Talk:Atonality

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Classical music Music theory High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Music theory, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of music theory, theory terminology, music theorists, and musical analysis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Music theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Music theoryTemplate:WikiProject Music theoryMusic theory articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Atonality was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated . Review: November 8, 2006.

Schoenberg was the innovator of the system, but his student Webern then began applying the same rules to not only notes, but other aspects of music as well.

Is this really true? Which pieces by Webern serialise more than the pitches? --Camembert

Webern begins using rows starting with Concerto for 9 Instruments in 1934. Messaien begins parameterizing - not rows - dynamics in the 1940's. The term "serial" is Stockhausen's.

Impressive, User:Stirling Newberry.Hyacinth 01:18, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to press you on this, but what aspects other than pitch does Webern subject to serial procedures in the Concerto? --Camembert

Dynamics and register are the first to aspects that he begins to apply rows to. Concerto for 9 instruments has a "row" of tone colors and the Piano Variations have a row of dynamics.

Stirling Newberry

Can you tell me what source you're getting this from? I have to say, I think you are mistaken. What Webern sometimes does is associate certain pitches with certain dynamics and methods of articulation, so that every time you get a B flat, for example, it is forte and staccato. But this cannot really be said to be using serial procedures. However, I won't edit the article until I've have the chance to look at my old notes on this (I've studied the piano Variations quite closely) and some scores, just to be sure. --Camembert

I am not clear where we are in disagreement. I do not see where I said that Webern has serialized dynamics and tone colour separate from the pitch class row. If I have - please show me where.

Stirling Newberry

I see. I must have misunderstood. I'm glad we're in agreement. --Camembert

This article is beginning to actually look good.

Anyone care to take a crack at describing actual practice?

Stirling Newberry

I've added a template feel free to add new articles to it. Stirling Newberry 00:29, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why does 'Pantonal' redirect to 'Atonal'.... they are not the same thing. 'Pantonal' needs its own article.

"Pantonal, pantonality. The free use of all twelve pitch classes, as distinct from their restricted use according to the principles of tonality; hence, synonymous with atonal, atonality." The Harvard Concise Dictionary of Music (2002) and Musicians by Don Michael Randel,

ISBN 0674009789

.

"pantonality, pantonal. Term preferred to 'atonality' or 'atonal' by Schoenberg and used by the music analyst Rudolph Reti with reference to 20th-century music that is tonal but where the key is constantly fluctuating or compromised (that of Bartok or Stravinsky, for instance)." The Penguin Companion to Classical Music (2005) by Paul Griffiths,

ISBN 0140515593

.

Reti's use would be called "nonfunctional tonality" or

pandiatonic. I'll make pantonal a disambiguation page. Hyacinth 10:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

I just removed a paragraph fromt the criticism section about hte Postive Music Group. There is a http://www.dovesong.com/positive_music/movement.asp which may oppose atonal music and promote tonal music, but their website doesn't seem to mention either term. Hyacinth 12:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contact them by mail, they will tell you about it if you don't understand their page's statements which are clearly directed against atonality.80.138.172.139 01:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also forgot that they appear non-notable. Hyacinth 08:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess if they added to the discussion or if we had a list or discussion of groups against atonality their inclusion may be more appropriate. Hyacinth 09:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undisputed is however, that they are the leading figures opposing atonality at the moment.80.138.158.108 16:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then I dispute that. I would argue that there are many composers and theorists far better known than the PMM. Hyacinth 10:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course, e.g. Ernest Ansermet. Haha.

I'm not an expert on the matter, but I would love to see a section devoted to the influence of this music. Philip Glass is mentioned as one influencee, in reference to his minimalist works, but there are other well known musicians and bands that do use this atonal technique heavily. I hate to use the term but "art-rock"/ minimalist bands such as Mogwai definitely embrace an atonal music style. Even acts like Archers of Loaf/ Eric Bachmann, and Pavement with Stephen Malkmus use the atonal method in just about all of their songs. Would just like to see what other people's thoughts are on the matter.

 "Not only does it not conform to the common practice of this particular
 period, but it is noticeably divorced from the acoustical underpinnings of
 music going back as far as the scale systems of ancient Greece."

I would consider it as an extension of the use of the acoustical base. That was the vision of Schoenberg and other composers.

That sentence was probably put in here by a well-known troll. I thought all of his POV statements here had been revised already. Oh well, I've made some updates. Feel free to make more, it's your right as an editor, you don't have to wait for anyone else to do it for you. CRCulver 23:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the definition is narrow enough: Atonality describes music that does not conform to the system of tonal hierarchies, which characterizes the sound of classical European music between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries. It looks like the modal music of earlier periods and non-western cultures is included in this definition, which it shouldn't be. Why not: Atonality describes music without tonal center or where all pitches are considered of equal importance.Apus 11:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Members of the

