![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
So I think I've always thought of "atonality" and "dissonance" as vaguely the same thing. Reading Alex Ross' The Rest Is Noise I came to the conclusion that this was wrong, and that atonality referred to a lack of a tonal center -- the tonal center of a piece traditionally announced by saying that it's in C Major or G Minor or whatever. Wikipedia elaborates: "Atonality, in this sense, usually describes compositions written from about 1908 to the present day where a hierarchy of pitches focusing on a single, central tone is not used, and the notes of the chromatic scale function independently of one another. More narrowly, the term atonality describes music that does not conform to the system of tonal hierarchies that characterized classical European music between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries."
The more I dig into this, the less clear it becomes. For one thing, it turns out I don't really understand the theory and practice of tonality, let alone concepts such as the chromatic scale. Pretty soon I'm deep into music theory, which means I'm quickly in over my head. Even in my confusion, however, I can't help but be entertained by the fact that the term "atonal" is itself controversial, with Schoenberg quoted as arguing, "The word 'atonal' could only signify something entirely inconsistent with the nature of tone... to call any relation of tones atonal is just as farfetched as it would be to designate a relation of colors aspectral or acomplementary. There is no such antithesis."
It also seems that there actually is some kind of connection between atonality and dissonance, with Schoenberg also arguing that "By the later nineteenth century the higher numbered dominant-quality dissonances had also achieved harmonic status, with resolution delayed or omitted completely. The greater autonomy of the dominant-quality dissonance contributed significantly to the weakening of traditional tonal function within a purely diatonic context." If I understand this at all (big if!), he seems to be saying that greater acceptance of dissonance in composition was part of the process by which tonality became less important over time.
I think it might help me to have these concepts illustrated with musical examples. The Wikipedia article on atonality mentions that Debussy composed some atonal music, but it doesn't say which pieces qualify. I've been digging around into articles about the tonic, dominant, triads, diatonic scale, etc and just feeling that I haven't a clue what it all sounds like. I took two years of piano when I was in elementary school, and sometimes I wish I'd stuck with it longer just so I'd understand scales and chords better. Well, I guess I sang in choirs up through high school too, but it didn't help. (Now there's some personal history I don't think about much anymore! Yes, I was a high school tenor.)
Update: "Tonality, Modality, and Atonality" sheds more light on this for me: "Objectively, there can be no atonality, as Schoenberg himself maintained. Composers of atonal music try to avoid all reminders of tonal music, evading major and minor chords (tertian chords in general), scales, keys, dominant functions, regular rhythms, repetition, etc. This means that atonality is psychoacoustical; i.e., it depends, at least partly, upon individual sensibilities and subjectivity."
The more I dig into this, the less clear it becomes. For one thing, it turns out I don't really understand the theory and practice of tonality, let alone concepts such as the chromatic scale. Pretty soon I'm deep into music theory, which means I'm quickly in over my head. Even in my confusion, however, I can't help but be entertained by the fact that the term "atonal" is itself controversial, with Schoenberg quoted as arguing, "The word 'atonal' could only signify something entirely inconsistent with the nature of tone... to call any relation of tones atonal is just as farfetched as it would be to designate a relation of colors aspectral or acomplementary. There is no such antithesis."
It also seems that there actually is some kind of connection between atonality and dissonance, with Schoenberg also arguing that "By the later nineteenth century the higher numbered dominant-quality dissonances had also achieved harmonic status, with resolution delayed or omitted completely. The greater autonomy of the dominant-quality dissonance contributed significantly to the weakening of traditional tonal function within a purely diatonic context." If I understand this at all (big if!), he seems to be saying that greater acceptance of dissonance in composition was part of the process by which tonality became less important over time.
I think it might help me to have these concepts illustrated with musical examples. The Wikipedia article on atonality mentions that Debussy composed some atonal music, but it doesn't say which pieces qualify. I've been digging around into articles about the tonic, dominant, triads, diatonic scale, etc and just feeling that I haven't a clue what it all sounds like. I took two years of piano when I was in elementary school, and sometimes I wish I'd stuck with it longer just so I'd understand scales and chords better. Well, I guess I sang in choirs up through high school too, but it didn't help. (Now there's some personal history I don't think about much anymore! Yes, I was a high school tenor.)
