A Discussion About Tonal and Atonal Music

Well you can't spray Febreeze on a turd and expect it to smell better.

So what? What makes the blanket statement right? Why must EVERYONE submit to one idea because a very small majority thinks one way or another?

Who's asking anyone to submit to anything at all? People can like whatever they like for whatever reasons they may have, that's all none of my business. I mean, I can just as well invert his statement and insult HIS tastes regardless of what they are, but why would I? I don't CARE if people think Bach is the best composer in the world or if they think whatever they want to think. Attacking people for their tastes in art is stupid.

Well you can't spray Febreeze on a turd and expect it to smell better.

You're talking about your tastes right? Don't be so hard on yourself for liking the stuff you do, it's OK. We understand.

And this is how I know you're nothing but an amateur, Jaw.

Music theory exists to describe ACTUAL MUSIC. If your terminology is failing to account for ACTUAL MUSIC then it FAILS as a functioning part of any music theory conception. Yet, you write:

What did I write? I wrote a list of reasons why I refuse to answer a question for you. The most that happens when anyone answers a single question for you is you bashing them for failing to see what YOU see about music. I could care less your views on music, your views on theory, your views on the history of music. They mean nothing to me and have no impact whatsoever in what I choose to compose or what I choose to listen to. Your nothing more than an anonymous person on an online forum to me - nothing more.

That's a VERY good reason to ditch a term, really! It's a GREAT reason, in fact, because it's based on actual literature. Now if you'll say it doesn't apply, you're the one who has to explain why it doesn't. And, oh, really "extreme avant-garde?" DEBUSSY? Are you joking?

You really are that unintelligent arent you? I never said Debussey was atonal. I made a sarcastic remark early to avoid an argument with you over semantics - nothing more. Obviously, if you actually READ the full extent of a persons post you may gleam far more from what they mean. NOTE: to read a persons post properly, look at the words and actually think about what they are saying and why they are saying them - instead of just looking at the words and going verbatim on them!

Ah now I remember why I shot you down, you affirmed that according to your definition of "tonal center" Debussy was "atonal." I remember also mentioning modes and all other sorts of "tonality" that would evade your definition beautifully (Wagner and Liszt come to mind, etc.) All very "extreme avant-garde" to you, I suppose.

Find the exact sentence where I seriously said Debussey was 'atonal'. Good luck, because I never seriously said it. I said that out of sarcasm to showcase your overall lucid interpretation based on musical history. Such as your comment earlier that you could very well argue the usage of mathematics in early music.

Sorry to tell you Jaw, but I highly doubt you were on top of the musicology field during middle school and highschool. Nevermind you weren't even studying composition (according to the bio on your site,) so really I'd take maybe 10 years out of those 15, and even then considering your level of discourse I wouldn't even count your education!

Yes, go off a general bio that I wrote a few years ago. Did I go into detail on what I've studied? Did I discuss my own personal research into composition or other fields? Looks like in that I was just going into a brief description of my past with music - nothing more. Only discourse I have with you is that the most you do in a discussion is push the buttons of those who disagree with your views to the point where it becomes a proverbial yelling match over something subjective and inconsequential (for the most part) to the craft itself.

Come back when you've had more experience in the field (or get a proper education on the topic) and we'll talk. Until then, just stick to writing your music and leave the theory discussions to people who actually know anything about it, thanks!

Yes, and your such an authority. I'll be sure to look for your treatises and papers at the bottom of the discount/sales racks. You want to bash me, I'll be more than happy to bash you any day. At least I dont sit and troll an online composition forum and throw my ideas down childrens throats - I'd much rather put the whole world in front of them and make them choose their own paths. I see thats the difference between us though.

---

SPEAKING OF WHICH: it was this very same thread where that crap happened. Here's the bit in particular:

http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/discussion-about-tonal-atonal-music-22225-3.html#post323288

and likewise:

http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/discussion-about-tonal-atonal-music-22225-4.html#post323304

Even CO called you on it, and he was very polite about it too.

