What tonality/atonality means to me

So .... here's an attempt not to start a debate but to acknowledge that 'tonality' or 'atonality' means different things to different people. Maybe later it's possible to distill these different notions into a few consensus definitions.

As I see it, the sound universe is a non-tonal pallette where exact sound pitches is not of importance. Examples: percussive instruments such as snare drums, cymbals, wind chimes, etc. On tonal instruments, even glissandi would fall in this category, as exact pitches are not so important as the effect.

Subsets of the non-tonal universe would be systems with discrete pitches such as the pentatonic, 12-tone, etc.

Within these discrete systems, there are:

1. The tonal pallette, which features a tonal center and its structural relationships with the scale degrees.

2. The atonal pallette, which simply means without tonal center.

It is difficult to escape the tonal pallette because the structural relationships (harmonies) are so pervasive within the system, so in order to achieve pure atonality, one has to follow strict procedures. The result is that atonal pallette is much smaller than tonal pallette.

There you go, my understanding of the sound universe. I'd be interested in your take on the subject.

If I see one more damn tonality thread.

Oh NICE! Allow me to post!

I view the two in very different regard.

With Tonality, I see a long tradition that is in dire need of assistance. Many of the rules and stipulations concocted centuries before have been broken and shattered to bits... leaving a hollow shell. (sry, for the overly verbose description...lol).

With Atonality, I see good intentions - but, there are some problems. First, if you plan to compose music without a tonal center - but just want abstract... there was no need really to concoct an even MORE rigid format. The essence of Atonality is a wonderful construct... but requires composers to take great care in handling their material.

For myself, being someone in this century young enough to not be impacted by the rise of atonality, I think their is a great difficulty for us. I'd rather not compose music that is ruled by ancient ideas of dissonance/resolution. I'd also rather not compose music that, to the ear, sounds like one emotional state all the time (insanity). And I sure as hell am not going to use a matrix to help me determine the various ways a 'Tone Row' can be variated in a piece - I'd like my music to be more creative in its use of material, tyvm.

Maybe later it's possible to distill these different notions into a few consensus definitions.

I have nothing against a dicussion of tonality and atonality. Nor do I have a problem with discussion on the comparisson and contrast of the two. However, why would we need to distill the responses in the discussion into a definition of the two subjects when we already have clear cut definitions of what atonality and tonality are? Would that not be redefining the two terms? I think the traditional understanding of both terms is satisfactory for just about anything you would want to use them for.

I am not one for redefining words.

I have nothing against a dicussion of tonality and atonality. Nor do I have a problem with discussion on the comparisson and contrast of the two. However, why would we need to distill the responses in the discussion into a definition of the two subjects when we already have clear cut definitions of what atonality and tonality are? Would that not be redefining the two terms? I think the traditional understanding of both terms is satisfactory for just about anything you would want to use them for.

I am not one for redefining words.

Well, even dictionary words can have multiple meanings. I'm not aware that tonality and atonality already have clear cut definitions, but if that's the case, please share them. Anyway, from juji's post on a different thread:

That's in reply to Antiatonality's post.

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.

Tonality means many things to me.

On a narrower basis, there are many different tonalities, each based on artificial rules. This generally, but not necessarily, indicates common-practice tonality.

On a wider basis, tonal music is just any music for which it is more useful to analyze it in terms of having some kind of tonal center (even if it shifts rapidly) than not.

Atonal music is music that is not tonal. There are different varieties of atonal music, each of which is based on rules as artificial as those of tonal music, but the concept of atonality itself is not artificial at all. Rather, it is just the absence of tonality. In the same way that a boat on water is artificial, that boat not being there is completely natural.

(My definition on atonal as very much based on opinion. However, I think my definition of total can be generally agreed upon.)

Atonal music is music that is not tonal. There are different varieties of atonal music, each of which is based on rules as artificial as those of tonal music, but the concept of atonality itself is not artificial at all. Rather, it is just the absence of tonality. In the same way that a boat on water is artificial, that boat not being there is completely natural.

Your analogy seems to suggest that there are only two distinct states; the boat is either there or not there. Does the same apply to atonality? In other words, is atonality a logical quality (true or false) or measurable quality (more or less) ?

Measurable, of course (meaning that its a matter of degrees - not necessarily that it can be measured). I tried to indicate this in my definition of tonal. That analogy was just supposed to address concerns about which is more natural. (I believe neither is.)

Your analogy seems to suggest that there are only two distinct states; the boat is either there or not there. Does the same apply to atonality? In other words, is atonality a logical quality (true or false) or measurable quality (more or less) ?

"atonality" is simply the state of "not being tonal". It cannot really have multiple realities. It either is or is not "tonal".

However, since many musical languages are not inherantly "tonal", this means that many diffferent compositional techniques can be applied in such a manner as to give a result that is "not tonal = atonal".

There cannot be a "more or less" tonal/atonal, in the sense that any given passage may be tonal or atonal, by any definition. Meaning an entire piece of music may have passages that are tonal, and others that are not tonal. However, to say a passage is more or less tonal or atonal is a musical logic fallacy. It either IS tonal, or it is not. It cannot be a bit.

And again, it is important NOT to confuse "compositional technique", which can be tonal or atonal, with the terms tonal and atonal which only describe the relative state of said technique in its relationship to harmonic hierarchy.

Poetry is a form of writing. But it would be unfair to describe all writing as "poetry or not-poetry". The "not-poetry" side would include so many different aspects, each as individual as the next, that the term "not-poetry" becomes meaningless.

In this very sense, "atonal" is meaningless. It simply describes the state of the music as "not being tonal".

Thanks Qmw and QcC.