What do people think about linking to this site? They are audio recordings of lectures given by a (late) Music professor from Antioch College, John Ronsheim. Ronsheim was a Dallapiccola student, set up the University of Iowa's 20th century music program and was a very dynamic/popular teacher at Antioch. I put the link on here and it was immediately taken off by user CRCulver as "spam". I don't agree. Friends and students of Prof Ronsheim started a not-for-profit after his death-- one of our aims is to promote the understanding of 20th century music. The lectures were prepared for non-music majors. They include many musical excerpts and could be very useful for those wanting to understand atonality who are new to it and/or don't read music. Pulpy 15:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've only made a very cursory examination of the site and listened to about 20 minutes of one of the lectures, but I have to agree that the "spam" lable seems unwarranted. From the little I have heard so far, however, I also find Prof. Ronsheim's lecturing style falls a bit short of "dynamic". Nevertheless, I can see that they might well be of interest to the motivated listener. --Jerome Kohl 16:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP's guidelines for external links prohibit editors from linking to sites they are in any way affiliated with. It is for that reason, and the editor's placing the site on multiple pages, that I have duly removed the links. The editor had already been warned before, too. CRCulver 21:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Mr. Culver that I did not know about "affiliaton" guideline. Yes I am "affiliated' wtih the site. So I guess I had already done what wiki recommends, ie "If your page is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let unbiased Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link." So here it is and we'll see. Also, I do not find guidelines limiting the number of times a site can be listed. I would like to propose it to pages where it would be the most useful. The lectures are on the history 20th century european music until about 1970-- I had originally thought: 20th Century Classical Music, and then links to specific lectures for Atonality, Serialism and Dallapiccola as Prof Ronsheim was one of his closest pupils. So, in terms of music, not wikipedia rules, do people frequenting these topics think this is too much? If so, which would be most useful? Or are there other, better pages? Again my point of view is that these could be very helpful for people--especially non-music readers--in that they can hear the music described/explained as it is playing-- it's less theoretical. Pulpy 15:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to pitch a site you are affiliated with, seeking to disseminate it as widely as possible. That's linkspam, regardless of whether you think you're trying to be helpful. If you want your page mentioned here, you must abandon the matter until the link is forgotten about and then wait for some unaffiliated person to randomly stumble upon your site and think to add it here. CRCulver 15:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Culver, you are making up your own guidelines. I'm not sure why. I'm trying in a sincere way to follow those of Wikipedia. "[Avoid] a page that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important and difficult objective at Wikipedia. If your page is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let unbiased Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link." I didn't know this and tried to put the links in first. Now I know, and am doing as recommended. This is a place for discussion and not your bossing around and unilateral decision making. (Several people on your page have complained about this with you) The wikipedia project will not be compromised if people discuss this possible link as permitted under the wiki guidelines!! I'm sure that "linkspam" is a problem and many thanks to those who delete them. Harassment is also a problem. You've said your piece-- don't threaten to ban people from participating, just because they don't do things exactly like you want!

I've been rooting out linkspam for three years now, and have succesfully reported many people for linkspam bans based on just as little as you are doing now. Furthermore, by placing a link to the page here on the Talk page "for discussion", you would still be drawing traffic to the site, and as this is a favourite tactic of linkspammers, it gets the same penalty usually. If you were really sincere about not being a linkspammer, you would have given up already. CRCulver 16:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that no one will stop you from adding content to the article body based on those lectures. That would be admirable, and it would make Atonality more informative on its own. External links are intended for very rare cases when information cannot be integrated into the article, and that is not the case here. CRCulver 16:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that the user is disallowed to even discuss the site - which to me seems relevant and would add to the page. You even suggest that they add things from the "disallowed" site into the page without attribution. Seriously, its dumb stuff like this turns a lot of people off of messing with Wikipedia. 173.22.123.35 (talk) 06:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I don't see where CRCulver said "without attribution". Besides, this discussion is now over two years old.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article's GA status has been revoked because it fails criterion 2. b. of '

(b) the

talk page

).

LuciferMorgan 00:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found an interview with Glass here where he talks about his criticisms of the avant garde of the 60s: [1]

EM: You've often talked about your music being a reaction to the academic music and the serial, atonal music that was going on up until that point; I would say you were composing more modern orchestral music. Of all the reactions you could have had to that style, why this particular one?

PG: In 1964, '65, and '66, I certainly looked at the older generations of composers as people that were my enemies. I had to displace them. Everything they did was wrong, almost anything I could do would be right as long as it wasn't that. It was a very emphatic point of view that I had, and for a young man beginning in a highly competitive business as is composition, the music world, writing serious or concert music, it was a psychological boost to have an attitude like that, which was crucial. After all, there were some pretty heavy guys around at that time. Stockhausen, Boulez, Berio and Carter, they're still around and still important, but at that time they seemed like they would be there forever and they were going to run things as long as they wanted to.

Well, it turned out not to be that way, and it's not necessary for me to denounce them as strongly as I did then. I'm not saying that I didn't believe that at the time. I did. From time to time I will resurrect that attitude in all its strength and glory when necessary.

But I think you have to look at what it must have been like. Here I was 26, 27, and there were these guys who had the music world sewn up. And the only thing we could do, I mean we as a younger generation, was to blow them out of the water one way or the other. We just denounced them and got on with our own work. It turns out now, 20 years later, that there seems to be room for everybody. In fact, we seem to have more room than they do which I don't mind at all.

