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

I would advocate a non-debate thread in which people can flesh out what 'tonality' or 'atonality' means to them. It seems that the bulk of the disagreement can be reconciled simply by having more than just the two words to describe the various notions of tonality.

why not just remove the tonality portion of the words themselves... that would leave you with:

_____________, A, Poly

etc.

??

Feldman composed music that cohesively combines timbre, melody, rhythm and formal elements without an instrument or orchestra in front of him to guide him. And his music is neither tonal nor "atonal" in the Schoenberg/Webern sense. It is music which focuses on sounds. Feldman finds a few sounds he likes, he plays around with them, he revisits them, he places them in different context, he places them in different places in the manuscript paper. He squeezes them in in measures of different time signatures.

Not a fan. Sorry. I've listened to Feldman, though. I gave a good listen to one of his CDs and felt like gagging myself. It wasn't pretty.

And before you go any further with your little diatribe, here, Juji, you're going to need to more specifically define what atonality means, because you seem to, again, be using it as a catch-all for every example of contemporary music... then saying... (in a remarkable abandonment of logical reasoning I might add) that many of the examples you point to are... not atonal.

It's fascinating, really, but truly a waste of time and space in this thread.

I never claimed that "atonality" is natural or organic.

No, you said it's more of a clear state than tonality.

"Let me also remind you that atonality is not an "alternative" to tonality. Tonality is something that is artificial, atonality is more of a clear state than tonality is." - Juji

See, this is how I interpret "clear state." I can only assume this is how most people would interpret such a statement. I can't see how such a statement can be interpreted in any different way, or for that matter be stated any differently if you're narrowing your definition by THAT much. Please stop trying to wiggle your way out of corners by playing semantic games. It's a waste of time and gets us nowhere.

Tonality is artificial by its definition. If there were no humans, there wouldn't be any tonality. Arguably, there wouldn't be any music either, but that's another topic.

Still, "atonality" is a state. "Tonality" is an artificial system which helps organize sounds in time/space according to various rules, thought to be derived by divine means and aesthetics, which hold none to little value over time. A read of James Tenney's "A History of Consonance and Dissonance" shows very simply how these two notions which seem to define "tonality" have changed dramatically over 100 or 200 years in history, and how what people once thought to be absolutely divinely perfect consonance became dissonance, and how dissonances became consonances, how their importance switched places etc.

Bullshit. Tonality is a system that organizes sound through aesthetics. The end. Forget about "rules." Simply accept aesthetic as the ONLY thing that tonality is governed by and leave it at that. Atonality is a system that has the inverse aesthetic purpose of eliminating the aesthetics of tonality. And in context, this ONLY pertains to the aesthetics of the common-practice of tonality, not the literal term "tonality." There are many, many tonalities that existed before atonality, and many more tonalities that exist now, after atonality. The very use of AntiAtonality in my member name and the reason for the use of Schoenberg's quote in my signature is to point to the fact that the literal meaning of 'Atonal' would mean no "Tonality" would apply. And therefore, if taken by literal meaning, Atonality implies no application of a Tonality at all. As you will see below, this reduces to sound alone, and sound is not music unless a tonality is applied to it. The nature of tone is that of relationship, intended or otherwise. If you'll stop throwing 'Atonal' around like a sack on your back and think about what it really means in the literal sense, you'll understand your error here and possibly come to appreciate what I stand for in music.

And I'm sure Tenney makes for a fascinating discussion about the "History" of consonance and dissonance, but this relationship has aural and structural reinforcement. The very essence of the dominant/tonic relationship, in every context from tonal theory to set theory produces the same resulting dissonance/consonance relationship. I'm pretty sure you're using Tenney out of context (and I haven't read his work), but if he's really making such a ridiculous argument that such relationships don't actually exist or only exist because we have been conditioned to hear them in this way, then I think he's choosing which information to include in his argument and which information to EXCLUDE. This is the will to truth, not truth itself - read Foucault (Pronounced Fu-Coe) for more on The Will to Truth.

Above all, you're contradicting yourself:

aaaaaaand...

So which one of the two do I do? Do I try to imply that "atonality" is natural/organic (which I never claimed, but assuming that that's your interpretation of my words), a state in which no pre-designed template exists that would influence the creation of music? Or do I try to imply that atonality is only Schoenberg's few "atonal" works and I don't try to extend this to a larger degree when it can actually be applied to all music? (which I seem to be doing above).