...Tonality will always be the accepted status quo in the world we live in and even among composers.

Should read like: "...accepted status quo in the world I live in..."

I'm pretty sure that many parts of OUR world do not subscribe to the same musical-tonality "status quo" as you do...

:whistling:

...For professional composers, you must create music for the listener/consumer to connect with on many different levels, almost most importantly emotionally.

Perhaps....but this has nothing to do with tonal/atonal. For many people, free/atonal music IS what connects with them.

...SO, it all boils down to; as SSC so loudly states: Different people have different tastes in music.

Attacking people for their tastes in art is stupid.

And yet you, and people like you, do it daily. "Oh you don't like Xenakis...so you're stupid. Oh you don't like Messiaen, so you're uneducated. Oh you don't like Zwilitch, Cage, and Reich, so you're uninformed." Same old, same old.

And yet you, and people like you, do it daily. "Oh you don't like Xenakis...so you're stupid. Oh you don't like Messiaen, so you're uneducated. Oh you don't like Zwilitch, Cage, and Reich, so you're uninformed." Same old, same old.

WHAT?

Oh sorry I NEVER once, seriously, not even once, said anything like that. I dare you to show me any post where I told someone off because they didn't share my particular tastes or because they didn't like X or Y composer. In FACT, in case you haven't noticed, I've defended people's rights to write WHATEVER they want and to like WHATEVER they want nonstop since I joined the site. I even taught counterpoint and analysis of classical AND modern music here on this very site!

Liking is one thing, knowing is another. Nobody tells you you should like Messiaen or Xenakis or whoever, but you should know they exist and be familiar to some degree with the music. It goes without saying that the same applies to all sorts of music across all of music history. I doubt you like every single baroque composer, yet you still have to have an idea of the baroque period and most of the important peoples. Same with the 20th century or the 19th century, etc etc.

Just in case you didn't "get" my position on the matter.

Who's asking anyone to submit to anything at all? People can like whatever they like for whatever reasons they may have, that's all none of my business. I mean, I can just as well invert his statement and insult HIS tastes regardless of what they are, but why would I? I don't CARE if people think Bach is the best composer in the world or if they think whatever they want to think. Attacking people for their tastes in art is stupid.

You're talking about your tastes right? Don't be so hard on yourself for liking the stuff you do, it's OK. We understand.

Yet another reason why this forum is the way it is. Immature people that don't seem to be able to have conversation without saying stupid scraggy like above.

Should read like: "...accepted status quo in the world I live in..."

There was not first person singular, read again...if you can.:thumbsup:

I'm pretty sure that many parts of OUR world do not subscribe to the same musical-tonality "status quo" as you do...

:whistling:

Who is OUR??? A bunch of elitist, misinformed composers without lives?:w00t:

Perhaps....but this has nothing to do with tonal/atonal. For many people, free/atonal music IS what connects with them.

...SO, it all boils down to; as SSC so loudly states: Different people have different tastes in music.

I agree 100%.

Yet another reason why this forum is the way it is. Immature people that don't seem to be able to have conversation without saying stupid scraggy like above.

Yet another reason why this forum is the way it is. Immature people that don't seem to be able to have conversation without saying stupid scraggy like above. Nice contradictions btw, agreeing with me but disagreeing at the same time, 100% even!

To be honest I have fun trolling people who feel the need to come in insulting everyone. On that note, for the record? Jaw was the one that started the insultin' back on the first few pages with such gems as:

Also, SSC - we all know that you dont care for the idea that music can express human emotions. With that in mind, why do you still come into these discussions that we have on the topic? Its almost like your trolling for lulz.

and

Yes, SSC... I understand that music that uses the excretion of feces as the sole sound throughout the extent of the composition does not fit under either of these definitions.

Very cool stuff! Then he throws a hissy fit and tells I'm the one arrogant because he fails to define a term (he STILL has NOT defined what "tonal center" is for the record, I just looked back through the thread and indeed he failed to defend or even properly define it.)

Honestly what was I saying right at the beginning was simply that if we were more accurate with our terminology we could maybe avoid misunderstandings, but guys like Jaw make things real hard and now this newb came in also guns blazin'.

Honestly, what's the deal? I don't come here to pick fights, but fighting is all I seem to get and most of it is grade-school nonsense, really.

Yet another reason why this forum is the way it is. Immature people that don't seem to be able to have conversation without saying stupid scraggy like above. Nice contradictions btw, agreeing with me but disagreeing at the same time, 100% even!

To be honest I have fun trolling people who feel the need to come in insulting everyone. On that note, for the record? Jaw was the one that started the insultin' back on the first few pages with such gems as:

and

Very cool stuff! Then he throws a hissy fit and tells I'm the one arrogant because he fails to define a term (he STILL has NOT defined what "tonal center" is for the record, I just looked back through the thread and indeed he failed to defend or even properly define it.)

Honestly what was I saying right at the beginning was simply that if we were more accurate with our terminology we could maybe avoid misunderstandings, but guys like Jaw make things real hard and now this newb came in also guns blazin'.

Honestly, what's the deal? I don't come here to pick fights, but fighting is all I seem to get and most of it is grade-school nonsense, really.

All I have ever seen you do SSC is troll and bash people since the day I joined this forum. I remember vividly past threads on this topic - you post the same things over and over again with no care or thought given to who you are talking to. Its always been like this. This thread, I admit, I did have quite a discourseful tone with you - its because it gets old. Nobody on this forum has had the same teachers as you. Everyone on this forum has gone through a different path of education and research to reach their viewpoints. That is one of the gems of music itself - there are no absolutes. Two people can look at a piece of musical theory and gleam two separate, yet viable interpretations. Thats why music is categorized as an art and not a science. And yet, instead of you acknowledging that I had a different education than you - the best you do is call me an amateur and proceed to enshrine me in an unintelligent light. That shows to me that you lack the ability to show respect with peers who disagree with you. And where you show no respect - you receive little to no respect from others.

I have nothing against heated debates. But I'd prefer if this stayed a heated debate about the topic at hand rather than the intelligence/knowledge/status of the posters here. This goes to SSC as much as to Jawoodruff and JmAY, regardless of whether I agree with their respective positions or not. If the next posts don't return to a discussion about music I'll have to delete them.

Specifically to JmAY: I don't think it's too helpful to call a large proportion of contemporary composers "a bunch of elitist, misinformed composers without lives". You'd make your point more efficiently if you presented thoughtful, carefully explained information yourself (instead of rashly equating entirely unrelated terms such as atonality and randomness and using this "argument" to attack the many, many people who happen to appreciate said music).

I have nothing against heated debates. But I'd prefer if this stayed a heated debate about the topic at hand rather than the intelligence/knowledge/status of the posters here. This goes to SSC as much as to Jawoodruff and JmAY, regardless of whether I agree with their respective positions or not. If the next posts don't return to a discussion about music I'll have to delete them.

Don't look at me, I'm still waiting for a definition of "tonal center." Since Jaw rather insult and throw fits than explain what he means, what can I do?

To the people who seem to despise the very concept of atonality: If you think you're on some holy crusade against the musical elites...you're not. Sorry. I mean, if you want to convince me that what, to me, includes some of the most beautiful and interesting (and often passionate) music in the world is inhuman and robotic, good luck. The important thing is not whether music is tonal or atonal. It's whether you like it or not! So, basically, it isn't doing you any good to fight against a concept.

That's all fine enough, but the fact remains that this thread's topic is "a discussion about tonal and atonal music" and not "what are the absolutes in music" or "which recordings of Mahler's 9th are the best". It's not that I'm incredibly fond of this particular discussion here, but that doesn't mean we should talk about whatever we happen to find an interesting topic in this thread ;)

LOL What a difference a year makes.

Well, shucks, now you've done revived the troll breeding ground Woodruff :facepalm: :lol:

Well, if this troll mating place is active again, let me ask an on-topic question, to anyone (being especially curious how SSC and jason would answer it):

1. how would you define a tonal center?