I know I've seen other older interviews where he says more direct things, but I'd have to dig around... and I think this one addresses the issue nicely. I can probably find similar things for Reich and Adams shortly (Adams' sardonic use of sprechstimme in The Death of Klinghoffer springs readily to mind).

As for the statement: The advent of eclecticism, particularly reflecting the absorption of world music and other so-called "popular" styles, continue to be at variance with anaytical and emotionally sterile mannerist approaches to art music. I don't think it's worthwhile unless it's actually an attributable quote, but to me it just sounds like POV. - Rainwarrior 20:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I added that call for a source, I expected to find one for Glass, but I didn't have my copy of Music by Philip Glass by Philip Glass handy. The sentence may need to be recast, however, since this reference covers Glass only. He has been very outspoken about this, whereas Reich and Adams have been more circumspect (and I don't see how the use of Sprechstimme in Klinghoffer can be read as "sardonic", let alone as a criticism of American academic composers). The "advent of eclecticism" addition seems to me to have any number of problems in addition to being likely unatributable. For one thing, eclecticism has been around for centuries. For another, the placement of the sentence is ambiguous--does "emotionally sterile mannerist approaches" describe minimalism? (And, of course, mannerism is being misused here.)--Jerome Kohl 20:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about Reich actually, after thinking about it (I don't think I've actually read much of his writings / interviews / etc). It's possible that whomever wrote that passage simply lumped him in because his music is so similar? (Pay no heed to the Klinghoffer reference, that's just me rambling.) - Rainwarrior 20:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But yeah, I do think the sentence as it is seems too narrowly worded to be accurate. - Rainwarrior 21:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From an interview on John Adams' website: [2]

Popular music, for better or worse, continues to provide that essential expressive experience, what Jung called the anima experience, the fundamentally emotional essence of human communication. "Serious" contemporary music seems to have largely abdicated this power to affect people on this deepest of levels. That's why composers spend so much time verbally explaining what they have done or have tried to do.

The composers who marginalised themselves were the ones who developed musical languages that were largely inaccessible to even a relatively sophisticated listener. We're talking about an epoch of 'contemporary music', 'difficult music', which I'm beginning to think will be seen historically as a period with a beginning and an end. A period that began essentially with Schoenberg and petered out during the 1970s and 1980s.

- Rainwarrior 20:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, good quote, but notice that he avoids pointing a finger directly at anybody except Schoenberg. Unless, of course, he means everybody from Schoenberg onward, which seems unlikely. As for Reich, I think there may well be a quotation lurking out there somewhere (probably in "Music as a Gradual Process") about the Academy. I remember reading somewhere Reich explaining why he worked as a cab driver all those years, and ISTR he particularly wanted to avoid the academic milieu. Whether that is the same thing as rejecting academic composers is another thing, of course.--Jerome Kohl 23:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate, we should probably delete the second part (about eclecticism), and revise the first (about the Glass/Adams/Reich "reaction"). I didn't write either part, but I figured there's probably enough quotes around to support the first, more or less. - Rainwarrior 00:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. - Jerome Kohl 01:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no shortage of criticism of atonality, especially serial atonality (by serial I'm referring to pitch rows only), but if we're getting at the displacement of the serial or post-tonal hegemony, it seems to me that Reich's strident campaigning is much more germane than Glass's tepid and apologetically qualified opposition--and Adams only came along after the deed had largely been accomplished. TheScotch 09:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, none of this appears to be in the article anymore, anyway. - Rainwarrior 16:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it would appear. I wonder what happened to it. In any case, we do still have a section called "Criticism of atonal music". It cites one proponent (Anton Webern) and two opponents (Walter Piston and Ernest Ansermet). The historical context for Webern's championing is clear enough, but the historical context for Piston's and Ansermet's dissension is not clear enough. Why have we singled out (or doubled out, I suppose) these two? TheScotch 05:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the purpose of any Wiki entry is to inform anyone seeking interest in the subject. The problem this creates is that terms that may not be commonly used in mainstream vernacular, such as "atonal," don't garner making the article "laymen friendly." As someone who is very interested in music but knows very little about its theory or structure, I had a very difficult time discerning just what atonal refers to. Should the article be rewritten, at least in part, so that the average music listener could understand the meaning, or should it remain in its current form, filled with jargon relevant to music theorisits?

One of the difficulties for those of us who are trained as music theorists is that we don't always realize when we are using technical terminology that may be unfamiliar to nonspecialists. It must also be said that sometimes there are technical terms for which there is no substitute. However, these terms should either be plainly defined in the article, or a link should be provided to an article that does define them. It might be helpful to us, therefore, if you would point out some of the terms that you find opaque. If, as you seem to be saying, the term "atonal" itself is one of these, and the article does not succeed in explaining it, then this is certainly an indictment of the article as it stands.--Jerome Kohl 01:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main problem here is the lead. The article starts off with "Atonality describes music not conforming to the system of tonal hierarchies". If you understand the term "tonal hierarchies" you probably also have a grasp of what atonality is. While I think this is an appropriate statement (and belongs in the lead section), we should begin with a statement that is less dependent on acquired terminology. I'm not sure how "layman" we can get this, but if we started off maybe with a reference to a "tonal centre" or even just "key" it might be a little more readable (if less rigourous). I think the term "key", at least, is widely understood. Maybe:

"Atonality describes music that does not use a

classical European music between the seventeenth and nineteenth

centuries."

