A Discussion About Tonal and Atonal Music

Geesh, generalizing about people's educations around the world is not a smart idea. Let's not go into that.

Oh, I highly doubt you can hold this up in academic circles among composition students at all schools. They're being 'artists'. Sure, they're making conscious aesthetic choices to some degree. But just because the idiom they're working with is atonality doesn't universally mean they choose to write in that idiom out of 'aesthetic'.

I'm all for being open to every form of expression, but let's try to keep perspective on this whole discussion of tonal and atonal writing. Just because as a student artist I wrote atonal works doesn't necessarily mean I did so because it was an 'aesthetic' choice.

I agree though that Modernism has less to do with this overall, but we're moving out of this period. You can't possibly believe that, all of a sudden as if it never happened, some attitudes among academic circles haven't endured still today. Be realistic. Just because 'Modernism' may not have as much to do with composing today doesn't necessarily mean the 'ideology' is no longer imposed upon others' aesthetics.

I'd hope you would be making aesthetic choices no matter what kind of tools you are using. Tools don't speak garbage.. only dumb composition students do that.

I'd hope you would be making aesthetic choices no matter what kind of tools you are using. Tools don't speak garbage.. only dumb composition students do that.

:headwall:

Okay. You're just going to waste my time. I'm going to do more intelligent things now, because carrying on this discussion with you is just going to destroy my brain cells.

Geesh, generalizing about people's educations around the world is not a smart idea. Let's not go into that.

No no, I actually wasn't generalizing about all people's educations around the world. I'm simply encouraging YC to acknowledge that in some circumstances it still occurs.

South Florida Teaches better than that.

South Florida Teaches better than that.

Depending on the composition instructor, perhaps. The only one I felt truly taught better than that isn't teaching there anymore, though. This is no surprise though, as USF is churning and burning through professors in that position and have been for quite a while. It's an administrative issue, IMO.

It isn't an ideology.

I strongly disagree. Atonality (and in that I refer mostly to serialism) is very much an ideology by the very definition of the word 'ideology'.

i

As far as I know, there are rules that have been set forth that dictate atonal composition (serial method, especially). Unless I'm mistaken by the miscellaneous definitions of the word ideology... I do believe that the word is the correct one.

You do realize that 'Atonality' and 'Serialism' are two entirely different things, don't you?

You do realize that 'Atonality' and 'Serialism' are two entirely different things, don't you?

Are they???? OMG! I absolutely DID NOT KNOW that!!!!

.

.

.

.

.

Yes, I knew that. Atonality came before the serial method - but as the serial method is far more widespread... I think to use the two interchangeably is totally understandable, yes?

Atonality is not a set of doctrines. If it is, describe the doctrines.

According to my understanding, atonality is the lack of tonality - the lack of a certain vague set of doctrines. And as the lack of something, it isn't...something. It can encompass doctrines, as in serialism, but includes none by itself.

And serialism isn't a method, it's a general description for a number of possible methods based on a central idea (musical series of pitches developed in certain ways).

Atonality is not a set of doctrines. If it is, describe the doctrines.

According to my understanding, atonality is the lack of tonality - the lack of a certain vague set of doctrines. And as the lack of something, it isn't...something.

And serialism isn't a method, it's a general description for a number of possible methods based on a central idea (musical series of pitches developed in certain ways).

Atonality, as used by the 2nd Viennese school prior to serialism (and as some may point out even earlier by other composers), moved away from tonality. And to do that, the composers just weren't being random with the way they did that. They used particular methods to not establish tonal centers, etc. It wasn't ALL alleatoric and I truly feel if you think that the move from tonality WAS random and without structure, you should read some of Schoenberg and others from that time period. Serialism does have a set of doctrines - most important being that no pitch holds more importance than any other pitch. Thus why you aren't allowed to repeat a tone in the row until all the other pitches are heard. That is very much a doctrine/rule/guideline...w/e you want to call it. I call serialism a method in that it is one of many different ways one can construct music - it is a method one can use to compose music (know what I mean?)

Atonality is not a set of doctrines. If it is, describe the doctrines.

Wait, let's go back to the definition.

i

You cannot wholly generalize an entire system or idiom of music with another system that operates differently. Well, you can, but it makes no sense to do so.

Since when can't you? It's my choice to do so - and I do so largely due to the fact that most who compose atonal music these days do so utilizing serial technique.

Since when can't you? It's my choice to do so - and I do so largely due to the fact that most who compose atonal music these days do so utilizing serial technique.

Yikes! That's not really the case at all. A lot of composers I know who write anything 'non-tonal' rarely use serialist techniques or 12-tone matrices nowadays.

Yikes! That's not really the case at all. A lot of composers I know who write anything 'non-tonal' rarely use serialist techniques or 12-tone matrices nowadays.

Again, its my choice to use the terms interchangeably - and I truly don't see anything wrong in it. Most of those I know who compose atonally do so only with serial technique - i only know one who just does it all completely random and i know zip who use anything else...lol

Again, its my choice to use the terms interchangeably - and I truly don't see anything wrong in it. Most of those I know who compose atonally do so only with serial technique - i only know one who just does it all completely random and i know zip who use anything else...lol

You're just not with it, that's all.