I don't see any contradiction here on my part. You're using "Atonal" in various contexts, then saying the example is not "Atonal." I'm a bit confused myself.

As far as I know, Schoenberg didn't use anything closely related to Matrices, Set Theory, Hansen Analysis, Imaginary Numbers or Googol's when it came to composing his Pierrot Lunaire, or his piano pieces Op.19 . Cage never did anything even remotely related to mathematics like that. Neither did Feldman. Or Earle Brown. Now that I think of it, very rarely are Boulez's later works related to mathematics like that. Or wait, are Elliot Carter's works mathematically driven? Or Laurence Crane's? Or Birtwistle's? Maybe I'm wrong, and Ligeti did calculate every single one of his notes with a pocket calculator after all.

As I understand it, Schoenberg used something similar to Set Theory, just not nearly as developed as it is today. Cage used a variety of mathematically derived methods - 4'33" is organized into multiple movements, presumably based on some mathematical element that applies to the human brain's attention span according to psychologists at the time (or so I read a long time ago). I'm not aware that Cage ever came by his durations in the work through chance... just the sound in silence is generated completely by chance. Elliot Carter not using mathematics? You should read up on Carter. Boulez, Ligeti, and Feldman all at one time were applying mathematics to organizing sound. But the application is much looser.

Really, the point of mentioning math where it concerns atonality in music (as I hope we're close to coming to some common ground on what 'Atonal' is) rests in the procedures being used to create an "atonal" environment. Yet, the whole issue is whether or not that environment exists prior to employing the method or if a conscious effort is maintained in creating that environment. Obviously, you can make the argument that conditioning necessitated this effort, but even if we go in that direction, the existence of tonality and atonality both seem to negate your position that a "clear state" of music exists. A clear state of music could only be sound, where no intuitive effort takes place at all, and I will argue that unless you apply yourself as a composer to create a work OF MUSIC, it is just sound. Therefore, I separate the two definitions of sound and music in this way and will stand by the fact that no "clear state of music" exists. You're arguing a moot, illogical point.

That association with maths confuses me a bit. It seems more of a thing of people like Xenakis, Stockhausen and spectral composers (although I wouldn't group all of them in the same group). Please don't try to apply this to as wide a group of compositions of "atonal", because as you said above, there's no point if trying to prove that much "atonal music" is written using mathematics, simply because atonal music is a LOT of things.

I therefore disagree with you and agree wholeheartedly with Gardener.

Well, then stop applying "Atonal" as a catch-all term and then rescinding it as you find it necessary in discussing this with me. Problem solved. :)

Bored of quote wars.

I think I'll start using images like robin does - it seems a very convenient way of avoiding to write many words. Which I don't have the time to write at the moment.

But I'll give you a tip:

And I'm sure Tenney makes for a fascinating discussion about the "History" of consonance and dissonance, but this relationship has aural and structural reinforcement.

Aesthetics are not absolute. And they are not governed by some "divine principles", like the article says. That was Tenney's point.

And you seem to be treating "atonality" as the kind of "bad" and "ugly" who is trying to take away all the natural "beauty" of "tonality" which has "inherent aesthetical values in itself", while ignoring completely that simple point that Tenney makes in this book which you've obviously not read.

But I'll give you a tip:

I saw this and thought, "Oh, this should be good." Then I was just disappointed with...

Aesthetics are not absolute. And they are not governed by some "divine principles", like the article says. That was Tenney's point.

And you seem to be treating "atonality" as the kind of "bad" and "ugly" who is trying to take away all the natural "beauty" of "tonality" which has "inherent aesthetical values in itself", while ignoring completely that simple point that Tenney makes in this book which you've obviously not read.

Oh piss off, you wanker. I think that's what Gordon Ramsey would say, at least. Look, while you're busy trying to bolster your ego, I'm trying to explain to you why you sound like a complete idiot. And all you come back with is...

"You seem to be treating 'atonality' as the kind of 'bad' and 'ugly' who is trying to take away all the natural 'beauty' of 'tonality'..."

My God... and you just want to ignore the aural and theoretical reinforcement (yeah, that's right, people hear the relationship - they don't just see it) and tell me it's only there because we've been conditioned to hear it that way. What kind of idiot do you take me for? You really think I haven't considered arguments like Tenney's or the doctrine you seem to buy, lock stock and barrel? I lived and breathed the scraggy for 11 years, and I finally came to grips with reality. Good luck accomplishing that for yourself, eh?