I think we could do better than this, but I'll make this change for the moment. - Rainwarrior 17:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this article while listening to Jeremy Denk on 'Fresh Air,' not understanding what he was saying when he tried to explain Stockhausen's music as atonal. Like the person who started this thread, I am "someone who is very interested in music but knows [understands] very little about its theory or structure." I was hoping this article would help. It doesn't. i don't know what "centered on a chord" (Denk's words) means, nor do I understand what "lacking" "a

tonal center link does not clarify things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C67:1C00:300:1CA3:4793:7208:9F4F (talk) 03:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC) What does 'center' mean in this context?[reply

]

Partly related to the discussion above; "a sample song may be worth a thousand words". I think the best way to tell a "layman" what atonality is to provide examples, thus avoiding a more or less technical discussion. Also, is the caprice by Paul Sprimont a proper example of atonal music? (I'm really asking) Ozkaplan 00:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that piece is actually atonal. The harmony is fairly well defined, even if it isn't the harmony of western tonality, it's far from "atonal". Furthermore it returns several times to the same key. It just seems like linkspam to me, really. As for an appropriate example, well, there's not a whole lot of media of this lying around on Wikipedia... there's a midi at

Sechs Kleine Klavierstücke, which is mostly atonal, but not entirely. There are a lot of atonal works out there, but a lot of them are still under copyright, but more than that atonality doesn't have quite the fanbase that regular classical music has. It might be difficult to track down decent free media of it. - Rainwarrior 04:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Atonality is really not a well defined concept isn't it? It's deviating from tonality in some way but the way how is open to debate (roughly :).. correct me where needed) 85.99.161.82 18:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are several possible meanings for atonal, which can be confusing, but each of them I think is fairly well defined in theoretical writing. The major ones might be close to "without the harmony of tonality" (sometimes this refers to the interval makeup of the chords, sometimes this refers to the chord function), and "without a tonal centre" (a return to some focal-pitch). In some cases the world "atonal" is used to indicate a work that lacks tonality but is also not dodecaphonic. The only meaning that doesn't have a real definition is the colloquial "stuff that sounds bad". - Rainwarrior 19:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since Daniel French has again added a link to the video of himself playing that Sprimont piece (and if this isn't linkspam, then I'd like to know what is), let me clarify that the harmony is plainly tonal, in the key of E minor to be precise, except that it begins with a center on F, and has a few excursions into whole-tone-scale material in the middle. It is perfectly within the norms of the kind of extended tonality found in the practice of the late-19th and 20th centuries and, as a result, makes not merely a poor example for this article, but a positively misleading one.--Jerome Kohl 21:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Jerome, I am not the one playing the Sprimont piece. (I am 53 years old and it is obvious, from the video, that the pianist is much younger :-) ) I am also quite incapable to play like that.Acusing of linkspaming is therefore slightly excessive. In order to clarify the harmony issue, I have requested a meeting with the composer Paul Sprimont , who said himself that the piece wat atonal. I will show him your comment and will come back with his. My idea is no to mislead but to provide an example of atonal music as, as indicated by another interested party (in a nicer tone than yours, no pun intended) it's not easy to have examples that can be posted due to copyright issues. Both the composer and the interpreter agreed to the posting for this example. DCFrenchy 21:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I apologize for assuming DCFrenchy and the pianist Daniel French were one and the same person. (There was of course no way I could know you are 53 years old, since you have not created a Wikipedia profile.) Paul Sprimont may well believe his piece is atonal (and under certain definitions it is, though as I have said it has a clear tonal center at the end, including some dominant-tonic progressions in E minor). You might care to mention to the composer that Rainwarrior, too, hears tonal centricity in this piece. If there are to be audio examples, they ought to be unambiguous ones, preferably from a style conventionally associated with the concept of atonality (e. g., Webern, Varèse, middle-period Schoenberg, Babbitt).--Jerome Kohl 22:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering, why is there no mention of the Pentatonic scale? I have always been taught this was a type of chromatic scale that was atonal. —The preceding

Where were you taught this? Although a pentatonic scale can be any five-note scale, the usual assumption is the so-called "anhemitonic" pentatonic—that is, a scale including no semitones. Since the semitone is often (informally) defined as "the chromatic interval", how is an anhemitonic pentatonic scale to be construed as chromatic? As to the issue of atonality, it is a question of compositional strategy more than of choice of scale, though I suppose that equal-stepped scales make it easier to avoid a sense of gravitational attraction between some pairs of notes within the scale.--Jerome Kohl 17:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask the question correctly. I also realized another thing. This might not fit in this article. I really wanted to know why a chromatic scale and a pentatonic scale are not listed as having a sense of atonality in this article. I was taught that atonality can be used in the middle of a piece to give it color. If I was going to use a chromatic scale in the middle of a piece (or a pentatonic scale) And say I was in the key C major, and after my color was added I was going to stay in the key of C major. I would use the respected chromatic notes from the given key. This isn't always the case of course. If I was modulating to G major, it would most likely be using chromatic scale in G. I'm not an expert on music theory. One thing if for sure, chromatic, pentatonic or whole scales lack a tonal center.

