Let me quote to you from Bert Ligon's excellent book, Jazz Theory Resources, Ch. 3, Basic Tonal Materials.(Professor Ligon is director of jazz studies at the University of South Carolina.)
"Tonality, by definition, indicates a hierarchy of pitches, where one pitch is more stable than all the others...
Tonal music existed long before any system of harmonic progression was developed...
Pitch Hierarchy
Tonic: the home pitch. in tonal music, all other pitches ultimately point back to tonic.
Dominant: This pitch a perfect fifth above the tonic is the primary pointer to the tonic.
Mediant: If it is a major third above the tonic determines a major mode; a minor third above the tonic determines minor.
Secondary Level --
All other diatonic pitches. The four remaining pitches in a typical seven note scale. These would be the second, fourth, sixth, and seventh degrees. They are defined by their relationship to the three pitches above.
Supertonic: The second note of the seven note scale is above the tonic. It points back down to the tonic and may occur in passing between the tonic and mediant.
Subdominant: The fourth note of a seven tone scale is a fifth below the tonic. It is not always a perfect fifth below...
etc.
The most important reason to understand the pitch hierarchy is that it will aid in aural training and recognition. Learn the pitches in order of their importance and in relationship to tonic..."
diatonic functionality
-
- KVRist
- 140 posts since 20 May, 2005
The idea that tonality started at the same time as the advent of a system of harmonic progression is patently false. In music, there is only tonal and atonal music. If the music prior to the last 500 years wasn't tonal, then it must've been atonal.
I realize here there may be a terminology issue that needs clarification:
Some people use the term "tonal harmony" or tonal music to refer to the major-minor system that we all know and love, from Bach to Mahler, etc.
That does not mean to imply that all other music is atonal. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In fact, for this very reason many people do not refer to major-minor harmony as tonal music, but rather major-minor system.
To quote from the introduction to Tonal Harmony (Kostka, Payne):
"It is important to realize that not all music with a tonal center makes use of functional harmony -- especially a good deal of the music of the twentieth century -- music by composers such as Bartok and Hindemith, for example."
Just because we get used to calling petroleum jelly Vaseline, we shouldn't get confused and start thinking that all petroleum jelly is made and owned by the
Vaseline company. Tonal music in reference to major-minor system of European harmony is simply a name given to it, but other music is tonal, including music that came before, music that came after, and modal music as well.
Does modal music have a tonal center? Then it is tonal. No, it's not major-minor system, but it's most certainly not atonal twelve-tone music.
I realize here there may be a terminology issue that needs clarification:
Some people use the term "tonal harmony" or tonal music to refer to the major-minor system that we all know and love, from Bach to Mahler, etc.
That does not mean to imply that all other music is atonal. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In fact, for this very reason many people do not refer to major-minor harmony as tonal music, but rather major-minor system.
To quote from the introduction to Tonal Harmony (Kostka, Payne):
"It is important to realize that not all music with a tonal center makes use of functional harmony -- especially a good deal of the music of the twentieth century -- music by composers such as Bartok and Hindemith, for example."
Just because we get used to calling petroleum jelly Vaseline, we shouldn't get confused and start thinking that all petroleum jelly is made and owned by the
Vaseline company. Tonal music in reference to major-minor system of European harmony is simply a name given to it, but other music is tonal, including music that came before, music that came after, and modal music as well.
Does modal music have a tonal center? Then it is tonal. No, it's not major-minor system, but it's most certainly not atonal twelve-tone music.
Sam
-
- KVRist
- 140 posts since 20 May, 2005
People have been writing melodies for thousands of years. Most of these have an easily identified tonal center.
Without a tonal center, you could only learn music by ear if you have absolute pitch.
Most people do not have absolute pitch, and yet people have been writing and learning melodies since the dawn of time. They do this by identifying one of the tones as the tonal center, and hearing all the other tones in relation to that tone. This is not necessarily a conscious process, this is just an explanation of how the ear works.
This the abc's of understanding how to play by ear.
Even when we hear atonal music our brains try to hear it in context to a tonality.
Allow me to quote from Ron Gorow's Hearing and Writing Music:
"Sing a tone--"ah". You've established tonality, simply by sounding a pitch that dominates your perception.
Tonality is perhaps our greatest tool for hearing music. Without it, we would hear unrelated tones without meaning. The perception of music, like that of the solar system, requires a point of reference. Tonality provides that point of reference.
When we look at abstract art, the mind creates relationships of shapes and colors, and a sense of orientation with the earth, with gravity. When we hear tones, even random tones, the mind perceives tonal relationships. Even when music is deliberately atonal, we will try to form tonal relationships.
Our goal is to be able to perceive and notate any music, regardless of its style or structure. To that end, we need not be analytical; we simply use tonality as a tool of perception when it is evident."
Without a tonal center, you could only learn music by ear if you have absolute pitch.
Most people do not have absolute pitch, and yet people have been writing and learning melodies since the dawn of time. They do this by identifying one of the tones as the tonal center, and hearing all the other tones in relation to that tone. This is not necessarily a conscious process, this is just an explanation of how the ear works.
This the abc's of understanding how to play by ear.
Even when we hear atonal music our brains try to hear it in context to a tonality.
Allow me to quote from Ron Gorow's Hearing and Writing Music:
"Sing a tone--"ah". You've established tonality, simply by sounding a pitch that dominates your perception.
Tonality is perhaps our greatest tool for hearing music. Without it, we would hear unrelated tones without meaning. The perception of music, like that of the solar system, requires a point of reference. Tonality provides that point of reference.
When we look at abstract art, the mind creates relationships of shapes and colors, and a sense of orientation with the earth, with gravity. When we hear tones, even random tones, the mind perceives tonal relationships. Even when music is deliberately atonal, we will try to form tonal relationships.
Our goal is to be able to perceive and notate any music, regardless of its style or structure. To that end, we need not be analytical; we simply use tonality as a tool of perception when it is evident."
Sam
-
- KVRist
- 102 posts since 6 Jun, 2012 from USA
tonality refers to the hierarchy involving tonic, subdominant and dominant ... The term i believe was coined by fetis. It is not the same as modal. atonality is not the opposite. Schoenberg thought the term was ridiculous. Some people use pantonality and others i can't remember that never caught on.
Chord function is a human invention. There is no universal motion that V really wants to go to I. Most pop now uses IV V vi never actually resolving to I ( looking at it in major key , minor would be VI bVII or [V]III never getting the relative major resolution). It is just perspective
To the OP. You can't have tension without at least 2 tones. How these tones act depends on what style of music you do. There is no universal resolution. A chord with a dominant 7 sonority does not need to resolve in say blues.
The person that mentioned F and B , they do give a sense of tension and seem to want to resolve using the tonal system but even then, without the context, it could be resolved 2 ways.
Chord function is a human invention. There is no universal motion that V really wants to go to I. Most pop now uses IV V vi never actually resolving to I ( looking at it in major key , minor would be VI bVII or [V]III never getting the relative major resolution). It is just perspective
To the OP. You can't have tension without at least 2 tones. How these tones act depends on what style of music you do. There is no universal resolution. A chord with a dominant 7 sonority does not need to resolve in say blues.
The person that mentioned F and B , they do give a sense of tension and seem to want to resolve using the tonal system but even then, without the context, it could be resolved 2 ways.
-
JumpingJackFlash JumpingJackFlash https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=44005
- KVRian
- 1227 posts since 10 Oct, 2004
That's not all it means.sammy24 wrote:Tonality means that one tone is more stable than all of the others.
There are other systems besides tonality where a note feels like "home". Modality for example.
Tonality is one specific type of music where the centre is established in a certain way (functional harmony) - it is a term used to describe the use of keys (major and minor).
Modality is another type of music where the centre is established in a different way (intervalic relationships and melodic tropes). It is used to describe the use of modes.
Not necessarily, the word "stable" is potentially misleading. Notes are not stable and unstable by themselves, they are only so in relation to something else; in a context.sammy24 wrote:Final-sounding is the same exact thing as "stability".
As discussed earlier, the tonic note in a supertonic minor seventh chord is definitely not stable.
No. There is a lot that is neither tonal nor atonal; modal music for example.sammy24 wrote:In music, there is only tonal and atonal music.
Music is not white and black; everything doesn't just fit between two discrete labels. It's much more complex that that.
That is correct.sammy24 wrote:Some people use the term "tonal harmony" or tonal music to refer to the major-minor system
Some early music may have had a centre, but not necessarily a "tonal" one. Certainly not in the strictest sense; that word has specific connotations and it is misleading to use it when they aren't present.sammy24 wrote:People have been writing melodies for thousands of years. Most of these have an easily identified tonal center.
The beginnings of tonality (that is, "tonal music") didn't start until around 1450 at the earliest, and didn't become fully established until around 1650.
Also, it is possible for some "atonal" music to have a kind of centre. This could be achieved by the use of pitch class sets for example. It's certainly not "tonal", but yet it still has a kind of hierarchal system, with certain groups of notes being more closely related (and/or more important) than others.
Indian Ragas may also have a note that feels like "home", but it is certainly not "tonal" (nor is it really "atonal").
This relates to what I said earlier about implied harmony and cultural conditioning.sammy24 wrote:When we hear tones, even random tones, the mind perceives tonal relationships.
Unfamiliar words can be looked up in my Glossary of musical terms.
Also check out my Introduction to Music Theory.
Also check out my Introduction to Music Theory.
-
- KVRist
- 140 posts since 20 May, 2005
Harmony and Voiceleading (Aldwell and Schachter ) p.19:
Tonality: "Many musicians and writers use the term tonal to describe any piece or type of music organized around a central tone. And the principle of organization would be called tonality. Under these broad definitions of tonal and tonality, many -- indeed, most -- kinds of music would be tonal: music in major and minor keys, modal music , much non - Western music, and a good deal of twentieth-century music. The presence of a tonal center is an important common feature of these different kinds of music... since the music we will deal with in this book is based for the most part on major and minor, the term major-minor tonality is the most accurate, though it is fairly unwieldly. So, we will sometimes use the words tonal and tonality in a narrower sense as an abbreviated form of major- minor tonality."
Tonality: "Many musicians and writers use the term tonal to describe any piece or type of music organized around a central tone. And the principle of organization would be called tonality. Under these broad definitions of tonal and tonality, many -- indeed, most -- kinds of music would be tonal: music in major and minor keys, modal music , much non - Western music, and a good deal of twentieth-century music. The presence of a tonal center is an important common feature of these different kinds of music... since the music we will deal with in this book is based for the most part on major and minor, the term major-minor tonality is the most accurate, though it is fairly unwieldly. So, we will sometimes use the words tonal and tonality in a narrower sense as an abbreviated form of major- minor tonality."
Sam
-
JumpingJackFlash JumpingJackFlash https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=44005
- KVRian
- 1227 posts since 10 Oct, 2004
A lot of people would disagree with that (myself included).sammy24 wrote:"Many musicians and writers use the term tonal to describe any piece or type of music organized around a central tone. And the principle of organization would be called tonality. Under these broad definitions of tonal and tonality, many -- indeed, most -- kinds of music would be tonal: music in major and minor keys, modal music , much non - Western music, and a good deal of twentieth-century music. "
Many modern musicians use a lot of terms that aren't always technically correct. At best, it is very misleading. If the term is used too broadly, its definition ceases to have any meaning.
It is true that some modern music often blurs the boundaries between tonality and modality, using elements of both to create something that can't technically be labelled correctly as either.
But describing pre-15th century music as "tonal" is completely inaccurate and makes no sense whatsoever.
Unfamiliar words can be looked up in my Glossary of musical terms.
Also check out my Introduction to Music Theory.
Also check out my Introduction to Music Theory.
-
- KVRist
- 140 posts since 20 May, 2005
well, you are entitled to your own opinion and terminology, but I think I'm going to side with the well-respected university professors and famous authors of major harmony texts on this one, especally since they are all in agreement.
Btw, saying that all music is either organized around a tonal center or is not does not limit the complexity of music one iota. All shapes in the world are either rectangles or they're not. What do you mean? There are so many shapes in the world!! Yes, but they are either rectangles, or they aren't.
A broad and technically accurate use of the word tonality absolutely still has meaning, because it is the concept that provides the basis for all music you can hear and play by ear. The reason jazz musicians from different parts of the world who just met can sit down and play fabulously together is because the music is tonal, you can hear it, react to it naturally. You can't really improvise very well over atonal music, generally speaking.
Understanding how the ear works can lead to better methods of ear training, and accelerate the process. That is why the concept is so crucial. All study of music is or should be ear training, whether it be harmony, counterpoint, orchestration, rhythm, etc. Learning harmony before being able to hear it can often be counterproductive. The harmony books are assuming you can already hear it, and this is often not a good assumption. So learning the very basics of ear training should be the very first thing "newbies" learn, not 17 rules of first species counterpoint. IMHO.
Btw, saying that all music is either organized around a tonal center or is not does not limit the complexity of music one iota. All shapes in the world are either rectangles or they're not. What do you mean? There are so many shapes in the world!! Yes, but they are either rectangles, or they aren't.
A broad and technically accurate use of the word tonality absolutely still has meaning, because it is the concept that provides the basis for all music you can hear and play by ear. The reason jazz musicians from different parts of the world who just met can sit down and play fabulously together is because the music is tonal, you can hear it, react to it naturally. You can't really improvise very well over atonal music, generally speaking.