In the inspirational words of Gordon Ramsey, go f*^k yourself! I'm out.

So you like cooking, antiatonality?

Let me get this straight.

You're talking to me about ego?

Great. Because many people are entitled to opinions, but I don't think anyone is entitled to "the truth" (which seems to be the meaning of your "the reality" here).

I saw this and thought, "Oh, this should be good." Then I was just disappointed with...

Oh piss off, you wanker. I think that's what Gordon Ramsey would say, at least. Look, while you're busy trying to bolster your ego, I'm trying to explain to you why you sound like a complete idiot. And all you come back with is...

Anti,

I don't really know... I respect your passions. However, I have a few questions for you.

First: What was there before Common Practice Period? What was there before the Medieval/Early Music Period? What rules were around prior to the 500 or so years of counterpoint and part writing?

Second: What are your 'own' views on this matter? For the past few days, I've seen you drop names here and there.. but I don't think I've seen your own view on things be mentioned. Perhaps, I missed it.

Third: In a discussion or debate, its best not to let your passions get the best of you. You seem to relish in them and let them explode without even a thought to those you respond to. If your passionate about your ideas... then discuss them with an open mind! There are millions of composers in this world... and each of us has our own ideas and our own philosophy as to music itself - not everyone is going to share your views BUT that doesn't mean you have to respond to them like you do. Be respectful to your peers.. who knows, one day they may have a job only you can do.

I don't want to seem self-pious on this or anything, I just wanted to get that off my chest and let you know how you come off.. it's very disheartening considering that you and I do share some beliefs on music in general.

Cheers.

Justin: my very last word on the matter:

Here follows a conversation we had with Justin in the shoutbox. Unfortunately, after that last phrase Justin said, I gave up. It's read from top to bottom.

[Today 7:29 AM] jujimufu: Justin Tokke: you claim that tonality is natural

[Today 7:29 AM] Justin Tokke: Dude. I never said that directly.

[Today 7:31 AM] jujimufu: Justin: you said that tonality is natural and is naturally beautiful, and everything else is an attempt at "showing off and appearing avant-garde" or whatever

[Today 7:31 AM] jujimufu: then you said RIGHT NOW

[Today 7:31 AM] jujimufu: that a V7-I has a NATURAL PULL

[Today 7:32 AM] jujimufu: Justin: then I gave you the example wit hthe indian person

[Today 7:32 AM] jujimufu: Justin: then you said that we're only talking about Western music

Justin: which means that, if tonality's beauty and inherent natural "pulls" are inherent in music, then it should apply to ALL humans

[Today 7:33 AM] jujimufu: but you said "no, we're tlaking about Western music"

[Today 7:33 AM] jujimufu: that automatically means that, tonality is a concept of the western societies and their development

[Today 7:33 AM] jujimufu: which means it is a human creation altogether

[Today 7:33 AM] jujimufu: which means, there's nothing natural about it

[Today 7:33 AM] jujimufu: other than the fact that the octave is the first fundamental, and the fourth is the second partial, and the fifth is the third and so on

[Today 7:34 AM] jujimufu: and even so

[Today 7:34 AM] jujimufu: the keyboard is not even tuned in just intonation

[Today 7:34 AM] Justin Tokke: Here we go. To quote myself: "Tonality is the height of all music. As a result, audiences love tonal works. Write tonal works. Period."

[Today 7:34 AM] jujimufu: I am afraid that's NOT the only thing you said, Justin

[Today 7:35 AM] Justin Tokke: what else did I say?

I think this thread and the many discussions and other threads on this topic have at least proved one thing: There are and always will be belligerent and stubborn composers and supporters for both tonal and atonal methods of composition. Neither is going to die anytime soon. With that said, go write whatever the gently caress music you want and quit arguing about it. After probably 100 pages of threads on this topic, nobody has gotten anywhere near coming to a conclusion or agreement. So srsly ppl, stfu. Mind your own music.

I like these threads. Why else are we here if not to discuss different views? If everyone here agreed, then at least I'd know I am right, but I wouldn't grow as a composer. These arguments and discussions are beneficial not only for the two sides, but also for spectators.

I like these threads. Why else are we here if not to discuss different views? If everyone here agreed, then at least I'd know I am right, but I wouldn't grow as a composer. These arguments and discussions are beneficial not only for the two sides, but also for spectators.

Some would say esp. those people.

Anti,

I don't really know... I respect your passions. However, I have a few questions for you.

Glad to know. I respect yours as well.

First: What was there before Common Practice Period?