Again, its my choice to use the terms interchangeably - and I truly don't see anything wrong in it. Most of those I know who compose atonally do so only with serial technique - i only know one who just does it all completely random and i know zip who use anything else...lol

Atonality and serialism are two entirely different things, even if we were to decide what the hell "atonality" meant. I mean as usual I can give thousands of examples of pieces that are not serial yet are "atonal" in a sense that they distance themselves from using conventions found in tonal music (chord anatomy, voice movement, etc etc.)

And, furthermore, there's no sense in saying "atonality" is an ideology, you can say that some composers may see it as one but that doesn't describe the thing itself. It's a tool and a means to an end (avoiding tonal implications, etc,) whatever composers do with it is personal and relevant to those composers only.

Serialism does have a set of doctrines - most important being that no pitch holds more importance than any other pitch. Thus why you aren't allowed to repeat a tone in the row until all the other pitches are heard. That is very much a doctrine/rule/guideline...w/e you want to call it.

Some composers use those rules some of the time, yes. However by and large it's entirely possible to write serial music that is mixed with other techniques and/or use serial parameters for only specific things rather than the entire piece. In fact, this is very much what you get in some of Boulez' pieces and there are many other examples of serial-like organization but lack of actual note-by-note serialization.

Yes, I knew that. Atonality came before the serial method - but as the serial method is far more widespread... I think to use the two interchangeably is totally understandable, yes?

This doesn't fly, since "atonality" again can be thousands of things. The number of pieces that don't have tonal implications is probably much greater than the number of pieces using serialism, since you have to count in just about everyone from Varese to Penderecki and beyond. And even so, serial pieces can very well fall into being described as "atonal," so the distinction is nonsense to begin with. That's like saying music isn't as widespread as fugues are.

Atonality and serialism are two entirely different things, even if we were to decide what the hell "atonality" meant. I mean as usual I can give thousands of examples of pieces that are not serial yet are "atonal" in a sense that they distance themselves from using conventions found in tonal music (chord anatomy, voice movement, etc etc.)

Yes, more than expected that YOU would be the one to say this. Tbh, though, I truly could care less whether you could choose 1 piece or 9000 pieces. This is my opinion here, I gave my two cents on it and stated why I believed so. At no point in me giving my idea and thoughts on the topic in this thread did I ask to be flamed with the comments I've received the last few posts. I went to college already. I know my music history and don't need my views on the evolution to be critiqued tyvm.

And, furthermore, there's no sense in saying "atonality" is an ideology, you can say that some composers may see it as one but that doesn't describe the thing itself. It's a tool and a means to an end (avoiding tonal implications, etc,) whatever composers do with it is personal and relevant to those composers only.

Again, I further disagree with this erroneous statement that atonality and its constituents are NOT an ideology. We are discussing a stylistic trait within a humanity. There are reasons for atonality - whether people here acknowledge that or not is subjective - they are real, they can be quantified, AND they are inclusive to fit the entire whole. Therefore, it IS an ideology - no matter however you want to call it. The term ideology doesn't necessary ONLY apply to politics, science, or other fields - it is a term that is oftentimes used only in conjunction with those fields.

Some composers use those rules some of the time, yes. However by and large it's entirely possible to write serial music that is mixed with other techniques and/or use serial parameters for only specific things rather than the entire piece. In fact, this is very much what you get in some of Boulez' pieces and there are many other examples of serial-like organization but lack of actual note-by-note serialization.

Yes, I never said it wasn't SSC. All I said was the vast majority of composers that I have observed who compose atonaly utilize serial technique.

This doesn't fly, since "atonality" again can be thousands of things. The number of pieces that don't have tonal implications is probably much greater than the number of pieces using serialism, since you have to count in just about everyone from Varese to Penderecki and beyond. And even so, serial pieces can very well fall into being described as "atonal," so the distinction is nonsense to begin with. That's like saying music isn't as widespread as fugues are.

So your rewriting the history of music?? The ideas of serial organization came after the rise of atonality - historically! You yourself said the exact same thing. Today, as I said in my op, since Serial technique is far more widespread than general atonality - the two terms TO ME are interchangeable.

Truly people, you are making more flames here than you are bringing your own thoughts to the table of this discussion. I can fully understand if I made statements that were objective in nature and did not consider the history of music itself - but I have not made either claim (nor would I).

They used particular methods to not establish tonal centers, etc.

They used some methods, other people used other methods.

The belief, in this case that music should not have a pitch center, is part of the system of atonality.

Most people who write atonal music don't believe that "music should not have a pitch center". What they write doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what they believe.

At no point in me giving my idea and thoughts on the topic in this thread did I ask to be flamed with the comments I've received the last few posts.

Well if you don't want comments on the stuff you say, don't post it.

Again, I further disagree with this erroneous statement that atonality and its constituents are NOT an ideology. We are discussing a stylistic trait within a humanity. There are reasons for atonality - whether people here acknowledge that or not is subjective - they are real, they can be quantified, AND they are inclusive to fit the entire whole.

