Classical Music Forum banner

I know of another reason why Schoenberg objected to the term "atonality"

9K views 76 replies 18 participants last post by  millionrainbows 
#1 · (Edited)
I know of another reason why Schoenberg objected to the term "atonality," but nobody has ever mentioned it.

Does anyone know the reason I'm referring to? It seems like a perfect reason to me, and for me, at least, it explains everything.
 
#3 · (Edited)
No, and before I reveal what it is, let's give the thread some time to attract those who might know, or have some ideas on this. It's a very simple reason, which has next to nothing to do with whether the term is nonsensical or not, and everything to do with human nature.

If Mahlerian knows, due to his encyclopedic knowledge of music, it will also require him to be much more specific in his reasoning. I want details.
 
#4 · (Edited)
If Mahlerian knows, due to his encyclopedic knowledge of music, it will also require him to be much more specific in his reasoning. I want details.
I've explained my reasoning before, and people on this forum persist in not understanding it.

As the terms are normally understood, atonality is either not meant literally (as usually in academic texts) or it is self-contradictory.

It would be much more helpful to understanding if we talked about what is actually going on in the music harmonically and melodically without appealing to concepts like atonality. In my years here, the number of extended discussions about Schoenberg's actual music, and not irrelevant ideas like atonality, can be counted on one hand.

Imagine, we could treat his music like...music!
 
#9 · (Edited)
Ken, I will do you the rare honor of actually recognizing your existence as a 'person', because I think you might be the only person here who could even get close to the answer. This is judging from your past postings and general knowledge of music history.
 
#8 ·
BTW, my secret reason has nothing to do with any of this.
 
#10 ·
BTW, it's just 'another reason,' as I said in the opening post. There is no guarantee that anyone will agree or disagree with it; but I do think it is a key bit of information that has been left out of this long, long debate.
 
#13 · (Edited)
See? I'm misunderstood once again. Obviously I didn't mean tone in the sense you're talking about. I'm perfectly aware that you mean "tonal" as in a system of tonality.

The thing is, if you try to make atonal mean "not tonal," it's either in relation to a very specific, restricted sense of tonality or it's going to be self-contradictory. That's what I've been saying this whole time and if you don't understand it by now, I really wonder what you HAVE been reading from my posts.

Also, I meant "discussing it as music, rather than as some theoretical abstraction or demonstrative of some technique." You know, the way we discuss any other music without all this recourse to talking about how it was put together. That latter isn't really important to Schoenberg's music compared to the actual music itself, which is so vital, so lyrical and expressive. Techniques and theories are pointless in the face of art.
 
#18 · (Edited)
See? I'm misunderstood once again. Obviously I didn't mean tone in the sense you're talking about. I'm perfectly aware that you mean "tonal" as in a system of tonality.

The thing is, if you try to make atonal mean "not tonal," it's either in relation to a very specific, restricted sense of tonality or it's going to be self-contradictory. That's what I've been saying this whole time and if you don't understand it by now, I really wonder what you HAVE been reading from my posts.
Then the real problem is that you don't see how modernist musical thought, as in Debussy, Stravinsky, Bartok, etc, is still essentially tonal, even though it may use modernist ideas, such as different octave division, local areas of seed-centricity, etc.; as well as in many cases having a much weaker sense of tone-centricity.

Apparently you haven't made the connection between tonal music and harmonic principles which relate to other 'less tonal' music. Both are essentially tonal, since both are based on harmonic principles, although the latter may have a much weaker sense of tone centricity. They are both still 'harmonic' forms of music, for numerous reasons which can both be heard and demonstrated.

As I said about Debussy, it doesn't matter if the whole-tone scale has no 'root,' it is still a construct which relates to the tonal system, and more importantly, it is a scale, or can be used as one. 'Harmonic' means that it follows a harmonic hierarchy of some sort.

As soon as you realize that tonality, and harmonic constructs, are both essentially tonal, then you can proceed.

The dividing line is 12-tone, and ordered rows. This ordering obliterates any harmonic or tonal hierarchy, and replaces it with the row order.

