A Radical Tonality

Interesting topic,but you two are way ahead of me.

50m, you wrote:

"To me, tonality is purely melodic in nature." OK, Seems clear enough! But then you write:

"So when I compose a piece nowadays that - to me - is fully tonal (Does this mean melodic then ?), but to the listener sounds completely atonal (which it does) (if tonal means melodic, how does it sound atonal?), I feel like my mission is completed: the liberation of "pure" tonality of its harmonic restrictions."

My comment / question is in italics. Sorry if it seems obvious to you two. Probably I just need a few more words of explanation!

Chris

Tonality is the the codification of the natural wisdom of man for making music. So, new, radical or ambivalent tonality (as 50m suggests, if I understand him correctly), what counts is that, if we have to be natural composers (to sing naturally what is composed), tonality is the norm, the only one.

Tonality is not necessarily "purely melodic in nature". It can be less melodic, when virtuosity is involved, more complex in fugues or choral, while harmony, counterpoint and the form of the composition are linked, in a way that either they enhance the melodic line(s) or "absorb" them in the overall structure of the work (see Bruckner).

Whether tonality is an all-inclusive system...perhaps, depending on the definition you rely upon. Stricto sensu, it cannot accommodate everything as a norm. Atonal is the lack of tonality and that's all. So, "how the language is used" means what? At least that this "language" (new radical, atonal or any other experimentation of the use of what might have left as "tonality") should be recognisable (be clearly understood) by any audience of Classical Music. Otherwise, it is only the language of the "composer".

Parla

Mark, you can modulate into "remote keys", but at certain cost. Can you modulate, for example, from a minor to D major directly?

Tonality became quite inclusive with chromaticism, but it has been already on the very edge of its development. So, the next step, albeit small, was enough to break the tonality completely. To use twelve notes means you don't need any sort of tonality! What sort of C major you may use, when you are "free" to make use of all twelve notes...freely. On the other hand, if you put any sort of "rules", you go backwards to the tonality "regulation".

Nothing in this life can be that inclusive, so it can allow to accommodate even its negation!

Parla

So, the issue Mark is that you cannot modulate "directly" from a minor to D major without "using a variant of any number of chords" or, simply, by passing to A major first and, then, to D major (or to go to d minor and then to D major). So, you need some "brain teasers" to remote (or unorthodox) keys. You cannot do anything you like, as you like it. There are rules.

If atonality destroys any notion of the keys, tonality, minor and major modes, what sort of "extension" is it? If this "incorporation" of the 5 chromatic notes within the 7 notes of the diatonic scale works by destroying any sense of the diatonic scale and makes it unrecognisable, it sounds as the end of the music, as it has been built and established. If it is an "extension" or "development" of the tonality, somehow, it seems to lead to the point of no return: the vanishing tonality and harmony we knew.

By all means, "we sometimes exchange one set of rules for another", but this exchange is not necessarily a natural development of them; it can easily be the negation of them.

Finally, I appreciate atonality as a genuine effort to develop Classical Music to other directions. Some of the original composers of this "school" were very interesting composers (and great in the field of atonal music). However, I do believe that this new direction led to a sort of the "end of music", to an impasse. Then, quite a few of us found ourselves forced to go back to...the future.

Parla

P.S.: We may sing from the same hymn sheet, Mark, but I stick to the Lutheran chorale (even as a non RC member). I don't look further. The "genius" has enough music to deal with.

Parla: Transposing to a key that's a minor or major third away from the original key (thirds-relationships) is in fact one of the most important "inventions" of the romantic era, and it's what gives many compositions from that time its unique color.

Take Schubert, for instance, who was a structural traditionalist, but harmonically he was the most modern composer of his generation. His use of thirds-relationships is so radical that he often doesn't even transpose but just juxtaposes the two keys. A good example is the trio of the D major piano sonata's scherzo. If I remember well, a series of repeated D major chords suddenly get changed into F# major, after which D major returns as if nothing has happened. A wonderful effect.

These kind of "color effects" also represent the first cracks in the traditional tonal harmony. When composers start to chose sounds just because of their coloistic qualities, instead of their function in the tonal system, one can speak of an early form of Impressionism. Schubert as a proto-Debussy? That's one of the weirdest comparisons ever made here, I reckon - but one that can be backed up with examples from his work.

The increasing prominence of tonal color then culminated in Wagner's Tristan. The whole work (and not only the famous first chord) may be percieved as Wagner embracing the new possibilities of expression generated by contrasting pure colors, instead of harmonic functions.

And finally composers felt there was no need for harmonic functions at all anymore. Just color remained. See Schönberg's first Chamber Symphony, Scriabin's 5th sonata, Ives' Central Park in the Dark...

So I dislike talking about early 20th century music in terms of "swapping one system for another." It just didn't work that way.