Oh so you're basically saying now that everyone who writes music that has no tonal implications does it for the exact same reasons. Is that it? The LACK of something can't be something in of itself, and the reasons behind that lack of something can be extremely diverse. That there were a groups of people that documented their particular reasons for doing what they did, sure! Does it mean anything for everyone else? Not necessarily.

Atonality itself is not well defined enough as a term (it's even questionable if it's relevant at all as a music category considering the diversity of music that have to fit under that banner.) How can you possibly claim it's an ideology in any general or universal way, again?

Today, as I said in my op, since Serial technique is far more widespread than general atonality - the two terms TO ME are interchangeable.

Well I can as well argue that the idea of using numbers to organize music parameters comes from the middle ages. Also, what the hell is "general atonality," again? And you apparently didn't get the point, "atonality" if to be meaningful at all as a term must be a bigger category that INCLUDES music based on serialism which can fit within the definition of "atonality." The point is mostly that unless you can come up with a significant portion of pieces that are serial and NOT atonal, it still stands that the category of atonality is obviously much bigger than the branch of serialism that belongs to it.

This is all again assuming that "atonality" is even a meaningful category of music or anything of the like and quite frankly I don't think it is if we have to group Ligeti alongside Cage and Boulez. It makes zero sense from a stylistic point of view as well as historical.

So really, if you use the two terms interchangeably I really have to question what kind of education you got, honestly. You keep mentioning it every time your gaps in knowledge are brought out, but that doesn't help your position at all... though I guess that you could refer to the music generally as "atonal," like calling Xenakis' music "atonal" as a description rather than something meaningful. It's still rather mediocre thing to do since that only tells you what the music is not, not what it is.

Truly people, you are making more flames here than you are bringing your own thoughts to the table of this discussion.

"Flames," eh? You're making some pretty heavy statements, expect heavy replies.

Most people who write atonal music don't believe that "music should not have a pitch center". What they write doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what they believe.

If they believed any differently, they would write music with a pitch center. They would no longer be writing 'Atonal' music or anything resembling it. Perhaps the ideology behind it is more complex than merely the suggestion that music should 'not have a pitch center', as the same view is also coupled with 'music should be relevant' and 'we shouldn't regurgitate the past'. These ideas combined form an ideology of sorts around the topic of Atonality... and it is in that sense that I suppose I am defending the statement to a limited degree.

Whereas JW is arguing the semantics of music theory, I'm distinctly addressing the social 'attitudes' that are more often prevalent in Modernist rhetoric, which by the way, hasn't exactly gone away. I'm confident I could visit ten schools as a fly on the wall and watch some instructors in lessons tell students that no one uses tonal centers in music anymore. Of course they would be wrong, but they are immersed in their own, Modernist ideology that died a long time ago.

I'm confident I could visit ten schools as a fly on the wall and watch some instructors in lessons tell students that no one uses tonal centers in music anymore. Of course they would be wrong, but they are immersed in their own, Modernist ideology that died a long time ago.

I wouldn't be so specific. I'd say that if any profs said "we don't do X anymore" it'd be bullshit no matter what X is. And I've heard everything in X too, from tonal music to 12 tone to process music to minimalism, geesh. It's almost like you can't do anything these days without someone coming up and saying "We don't do that anymore, lawl."

It's almost like you can't do anything these days without someone coming up and saying "We don't do that anymore, lawl."

This is precisely how I felt throughout my education from High School all the way through my Masters work. Of course, there were exceptions along the way. But I found it so remarkable how often I came across the same exact attitudes from one Prof to the next.

That's really the only reason why I stand by the claim that in some academic circles, Atonality is treated more like an ideology than a music system. So, I can appreciate that vantage point from that limited scope of using the term 'Atonality' in such a context.

This is precisely how I felt throughout my education from High School all the way through my Masters work. Of course, there were exceptions along the way. But I found it so remarkable how often I came across the same exact attitudes from one Prof to the next.

That's really the only reason why I stand by the claim that in some academic circles, Atonality is treated more like an ideology than a music system. So, I can appreciate that vantage point from that limited scope of using the term 'Atonality' in such a context.

Well I think in general is an idea of "modernism" that is sort of stuck in the 60s and 70s, rather than anything to do with "atonality" specifically. I'd say it's actually a contrary tendency vs specific types of music and I don't think that's reasonable if you're studying composition, regardless of what.

^^Agree^^

If they believed any differently, they would write music with a pitch center. They would no longer be writing 'Atonal' music or anything resembling it. Perhaps the ideology behind it is more complex than merely the suggestion that music should 'not have a pitch center', as the same view is also coupled with 'music should be relevant' and 'we shouldn't regurgitate the past'. These ideas combined form an ideology of sorts around the topic of Atonality... and it is in that sense that I suppose I am defending the statement to a limited degree.

That only describes a few people who compose atonal music. Atonality itself is the lack of tonality, nothing more. There are doctrines and systems and stuff WITHIN that general category, but atonality itself isn't a doctrine.