Early Baroque.

What was there before the Medieval/Early Music Period?

Monks. And more monks.

What rules were around prior to the 500 or so years of counterpoint and part writing?

Dunno, the earliest form of diatonicism I'm aware of originated in the middle east. They took their music to the greeks to ask them for help and guidance with creating texts about their style of music. The Greeks put it together for them, gave it to them, then Spain conquered the middle east (EDIT: the middle eastern Moors conquered Spain, so it was the other way around, thanks JW) and through the synthesis of cultures the language endured. It traveled with Spain to South America, where it grew on its own. The language traveled to Europe where it was formalized and presented to the royalty of the era. And alongside the church monks of the medieval period, the diatonic language of that time was developing in a secular environment already, well before Bach ever began composing. And then you had French composers and Italian composers formalizing it in their societies. So, it's kind of hard to place the earliest "rules" or aesthetics that applied to music, but people seemed to go with it when they could have abandoned the aesthetic altogether. It just makes me question Tenney's basis for society's acceptance of what he might call an "artificial" language. It was born of more than just spirituality. Culture defined music as it sought to define itself, if you can imagine it in this sort of personification of culture.

Second: What are your 'own' views on this matter? For the past few days, I've seen you drop names here and there.. but I don't think I've seen your own view on things be mentioned. Perhaps, I missed it.

Anytime we look at different segments in music, there is a tendency to create some form of hierarchy for certain segments. I don't agree with doing this, but Juji does. This is why I disagree with him and his idea that Atonality is the purest form of music. It's patently false on many, many counts, and now he's just trolling the thread. Ugh...

Third: In a discussion or debate, its best not to let your passions get the best of you. You seem to relish in them and let them explode without even a thought to those you respond to. If your passionate about your ideas... then discuss them with an open mind! There are millions of composers in this world... and each of us has our own ideas and our own philosophy as to music itself - not everyone is going to share your views BUT that doesn't mean you have to respond to them like you do. Be respectful to your peers.. who knows, one day they may have a job only you can do.

I reacted to being trolled, not his argument. I actually tried to speak sensibly about his argument (as nonsensical as it is), but the truth is people choose what is real to them. He's free to think he's been "enlightened" by one or more authors of the 20th Century. I choose to seek enlightenment elsewhere, in the words of philosophers and the music of the greatest and most inspirational composers of my time. I also choose the limits of my time where influence is concerned. I choose to keep time as long as possible, to take in all of the inspirations from all the eras of music, not just the 20th Century or the witless meanderings of guys like Ness or Tenney. These people speak from an entirely different worldview than the one I've established for myself. They write about things as they have been trained to write and say, but they don't really speak about anything of value to music. They degrade it. They speak negatively of it, maybe not where it concerns their own interests in music, but certainly on the whole, they seem to have very cynical views of the music they have no interest in.

And I try to avoid having cynical views of music. Feldman is one case where I have more disdain for the composer than the work that results, as I do for many composers that manipulate sound in such a selfish indulgence of composition with no care in the world for all that precedes it. But that's my world view. It offends me, where it might inspire guys like Juji, so I have respect for the music itself if it can inspire others to make rose out of a rhinestone. I guess that's just where I stand.

I don't want to seem self-pious on this or anything, I just wanted to get that off my chest and let you know how you come off.. it's very disheartening considering that you and I do share some beliefs on music in general.

Cheers.

Certainly didn't mean to dishearten you. But don't let me be disheartening to you, either. We may share fewer or more beliefs on music. But your beliefs will always be more important than mine... to you. :)

The Greeks put it together for them, gave it to them, then Spain conquered the middle east and through the synthesis of cultures the language endured. It traveled with Spain to South America, where it grew on its own. The language traveled to Europe where it was formalized and presented to the royalty of the era. And alongside the church monks of the medieval period, the diatonic language of that time was developing in a secular environment already, well before Bach ever began composing. And then you had French composers and Italian composers formalizing it in their societies. So, it's kind of hard to place the earliest "rules" or aesthetics that applied to music, but people seemed to go with it when they could have abandoned the aesthetic altogether. It just makes me question Tenney's basis for society's acceptance of what he might call an "artificial" language. It was born of more than just spirituality. Culture defined music as it sought to define itself, if you can imagine it in this sort of personification of culture.