That doesn't mean 12-tone music is not 'harmonic sounding,' because, after all, it is sound. Tensions can be created between stacked 'chords' and can follow a definite logic of tension and release, and the results can be quite beautiful. But these areas of harmonic tension are not derived from a harmonic hierarchy, but are based solely on their 'self contained' sonance, unrelated to harmonic models or tonality. You have to be able to make this distinction. As well, I maintain that it is audible.

Also, I meant "discussing it as music, rather than as some theoretical abstraction or demonstrative of some technique." You know, the way we discuss any other music without all this recourse to talking about how it was put together. That latter isn't really important to Schoenberg's music compared to the actual music itself, which is so vital, so lyrical and expressive. Techniques and theories are pointless in the face of art.
Well, the reason Woodduck and I keep bringing up these technical issues of hierarchies, etc, is because you refuse to recognize that 12-tone is a "game-changer," in that it negates the tonal hierarchy.

I agree that Schoenberg's 12 tone music is great, but I know it is not tonal, or based on tonal principles except in the sense that he created these tonal allusions; they are not a "no-brainer" part of the music as tonality's meta-structures are. The 12-tone method is just a method, not an integrated syntax.
 
#19 · (Edited)
@Mahlerian (who else? Pugg? ha ha) Another thing I have a problem with; why should your rejection of the term 'atonality' mean that, as an additional requirement, that Schoenberg's 12-tone music is tonal?

I don't see how the rejection of the term should necessarily lead us to that conclusion. It gives the term too much power.

The issue is confused; not only do you reject the term 'atonality,' but it seems to have driven you to maintain the converse, that Schoenberg's music is not 'atonal' but is 'tonal.'

That seems like a simplistic conclusion, based on negating the term, not how the music is constructed.

One is led to believe that you think NO music is non-tonal, even hard-core serialism like Boulez. Or is this only in regard to Schoenberg?

I think a good case could be made (and the post-war generation already came to this conclusion) that as early as Webern, music was being composed that for all intents and purposes, was 'not tonal,' i.e. "atonal."
 
#21 · (Edited)
@Mahlerian (who else? Pugg? ha ha) Another thing I have a problem with; why should your rejection of the term 'atonality' mean that, as an additional requirement, that Schoenberg's 12-tone music is tonal?

I don't see how the rejection of the term should necessarily lead us to that conclusion. It gives the term too much power.

The issue is confused; not only do you reject the term 'atonality,' but it seems to have driven you to maintain the converse, that Schoenberg's music is not 'atonal' but is 'tonal.'

That seems like a simplistic conclusion, based on negating the term, not how the music is constructed.

One is led to believe that you think NO music is non-tonal, even hard-core serialism like Boulez. Or is this only in regard to Schoenberg?

I think a good case could be made (and the post-war generation already came to this conclusion) that as early as Webern, music was being composed that for all intents and purposes, was 'not tonal,' i.e. "atonal."
It is because YOUR OWN definitions of tonal require that atonal music also be tonal by definition. Your definitions are so broad that they must necessarily encompass all music, bar none. The only reason they don't is because you're adding on ad hoc hypotheses, as in the following:

- All things that are gold are made of the chemical element Au.

- Gold rings are not made of Au because they are round.

- Golden spheres are still Au though.

You're appealing to irrelevant characteristics like the 12-tone method to justify your division between tonality and atonality, a distinction which I can't even perceive as you define the terms.

Like I've said in the past, the way you define tonality and tonal centers, I hear tonal centers throughout Schoenberg. Very clear ones too. It's not a question of theory or something I'm looking for, it's just something that's right there and I can't NOT perceive it even if I tried.
 
#20 ·
BTW, the answer to the OP will be released on September 30, to commemorate the expiration of my infraction which went into effect in the Spring, and has lasted throughout the entire Summer. (unless somebody gets the reason)
 
#22 ·
September 30? I'll be old then!!
Curious to know how many pages you two plan to go back and forth until then....
But in the meantime, if I may ask, does it have something to do with his rejection in his home country (Austria during the Third Reich years) because of his being Jewish?
 