Understanding how the ear works can lead to better methods of ear training, and accelerate the process. That is why the concept is so crucial. All study of music is or should be ear training, whether it be harmony, counterpoint, orchestration, rhythm, etc. Learning harmony before being able to hear it can often be counterproductive. The harmony books are assuming you can already hear it, and this is often not a good assumption. So learning the very basics of ear training should be the very first thing "newbies" learn, not 17 rules of first species counterpoint. IMHO.
Sam
-
JumpingJackFlash JumpingJackFlash https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=44005
- KVRian
- 1227 posts since 10 Oct, 2004
They are not in agreement. When I said many people disagree, I didn't mean raw armatures, I meant people who know what they're talking about.sammy24 wrote:well, you are entitled to your own opinion and terminology, but I think I'm going to side with the well-respected university professors and famous authors of major harmony texts on this one, especally since they are all in agreement.
A lot of music is "centric" (to use a phrase that is gaining widespread acceptance), but very little of it is "tonal".
All tonal music is centric, but not all centric music is tonal.
I do not disagree, but this has nothing to do with what we are talking about.sammy24 wrote: So learning the very basics of ear training should be the very first thing "newbies" learn, not 17 rules of first species counterpoint. IMHO.
Unfamiliar words can be looked up in my Glossary of musical terms.
Also check out my Introduction to Music Theory.
Also check out my Introduction to Music Theory.
-
- KVRist
- 140 posts since 20 May, 2005
Why get so caught up in semantics? OK, so when I'm talking to you I'll be sure to use the word centric to describe tonal music, and tonality to describe major-minor harmony. It is the concepts that are important, not the words.
The idea of certain qualities of scale degrees is universal to centric music, and not limited to "tonal". That is all about training the ear, and that is why it is absolutely relevant to this thread.
The idea that centric music is based around a tonal center of organization is not an academic, intellectual factor, but rather an ear factor. It sounds like one tone is the center of organization. But what makes one tone sound like the center of organization? The answer is a combination of a few possible factors, including rhythm, note durations in relation to each other, and melodic movement, most common one being 5-1 (I am talking melodically, not harmonically). These factors help our ear decide which tone is the center of our organization or stability, and we then hear all the other tones in relation to that tone. It has nothing to do with the key signature the music is written in, or any other academic analysis. What matters is how it sounds, that determines which tone is central.
If one tone sounds central, then by definition the other tones do not sound central. This means that 5 does not sound as central as 1. If it did, then it would be the central tone.
The idea of certain qualities of scale degrees is universal to centric music, and not limited to "tonal". That is all about training the ear, and that is why it is absolutely relevant to this thread.
The idea that centric music is based around a tonal center of organization is not an academic, intellectual factor, but rather an ear factor. It sounds like one tone is the center of organization. But what makes one tone sound like the center of organization? The answer is a combination of a few possible factors, including rhythm, note durations in relation to each other, and melodic movement, most common one being 5-1 (I am talking melodically, not harmonically). These factors help our ear decide which tone is the center of our organization or stability, and we then hear all the other tones in relation to that tone. It has nothing to do with the key signature the music is written in, or any other academic analysis. What matters is how it sounds, that determines which tone is central.
If one tone sounds central, then by definition the other tones do not sound central. This means that 5 does not sound as central as 1. If it did, then it would be the central tone.
Sam
-
JumpingJackFlash JumpingJackFlash https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=44005
- KVRian
- 1227 posts since 10 Oct, 2004
It is not universal. 7-8 has a very different feel in major keys than in does in the natural minor.sammy24 wrote:The idea of certain qualities of scale degrees is universal to centric music, and not limited to "tonal". That is all about training the ear, and that is why it is absolutely relevant to this thread.
5-1 has a very different feel in Aeolian mode than Locrian mode, etc.
Furthermore, 7 tends to have a very different feel in chord iii than it does in chord V.
4 feels different in a IV-I progression than it does in a ii-V...
As I have said all along, context is the most important thing.
You can make generalisations and simplifications if it helps you, but they are only going to be true in certain situations. As I said before, they are going to prove inaccurate as much of time as they prove accurate, so the approach is not going to be terribly helpful.
Correct.sammy24 wrote:If one tone sounds central, then by definition the other tones do not sound central. This means that 5 does not sound as central as 1. If it did, then it would be the central tone.
Unfamiliar words can be looked up in my Glossary of musical terms.
Also check out my Introduction to Music Theory.
