jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (06/16/84)
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. One of life's smaller
frustrations is attending a performance of Firebird with a bunch of
dance fanatics who blithely (and loudly) applaud the Firebird dancer
after the Berceuse, brutally drowning said magical moment in white noise.
But to the point:
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.
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.
Example: Schoenberg's (oh, him again) Book of the Hanging Gardens.
Supposedly atonal, but you listen to the second song and tell me it's atonal
with a straight face. Good luck.
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.
Remember, historically, chromaticism did lead to "atonality". You can
theorize all you want, but those theories (unsterbliche oder nicht) are going
to have to account for that.
that's enough now,
Jeff Winslowrlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (06/18/84)
> 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
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (06/18/84)
> Anyone who thinks 12-tone composers are unconcerned about harmonic motion, > or try to avoid it, knows damn little about 12-tone composition. > One attempts to avoid obvious tonal progressions, but that is only for > the same reason that one doesn't try to write like Beethoven - it would > be an archaicism (is that a word?) that would only distract the listener > from more important musical bits and pieces. 12-tone composition specifically requires certain composing behaviors (tone rows, et al) because it is attempting to avoid what you refer to as "obvious tonal progressions" (ones we have all already heard, like I-IV-V-I). While the innovators like Debussy and Stravinsky (et al) were looking towards NOT SO OBVIOUS (i.e., unheard of) *tonal* combinations and motions, Schoenberg jumped to the same conclusion that Jeff made earlier: that if these chromatic harmonic motions with "fleeting" tonal centers were carried to its logical conclusion, there would be no tonality!! So, let's just pretend we can avoid it from the start!! Schoenberg's methodologies are a deliberate attempt to compose outside of understood harmony in an effort to "avoid the obvious" in tonal harmony (a goal I concur with). Effectively, he predates Cage's aleatory styles; in effect, Schoenberg is saying "I can no longer be satisfied with composing in the tonal harmonic system, since there are no more original tonal combinations (or tonal music) to be thought of. Therefore, I will seek a new harmonic language through specifically going out of my way to avoid standard tonality." It is akin to, while traveling, avoiding not only the well-trodden roads but one's very sense of direction in trying to get to a destination. If, perchance, one should actually make progress, it would surely be an original way of doing things, but it would come very rarely. > Remember, historically, chromaticism did lead to "atonality". You can > theorize all you want, but those theories (unsterbliche oder nicht) are going > to have to account for that. Now, there's a post hoc ergo propter hoc if ever I saw one. :-) Other composers (Scriabin, Ives, plus those I've already mentioned) continued composing while blazing new trails along the tonalist path. [WHAT AN OBSCURE METAPHOR! -ED.] Somehow, amidst all the innovativeness that existed, Schoenberg's ideals became the status quo amongst musical academia (perhaps because they themselves had run out of creative gas?). Again, others have used what Schoenberg proscribed and came up with new harmonic ideas (Berg, Webern). Perhaps the reason that Schoenberg is still only widely accepted as a musicological phenomenon (while his pupils have made strides into some public acceptance) is because Schoenberg sought to avoid tonality, while *they* sought new harmonic ideas from Schoenberg's system. (Just a wild speculation...) If we take such aleatory ideas to their logical conclusion, one reaches the compositional ideology of someone like John Cage, where specifically avoiding intentional harmonic results is not enough, and avoiding ANY intentional interference with the musical composition/performance process is the goal. Both systems deny some very important facets that pertain to music: that it is a world of sound created by a human composer (where do I-IV-V-I cadences occur in nature??), and that it is the sound that results, and how it is heard by the listener, that is what ultimately matters. -- This unit humbly and deeply apologizes for having and expressing opinions. This will not occur again. (BEEP) Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) (06/20/84)
References: Other items to consider in regard to "ancient" atonality: - Late Bruckner symphonies contain very tonal sounding passages that appear to wander about rather aimlessly among the keys. They sound tonal, but strike at the heart of all our conceptions of tonality. - The Mozart g-minor Symphony, #40, in the last movement -- the development section starts with a remarkable sequence of quick modulations that might have caused contemporary listeners to lose all track of where they were. I have heard theorists refer to this as Mozart's experiment in atonality, although it doesn't sound atonal. - The concluding measures of Mozart's musical joke. - Toby Robison (not Robinson!) allegra!eosp1!robison decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison princeton!eosp1!robison