A Short Atonal Composition

Just a a short atonal piece written for my theory IV class. It was composed using a matrix, which explains why it ends so abruptly.EDIT: I have now attached the matrix this piece was based upon, along with the score for you non-believers.The rows used were P2, P8 (starts at m24), and RIe (which starts at m32 [also there is a typo in the score, the E in measure 32 should be an Eb, but it is correct in the audio]). Of course, I went backward and forward in some of the rows, but from what I have learned about matrices, that is acceptable.and all atonal means is that there is no tonal center, which this piece does not have. Some might argue that D minor is the tonality, because that chord structure is infused in the matrix, and repeated at the beginning of the piece, but its debatable.

A Short Atonal Composition

This doesn't seem atonal at all to be honest. Nor do I hear any usage of a matrix. That said, i would consider this to be very tame until the very end. Structurally, I would change the ending to better match the rest of the piece. You have very little change throughout the work - not enough to really substantiate such an ending. Just my two cents. Thanks for sharing. In the future, may I recommend posting a score - it would really help in reviewing your work.

I promised I would listen to your pieces, and I did. All of them. The whole way through. That's a big achievement for me, having the attention span of a carrot.

They were pretty good. I don't really have any comments... yeah. Keep composing.

this piece will be good if you continue.. but this way it makes no sense to me. there is no matrix (yeah, show me the score), and it has NOTHING to do with atonality. Keep composing, because it would be a good work. but don't use 'extra-musical' things JUST for an alibi.

check the "EDIT" notes above.

Ok, as someone who uses a matrix, I must say that this surprises me that there is a matrix for this. Without even seeing the matrix and just analyzing the score - what you have done here is, in my opinion, chromatic modulation. That being that you appear to move chromatically from one harmony to the next until the very end. Make sense"?

Cool piece. Check out J.M. Hauer, he has a similar approach. You failed to let go of your self long enough to learn what atonality is though. I can understand individualism outside of the class room, but often it gets in the way of lessons. But really you would do better to have a less ridged sense of self.

This isn't atonal. The melody was created from a row, but it's definitely not atonal because your accompaniment constantly verifies temporary tonalities. Albeit with direct modulations and/or striking secondary chords.

I really do like it, though. And you weren't done when you decided to end right there. The music definitely wanted to continue.

Thanks for sharing! I know it's probably not in the cards for this to be fully explored, but ...I think it'd be cool if you did.

I guess a more appropriate title for this would be "A Short Serial Composition". Anyway, I wasn't really planning on revisiting this, since it was only for a class assignment, but I'll consider it. I'm working on a fairly large piece at the moment, so maybe when I'm done with that.

Thanks for your comments.

Can I say that only the violin is atonal? or are the piano chords also based on the matrix? I like this myself

What did your teacher say when they received this composition?

As composers, I think we can call it whatever we'd like, as long as you have reasoning for it and can defend your position. The piano chords are also based on the matrix, though. I think one thing that I learned from writing this particular piece is that using a matrix doesn't always have to result in sounding dissonant and modernistic, and it can actually generate some pretty interesting chord progressions.

As composers, I think we can call it whatever we'd like, as long as you have reasoning for it and can defend your position. The piano chords are also based on the matrix, though. I think one thing that I learned from writing this particular piece is that using a matrix doesn't always have to result in sounding dissonant and modernistic, and it can actually generate some pretty interesting chord progressions.

I agree with your latter point.

I disagree with "calling it whatever we like." As professionals, we cannot simply redefine whatever terms we feel like redefining. For example, you could not call this piece "jazz" just because you feel like it. Any more than you can call this piece 'atonal'. It's missing the fundamental element of what makes atonal music such.

You might call this...pan-tonal, perhaps? Even though it's basically in D, there's a major feeling of harmonic freedom.

I agree with your latter point.

I disagree with "calling it whatever we like." As professionals, we cannot simply redefine whatever terms we feel like redefining. For example, you could not call this piece "jazz" just because you feel like it. Any more than you can call this piece 'atonal'. It's missing the fundamental element of what makes atonal music such.

You might call this...pan-tonal, perhaps? Even though it's basically in D, there's a major feeling of harmonic freedom.

You missed the second half of that point though. I said we can call it whatever we'd like "as long as you have reasoning for it and can defend your position". I wouldn't classify anything just because "I feel like it" and going beyond that, you have to ask yourself what atonality is. In the realm of metaphysics anything is possible and justifiable.

and to cschweitzer, I received an A on the assignment. The guidlines were only "build a 12-tone row, create a matrix for your row, and compose a short composition 15-45 measures in length based upon your matrix" and I did exactly that.

I don't want to bicker. But let me ask you a question:

you're wrong. :P

Some things ARE jazz, and some things AREN'T jazz. Some things ARE atonal, some things AREN'T. Some style categories are more flexible than others (like jazz and atonality, actually). But if you're going to be a professional musician in any rite, you must try to be as accurate as possible in the way you use terms. It's like interior design. A designer can justify literally almost anything as being tuscan or eclectic, but that does not make it an accurate review and summation of their work. Yet that is what we owe our clients.

Congrats on the assignment. I look forward to hearing more of your work!

You can define it however you want. But you're just going to piss people off.

You missed the second half of that point though. I said we can call it whatever we'd like "as long as you have reasoning for it and can defend your position". I wouldn't classify anything just because "I feel like it" and going beyond that, you have to ask yourself what atonality is. In the realm of metaphysics anything is possible and justifiable.

Music is not in the realm of metaphysics though. Music is a quantifiable field. Every composition can be broken down and the internal components of it can be analyzed and defined. That is in stark contrast to the idea of metaphysics in general. In metaphysics, you really can't break down your questions into definable components. I can ask, for example, what is the meaning of life and get no real verifiable answer. If I were to approach this from a philosophical bent, since you mention metaphysics, what I see here is a construction utilizing harmony. Yes, you used a matrix in this BUT the problem is you did not stick to the fundamental aspects of serialism (that no note will have predominance over another). In this work, the d has predominance over all the rest until the very end where you 'state' the remainder of the row that you left out in the composition proper. While, to your teacher, this definitely is based on a matrix - as an example of serial music, in it's proper context, this work fails in the basic sense. I don't care for the word atonality, honesty. As it doesn't really appropriately define the music itself.

But the meaning of a word is just as unverifiable as the meaning of life. Sure, there are authorities which claim to know the meaning of a word, but hopefully they don't define reality.

But the meaning of a word is just as unverifiable as the meaning of life. Sure, there are authorities which claim to know the meaning of a word, but hopefully they don't define reality.

Very, very true. I suppose we could call an Ab a Z# if we wanted to.

Very, very true. I suppose we could call an Ab a Z# if we wanted to.

Exactly. I guess, but at its core, music is actually not really quantifiable. The possibilities are at least seemingly endless, and sure you could call a Ab a Z#, hell, you could even call it a banana. Same goes for the concept of serialism, if you asked Mozart in his time, if serialism would be considered music, he would probably say "hell no", however in our world today, to musicians at least, it is absolutely regarded as music. We just use these structures to organize our ideas. NOTHING is definite, and at least as far as I'm concerned, music is not finite or "quantifiable".

Exactly. I guess, but at its core, music is actually not really quantifiable. The possibilities are at least seemingly endless, and sure you could call a Ab a Z#, hell, you could even call it a banana. Same goes for the concept of serialism, if you asked Mozart in his time, if serialism would be considered music, he would probably say "hell no", however in our world today, to musicians at least, it is absolutely regarded as music. We just use these structures to organize our ideas. NOTHING is definite, and at least as far as I'm concerned, music is not finite or "quantifiable".

No, music is quantifiable. You play an A440 on one instrument and play it on another instrument... you will still play an A440 (given that the instruments are tuned to A440!). Everything, actually, can be said to be finite to some degree. Your life is finite... the music you write is finite... the clothes on your body are finite. The problem, however, is not what is quantifiable or finite but is whether or not you want to move forward as a composer into new territory or reinvent the wheel. In terms of this piece, I see a reinvention of the wheel. Yes, you took a serial technique and created a purely tonal composition out of it. That's been done many times before - and with better results. The ideas of serialism, however, were not to reinvent the wheel but instead to allow for greater freedom as a composer. Sure, many composers have created works using this technique that aren't good at all. Others, however, have created masterpieces using this technique - and these works have joined the ranks of being popular among the audiences of classical music. I guess what I'm saying is: I'd like to see you doing more to move forward as a composer instead of arguing for you moving backwards. I hope that doesn't sound harsh.

Show me someone playing exactly A 440. That's impossible.

Show me someone playing exactly A 440. That's impossible.

No, that's not impossible - at least here in America. I tune my A string on my viola to A440 everyday.

Show me someone playing exactly A 440. That's impossible.

It's... impossible?

(watch your language)

...so unlikely that I've never heard someone who's heard of someone doing it. The pitch of instruments is never exactly the ideal of 440 hertz, we don't have the technology to produce absolutely perfect intonation.