Even diatonic scales lack a tonal center, until the musical context establishes one. Given, for example, the white keys of the piano, what determinies whether you are in C major, A minor, D Dorian, E Phrygian, etc.? As I indicated before, it may be more difficult to write atonally when using diatonic scales (as opposed to whole-tone, chromatic, octatonic, or other symmetrical or equal-step scales), but it is certainly possible to do so. It does not seem to me, either, that pentatony is inherently "atonal," if by that word you mean music lacking a hierarchical pitch structure and tonal center. It is of course true that a polarity based on the relationship of a major dominant triad to a tonic is impossible with an anhemitonic scale of any sort, since that dominant triad's third must be a semitone away from the tonic.--Jerome Kohl 17:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Ok first sorry for my english, that's not my mother's tongue)

I had to delete the claim including death metal bands as atonal music. That's a frequent misconception among fans of death metal to argue that death bands generally play atonality. The misconception generaly is due to a certain number of reasons:

• Death metal indeed generally favours dissonances and tense harmony to create dark atmospheres in their music.
• Many death solos indeed aren't built from an existant scale (as in tonal tradition), rather they tend to use any dissonant notes which will be played over the riff.

But dissonance doesn't necessarilly mean atonality. Here's the confusion of so many people. Many tonal works can be dissonant. My point is as long as you have a tonal centre and you use tonal chords, you are tonal. And death metal bands (including Morbid angel and Deicide) use basic

Another frequent confusion is people misunderstand the sense of tonal and atonal(ignoring they are harmonic languages) and confuse the words with issues about timbres.

• Some mistake atonality with the use of harsh timbres such as the
  death grunt
  technique.

Death metal generally stays tonal. A very extended and unorthodox tonality, yes, but tonality anyway.

However in metal, one can find occasionaly a few attempts of atonality (in some Progressive metal or avant-garde metal bands.)Alpha Ursae Minoris 08:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, You call non-diatonic melody in paralell fifths tonal?

Death and Math Metal Bands don't use tonal chords. They don't use diatonic scales. Instead they use chromatism and prefer intervals like minor third+minor second configurations, tritone or major sevenths. They also use parallel *minor thirds* (!) or (more recently) parallel *minor seconds* (!!!).

So, what you said, is all wrong. Many Metal-Styles are atonal, including Death Metal.-- Kausalitaet (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you miss the point.

Because you don't use diatonic scales doesn't necessarily mean you're atonal. Because you use chromatism or tritone in music doesn't necessarily mean you're atonal. This is a misconception: Wagner already include large portions of chromatism in his music and yet it was tonal (even though he paved the way to atonality). A music is said to be atonal, when it does no longer have a tonal center. And as far as I can hear, most of the death metal songs I heard so far do still maintain tonal centers in their music: they have a clearly identifiable tonic. I can tell the key of the songs. As long as you keep a tonal centre, and a key, you still play tonal music no matter how chromatic or dissonant your music might be. No matter what intervals you use. So you are wrong if you assume a music is atonal just because it displays intervals such as tritone or chromatic structures. By the way, the use of minor thirds, of a minor sevenths, of minor seconds configurations or paralel thirds sequences are also frequently found in tonal music, this is not particularly an exclusive characteristic of atonal music. I strongly recommend you to get familiar with Schoenberg's methods to writing atonal music.Alpha Ursae Minoris (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted this recent imput:

"I realize that my comments may not necessarily be accepted immediately, but it is important to note that the term atonal is not accurate in describing serialist composition. Music including that of Schoenberg's has tones and also has tonality. All music with pitches has tonality. Serialism is allowing the chromatic tones to have equality within the piece. But the tones themselves are still within the laws of sound and therefore the term atonal is a blatant misunderstanding."

because

• 1. It's a POV
• 2. It's worded in a non-neutral perspective.
• 3. Because there's an obvious confusion in his comprehension of the notion of "tonality".

Some may use the terms of "tones" or "tonality" in some other meaning, but in the general musical vocabulary, "the notion of "tonality" refers to a system in which certain hierarchical pitch relationships are based on a key "center" or tonic."In other words, a piece is tonal when you can tell the key of that piece (A minor, E minor or C major and so on...) It has nothing to do with the fact the pieces use pitches. Actually you seem to confuse the notion of "tonality" with the notion of "pitch" itself. That's a common use in the popular language but not in the strict musical vocabulary.

