robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) (07/03/84)
References: It must have been very difficult for composers like Schoenberg and Webern to write music that does not use tonality, and tonal associations, since they were brought up in a tonal environment. Early Schoenberg is of course genuinely tonal, and I believe that in many of his later compositions he did not worry about tonal associations in his music. One should distinguish several degrees of tonality in music: (1) Music that is consistently tonal in its structure and procedures. (2) Music that is not consistently tonal in the sense of (1), but still intentionally uses tonal techniques that will inevitably arouse tonal responses in listeners. (3) Non-tonal music. The composer's intentions may be any of these, but he may fail in any particular case due his conditioning and degree of technique. Regardless of the composer's success, a listener may easily impose more or less tonal association on the work than the composer intended. Given all this uncertainty, I find it an intersting internal problem to examine whether I am listening to a particular piece in a tonal way, and whether I seem to be making a choice that is good for that piece. I, like many modern listeners, have an extensive mental apparatus for listening tonally, and a less developed apparatus for listening to music that lacks tonal associations. In the late 50's and early 60's people did write formal serial music based on 12-tone rows that sounded entirely tonal. I remember 12-tone composers commenting on these experiments with fascination rather than anger. Sorry, I remember no names. I am particularly fascinated by music that uses tonal techniques, but lacks a truly tonal structure. Such music assumes (with great success) that we have internalized the means to the ends of tonal music, and can now respond to the means alone. It is much as if one could serve a white sauce to gourmet diners, and get them to respond to it joyously with the same attitudes they reserve for dishes utilizing white sauce. A favorite example of mine: popular songs that occasionally make a sudden and violent keychange to go up one half step. A song might start in e-flat major and end in e-major. Composers have found their own reasons for the sudden modulation, but no one seems bothered that the song ended in a different, and entirely unprepared, key. Schubert's Lied, "Gruppe Aus der Tartarus", contains sudden changes from C-major to C# major that (I think) evoke much of the modern excitement of this kind of keychange in pop songs. But Schubert prepares for this very carefully, by placing it in the context of many other chromatic upward sequences in the song. And the song does not end in C#-major; each transition from C to C# is mathced by a truly wild transtion back to C. To Schubert's listeners, these transitions were not prepared enough; to modern listeners, in modern pop music, the preparations are wholly unnecessary. I have composed a half-Kaddish which is based on a 12tone row, and consists almost purely of a recital of the row, its inverse, its retrograde, and its retrograde inversion. It sounds weird enough that the congregation feels a little unsure of itself coming in twith the customery responses, but I have used it on various occasions with reasonable success. The Kaddish relies heavily upon tonal associations of the particular subset that is common in Ashkenazic prayer music, so that it does not sound really out of place. - Toby Robison (not Robinson!) allegra!eosp1!robison decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/05/84)
> A favorite example of mine: popular songs that occasionally make a > sudden and violent keychange to go up one half step. A song > might start in e-flat major and end in e-major. Composers > have found their own reasons for the sudden modulation, but no one > seems bothered that the song ended in a different, and entirely > unprepared, key. > Schubert's Lied, "Gruppe Aus der Tartarus", contains sudden > changes from C-major to C# major that (I think) evoke much of > the modern excitement of this kind of keychange in pop songs. > But Schubert prepares for this very carefully, by placing it > in the context of many other chromatic upward sequences in the song. > And the song does not end in C#-major; each transition from C to > C# is mathced by a truly wild transtion back to C. To > Schubert's listeners, these transitions were not prepared > enough; to modern listeners, in modern pop music, the preparations > are wholly unnecessary. This may be a reason why I have so much disdain for so much 19th century music. ('disdain' may be too harsh a word...) Because I as a modern day listener find much of the "preparation", to put it bluntly, boring and unnecessary, sounding as if some composers felt a need to find a "moral and ethical justification" for modulation. ("See? It's O.K. because I put that common diminished chord there." "APPROVED" -- National Board of Music Modulators). I listen to such contortions and say to myself "Why doesn't he just get to the new key already, instead of waffling around!?" Of course, to others there is great beauty in what I think of as waffling. (Plus, for me, much of 19th century music seems to repeatedly use those same "waffling" techniques over and over again from one composer to the next. Again, those passages that bore me are the favorites of others. One thing musical learning may have done for me is that I cannot accept musical redundancy as worthwhile listening. Unfortunately, that means I skip over and ignore music that others consider great moments in music. For me, quality = craftsmanship AND originality, and one without the other just doesn't cut it.) -- "Now, Benson, I'm going to have to turn you into a dog for a while." "Ohhhh, thank you, Master!!" Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr