. Write tonal works. Period.

I really, REALLY hope this is a joke...

Music is organized sound over time with intent.

Flat out. Argue with me on that. You can't.

I know some people who might take issue with the word "organized" ...but that's just getting into a semantical quagmire I'm not prepared to dig us out of....

;):whistling:

Tehe, the title of this thread is a tad ironic, methinks.

I know some people who might take issue with the word "organized" ...but that's just getting into a semantical quagmire I'm not prepared to dig us out of....

;):whistling:

To me, the words 'organized' and 'intent' go hand in hand. I do think there is some leeway in an individual's perception (ie, birds singing, naturally occurring sounds) but as far as the best 'universal' definition, I think that is the closest we can get.

Hmmm...that definition seems pretty solid. However, to address all the pointless objections that will inevitably be made, I propose this:

Music is sound, except when it isn't.

Oh, and JT, I strongly doubt that. For example, it's probable that more modal music has been written than common-practice tonal.

Antiatonality: I don't really like your posts.

Okay. Uhm, I'm not going to apologize for my opinion, but I regret that it offends you. How about that?

And I have one question to ask you: how many pieces in concerts have you seen by composers who have made their music considerably more "approachable" or "appealing" to an "Audience" (as Gardener puts it)? I have personally seen none.

Did you ever play in a concert wind band? Ever see a half-time show? Ever been to a classical concert by a major orchestra? Ever attended a pops concert by said orchestra? Ever traveled to another country with a large ensemble and performed with multiple ensembles during a four week tour (I did this in Europe)?

In all of these various ensembles I've been a part of, around 20 ensembles I've performed with, I've seen more new works (mostly published works, and some pre-published original works) that use tonal harmony. I've spoken with orchestra conductors, band directors, and many more in detail about why newer works generally aren't programmed as much. The general answer is the same... there is no tangible thread connecting the works already programmed with the new work being considered.

Audiences generally pay to hear performances from professional groups. This makes the sensitivity to their interests much more important than your interest in putting the most extreme contemporary work in front of them. Who knows? They may like it. It doesn't matter. They like Beethoven, Mozart, Stravinsky, and many more. They pay to hear this kind of music. If you give them something they never paid for, then in that sense, they're not getting the value they expected. They stop paying to hear the professional group perform. The professional group performs less.

This is the reality. Please accept it and stop being so idealistic to the point that you're blind to it.

You say "Contemporary composers" shouldn't get any special treatment, but I say that it's a fact that "appealing composers" do not get any special treatment - they are just left to their small circles.

Huh? What? The point you're trying to make here is lost on me.

And for your interest, these circles are usually smaller than the contemporary ones. I have seen a lot of ensembles and orchestras dedicated to performing contemporary music, but I have seen none dedicated in performing works by composers that have been made more appealing so that they get the same respect in the halls as Beethoven and Bach.

Again, your lack of experience is apparent. I've performed contemporary works by such composers as Berlioz or Boulez. I've performed classical works by Beethoven and Mozart. I've performed more new works that sound similar to the latter than to the former. I've heard more new works that sound similar to the latter than the former programmed on large ensemble concerts.

So what? Again, what's the point? You're trying to argue a point I'm not making. It's not about respect. It's about being performed. Respect, assumingly within the world of music, is something that comes long after you've earned your place by having your works programmed. If you (or Mr. Ness) are going to gripe about how much more difficult that task is when you compose without the tonal language, then you're going to have to do better than blaming the language (which is exactly what Mr. Ness argues in his diatribe of nonsense).

For one, Birtwistle certainly doesn't make any such compromises, and he is respected in the halls. A lot. Same for Boulez, and a few other composers. Beethoven and Mozart are certainly not composers who became famous because they compromised with what their audiences considered "appealing".

If they DID compromise with what their audiences considered appealing, they wouldn't have even composed tonal music as much as they did (presumably). The whole history of music would be quite different (for the better? who knows...), and there's really nothing more to say about it than this. Mozart was WELL KNOWN for being a CROWD PLEASER, a jester of music in some respects. Beethoven did not take as kindly to being expected to compose the "humorous" side of music - he took it much more seriously.

Really, you seem to know more about contemporary composers than you do about Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn, Handel, Bach, Wagner, Chopin, Schubert, Liszt, and I can probably list a dozen more. These composers are STILL PERFORMED... TODAY... a LOT! You can keep playing this "blame game" that it's the popular or commercial influence on music, it's the language (Ness), or it's the programming members of these larger organizations. Really, it all comes down to whether you're writing music that people are interested in paying to sit, listen to, and appreciate.

If you're having trouble in this area AND WANT TO COMPLAIN ABOUT IT, then I have no pity. You and SSC and anyone else with this notion that the world owes you some favors for all the oppression of the creative spirit in music has just got to stop. It's old. It's not based in fact. It's not based in a reality that music's life is in those that listen to it again and again and again. If you want it to be any easier on you, then start writing something that you know people want to hear again and again and again. This isn't rocket science - it's certainly not some hidden agenda, conspiracy, or intent of the traditionalists to thwart the attempts of creativity by contemporary composers - it's simple reality. Get used to it.

And please do look forward to SSC's reply, because I'm sure he'll pwn you.

He's welcome to try... whether it's you or him, it's sort of like the blind leading the blind. I could care less who it is, I'll defend my position on the mere basis that it's practical and realistic. No composer of notable importance (that I'm aware of anyway) got any kind of special treatment before becoming well-renowned and more-performed. They had to earn it by developing an audience for their work. I guess I don't need to explain to you that the same, simple rule applies today.

So, again, what's with all the whining?

Atonality parts from the deconstruction of tonal ideas and becomes more and more obscure the further it is taken, as it has been in western art music.

The clear harmoniousness, and natural association with human emotion of tonal music does not exist in atonality.

I don't so much object to atonality as much as I think it is an experiment that has been taken a little too far, overestimated as an alternate reality to tonal harmony. I would have to say at this point anyone who is still a believer in atonality in this sense is deluded.

Sounds a lot like Evolution to be honest. :thumbsup:

*Gives standing ovation to Antiatonality!!!!*

Watch these videos:

Ligeti - L'escalier du diable

Bach-Petri - Sheep may safely graze

The Ligeti was quite exciting.

I'm getting tired of people claiming "non-tonal music has no audience". Not having the audience Beethoven or Britney Spears have doesn't mean much. I go to a lot of concerts of contemporary, not traditionally tonal music and as long as they are organized well, the concert halls get easily filled with people and you have to be early to still get a good seat (or even a seat at all). Just try getting tickets for a festival like Donaueschingen if you're not very early. That's a lot more than most composers of the past centuries had during their time. And when "aged stars" of contemporary classical music such as Pierre Henry, Henze, Carter, Boulez etc. appear in a concert, they get standing ovations by huge crowds just for being there. I don't think that ever happened to Bach.