So the definition of atonality here is clear. that's any music which doesn't have any key center. I can assure you there's no key in the schoenberg's "atonal" works no matter he uses pitches.Alpha Ursae Minoris 11:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind if you remove this reference but at least do it for justified reasons:

• 1. the Ircam center is an international reference concerning modern and contemporary music.
• 2. You say that the Ircam's reference doesn't support the claim concerning Webern, but if you read french take a look to this quote:

"Son oeuvre sera redécouverte très rapidement par les musiciens de la génération de 1925 : Boulez, Maderna, Nono, Stockhausen, Pousseur... qui fonderont l'«Ecole de Darmstadt» et le «sérialisme intégral» sur les techniques de composition mise au point par Webern pendant l'entre deux guerres (organisation des différents paramètres du son par la série (et pas seulement sérialisation des hauteurs des notes) ; utilisation de séries dont les différentes sections sont elles-mêmes dérivées par transposition, renversement ou rétrogadation d'une petite cellule initiale de 3 ou 4 notes, etc). Le pointillisme, et la concision, caractéristiques de l'écriture webernienne, seront également systématiquement imités par les jeunes compositeurs des années 1950, qui ont longtemps tenu Webern pour le plus important des trois viennois."

It's clear and explicit.Alpha Ursae Minoris 17:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that I am the person you are addressing. First of all, I am very much aware of what Ircam is and does (quite apart from being a reference center), and often find data there unavailable elsewhere. However, it is also true that their online data is not as reliable as it might be (the puctuation of the present quotation, for example, shows that more care could have been taken with the text). Far from being "clear and explicit", the claim here is at best ambiguous. Although "compositional techniques set out by Webern between the two wars (organization of different parameters of sound by the series (and not only serialisation of the pitch of notes)" can be read to say that Webern serialized parameters other than pitch, it can also be read as saying that these were Darmstadt techniques derived from and then retrospectively sought in Webern's music (which, by the way, is the more usual understanding). Even in the writings of the Darmstadt serialists themselves, only very tentative conclusions along these were drawn, and they generally describe Webern as an "important forerunner" of their ideas, rather than as the creator of multi-parametric serialism. What is really needed is not some encyclopedic source repeating dubious platitudes, but rather a reference demonstrating the truth of the assertion that Webern ever actually serialized dynamics, rhythms, timbres, or registers. I am personally unaware of any such demonstration.--Jerome Kohl 18:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with atonality? Hyacinth 02:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. If this belongs anywhere, it would be in the Serialism article, wouldn't it?--Jerome Kohl 17:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It depends which sense we are refering to by "atonality". If we refer to the strict "restricted" sense (that is to say the original "free" atonality) then indeed serialism has nothing to do here, however it seems like the article actually deals with the "extended" sense of the word (that is to say any music without any tonal center)in this regard then dodecaphonism and serialism could be included in my opinion. Anyway in both cases, I'm ok, as long as the article remains coherent.Alpha Ursae Minoris 17:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget, though, that there is a lot of serial music does have a tonal center, or centers. Obvious examples are Berg's Violin Concerto and Stockhausen's Stimmung, but it has been argued that most of Schoenberg's later twelve-tone music has clear tonal centers (though not, obviously, a tonic-dominant axis). The categories "serial" and "atonal" do substantially overlap, so that mention of twelve-tone and serial techniques is doubtless appropriate here, but it is misleading to say all music using these techniques is necessarily atonal.--Jerome Kohl 18:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and the examples you provided are extremely relevant. Berg is btw one of the most striking example of that. But basically the role of the series was meant to organize atonality with lawfull means. While one can indeed reintegrate tonal centers in series, the principle of the non-repetition lying at the core of dodcaphonic technique was basically meant to avoid tonal centers as far as I know. But anyway I agree it might be misleading to say that serialism is necessarily atonal, but serialism by principle favours atonality.Alpha Ursae Minoris 18:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this article it doesn't matter if Webern serialized or didn't. Hyacinth 23:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While it is not the main concern of this article. If we include serialism as being relevant in the subject, then it is not wrong to mention the issue either...(well at least if he really did) Alpha Ursae Minoris 16:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the last paragraph of the introduction, I'm almost certain that no works of Prokofiev, Hindemith, Bartók or Scriabin are considered strictly atonal. As far as I am aware, all of these composers used musical languages that, despite an extremely free treatment of dissonance and chromaticism, always retained a tonal center in one way or another. Of course, I might be wrong, but even so it's probably a good idea to find some citations for the claims. EdwardTattsyrup (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The key word here may be "strictly", and there are few works by any composer that truly may be described as "strictly atonal". (It may be equally true to say there are few works that are "strictly tonal".) There are certainly works by Bartók that do not retain a single tonal center, and if memory serves, several of the Prokofiev's early piano works also qualify. In fact, many of Debussy's works also fail to adhere to a single center (La Mer comes immediately to mind), even though a succession of local centers occur. Hindemith and Scriabin may well be different cases but, in any event, you are quite right to demand sources. I shall see what I can find.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a lot easier than I expected, but the big surprise is that I could not verify the claim for Varèse. New items have been added to the References list, and the relevant references inserted at the end of the sentence. I suppose more details could be given (e.g., Debussy Etude pour les degrés chromatiques, Bartók "Études", op. 18, Prokofiev opp. 2no. 1, 12 no. 1, 35-bis no. 2, First Violin Concerto, etc.) but this would belong in the body of the article, rather than in the lede.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to put a {{