Let me just correct some of your history here, Spain did NOT conquer the Middle East. After the fall of Rome, the Middle Eastern Regions were ruled by the Byzantines and then a succession of Turkish and other Muslim rulers. Spain, in fact, was lost from the Roman rule around 409 a.c. The Iberian region itself then saw many Germanic Tribes come and go. In the 8th century, Spain was conquered by a muslim people known as the Moors. This caused a cultural infusion that is very unique in almost all of Europe (interesting to note that Spain during the Middle Ages was well known for its 'classical guitarists'). In 1085 muslim rule was largely ended, though there were various attempts to reestablish.

Western Music, however, does owe a large amount to the early greeks and to the Roman Catholic Church (and I say that very loosely). The earliest pieces that are largely choral works, very rudimentary chants, are from around the 1000 to 1100 a.c. period. Before that, there really is not much to go off of. Throughout the course of 400 - 500 years, music began to see evolution from simple descant to polyphonic works by Palestrina, Monteverdi, etc. It was not till the 1600's (and really, if you look at the repertoire, the 1700s) that a general consensus of practice was established (common practice). I mentioned the Roman Catholic Church, BECAUSE, aside from troubadours and the like, music was essentially something you experienced in a religious sense (mass, motets, chants, etc) - which is most likely what Tenney was referring to when mentioning Spirituality. Italy and Germany, to go into that, were the two biggest contributors to the Baroque model (with France in there somewhere, lol) and eventually, it is from these two styles that the classical composers and Romantic composers evolved.

One of the misfortunes of the earlier period, however, is that secular music was for the most part null and void. It really wasn't until the church allowed music to be written with instruments that you really saw a flowering of a secular music (earliest religious, then a move to ballades, etc.)

I hope that gives you a better view.

I don't know about you guys, but I have both JT and AA on ignore for precisely these reasons. People incapable of holding a discussion shouldn't have the privilege of having one, much less with me.

:>

But in any case, I think the article nails it and I've said what I had to say before. That AA and JT are arguing the opposite, etc etc, is not only totally predictable but downright redundant/uninteresting at this point, ignore them. Moreover, notice how their arguments have no substance? How do you pwn (or WHY would you need to pwn) someone who writes nothing but flamebait (unsubstantiated arguments, absolutist claims, bla bla bla) pretty much? If AA and JT can prove (or make arguments without logical fallacies, AT LEAST) any of what they claim or argue for, I'd be game but since they've been incapable of even that time and time again, why bother?

There are better things to do with your time, honestly.

First and foremost, the tonal language makes it possible for a composer to cohesively combine timbre, melody, harmony, rhythm, and formal elements of music without an instrument or orchestra in front of them to guide them in the process. Before electronic media, it was impossible for composers to hear all of these elements as they composed, so they HAD to have a method that would allow them to intuitively create music without a full ensemble present. The piano was a tool for some (Beethoven). Others only needed a quiet place by the fire (Mozart). So, your previous statement that composers were more strictly committed to prescribed procedures for creating music is just patently false. They composed tonal music in a tonal system they knew would aurally reinforce their ideas, and they composed mostly from an intuitive process knowing specifically what it would sound like before writing the work (if not in part than as a whole work, as sketches tend to explain this).

What does it matter if they "knew what it would sound like before writing the work"? Most composers do, to some degree, whether "tonal" or "atonal", and "electronic media" have nothing to do with that. As far as I know Sch

Gardener: Eventually, I'll get back to you on some of your points. I'm trying my best not to be an insomniac, so I'm just going to save your post for when I have more time to read it (I just skimmed). I'll get back to ya.

Let me just correct some of your history here, Spain did NOT conquer the Middle East. After the fall of Rome, the Middle Eastern Regions were ruled by the Byzantines and then a succession of Turkish and other Muslim rulers. Spain, in fact, was lost from the Roman rule around 409 a.c. The Iberian region itself then saw many Germanic Tribes come and go. In the 8th century, Spain was conquered by a muslim people known as the Moors. This caused a cultural infusion that is very unique in almost all of Europe (interesting to note that Spain during the Middle Ages was well known for its 'classical guitarists'). In 1085 muslim rule was largely ended, though there were various attempts to reestablish.

