At 3:42 PM -0400 5/26/07, Christopher Smith wrote:
On May 26, 2007, at 2:44 PM, Dean M. Estabrook wrote:
Please define "Non -Tonal."
There are several definitions in current use of "tonal" and
"atonal", none very strict nor all-encompassing. Depending on which
one for "tonal" you are using, "non-tonal" would just be everything
else that you decided didn't fall under the "tonal" umbrella.
I think Andrew was meaning for tonal; any music defined by a leading
tone cadence, which has been the current European definition since
late Renaissance
Well, silly old me, I like to keep things simple. I take "tonal" to
mean exactly what it says, music with a tonal center. Period.
Nothing about cadences, definitely nothing about common-practice
functional harmony (which seems to be what some people insist on).
Just an identifiable tonal center. And incidentally, I've never read
any late renaissance writer who used your definition, and don't much
care what modern theorists try to impose on earlier music.
Hindemith took care of fleshing out this definition in the opening
section of "The Craft of Musical Composition," which also gives the
theoretical basis for Neo-Classisism and non-functional tonal harmony
in general. He did a very commendable job, even if I don't find his
music terribly attractive.
So by that simplest definition (remember Ocam's razor?):
NOT tonal, by that definition, includes early modal and anything
that you might like to include after 1910 or so that doesn't have
its key centre defined by a leading-tone cadence, and a whole
cartload of non-European music as well.
Nope. Suggesting that medieval chant and polyphony and renaissance
music in all its wide variety of styles isn't tonal is just plain
silly. It doesn't use functional harmony and the early theorists had
their own definitions of what cadences were, but it has the one
essential element: identifiable tonal centers.
Atonal is just a very bad expression, and I wish we could come up
with something more descriptive.
It seems perfectly descriptive. It's music that deliberately avoids
a tonal center. As Hindemith pointed out, that's pretty difficult to
do, but it can be done, and it doesn't require serial techniques or
the 12-tone rulebook to make it work. What IS confusing is the
difference between atonality and pantonality, at least to me, since I
really can't hear a difference between no tonal center and all tonal
centers present. But that's probably just me.
Originally it was meant to include new music (at the start of the
1900's, that is) that didn't have a clear key centre, or else
actively avoided leaning even slightly toward one, including most
twelve-tone music.
So we're in agreement!!
But the word has been co-opted to mean "music I don't like" by just
about everyone who doesn't have a better definition than the above
one to offer.
I think my definition's better because it's simpler, and it clearly
defines atonal at the same time without invoking cadences or anything
else extraneous.
Andrew wrote:
And another thing: non-tonal and atonal are not synonyms.
I often agree with Andrew and respect his depth of knowledge, which
goes well beyond my own, and with this I can definitely agree. But
again, I read in his comments that he's referring to the use of
common-practice functional harmony and NOT simply to the presence of
absence of a tonal center.
Most music, in fact, is non-tonal: Medieval and Renaissance music,
All tonal;
non-Western music (all of it),
Tonal, much or even most of it; there are certainly tonal centers in
both hemitonic and anhemitonic pentatonic music, although I know
little about Arabic or Indian scales and tonal centers, but the use
of different scales and intervals does not obviate the presence of
tonal centers.
rock music...
Certainly tonal, with or without functional harmony. Plus ALL 20th
century pop, traditional, musical theater, jazz, folk and neo-folk,
and anything else you'd care to attempt to define. Which is why I
suggested to Dennis B-K that modern culture is permeated by tonal
music and it can't be avoided.
Now please understand that I'm only speaking to the definitions of
terms, and advocating the simplest possible. If we can't agree on
what the words we use mean, we really ARE blind men trying to
describe an elephant!! Tonal, non-tonal, atonal, polytonal,
pantonal, none of these terms has anything to do with judging the
quality of a piece of music. The music works or it doesn't. It
communicates or it doesn't. It makes us want to hear it again or it
doesn't. Seems simple enough to me!
Yes, I have appeared to argue otherwise in the past. So?? If you
want consistency, go find a fundamentalist Republican!!
John
--
John & Susie Howell
Virginia Tech Department of Music
Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240
Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034
(mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