If anything we've already seen that 'atonality' can convey two contradictory notions; one that suggests an absolute either/or quality (QcC), and another that suggests a quality measurable in degrees (Qmw).

My point is, why limit ourselves to just the one word to describe these different notions? Why not coin a new word, 'axonality' or whatever to describe one and 'azonality' for the other (or go with definition #1, 2, ... etc). I think this kind of approach will remove the bulk of misunderstanding and hence animosity in our discussions.

I invite more people to chime in!

I'm not really sure a new term is what is needed.

I would think that a better understanding of what the existing terms MEAN would be considerably more important.

In a VERY wide, loose, free definition:

Tonal = music whose harmonic structure is based on a hierarchy of diatonic or modal chords.

Atonal = music that does not base its structural material on "tonal" principles.

Toenail = what you have to clip every week or so.

Atoenail = what you pick up on the floor of the bathroom because those damned clippers send litle bits and pieces flying all over the place.

I'm all for fleshing out the precise meaning of the existing terms we use so freely - coining new terms is just an exercise to make the distinctions explicit. For example, does 'modal' imply 'tonal' ?

Tonal = music whose harmonic structure is based on a hierarchy of diatonic or modal chords.

And from another thread:

Modal music is, strictly speaking, "not tonal"... it is modal.

Oh cripes. Language is imprecise. Get over it.

Wait, is Metallica still metal? But they cut their hair!! And they didn't use solos!

No, Cygnus, modal is modal.

Tonal is tonal.

If you want, strictly speaking, tonal music is diatonic (major/minor diatonicism).

If you want, strictly speaking, tonal music is diatonic (major/minor diatonicism).

I think we're on to something! If we put your definition as definition #1, for example, then whenever someone says 'tonal music' we can inquire whether it means definition #1, because he/she could be referring to another definition. Misunderstanding averted!

Better yet, instead of using the confusion-prone term 'tonal', why not use the more precise term diatonicism or, SSC can correct me, Durmolltonalit

I do, and I don't.

You see, in my opinion, the word "tonal" really only applies to music that is constructed by the rules (harmonic hierarchy, etc...) of diatonic (major/minor) tonality.

Anything else is, at least to me, not "tonal. So I don't really see the need to give a new name to something that already has a name.

Tonal and Atonal are general terms. Modal as well I guess.

Greece, USA, etc are countries and general terms as well.

Serialist, 12 tone, prismic, romantic, etc, are... more specific terms

Athens, Washington, etc are cities.

No?

I think its interesting to note (with the exception of Nikolas) that most view tonal music in either modal or 'diatonic/common practice' view. Yet, I can think of many pieces that have a definite tonal center but yet do not utilize modal or d/cp principles (Bartok is the first to come to mind).

I think Tonality itself should be narrowed down to just a basic definition (music with a tonal center) - the historical ideology that pervades the word.

I do, and I don't.

You see, in my opinion, the word "tonal" really only applies to music that is constructed by the rules (harmonic hierarchy, etc...) of diatonic (major/minor) tonality.

Anything else is, at least to me, not "tonal. So I don't really see the need to give a new name to something that already has a name.

And your opinion is as valuable as everyone else's. I think we're on to a very healthy discussion here guys. Keep it coming!

I'm sorry. I am so confused and perplexed now... I don't know what to say!

Bless your hearts

I don't really get, why so called "modal" music is "not tonal". When I compose a piece in C Dorian then my tonal center is "C" just like it would be in C Major.

Btw. I think that the term "modal" is often misused. "Modal" means just that the

seven diatonic modes are used. Common practice tonality uses the Ionian and Aeolian mode, so it's actually also "modal music".

Also music does not even have to be diatonic to be tonal.

I can also use "synthetic scales" like the augmented scale [C,D,E,F#,G#,A,B]

or even the blues scale[C,Eb,E,F,F#,G,Bb]. Blues music usually has definately a tonal center,but it doesn't apply common practice theory. As long as the notes are heared as being related to the tonic of the scale(no matter if diatonic or something else), the music is tonal to me.

I think that the term "modal" is often misused. "Modal" means just that the

seven diatonic modes are used. Common practice tonality uses the Ionian and Aeolian mode, so it's actually also "modal music".

Modal music isn't technically tonal, and common practice music, while using scales equivalent to the aelion and ionian scales (although the natural minor, aeolian, is rather rare), technically speaking does not use modes. Modality can also refer to things like Messiaen's modes of limited trasposition, so I wouldn't limit it to the Greek modes.

Methinks someone needs practice their scales...

....the augmented scale [C,D,E,F#,G#,A,B].

...the blues scale[C,Eb,E,F,F#,G,Bb].

:whistling:

Shall we venture a little out there and get some ethnomusicological perspective? For lack of better examples, here are some carnatic music from India and gamelan music from Indonesia:

Carnatic music

Gamelan music

As their music was derived outside of the Western tradition, I would say that the creative process must be different as well. Given that, do you think our musicological terms are universal enough to account for these examples? Or are they only appropriate to describe music of Western tradition?

A bigger question would be: does one have to know the creative process behind a piece of music in order to classify its 'tonality'?

Only western.

Gong Gamelan often uses either a 5-roughlyET or a 7-note scale (don't remember how it works exactly.) Other forms of gamelan might use other scales. As far as I'm aware (which ain't worth the pixels it's taking up), there aren't set relationships. I know Corbin's into this kind of music, he might know a bit more.

I can't speak for Karnatic, but i think it still holds true: Hindustani music uses a 12-note system, even using a solfege style called Sargam. V-I (Pa-Sa) relationships are common, but not universal.

So i guess you could make "atonal" gamelan or hindustani music; it just would be away from the traditional styles. But that's stretching the definition of atonal to atraditional...