Western Music, however, does owe a large amount to the early greeks and to the Roman Catholic Church (and I say that very loosely). The earliest pieces that are largely choral works, very rudimentary chants, are from around the 1000 to 1100 a.c. period. Before that, there really is not much to go off of. Throughout the course of 400 - 500 years, music began to see evolution from simple descant to polyphonic works by Palestrina, Monteverdi, etc. It was not till the 1600's (and really, if you look at the repertoire, the 1700s) that a general consensus of practice was established (common practice). I mentioned the Roman Catholic Church, BECAUSE, aside from troubadours and the like, music was essentially something you experienced in a religious sense (mass, motets, chants, etc) - which is most likely what Tenney was referring to when mentioning Spirituality. Italy and Germany, to go into that, were the two biggest contributors to the Baroque model (with France in there somewhere, lol) and eventually, it is from these two styles that the classical composers and Romantic composers evolved.

One of the misfortunes of the earlier period, however, is that secular music was for the most part null and void. It really wasn't until the church allowed music to be written with instruments that you really saw a flowering of a secular music (earliest religious, then a move to ballades, etc.)

I hope that gives you a better view.

Awesome. I never actually received a lecture on this, it was only a conversation with a composition professor. Now that you clarified, I almost remember the conversation verbatum from your explanation. Kudos!

I don't know about you guys' date=' but I have both JT and AA on ignore for precisely these reasons. People incapable of holding a discussion shouldn't have the privilege of having one, much less with me.

:>

But in any case, I think the article nails it and I've said what I had to say before. That AA and JT are arguing the opposite, etc etc, is not only totally predictable but downright redundant/uninteresting at this point, ignore them. Moreover, notice how their arguments have no substance? How do you pwn (or WHY would you need to pwn) someone who writes nothing but flamebait (unsubstantiated arguments, absolutist claims, bla bla bla) pretty much? If AA and JT can prove (or make arguments without logical fallacies, AT LEAST) any of what they claim or argue for, I'd be game but since they've been incapable of even that time and time again, why bother?

There are better things to do with your time, honestly. [/quote']

Then don't bother. We're all just peachy here without you.

http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/thread-end-all-x-relevant-threads-ever-17079-6.html

Remember? You sealed your fate, AA. Appealing to tradition is the kiss of death to any intellectual discussion concerning art, anywhere and anytime. If that's what your argument comes down to, you have no argument.

In your words:

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.

Just peachy!

Gardener: Eventually, I'll get back to you on some of your points. I'm trying my best not to be an insomniac, so I'm just going to save your post for when I have more time to read it (I just skimmed). I'll get back to ya.

Take your time :) I'm going to be away for two days now, and I don't know whether I'll have any internet access, so I wouldn't be able to read your reply right away anyways.

This is why I disagree with [Juji] and his idea that Atonality is the purest form of music.[/b']

That's funny. It really is.

In fact, you're so much fun to converse with. Apart from stating as facts things you barely (and falsely) remember from one single conversation with a professor of yours (and no further investigation on your part) and using them to prove a point, it's just that you're boring. Not only you said that Feldman's music is "offending" you for disregarding our history or whatever, but you call Ness' and Tenney's writings worthless/witless. And I don't see how Tenney's writings at "witless"; it's a look at the aspects of what we consider "nice" and "bad" in terms of sound throughout history, and how that changed dramatically (hey, check that, that's a FACT). Sooooo... if you don't like what he says (which again you don't seem to have read) because you hold tonality to some higher ideal or whatever, then go cry somewhere else.

He's free to think he's been "enlightened" by one or more authors of the 20th Century. I choose to seek enlightenment elsewhere, in the words of philosophers and the music of the greatest and most inspirational composers of my time.

There's not much difference in the two things, is there? I am not choosing to be "enlightened" by anyone, it just happens (if it happens ever). I also happen to draw a lot of inspiration from 20th century philosophers and composers, but you also seem to also be inspired by the words of cooks.

Which is also another unacceptable aspect of your comments - you insult the people you converse with, if after your first two posts they still fail to be converted to your point of view. Which I found utterly disgusting. If you want to be taken seriously, don't insult me. If you can't stand me posting a few photos in the thread, then shut up. (I wonder, can you actually do that?)

I just don't like you. Sometimes you say smart and nice things, but when the way you present them is not decently respectful of the people reading them, they get lost amidst all the other crap you say which you half-remember.

http://xkcd.com/481/

:whistling:

Hey guy, let's discuss.

And I'm sure Tenney makes for a fascinating discussion about the "History" of consonance and dissonance, . . . choosing which information to include in his argument and which information to EXCLUDE.

I say you're ignoring the real truth of music. Thirds are disgusting dissonances! The height of music was everything up to about the 12th century, and we've just been degrading ourselves since. I say you're choosing which information to exclude; octaves, fifths and fourths are the first intervals in the harmonic series, therefore that's what all music must be created out of! Otherwise you're just ignoring the acoustical properties of sound.