I think there is some intuitive common ground, and anyone is talking about the same, but the wording might be difficult (even so that I will not try to give a definition yet ;) )

But thinking of it, Alban Bergs Violin Concerto has tonal centers or implication or whatever you call it, and I am currently working on a piece that sounds even more tonal, but is entirely made only of a tonerow and its permutations.

That made me wonder:

2. what is the relevance of tonal centers in defining tonal and atonal music.

(so this is more of a definition question: would you define atonal as "making use of 12-tone technique" or as "lacking tonal centers")

Well, if this troll mating place is active again, let me ask an on-topic question, to anyone (being especially curious how SSC and jason would answer it):

1. how would you define a tonal center?

I think there is some intuitive common ground, and anyone is talking about the same, but the wording might be difficult (even so that I will not try to give a definition yet ;) )

But thinking of it, Alban Bergs Violin Concerto has tonal centers or implication or whatever you call it, and I am currently working on a piece that sounds even more tonal, but is entirely made only of a tonerow and its permutations.

That made me wonder:

2. what is the relevance of tonal centers in defining tonal and atonal music.

(so this is more of a definition question: would you define atonal as "making use of 12-tone technique" or as "lacking tonal centers")

1 - A tonal center is the place where a peice of music feels at rest/resolves to... Simple, and I don't know why some people here are making the ridiculus claims of there "being no such thing as tonality/a tonal center"

Gravitational Pull? Does that really MEAN anything anymore? I mean gosh, that can mean whatever you want it to mean!

2 - Atonality is the lack of a tonal center.

Why couldn't we just link to this dead thread in the OP of a new thread?

Anyways, we've had discussions about tonal center and atonality before on YC. They generally don't end well (meaning they more or less reduce down to arguments over semantics and mud-throwing contests). But since we're on the topic anyway, I'll throw it out there.

In the traditional sense, tonal centers are generally identified by a harmonic relationship between the Dominant 7th Chord (specifically the tritone interval that forms between the third and seventh of the V7) and its tonic. The tritone collapses (sometimes expands, depending on the voicing), the third resolves up a half step to the tonic pitch while the seventh resolves down to either the major or minor third above the tonic, implying the mode. Tonal centers are perceived as more convincing in cadential figures, and traditional form relies on tonal centers for finality and, more importantly, delaying resolution to the tonal center.

When we speak of tonal center, we're speaking in a context of traditional, common practice music. Expanding this concept to other methods/styles has the tendency to skew the purpose of even calling some kind of central pitch or sonority a "tonal center." So it's important to be specific with the context we use for this terminology.

As for atonality, this is really an awful word that misconstrues most 20th Century music after Romanticism. Schoenberg criticizes the use of this word to describe music that doesn't adhere to structured, prescriptive hierarchies of sonorities leading to one "central" sonority - this music still uses tones, central ideas are still applicable even if the music doesn't prescribe to traditional norms of the traditional tonal hierarchy. What I find even more ironic is the idea that in listening to music, our minds attempt to order what we hear in various levels of "expected" values. This might be a rhythm or pitch, anything the mind holds on to in the listening experience. So, whether there is a tonal center or not, our minds may end up perceiving it without the composer ever intending it.

Atonality doesn't actually eliminate this idea of "centrality" at all. It merely avoids or disregards traditional structures and prescriptions applicable to pitch and sonority. More notably, you can still find tertian structures in Atonal music, even implications of tonality and the establishment of keys, but to call these events "tonal centers" without considering the absence of a context supporting it is a mistake. So, let's be clear that Atonal music doesn't necessarily define itself as a "lack of tonal center" in a general sense. Very specifically, "atonality" is a style of music that reduces all elements of music (pitch, rhythm, dynamics, etc.) to granular elements of equal importance - at least this is as far as we've gotten up to Milton Babbitt and the evolution of atonal processes into Serialism. 

Even within the very broadest context of "atonality", which is comprised of hundreds (maybe even thousands) of different styles, you're still going to find events in this style that might centralize a pitch or pattern through repetition, or by constructing a relationship between at least two different sonorities that evokes a "tonal center." But this is not a tonal center. If anything, we might call it "centrality." With all this said, we're all bound to wind up arguing over whether we can apply "tonal center" to anything outside the common practice or that we can define atonality in the way I describe above. These are all just words until you apply meaning to them. It's better not to pin our understandings to words and instead understand the meanings behind them.

These are all just words until you apply meaning to them. It's better not to pin our understandings to words and instead understand the meanings behind them.[\quote]

AntiA: The things you said I know. Unfortunately its not convincing when applied to different modes (since the V7 often does not contain the tritone).

I agree on the cadences, but it is as subjective as what keys&guitar says: "feels at rest/resolves to...". But again that is not convincing, since I was looking for definition. Is there one?

@AntiA: Do you consider "Old MacDonald Had a Farm" atonal music? There is not a single tritone.

"Modal" is different from "tonal".

I agree, but I my definition dorian has a "tonal center", don't you think?

I agree, but I my definition dorian has a "tonal center", don't you think?

Modal music doesn't follow the functional hierarchy of the common practice. Sure, there may be moments in modal music where a tonal center is implied simply due to the tertian similarity. But modal music doesn't always rely on V7 resolving to tonic to end a piece. A lot of modal principles are found in Jazz music, believe it or not, and if you study Jazz theory you'll find that the similarities are vastly outweighed by the differences. The concept of a "tonal center" comes out of the common practice period. Events in other styles may sound similar, but common practice music depends on a tonal center where other styles of music generally don't.

You don't need a tonal center for a pop tune, for example, but many tunes have a tonal center anyway because they use the same principles of classicism mixed with modality, as do commercial music forms like film and game music. In these instances, tonal center is applicable because principles of common practice music are applied, even if a tonal center isn't necessary. When these principles aren't applied, however, there's no reason to even be discussing tonal center. It's not reasonable to say Berg is using a tonal center in his violin concerto, because the tonal language isn't being used.

"Old McDonald Had a Farm" is a folk tune. Most folk tunes are modal, and this one is no exception. The "tonal center" is actually the Ionian Mode, and in some folk tunes it's the Aolean Mode, but we generally wouldn't refer to these as "tonal centers" but rather simply as "modes" of the work. This just keeps the terminology clear to avoid confusion when talking about different works in different styles and in different periods throughout history. Again, they're just words until you understand the meaning, so there's no sense in arguing over words if you're unclear on the meaning. So, I'm not disagreeing with you that Old McDonald Had a Farm could be heard as having a tonal center, it's just that saying "tonal center" in the context of a folk tune is a bit misleading.

This could be just a definition question.

AA, do I summarize you correctly stating you think tonal center tonal center is a term applied to common-practice harmony (thus excluding modality)?

For comparison, I understand it more in the general "gravity"-sense (including all kinds of modes, tertian and maybe even quartal harmonies or implication (like the Berg concerto))

"Modal" is different from "tonal".

Although I have never been confused by the term "Tonal" as some people here have, Modal has always been a hard term to grasp, and at times, kind of pointless...

So, the term Modal, only makes sense to me if you define tonal as basicaly "Common Pratice tonality" E.A., use of V7-I as the main cadence.

For example, you could use Ionian (major) avoiding perfect cadences, and it would be modal. E.A. Aeolean is modal, Harmonic Minor is Tonal...

But I use a less strict deffinition of tonal, so the term Modal dosen't really make much sense, because all modes (besides maybe Locrian, harmonicaly at least, but thats another debate...) are tonal.

My basic deffinition of "Mode" is diffrent scales from a distinct pitch class (for example, diatonic) that can be produced by starting on diffrent notes of said pitch class.

For example, Ionian, Phrygian, Mixolydan, etc. are modes of the diatonic scale. (what most people think of when you say, "The Modes"

Lydian Dominant, Lydian Augmented, Mixolydian B6, etc. are modes of melodic minor (acending)