What is your rationale for changing from Chicago-style author-date in-text citations to footnotes? The Wikipedia MoS does not take sides on this issue, but does say that changing formats needs first to be discussed and editorial consensus reached before such changes are made. I personally prefer in-text citations, but if you can come up with sound reasons for making a change in this case, I am prepared to listen.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean changing formats really.. just providing wikilinked citations for ease of navigation, and to be consistent with the style of citation presentation used for any article that wants to make it to FA status. It doesn't even have to be in a footnotes section.. just have the in-text, short-note citations point to the full reference via the <cite id=> tag as shown in the example at Wikipedia:Citing sources/Further considerations#Wikilinks to full references. But of course consensus is needed before changing anything. OlEnglish (talk) 04:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have been pointed to this before. I still don't see any example there of how to do this with Chicago- or MLA-style in-text references (which is to say, how to avoid footnotes altogether).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article states "Twelve-tone technique, combined with the parameterization of Olivier Messiaen, would be taken as the inspiration for serialism (du Noyer 2003, 272)." What does the "parameterization of Olivier Messiaen" refer to? thegoddamnbatman (talk) 21:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the Chicago-style citation formats, which were changed without the discussion and consensus required by Wikipedia:Citing_sources. In fact, the discussion from February of this year appears to indicate consensus that Chicago format is preferred here. The flag placed a few days ago, alleging unclear citations, was not explained. The citations were perfectly clear, so far as I can see. Perhaps the motivation was simply personal preference for a different style—not an adequate reason for wholesale change. A few calls for page numbers were also added, some with justice, but most either to citations referring to entire books or articles (which do not require the inclusive page numbers of those books or articles), or to dictionary or encyclopedia articles, which in citations ordinarily do not require page numbers, either. If an argument is to be made to change from the elegant and efficient Chicago format to what seems to me an awkward footnote format, which is also vulnerable to confusion in online publications, then let that argument be put forward here.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus defined as everyone involved in the discussion. Hyacinth (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see more of an exposition on the left-wing culturally Marxist influences on atonal music. Ie, how it fits in with other left-wing facets of postmodern cultural Marxism. Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.160.174 (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2010

The left-wing culturally Marxist influences on atonal music? I'm not sure to understand what you're exactly asking for. Perhaps I missed your question. (sorry english is not my mother tongue). Do you imply something like cultural Marxism had incidences in the emergence of atonality or something? Perhaps yes, but well, the issue is a bit more complicated as Schoenberg was a conservative (more exactly a monarchist). He wasn't influenced by marxism, in his music. Sure we got Adorno and Eisler who had marxist views, ok. Adorno tends to view atonal music developpement in a marxist perspective because of its transgressive nature. But basically Schoenberg was conservative and traditionnalist. Alpha Ursae Minoris (talk) 08:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading about an interpretation of the "shedding of the shackles" of tonality, and the abolition of a tonal centre, especially in the form serialism, where all pitches occur equally frequently within an unit, as a "democratisation" and the abolition of hierarchy among the notes of music, corresponding in an abstract way to the changes advocated by Marxists within society. At least these ideas have been connected along those lines. Sorry for not expressing myself well; but perhaps you get the general idea. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As seen in the text below the picture, describing Scriabin's oeuvre as atonal is at least questionable. So I'm removing it. Scriabin himself said that his works were tonal, it was just another kind of tonlity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.184.13.19 (talk) 09:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another kind of tonality = atonality. -- Kausalitaet (talk) 13:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If by "tonality" you mean exclusively the major/minor system of functional triadic harmony, yes, but that is a very narrow definition considering the number of composers (Bartok, neoclassic Stravinsky, Copland, Debussy, etc.) whose music clearly exhibits tonal centricity yet often eschews traditional harmonic functions. Besides, the main problem with using the "Mystic Chord" as an example of atonality is that a single chord, divorced from its musical context, cannot be either tonal of atonal (especially when that chord can be considered an altered dominant 13^th). —Mahlerlover1^(converse) 08:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does "Scriabin's oeuvre" really amount to nothing but a single chord?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. —Mahlerlover1^(converse) 14:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...but the point the IP raises is that Scriabin's music, radical as it may be, is not fully atonal, at least not in the same way or same sense as Schoenberg's is. Something else to consider is that this article focuses mostly on the Second Viennese School, barely mentioning Scriabin at all. What should really be here is a real musical excerpt—a few measures from Schoenberg's Opp. 11 or 19, perhaps. —Mahlerlover1^(converse) 16:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to characterise Scriabin's musical language with a single chord is, of course, ludicrous. The serious side of this problem, however, is the definition of "atonality", which is a lot trickier than saying "whatever is not tonal", since that in turn requires defining what tonality is. While an example from Schoenberg's opp. 11 or 19 might be useful, pointing to it would explain atonality as little as the mystic chord explains the presence or absence of tonality in Scriabin's music. Schoenberg's music is seldom "strictly atonal", especially after he got past the radical stage represented by those two pieces. Even there, it takes a considerable amount of explaining to show exactly how he manages to avoid tonal implications at every turn—almost as difficult as demonstrating that, say, Haydn in the Largo of op. 76, no. 5 manages never to deviate from strict tonality.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the mystic chord found in the lead of this article? Isn't atonality related mainly to the issue of relationships between sounds, as opposed to combinations of them? A 12-tone row would make much more sense there. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that what I just said, in the immediately preceding section of this discussion page?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed—I just happened to contribute to this talk page without looking at almost any of its content. Shall we remove it, then? Toccata quarta (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have done away with it. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How many separate headers are needed for the same subject? Hyacinth (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you propose digging out discussions from all talk page archives and merging them with ongoing related ones? A separate discussion is a separate one. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One could say, "And the same discussion is the same discussion." Hyacinth (talk) 09:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you propose abolishing archives. Take it to