Update: "Tonality, Modality, and Atonality" sheds more light on this for me: "Objectively, there can be no atonality, as Schoenberg himself maintained. Composers of atonal music try to avoid all reminders of tonal music, evading major and minor chords (tertian chords in general), scales, keys, dominant functions, regular rhythms, repetition, etc. This means that atonality is psychoacoustical; i.e., it depends, at least partly, upon individual sensibilities and subjectivity."
no subject
Date: 2013-03-06 01:00 am (UTC)That said, there is a more accurate alternative term for the same thing, and that is "twelve-tone". In an ordinary major or minor scale, there are 7 tones in an octave, and 5 regular tones that are excluded (this discounts quarter-tones and microtones). A scale is formed by taking one note as the tonic base, and building a selection of other notes around it, using the standard major or minor scale pattern. Pure consonance consists of using only the 7 selected notes, and only in standard harmonic chords. Dissonance consists of using those 7 notes in non-standard ways (for instance, E and F may be part of the same scale, but play adjacent ones together and it's dissonant), and/or in sticking in some or all of the 5 excluded notes as well, in which latter case it's chromatic dissonance, "chromatic" meaning that you're using all the "colors" available, and the chromatic scale is the one with all 12 notes in it.
Use enough chromatic dissonance in your music, and listeners will start to lose the sense of the tonic, the home note. Schoenberg's insight was to do this deliberately, employ all 12 tones completely impartially, and totally erase that sense of the tonic. (And that's why it's called "atonality", Arnold, you berk.)
Schoenberg employed all kinds of rules to prevent a sense of a tonic center from creeping into his music. His basic one was to begin by writing what he called a "tone row", an arrangement of all 12 pitches in some order. You shouldn't have more than 2 pitches in succession that are in the same major or minor scale, for instance, and you had to go through all 12 before repeating any. Of course, in practice it was more complicated than that, but the goal was to be entirely rigid.
What Webern is saying in the article you link to is that, even with that, it's impossible to eradicate entirely the human mind's sense of a tonal center. I'd say that what would be more accurate is that it's impossible to eradicate the mind's search for a tonal center. Which is why 12-tone music, and even more music that aspires to the condition of 12-tone without quite sticking to Schoenberg's rules, is so damned disconcerting to listen to, much more than music with any amount of chromatic dissonance.
Schoenberg's hope had been to train the ear to accept 12-tone as "normal", but in that hope his project was a disastrous, and predictable, failure, but one which caused as much damage in the artistic realm as the equally disastrous failure of Prohibition did in social policy and in real life.
no subject
Date: 2013-03-06 01:42 am (UTC)Schoenberg himself proposed the term "pantonality" as preferable to "atonality", but it was too late.
no subject
Date: 2013-03-06 01:56 am (UTC)Cage's idea was to thumb his nose at all this by producing compleely unplanned music. Thus, chance procedures; and, as Cage was an I Ching user, it came naturally to him.
What it took a couple more decades for anyone to have the nerve to point out was that, while a Cagean score looked completely different from a Schoenbergian score, in the actual listening they often came out sounding exactly alike.
no subject
Date: 2013-03-06 02:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-03-07 04:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-03-09 04:39 pm (UTC)A composer like Webern has scoring that's extremely thin, so "dissonance" in the form of "clashing chords" plays little role in his music. What you get instead is notes that jump all over the spectrum with no sense of a tonal center or resting place: the essence of atonality. Do we call that "dissonant" or not? I don't know, actually.
no subject
Date: 2013-03-06 01:46 am (UTC)What Debussy was expert at - and none was ever more skilled - was in writing fully chromatic music that retained a sense of the tonal center and was (relatively) consonant. (Consonance and dissonance are always relative terms. Even when I wrote "pure consonance" above it was within a particular context.) I'm sure you could look at some of this stuff sideways and say, "that employs all 12 notes so impartially that it's really atonal," but it'd be a little like finding heavy metal from the 1960s: precursors, accidental overlap, etc.