I guess my defense there was pretty solid.

On another note,

The very use of AntiAtonality in my member name and the reason for the use of Schoenberg's quote in my signature is to point to the fact that the literal meaning of 'Atonal' would mean no "Tonality" would apply . . . this reduces to sound alone, and sound is not music unless a tonality is applied to it.

Schoenberg hated the term "Atonality", so your quoting him in your signature and argument is disingenuous.

Oh my, I missed that part of your reply:

Atonality implies no application of a Tonality at all. As you will see below, this reduces to sound alone, and sound is not music unless a tonality is applied to it. The nature of tone is that of relationship, intended or otherwise. If you'll stop throwing 'Atonal' around like a sack on your back and think about what it really means in the literal sense, you'll understand your error here and possibly come to appreciate what I stand for in music.

I'd argue that the nature of tone is "existence". A tone is simply a collection of soundwaves. Nothing more. A sound can be distilled in duration, timbre, amplitude and frequency. I don't see any relationship. If I give you a number, say number 9, there is no relationship in that number. 9 is not "greater than" or "lesser than" or "three steps away from" or "closer to", because all these things need another thing to exist. 9 is just a number. It doesn't describe anything, it's just the cardinal*number that is the sum of eight and one. It just is. And someone can like number "9" for what it is, just as someone can like the colour red for what it is, or a shape for what it is. I don't need to like "triangle" because it's got less angles than a "square", but more than a "circle". Relationships are one way of experiencing aesthetics, but alas not the only one.

And paying attention to the last phrase of the quote, my god. Do you realise how flawed it is? Do you honestly want me to record it and send it to you so you can hear how it sounds like? You're telling me to realise my error, and then appreciate your opinion on music. So you're basically telling me I'm wrong with regards to your opinion. Way to go.

In any case, I think we have more or less agreed that "music is organised sound in time with intent". I don't see where anywhere remotely close to this phrase "tonality" has a place.

Feldman composed because he liked the sounds. He liked that particular combination of notes, timbres, rhythms, so he writes them down, and other people play them. Cage surely didn't compose tonally. And I don't see any "tonality" in Laurence Crane's music. Surely, he uses "triads" or remnants of an older tradition, but the context in which he places them is unique. The chords cease having their functional properties they would have in a classical/common-practice context, you forget about what they should do and focus on what they are, because he has found some beauty in those chords/notes in themselves.

And you cannot claim that Feldman's or Crane's compositions are not "music".

As Jo Kondo says, "there are as many different kinds of music as there are people."

SSC: You're like the stupid fisherman on the river shore throwing that fishing line out with a little "flame bait" while the fish look at you like you're stupid. I'm not wasting my time on you, SSC.

In fact, you're so much fun to converse with. Apart from stating as facts things you barely (and falsely) remember from one single conversation with a professor of yours (and no further investigation on your part) and using them to prove a point, it's just that you're boring. Not only you said that Feldman's music is "offending" you for disregarding our history or whatever, but you call Ness' and Tenney's writings worthless/witless. And I don't see how Tenney's writings at "witless"; it's a look at the aspects of what we consider "nice" and "bad" in terms of sound throughout history, and how that changed dramatically (hey, check that, that's a FACT). Sooooo... if you don't like what he says (which again you don't seem to have read) because you hold tonality to some higher ideal or whatever, then go cry somewhere else.

Seriously, I could go and make a very long post in response to all of this, but then you'll respond with another dumb picture and piss me off. Then I'll get another infraction for trying to engage in discussion with you. SO... no, you're not worth the effort, Juji.

There's not much difference in the two things, is there? I am not choosing to be "enlightened" by anyone, it just happens (if it happens ever). I also happen to draw a lot of inspiration from 20th century philosophers and composers, but you also seem to also be inspired by the words of cooks.

Which is also another unacceptable aspect of your comments - you insult the people you converse with, if after your first two posts they still fail to be converted to your point of view. Which I found utterly disgusting. If you want to be taken seriously, don't insult me. If you can't stand me posting a few photos in the thread, then shut up. (I wonder, can you actually do that?)

I'm not trying to convert anyone. This is a public forum, and I discuss things worth discussing. I don't agree with you. The end.