WP:VPR, if you have sufficiently strong faith in the necessity of such a change. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

We had this discussion in April 2010 (see above) and there was no consensus for change at that time. I have not changed my opinion, and vehemently oppose cluttering up this article with footnote numbers, and requiring the reader to bounce back and forth from text to footnotes, just in order to see the name of the author being cited. I cannot think of an article that better illustrates the disadvantages of footnotes than this one. If you will have a look at the end of the third paragraph in your recent edit, you will see eleven consecutive footnote numbers (this is precisely the spot that you are invoking as evidence of the advantage of footnotes!!!). How is this supposed to be less tedious for the reader?! There is a reason why style manuals discourage multiple footnote numbers at the same point, and this is that reason. The template is part of the problem, since it does not permit consolidating multiple references in a single note. However, parenthetical referencing is inherently more elegant and less intrusive, not only for this reason. There are of course templates designed for use with parenthetical referencing but, as far as I am aware, none of them are compatible with the format used in this article. Perhaps one day soon, someone will design such a template. Until then, I see not reason to tamper with perfection.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would traditional music such as this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWEa_xqKxsA&list=TLsdUrk7uB6ku4XymzGuojBcsNudoGoLse or this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgWeVPIrXwQ be considered atonal? 153.188.121.94 (talk) 05:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It might be. Do you have a reliable source saying that it is?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find much about atonality in non-Western music via Google search. I did find this: "Music from non-Western cultures does not always contain a tonal center, which is one of the reasons some foreign music will sound so strange to Western listeners. Some twentieth century composers also experimented with twelve-tone music or atonal music, intentionally trying to eliminate the inherent musical hierarchy in Western tonal music." http://www.netplaces.com/piano/basic-music-theory/tonal-center.htm I don't know anything about this topic, but it seems as if a lot of non-Western traditional music might be considered atonal, and that would be worth mentioning in the article. Maybe someone who knows more about this knows where to look? Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had in mind sources describing those particular examples (or the repertoires to which they belong) as atonal. Certainly what you found is true generally but, as it says, atonality is usually construed as an intentional attempt to "eliminate the inherent musical hierarchy in Western tonal music". Therefore music from outside that tradition, although lacking the essential features of tonality, does not deliberately seek to avoid those features, and may well employ one or two of them, by pure coincidence. There is a huge difference between music which is simply "not tonal" and "atonality". This is a difficult subject to disentangle and even respected authorities differ on just what constitutes atonality—or even what tonality is exactly, which should be necessary before anyone can say what its complete absence might be.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fauban 09:45, 3 February 2013 " Keeping with the current style makes reading the article more tedious" ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

" and requiring the reader to bounce back and forth from text to footnotes" Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2013

JK - I would be amazed if you need to bounce back and forth. Maybe, just maybe, you are wrong. AnnaComnemna (talk) 10:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I am wrong, and I am astonishged that you think I might be.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Atonality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070209000626/http://www.entretemps.asso.fr:80/Philippot/Ecrits/11.Metamorphoses.html to http://www.entretemps.asso.fr/Philippot/Ecrits/11.Metamorphoses.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, It would be really useful to cite a few well-known atonal pieces to explain what atonality is. An example is worth a thousand words. thanks Tad115.70.130.5 (talk) 02:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tonal music with many scales (usually non-classical like: mode A: do, do#, re#, mi, fa#, sol, la, la#, mode B [same; shifted one semitione - up or down is same]: do, re, re#, fa, fa#, sol#, la, si) and many exceptions. Modernism (music)

Why False-atonality = pseudoatonality needs a different page from modernism (music)?
because:

1. false-atonality is esthetically close to atonality
2. it is a
   hyponym of modernism; modernism has many subgenres (sometimes they even have separate fans) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:587:4121:b500:4491:a17c:5d1b:1d5b (talk) 10:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
   ]

Horrorish modernism but not pure atonality

• false atonality, pseudoatonality: modernist music that sounds like atonal; false-atonal: atonal in mood but not randomized
  • Greek: ψευδοατονισμός — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:587:410d:42b3:10c5:1e38:c29:39a7 (talk) 06:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In 2020 atonality has been used 50% more in music according to studies.many different artist used them trippy red,xxx tentaction,yyyoungcut,kanye west and more ..but the reality is that sound can be bent which can give it a 3d effect. artist that has almost created a subgenre using atonality

.YYYOUNGCUT

.DRAKE
 .XXX TENTACION
.KANYE WEST

173.16.234.201 (talk) 05:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)zombieschool records[reply]