#23 ·
No, that's not it. It also has nothing to do with whatever meaning the term "atonality" has. There was a good reason why Schoenberg objected to the term 'atonal,' and nobody has ever mentioned it, to my knowledge.
 
#38 ·
CLUE: Can you write the word "atonal" in German?
 
#41 · (Edited)
The short version from me is: I can instantly hear Schoenberg as being non-tonal and different from almost all other modernism.

Reasons why: it is chromatic, using all 12 notes all the time, therefore gives no sense of tonality; (unlike Stravinsky, Orff)

It is 'classical' in syntax, meaning it is about traditional materials of pitch and rhythm, not pure, abstracted 'sound' per se; (unlike Varese)

It is not as harmonic sounding as music composed and freely-drawn from scales; (unlike Debussy, or Shostakovich)

It has no consistent-through-time, prominent or distinct acoustic sonorities (harmonic effects) which would be created by limiting the number of notes (sonorities must be extractions from the set of 12 notes, other wise they are a cluster with no color); (unlike Stravinsky, Bartok)

It is not as repetitive as music freely-drawn from scales, or which would be created by limiting the number of notes; it changes constantly, in a state of harmonic unrest (unlike everything else)
 
#43 ·
I can't understand how Schönberg's model (atonality, pantonality, contratonality, whatever....) can be a non-harmonic system. The fact that there is no harmonic hierarchy means that the harmony is non-functional, but there is harmony.
But where there are two or more pitches, there is harmony. A different thing is that there is not a theory about dodecaphonic atonal harmony. When I studied this system, I spent lots of time analysing every kind of chord (formed by two to twelve notes), and how to make harmony sound soft or hard (which is one of the essentials here for the tension-relax cycle).
Besides, a 12-tone scale can be totally tonal and functional. The Axis system of Bartok says so.

Tonal functional = common period
Tonal non functional = impressionism and others
Atonal (non functional) = Schönberg
Modal ("functional" in other terms different from tonality)
Any scale of 1, 2, 3, ..... 8, 10, 11, 12 pitches or grades = some can be used like modal
 
#45 · (Edited)
I can't understand how Schönberg's model (atonality, pantonality, contratonality, whatever....) can be a non-harmonic system. The fact that there is no harmonic hierarchy means that the harmony is non-functional, but there is harmony.
But where there are two or more pitches, there is harmony.
If you want to take the term 'harmony' literally, that's correct.

A different thing is that there is not a theory about dodecaphonic atonal harmony. When I studied this system, I spent lots of time analysing every kind of chord (formed by two to twelve notes), and how to make harmony sound soft or hard (which is one of the essentials here for the tension-relax cycle).
That's correct; dodecaphony has all kinds of harmonic contrast.

Besides, a 12-tone scale can be totally tonal and functional. The Axis system of Bartok says so.
Yes, that's correct.
 
#44 · (Edited)
Millionrainbows vs Mahlerian - the very definition of irresistible force meets immovable object. Unlike the term 'atonal' which seems to defy definition!! :lol:
 
#46 · (Edited)
I know of another reason why Schoenberg objected to the term "atonality," but nobody has ever mentioned it.

Does anyone know the reason I'm referring to? It seems like a perfect reason to me, and for me, at least, it explains everything.
My understanding is that Schoenberg saw a continuous progression in Western music from tonality, which is "[t]he idea that one basic tone, the root [or key], dominated the construction of chords and regulated their succession", to "extended tonality", where a tonal center became increasingly less necessary, to the "emancipation of the dissonance", in his words, where the idea of a tonal center is renounced altogether and each note is equally important. Maybe he would have preferred "atonalcentric" or "keyless", but if used in this broad sense, I'm not sure why he would reject "atonal" [ed.: other than the negative connotation, which I believe was his stated reason]. The word has also been given other, more narrow meanings, but to me that just sows confusion.
 