I just don't like you. Sometimes you say smart and nice things, but when the way you present them is not decently respectful of the people reading them, they get lost amidst all the other crap you say which you half-remember.

xkcd - A Webcomic - Listen to Yourself

:whistling:

Cute, flame bait. Troll often, do we?

I say you're ignoring the real truth of music. Thirds are disgusting dissonances! The height of music was everything up to about the 12th century' date=' and we've just been degrading ourselves since. I say you're choosing which information to exclude; octaves, fifths and fourths are the first intervals in the harmonic series, therefore that's what all music must be created out of! Otherwise you're just ignoring the acoustical properties of sound.

I guess my defense there was pretty solid.[/quote']

No, I'm not saying anything of the sort or to the contrary (and I'm noting the sarcasm in your post). I like perfect intervals as well and use them... quite a bit. But I'm not arguing that all music must be created out of any specific style. I have been arguing (and still stand by my position) that blaming one style for the disadvantages to another is just a very stupid thing to complain about.

Schoenberg hated the term "Atonality", so your quoting him in your signature and argument is disingenuous.

Watch yourself, Daniel. I hate the term as well for the same reasons, but I also hate how it impacted the education of myself and others as well. I'm sure Schoenberg never intended for his methods to ever be taken to such an extreme as to eliminate tonal writing from the 20th Century altogether, either. It's like the Crusades, violence carried out in the name of a man who died for peace. No, my argument and my signature have nothing to do with one another, let alone being "disingenuous" to Schoenberg.

And paying attention to the last phrase of the quote, my god. Do you realise how flawed it is? Do you honestly want me to record it and send it to you so you can hear how it sounds like? You're telling me to realise my error, and then appreciate your opinion on music. So you're basically telling me I'm wrong with regards to your opinion. Way to go.

Realize your error of assuming what I'm about, Juji, not that your opinion is right or wrong. You never seemed to understand my argument. Turns out, you're just bastardizing my words and taking them out of context to make a point that I'm an asshole. I know I can be an asshole, and I'm especially one when someone starts trolling when I put effort into discussing something with them. You're not worth the infraction.

1)Watch yourself, Daniel. . . . 2)I'm sure Schoenberg never intended for his methods to ever be taken to such an extreme as to eliminate tonal writing from the 20th Century altogether, either. . . . 3)No, my argument and my signature have nothing to do with one another, let alone being "disingenuous" to Schoenberg.

2) I agree: he himself has some tonal pieces from later life.

3) I never said you were being disingenuous to Schoenberg. And why are you quoting it? It's a real word you know. ;)

I also take issue with you saying your argument and signature have nothing to do with each other. This looks rather a lot like you're using your signature quote as a supplement or back-up to your argument:

The very use of AntiAtonality in my member name and the reason for the use of Schoenberg's quote in my signature is to point to the fact that the literal meaning of 'Atonal' would mean no "Tonality" would apply. And therefore, if taken by literal meaning, Atonality implies no application of a Tonality at all. As you will see below, this reduces to sound alone, and sound is not music unless a tonality is applied to it. The nature of tone is that of relationship, intended or otherwise. If you'll stop throwing 'Atonal' around like a sack on your back and think about what it really means in the literal sense, you'll understand your error here and possibly come to appreciate what I stand for in music.

So you're denying the fact that you swore at me and that your behaviour has generally been aggressive throughout this forum and that you have not continuously attempted to persuade other people to abide by your opinions, as that phrase shows:

you'll understand your error here and possibly come to appreciate what I stand for in music.

?

Do you honestly do that? Obviously, you're not worth my effort. It seems that all you can do is claim you "could post a big reply on this, but [i'm] not worth [your] effort", but I'm afraid that you might forget what you were going to say mid-way through so you'll end up swearing again and just keep calling me a troll. Which seems to be the solution to replying to most of my later posts.

Love ya.

3) I never said you were being disingenuous to Schoenberg. And why are you quoting it? It's a real word you know. ;)

You said it, and now you're saying you didn't?

"Schoenberg hated the term "Atonality", so your quoting him in your signature and argument is disingenuous."

Wow. Just wow.

I also take issue with you saying your argument and signature have nothing to do with each other. This looks rather a lot like you're using your signature quote as a supplement or back-up to your argument:

I take issue with your hair! :P

So you're denying the fact that you swore at me and that your behaviour has generally been aggressive throughout this forum and that you have not continuously attempted to persuade other people to abide by your opinions, as that phrase shows:

No, understand my opinion before you start disagreeing with me. That's all I was asking you to do. You still disagree, and that's FINE! Drop it.