Chris, you wrote:

"If I understand 50m correctly what he aims to write is music which through its structure moves from tonal beginnings to atonal ("is fully tonal, but to the listener sounds completely atonal"), i.e. achieves part of its effect by juxtaposition of tonal and atonal contributions."

Well, almost but not exactly. Firstly, there is no progression from a traditional to a modern style. The style remains the same throrough the piece. Secondly, you're correct in describing the overall effect as a juxtaposition of tonal and atonal contributions, but not in the way of the Berg violin concerto (which used the Bach chorale in the final as a "Fremdkörper", providing maximum contrast to its dodecaphonic surroundings.

In fact my "method" may be the polar opposite of Berg's. You can't really speak of tonal melodies in Berg's twelve-tone works, not even in the progression of fifths that make up the basic material for the violin concerto. After all, a couple of fifths don't yet make a defined key. But Berg achieved some sense of traditional tonality by the way he combined his rows and turned them into polyphonic structures that somehow sound "nice" to people who are not used to hardcore atonailty. Which by the way explains the popularity of this concerto and the relative obscurity of Schönberg's equally masterful violin concerto.

In my case, the basic material I use is tonal, just the development of that material - horizontal (polyphonic) and vertical (harmonic) - make the pieces SOUND atonal. But they still make use of a fixed key, so I don't consider them fully atonal.

Not sure I'm making sense now, it's kinda hard to put in words what you've been doing for so long intuitively...

So in case you or others are interested in my compositions, I'll give you the link to my IMSLP page. IMSLP as you may know, is a site that contains a huge amount of old an new music, both public domain and music that's published freely under creative commons licenses. All my music can be downloaded for free from there, for non-commercial use.

http://imslp.org/wiki/Category:Peters,_Rob

As you can see, I've been rather prolific as a composer... with 145 published works so far. Many of my earlier pieces stemmed from my conservatorium years and were written in a wide variety of styles, ranging from very traditional to wildly experimental. There's also a lot of material that was written directly for practical, mostly church use, hence the large number of works.

But I think that in the last say 10 years my style has settled (wisdom comes with age, and not only grey hairs...), and has become what I described above. Good examples are my latest works: the 4 organ sonatas. They're part of an intended series of 24, inspired by the sonatas of Joseph Rheinberger (who only managed to write 20 - time to beat old Joe!), a project that'll keep me busy for many years to come.

P.S. I realize I'm also giving up anonimity this way, but I assume we're all nice and non-stalker types of people here, right? ;)
And in case anyone is wondering: my alias stems from one of my hobbies (philately).

Thank you 50m for your fascinating reply. I think I begin to understand better your compositional style.  (I've started looking at your compositions, but I'm a slow score reader at the best of times and starting in a new idiom from scratch is quite difficult for me.  Give me time!).

I understand that your approach is, in a way, the opposite of Berg's but nevertheless, for the listener as opposed to the composer, which comes first may perhaps be less important than which appears to predominate.  With Berg, tonality or the illusion of tonality, by no means restricted to the violin concerto, seems to me, as you say to provide the key to the accessibility of his music compared with Schoenberg's. But I never have any sense of this having been grafted on to the main thrust of Berg's ideas. On the contrary for me and for many listeners I suspect it makes it easier to grasp the structure of his work. Didactically Schoenberg's violin concerto may be as fine as Berg's, but it lack's Berg's rhetorical flair. It breaks that 'either'/ 'or' tonal/atonal barrier.  I have to do some serious work to see if I can get the same from your music!  I suppose there are no recordings?

Your mentioning of the Bach chorale as the tonal 'peg' in the Berg concerto reminded me just how observant and astute was his choice of that particular chorale. Bach only set that chorale tune once (at the end of Cantata No.60).  It is an unusual one with very short lines but not only that. Mark, you mentioned doing excercises harmonising chorales. I'm willing to bet that your 'textbook' harmonisation of this would be nothing like Bach's.  It really does stand out every time I hear it (I checked it again last night) and I'm sure that's what atrracted Berg to it.

Mark and Parla, I hope you don't mind my intrusion into your 'minor third' discussion!  Mark you wrote "a minor third is a minor third whether it is in a diatonic scale or in a note row. It has the same expressive properties..."

To which Parla responded "However, what really matters is the whole structure and the form of the composition. This "minor third" has a reason d'etre, a purpose too, in a diatonic scale. It is a part of the language, grammar and syntax known and established. In a "note row", it looks like a "minor third" in the desert or the jungle of rows of notes."

Now, at the risk of annoying you both, I would argue that there is no 'switch' involved: the diatonic 'feel' of the minor third, (and the major third, and the fifth) is gradually, continuously diluted as music becomes more chromatic: the point it becomes atonal is just the end point of a gradual process for these intervals. I'd suggest that if there can be said to have been a switch it occurred much earlier, with the widespread adoption of equal temperament tuning.

Anyway, a fascinating discussion. Even if I only just manage to 'keep up' I find it really interesting!

Chris