#47 ·
Yes, by those years, tonality had been expanded to the limits of where a tonal center can be appreciated (Tristan, etc...). Even Strauss went farther (Salome and Elektra). Schöenberg believed that music based on tonality had died, no more tonal music had sense. And then, as an evolutios (as a concept), he thought that in a new music, every (and all) pitch should have the same importance. All of them were "centers", no hierarchy. That's why he preferred the name pantonal, instead of atonal.
 
#54 · (Edited)
millions said:
I've never said that the atonal music which results from the 12-tone method was "not harmonic" (whatever is meant by that); I say that the 12-tone method as a method of structuring music is not based on a harmonic model; i.e., it is 'non-harmonic' by nature.
...Of course, it is totally unrelated to the harmony used until then.
Simply, atonal music uses a different "model" of harmony.
Why compare? They're different concepts.
I agree, as long as "atonal" refers specifically to "free atonality" immediately preceding 12-tone, 12-tone, serial, and any music composed using and manifesting the results of an atonal method or system using set theory. It excludes diatonic non-functional modernism, etc.

The reason we are comparing is because Mahlerian objects to this use of the term.

A problem also arises in his definition of tonality:

Tonality (general): Any kind of perceptible relationship among harmonies or notes
Tonality (specific): A particular way of relating harmonies and notes through functional triadic relationships with a diatonic basis, also called Common Practice Tonality


Note that his definition of CP tonality (the second one) would exclude Stravinsky and Debussy from being tonal, and places them in the category of "atonal." This is not logical, because tonality can be non-functional as well, as Woodduck said:

"The idea that "function" can apply only to common practice harmony is of a piece with the idea that only that sort of music can be tonal. What gives common practice a monopoly on these terms? Tonality, of any sort, is all about how tones function in relation to each other within a hierarchical system of functions centered on a specific pitch. Those functions may be few or many, simple or complex. But their specific nature identifies what tonal system we're working with, and they are determined by conventional usage and recognized and expected by listeners."

I would also argue with his general definition of tonality as being "Any kind of perceptible relationship among harmonies or notes." For it to be tonal in a general sense, it must create a sense of tone-centricity around a primary note. See Harvard Dictionary of Music for the correct definition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fluteman
#67 ·
Yes, Mahlerian's response was more succinct and straightforward than mine. Is the Spanish "tríada" not the same thing as the English "triad"? How confusing. In fact, that's exactly the kind of confusion caused, in my opinion, by not sticking to the primary HDM definitions of "tonal" and "atonal". Although, "Ton" in German can mean tone or note. Sigh.
 
#68 ·
I agree that Schoenberg was part of the Western CP tradition in a big way, but what I'm after is a way of conceiving what happened with the 12-tone method, and why music composed that way (as well as serialism, set-theory music of Elliott Carter, later Roger Sessions) sounds immediately different from all other forms of modernism (which deal with sustained pitch; not percussion, scraping, electronic noise, etc.).

I think the answer is to conceive of this difference in terms of chromaticism, not tonality. I think 'tonality' is too loaded a term to begin with, and can be general as well as CP functional, or modernist non-functional.

"Chromaticism" is an appropriate term to consider, because on a purely theoretical level, tonality weakens as the number of notes increases; and this is quantifiable in terms of number and subsequent cross-relations of harmonic potential (see my chart on interval vectors).
 
  • Like
Reactions: fluteman
#69 ·
…and I still plan on "revealing" the history behind this term, and it explains a lot.
 
#70 ·
..and I will reveal it, as soon as Mahlerian comes back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
#72 · (Edited)
OK. The clue is "Hauer." He was a Viennese composer who COINED the term 'atonal' in reference to his own works.

So the irony in Mahler's objection to the term 'atonal' is that it was COINED by HAUER, a composer who used all 12 tones in his music.

I think Schoenberg's objection to the term was that Hauer was a threat to his position as the originator of a 12-tone theory of music. Schoenberg wanted to disassociate Hauer's music from himself & the legacy he was trying to build. It had nothing to do with any negative connotation of the term.

The fact is that the term was already in use by HAUER.

 
  • Like
Reactions: tdc
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top