Also check out my Introduction to Music Theory.
-
- KVRAF
- 26033 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
I think arguing semantics is interesting, nothing wrong with it.
however there is the assertion by JJF and others that "tonal" can only ever have the one usage, there is a system and you have to fit a lot of things when you even say 'tonal' or 'tonic'. to me, that's pretty extreme.
"In music, principle of organizing musical compositions around a central note, the tonic.
Generally, any Western or non-Western music periodically returning to a central, or focal, tone exhibits tonality. More specifically, tonality refers to the particular system of relationships between notes, chords, and keys (sets of notes and chords) that dominated most Western music from ca. 1650 to ca. 1900" - Encyclopedia Brittanica.
Since modal music fits the general in such a definition, I'm not going to have a problem saying 'tonic' because someone disagrees with it. There is such a weight granted to "most Western music ca 1650 to ca 1900" that you can't say 'tonic' referring to the first note of a mode? Whatever. Not everyone grants that gravity to the system. Can you say 'hegemony'?
semantics is concern with the meanings of words. 'atonal' came into usage to indicate there is no tonal center. it's absurd to tell us that because the dodecaphonist Schoenberg didn't like it, it somehow doesn't do what every word that uses the prefix a- before a term to indicate its opposition does.
however there is the assertion by JJF and others that "tonal" can only ever have the one usage, there is a system and you have to fit a lot of things when you even say 'tonal' or 'tonic'. to me, that's pretty extreme.
"In music, principle of organizing musical compositions around a central note, the tonic.
Generally, any Western or non-Western music periodically returning to a central, or focal, tone exhibits tonality. More specifically, tonality refers to the particular system of relationships between notes, chords, and keys (sets of notes and chords) that dominated most Western music from ca. 1650 to ca. 1900" - Encyclopedia Brittanica.
Since modal music fits the general in such a definition, I'm not going to have a problem saying 'tonic' because someone disagrees with it. There is such a weight granted to "most Western music ca 1650 to ca 1900" that you can't say 'tonic' referring to the first note of a mode? Whatever. Not everyone grants that gravity to the system. Can you say 'hegemony'?
semantics is concern with the meanings of words. 'atonal' came into usage to indicate there is no tonal center. it's absurd to tell us that because the dodecaphonist Schoenberg didn't like it, it somehow doesn't do what every word that uses the prefix a- before a term to indicate its opposition does.
-
JumpingJackFlash JumpingJackFlash https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=44005
- KVRian
- 1227 posts since 10 Oct, 2004
I believe Schoenberg objected to the term because it was defined only in relation to what it wasn't, without telling you anything about what it is.jancivil wrote:'atonal' came into usage to indicate there is no tonal center. it's absurd to tell us that because the dodecaphonist Schoenberg didn't like it, it somehow doesn't do what every word that uses the prefix a- before a term to indicate its opposition does.
It would be like describing a woman as "not a man"
He preferred pantonality, meaning "all keys".
Unfamiliar words can be looked up in my Glossary of musical terms.
Also check out my Introduction to Music Theory.
Also check out my Introduction to Music Theory.
-
- KVRAF
- 26033 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
WHAT? where must it turn in order to become stable? let's be concrete: the tonic pedal over which a series of harmonies pass over. it's not stable when 'ii' happens? Come on; 'definitely'? That's a reach, that isn't definining 'stable'.JumpingJackFlash wrote:As discussed earlier, the tonic note in a supertonic minor seventh chord is definitely not stable.
-
- KVRAF
- 26033 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
Ok, but that was actually used in this thread to get rid of it as an opposition to 'tonal'. I think he also found the term problematic if not impossible, ie., implying a broader meaning to 'tonal' than you like.JumpingJackFlash wrote:I believe Schoenberg objected to the term because it was defined only in relation to what it wasn't, without telling you anything about what it is.jancivil wrote:'atonal' came into usage to indicate there is no tonal center. it's absurd to tell us that because the dodecaphonist Schoenberg didn't like it, it somehow doesn't do what every word that uses the prefix a- before a term to indicate its opposition does.
It would be like describing a woman as "not a man"
He preferred pantonality, meaning "all keys".
If it is true that he believed his system indicated or implied 'all keys' this is a bit of a problem as far as a definition. He did argue that there were key areas implied and that it was difficult if not impossible to get away from harmonic implications in his music. But serializing pitch [in order to get away from the system of 'tonality', at least in order to obtain more vocabulary] has had various outcomes subsequent to his application that arguably succeeded!
Last edited by jancivil on Sun Jun 02, 2013 8:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.