In fact, atonality had been hit on before. Some of Liszt's very late piano pieces are experiments in what would become atonality, and someone once gleefully found a tone row in a work of Mozart's, pointedly ignoring that in context it's nothing of the sort.
Don't waste your time on Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles on technical subjects of all kinds are notoriously incomprehensible to anyone not versed in the relevant field of learning. The only problem with ignoring them is fending off experts who think the articles are perfectly clear and don't understand why anyone else doesn't find them so.
no subject
Date: 2013-03-06 02:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-03-06 03:43 am (UTC)I can't easily find from Ross's index where he says that Debussy wrote atonal music, though he does mention Liszt. And he quotes Debussy as calling Schoenberg "organized ugliness," which shows how far from the spirit of serialism Debussy was. I expect that associating Debussy with atonality is technically and narrowly correct but entirely misleading.
In 20C music, finding or not finding a key named in the title is almost unrelated to whether the work is tonal, either way. For one thing, it's untraditional to list a key for works with individual names (as opposed to a genre name), regardless of how traditionally tonal it may be, and such titles became more common in the 20C. And the tradition lasted for genre works beyond its usefulness. Labeling his String Quartet as in G Minor was more a bow to respectability than a useful statement on Debussy's part.
no subject
Date: 2013-03-06 05:44 pm (UTC)Sez here: "Atonality. A term that may be used in three senses: first, to describe all music which is not tonal; second, to describe all music which is neither tonal nor serial; and third, to describe specifically the post-tonal and pre-12-note music of Berg, Webern and Schoenberg. (While serial music is, by the first definition, atonal, it differs in essential respects from other atonal music and is discussed in the articles Serialism and Twelve-note composition; it is, therefore, not considered here.)"
no subject
Date: 2013-03-06 05:57 pm (UTC)Grove's third definition is a subset of the second, which is a subset of the first. Did that come across to you?
When I wrote of "music that aspires to the condition of 12-tone without quite sticking to Schoenberg's rules," I meant music that's atonal by Grove's second definition, i.e. stuff that follows Schoenberg's general idea but doesn't take his precautions to avoid establishing an accidental sense of a tonic. It's written with no intended tonic but doesn't use tone rows. If there's any atonal music by Debussy, that's the box it would go in.
no subject
Date: 2013-03-06 06:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-03-06 07:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-03-09 04:47 pm (UTC)As the 19th century wore on, composers began moving beyond these traditional shifts. In Mahler, for instance, the key that a work is named as being in is the first strongly established key (not necessarily the first key to be heard), and it then may move off to, and indeed be largely focused on achieving, some other key or keys altogether. Debussy named a central note and a principal mode, but the work isn't actually "in" G Minor in any sense that the 18th century would recognize.
no subject
Date: 2013-03-06 02:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-03-06 03:49 am (UTC)Only in the sense of providing an underhanded debating point in response to complaints about atonality. If you say that Schoenberg's music is atonal because of its tone rows, some wise guy can pop up with that line about Mozart. But serialist music is based on tone rows; Mozart's isn't. That's why in context his tone row doesn't function as one.
"I've also seen it argued that Berg's twelve-tone music sounds more tonal than Schoenberg's or Webern's."
It does. Or at least it sounds more lyrical and flowing and comprehensible to the non-serialist ear. There's no argument over that. The way that individual composers applied serialist principles varied enormously. Webern was far stricter and aesthetically "purer" than either of his brethren, and it was he who became the shining master to Boulez's generation.
no subject
Date: 2013-03-06 05:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-03-06 05:44 pm (UTC)"The one thing that can be said in favour of Webern is that his works are mercifully short; each of the Five Orchestral Pieces, for instance, consists of not much more than three plinks and a plonk, and even the Six Orchestral Pieces, which figured in Tuesday's programme and are massive structures by comparison, were all over in less than ten minutes the lot, with an average for each item of five plinks, two plonks and a grrrrrr."