Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!mhuxl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!rlr From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.music,net.music.classical Subject: Re: Misconceptions regarding atonality (1 of 2) Message-ID: <755@pyuxn.UUCP> Date: Mon, 18-Jun-84 14:38:22 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxn.755 Posted: Mon Jun 18 14:38:22 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 22-Jun-84 08:59:55 EDT References: <3852@tekecs.UUCP> Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J. Lines: 60 Keywords: Schoenberg, fleeting tonality, key, dodecaphony > First off, Rich, I'm not sure why you think the passage leading into > the Finale of the Firebird is so radical. Parsifal has passages of more > ambiguous tonality than that (see the Prelude to act 3). I will say, > though, that the total musical effect of the Stravinsky example has > a magic that the Wagner example can't match. You're (once again) missing the point, Jeff. Sure, there are more ambiguous tonalities employed at intense musical moments. What struck me about the Stravinsky passage was that it was made up of basic simple minor/major triads, and that its magic came not from obscuring the tonality of each moment but from the seeming "inappropriateness" (in standard theoretical terms) of the MOTION from triad to triad (it is, in fact, quite linear upon analysis). > Let's imagine a succession of works in which temporary tonal centers > change more quickly as one goes along the succession. Make the harmony > more complex (11ths, 13ths etc.) at the same time. Sooner or later you > will reach a piece where you (yes, even *you*, Rich) will say, "I can't > make any tonal sense out of this piece." Note - tonal sense, not musical > sense. That would (ideally) still be there. What is this thing called "tonal sense"?? Is it "Ahh, now I am in the *key* of X major"? As I mentioned before, chromaticism practically obliterated the notion of "key", although for the scope of an entire piece, composers would have an overall "plan" involving a "key". (Debussy often avoided even that!) But in such music, each moment had a tonality (or a feel of tonality) to it. As listeners grew more musically attuned to such chromaticism, even chords with extended added elements (9ths, 11ths) could be "felt" as having an element of tonality to them. Even as the tonal centers "changed more quickly" so that (as you put it) even I could not make any tonal sense out of the piece, each moment still had a tonal sense about it. It was the overall tonal sense, the sense of "key", the requirement of a tonal order called a "key" to imbue an entire piece, that was obliterated. > Now, that's not because the piece has no tonal information. It's just > become less important than the other musical cues which are present. These > works are referred to as atonal. That's just a way of saying the tonal > information present is not the compelling structure that it is in works > we call "tonal". It's not saying there's *no* tonality. Don't be fooled by > leading a-'s. In "rock n' roll" music (whatever that is; as seen by those who apparently have never listened to it), the playing is consistently very loud, meaning (according to those people) that it lacks a sense of dynamics. If the aforementioned statement were true, could I then counter that "it's not that it has no dynamics information; dynamics just becomes less important than the other musical cues."? Does my system of "adynamic" music hold any more water than music that disregards tonality? (I know, it doesn't *disregard* it. Back to that later.) > Later on, when the 12-tone theory was invented, something different > did indeed occur, but the kind of "atonality" practiced by Schoenberg between > op. 12 and op. 26 was no break with tradition. As Schoenberg himself said, serialism and dodecaphony were not arbitrary academically defined systems but simply a codification of the rules by which he had already been composing. -- "So, it was all a dream!" --Mr. Pither "No, dear, this is the dream; you're still in the cell." --his mother Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr