jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (06/27/84)
> What is this thing called "tonal sense"?? "Tonal sense" is, roughly, the feeling that the harmonic events one is hearing have a tonal purpose, that is, they are aurally demonstrably related to a primary key or pitch of the piece. Since you used the phrase later on in your article, you must know what it meant; why ask? > 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. In other words, such a piece would be called "atonal" - even though harmonic motion was an important part of it. > Does my system of "adynamic" music hold any more water > than music that disregards tonality? Neither more nor less. But remember that, traditionally, tonality was far more important to the structure of a work than dynamics. Therefore, more people were disturbed by its reduced importance than have been disturbed by any lack of dynamics. At least before the invention of 200W power amplifiers. >> 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. >> 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). In both instances, I'd say we agree - what's the argument about? The "different" thing that occured was that Schoenberg realized what his music was tending toward. > 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!! I can see Rich about the turn of the century - "While X, Y, and Z were making truly innovative advances in horse-drawn buggies, some wacko jumped to the conclusion that a gasoline engine just might achieve the same end in a more practical way." Not to downplay Debussy and Stravinsky, whose music I deeply admire, but to deny that Schoenberg was an innovator (after all, he made up a whole new sound of music) is to let one's prejudices get in the way of common sense. > 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. I believe S. himself said "There will be much more good music written in C major, but it will not be written by me" or words to that effect. > Therefore, I will seek a new harmonic language through specifically going > out of my way to avoid standard tonality." You make it sound, here and elsewhere, as if S. and his followers had to consciously make an effort to do so. As a matter of fact, Schoenberg was probably the most intuitive composer since mozart. Earle Brown once said that when he (Brown) started improvising, it was in a "middle Schoenberg" style - that of his "atonal", pre-12tone period. *You* may only be able to make progress with this music by chance, but these people understood where it was going. > 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... See previous reference to horse-drawn buggies. > ... Schoenberg's ideals became the status quo amongst musical academia (maybe > because they themselves had run out of creative gas?). or maybe because, to them, Schoenberg's sound was the only really new one among all the supposedly innovative ones. Sorry, Rich, you can't always be the most progressive kid on the block. (and we're talking 50+ years ago here, folks!) > 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. Hogwash. Webern's music avoids tonality far more uncompromisingly than S.'s does. And it is his ideals that have become the status quo, not Schoenberg's. I think this is not because of Webern's "harmonic ideas" (really, Rich, how much Webern have you actually heard?), but rather that Schoenberg was emotionally a 19th century composer, with all the thick textures and histrionics that that implies, while Webern's mood is firmly rooted in the 20th century. I think Webern's music is also a small version of the sudden simplifications of musical texture that seem to occur from time to time (approximate dates: 1400, 1600, 1750, 1830(small also)). A note on Skriabin: I've got a theory that Skriabin is an early minimalist, at least in his last 4 sonatas. Their large-scale tonal structure is singularly monochromatic; in fact they seem to be repeated meditations on certain chosen chords and short progressions rather than the detailed arch forms that are supposed to be the epitome of classical structure. > 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. Just how does avoiding tonality deny that "it is the sound that results that matters"? Earth calling Rich, Earth calling Rich... All in all, Rich, I think you proved my point for me. Increasing chromaticism *did* lead to atonality, through the insight and reasoning of one Arnold Schoenberg. You said it yourself. Now, I will never say that it is the *only* possible result, as some fanatics do, just that it is a *reasonable* result. Submitted regardless of your approval, (sorry, I couldn't resist) Jeff Winslow
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (06/29/84)
>> 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. [ROSEN] > In other words, such a piece would be called "atonal" - even though harmonic > motion was an important part of it. [WINSLOW] The piece as a whole would have no "key", its individual moments would be quite tonal. >> While 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!! > I can see Rich about the turn of the century - "While X, Y, and Z were making > truly innovative advances in horse-drawn buggies, some wacko jumped to the > conclusion that a gasoline engine just might achieve the same end in a more > practical way." Not to downplay Debussy and Stravinsky, whose music I deeply > admire, but to deny that Schoenberg was an innovator (after all, he made up > a whole new sound of music) is to let one's prejudices get in the way of > common sense. Not denying Schoenberg's being "innovative", just questioning his path as being an "inevitable outcome of chromaticism" and pointing out that there were other alternatives. Cute analogy, but a closer analogy might involve people building roads closer and closer to the edge of a cliff. Arnie, thinking that advanced cantilevering techniques have reached their peak, builds a road that leads right off of the cliff, since that's the inevitable outcome... A better analogy might involve multiprogramming. Machines were swapping processes in and out so fast you couldn't tell who was running at any given time, so, while others were working to improve the efficiency of such a system, Arnold the programmer designs a system where no process is ever actually running. >> 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. > Hogwash. Webern's music avoids tonality far more uncompromisingly than S.'s > does. And it is his ideals that have become the status quo, not Schoenberg's. Webern avoided "Western" tonality, but despite the very different sound of his music, it has always sounded to me like there was a tonality behind it, albeit a non-Western and perhaps harsh one. Are you familiar with the concept of klangfarbenmelodie? >> 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. > Just how does avoiding tonality deny that "it is the sound that results that > matters"? Earth calling Rich, Earth calling Rich... The aleatory nature of the system (I was referring, in part, to Cage) and the notion of process in composing being more important than result were the issues, not the avoidance of tonality. (I've had a well-established and working communications link with earth for some time now. What about you, Jeff? :-) > All in all, Rich, I think you proved my point for me. Increasing chromaticism > *did* lead to atonality, through the insight and reasoning of one Arnold > Schoenberg. You said it yourself. Now, I will never say that it is the *only* > possible result, as some fanatics do, just that it is a *reasonable* result. Absolute agreement. My only qualms about dodecaphony involve the notion that it was inevitable. (There, more absolute agreement! What is happening to the fabric of space-time...) > Submitted regardless of your approval, > (sorry, I couldn't resist) Am I always going to have to provide annotated versions of my signature lines? [The price of being eclectic is that no one understands anything you're talking about.] -- "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