some notes on tonality in symphonies

[Jimfin]

So, fairly equivocal then. What an extraordinary set of statements!

[Amphissa]

Thanks to all of you for letting me sit in on this interesting conversation. I had never really thought to actually assess the transition from tonality to atonality as Balapoel did in his original post.

I've been frustrated more than a few times in conversations on other forums on this topic. There is a common tendency to equate atonality with dissonance and to view all modern music with skepticism as a result. As an amateur with no formal training in music, it took me quite awhile to appreciate that distinction, to better understand the palates used by modern composers, and to figure out what I can enjoy in late- or post-romantic music.

I still struggle with strident, abrasive dissonance, especially inflicted by loud brass or screeching sopranos, and especially when heavily percussive. I still find a lot of serialism and amorphous drifting quite uninteresting. But late- and post-romantic music has become so infused with atonal elements that I think it has become less an issue for people. So long as you don't say the word "atonal".

[JimL]

. . . By and large I prefer tonality to atonality . . .

You would then probably not agree with Joseph Hauer, one of the pioneers of twelve-tonery, who wrote in 1937:

"Twelve-tone music is the highest art - the essence of music.
Twelve-tone music is the highest science - the essence of mathematics.
Twelve-tone music is the holiest, most spiritual, and most valuable entity in the world.
Twelve-tone music is the revelation of world-order, religion in the truest sense, the only one there is and can be.
Twelve-tone music permits the most profound insight into the history of the world.
Twelve-tone music can never dissemble or lie.
Twelve-tone music is the unalterable holy record, the eternal language of the universe.
Twelve-tone music is spiritual reality.
Twelve-tone music is the starting-point of twelve-tone culture, which will extend over the whole earth and control all the necessities of human life." !!

Oh yeah!  Joseph Hauer!  Didn't he say something else, which totally escapes me at the moment?

[Amphissa]

Oh yeah!  Joseph Hauer!  Didn't he say something else, which totally escapes me at the moment?

And wrote quite a lot of music that escapes me as well. 

[JimL]

Oh yeah!  Joseph Hauer!  Didn't he say something else, which totally escapes me at the moment?

And wrote quite a lot of music that escapes me as well. 

We are both lowly privates in that army!

[Sequentia]

What's the point of atonality anyway?

What's the "point"? Even if there is a meaningful answer to such a meaningless question, the answer to it is inevitably going to vary from one composer to another, don't you think? Schönberg provided an explanation for the use of the twelve-tone system in his work in his book "Style and Idea".

I personally like to listen to something with good tunes in it.

Good for you. What does that have to do with the alleged "pointlessness" of atonality?

In fact, in my opinion, if I cannot hum, sing or whistle it, it isn't music.

So instrumental fugues are not music?

[Jimfin]

There seems to be an assumption that "tonal"=tuneful and "atonal"=tuneless. There are plenty of melodies in atonal music, as there is plenty of near-enough tuneless (or at least dreary) tonal music (Stainer's 'Crucifixion' might be a case in point). I do think that melody is a vital element of music, but there is plenty of good atonal music out there, even if it is not everyone's cup of tea.

[jerfilm]

This whole discussion reminds me of friends, who over the years say "Well, I just don't understand classical music".    My response usually is What's to understand -you either find what you hear pleasant and enjoyable or you don't.  You don't have to be a music major to "understand" concert music.

I suppose the same is true of atonal music.  I think I've tried hard for over 50 years to listen to, and like, atonal music.  I've asked those who think it's great, how to listen and enjoy.  But of course, the answer is the same as above, isn't it?  The only emotion it elicits in me is irritation and a desire to turn it off as quickly as possible.   Perhaps I'm truly missing something, but at 76 I doubt if it's gonna come to me. 

But to you who enjoy it, more power to you.  You've found yet another life-enriching experience in our world of music.

Jerry

[ahinton]

What's the point of atonality anyway? I personally like to listen to something with good tunes in it. In fact, in my opinion, if I cannot hum, sing or whistle it, it isn't music. Maybe I'm too old fashioned for this forum. By the way, nothing I've written in the past 15 years is anything but tonal. There again I suppose you could say, since I'm only an amateur, my stuff doesn't count.

Only just seen this.

My, what a lot of things to question and challenge within so few words!

Q. What IS atonality anyway?
A. A lot of different things to different people and, in most contexts, more of a comparative than a specific term in any case.

How can one meaningfully determine the "point" of just one single aspect of a musical language in isolation? (even if it were more clearly definable and identifiable than the above Q.&A. implies).

How would you distinguish something that is a tune from something that isn't, in a way that will be readily recognisable and acceptable to the majority of listeneres irrespective of the nature and scope of their respective listening experiences?

Even having accomplished the above conjuring trick, by what specific criteria might you define and identify any particular "tune" as good, again in a way that will be readily recognisable and acceptable to the majority of listeneres irrespective of the nature and scope of their respective listening experiences?

When you write "In fact, in my opinion", which of the two do you mean?

When you write that "if (you) cannot hum, sing or whistle it, it isn't music", do you not mean that it isn't music TO YOU? - I would certainly hope so, because plenty of people will be less able and plenty more able than you to hum, sing or whistle anything capable of being hummed, sung or whistled; perhaps you should consult Stephen Sondheim about this, being as he is the composer of the song Anyone can Whistle...

Why should anything necessarily be hummable, singable or whistlable (I nearly typed Whitstable there, but the only connection between its and music that I could think of was Cole Porter's song The Tale of the Oyster*) in order to qualify as "music"?

The question as to whether or not you are, or may consider yourself to be, "too old fashioned for this forum" is a matter of opinion but, as this group is dedicated to the works of composers which are for the most part "unsung" (or, perhaps by association, "unhummed" and "unwhistled" also), I would have thought that fashionability is hardly a priority here.

You inform us that "nothing (you)'ve written in the past 15 years is anything but tonal". That is your prerogative. Very little that I've written in the past (far more than) 15 years is anything but tonal either - that is my prerogative - but whether and to what extent you might consider it to be so in your own terms may be quite another matter; in any case, why is the degree of tonality or atonality of a piece of music or any particular parts thereof such an issue?

You end by supposing that some members here "could say, since (you're) only an amateur, (your) stuff doesn't count". I know none of your music and I have no idea if or to what extent anyone else here does, but it's certainly no one's business to say whether or not or to what extent anyone else's music "counts" (as and/or for what, in any case?) if they have not heard it or know anything about it and, for that matter, why should music "not count" just because it happens to have been written by a composer who is not a professional one? To what extent, for example, might one claim that Ives or van Dieren was a "professional composer" or that other musicians far better known for their conducting, performing or other professional musical activities were "professional composers"?

Mon Dieu! - so many worms here that the can's not big enough to accommodate them, it might seem(!)...

[Amphissa]

There is a lot of "atonality" (in the sense of uncertain or drifting key) in music from Mahler to Rautavaara, Myaskovsky to RVW, that is beautiful or passionately engaging for me.

There is also a lot of atonality that emphasizes dissonance and abrasiveness in modern music that I find unpalatable.

But then, there is a lot of "tonal" music that I find turgid or trite, and so equally uninteresting.

To me, the whole issue of tonality is of minor importance. Duke Ellington said it most succinctly. "If it sounds good, it is good." And what sounds good to one person can be quite different from what sounds good to another.

À chacun son goût