Atonality, Information, and the Politics of Perception

Hi Paul (Erlich)

Since there is so much "static" over on the "Crazy Music" list which
is, indeed, appropriately named "Crazy..." I am reposting this for,
hopefully, intelligent discussion over here...

--- In crazy_music@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/crazy_music/topicId_820.html#820

> http://thinkingapplied.com/tonality_folder/tonality.htm

>Musical relationships arise from a succession of events unfolding in
>time. Since these events are not physically simultaneous, the
>relationships that they create are perceived when we associate the
events in short term memory.8 It then follows that to perceive a
collection of tones as tonal, we must be able to maintain that
collection in short term memory—an inability to recall the
collection precludes our detecting any relationships within it. When
unprocessed data is continuously crowded out of short term memory, we
perceive atonality.

I dunno. This seems pretty "simplistic" to me. In other words, if
we are perceiving the patterns "correctly" in short-term memory we
are always hearing "tonality," otherwise "atonality" as
a "deficiency."

How does that explain the perception of atonal patterns that are
integral units of a composition where no tonality is either desired
or part of the linguistic framework?

Atonality, it seems, is an *entirely* different language that is set
up by cultural acceptance of certain intervallic patterns *outside*
of any tonal framework.

This is why, to a novice, atonality can sometimes seem unappealing,
but after further exposure to the language, it begins to make sense...

There's nothing "lacking" in it, or outside of the capabilities of
perception...

>In the case of modern music, no perceptual model has yet won the
>general acceptance of the musical establishment—although models
>powerful enough to accommodate contemporary styles have been
formulated.14 This being so, we can attribute the continued
perception of atonality not only to the public's insufficient
exposure to contemporary music (exposure too limited to reveal the
tonality that exists in complex music), but also to the institutional
rejection of conceptual frameworks which, if applied, could bring
about a revolution in musical perception.

Huh?? How about the 12-tone system? It seems that such models have
been *more* than adequately formulated!

So then, *everything* relates to some kind of "tonality." I guess
that was Schoenberg's idea, but it is somewhat stretching a point...

It all rests on definitions... but, to me, "tonality" has something
to do with an organization related to the overtone system
and "atonality" to set organization of pitches perceived, perhaps, by
their relationship to one another... not necessarily related so
directly to the overtone series as a "deficiency."

Both procedures can be used in the same piece of music, but saying
that one is a "deficiency" or "lack of processing power" I believe is
inaccurate...

__________ ________ _____
Joseph Pehrson

Hi, all! Just joined. Enthusiastic! In my view the fundamental flaw
in Schoenberg's pantonality, as he preferred to call it, was that it
elevated the fudged tuning of a tempered system to the status of a
first principle of musical composition. I believe that the greatest
composers throughout history intuitively respected what we might call
the "AURAL ERGONOMICS" of human musical perception.

This is admittedly a "fuzzy" area, since perception is highly
variable from person to person both in terms of its potential and its
development. However, assuming that the great masters used their own
perceptions as a basis for their art, this would presumably still
impose certain limits on composition, even if rather lofty.

Perhaps we should note that the great composers of antiquity were
also beholden to their markets, refined in tastes as they were,
having had their perceptions educated and refined through a long
history of state-supported fine arts, of which music was not the
least important by any stretch. I therefore agree that some limit in
the human mental ear for processing musical information is inevitably
a part of any definition of what WILL be perceived as musical or
unmusical.

Perhaps we should consider that a dynamic concept of tonality such as
Schoenberg proposed is beyond the perceptual grasp of most audiences,
as opposed to simpler relationships to constant tonal centers. If we
wish to become such elitists that we perform only for ourselves, I
suppose anything goes, but I wonder how much even we would really
enjoy that, and when does it become just a dry, intellectual game of
one-up-manship?

Thanks,

Robert Wendell

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> Hi Paul (Erlich)
>
> Since there is so much "static" over on the "Crazy Music" list
which
> is, indeed, appropriately named "Crazy..." I am reposting this for,
> hopefully, intelligent discussion over here...
>
>
> --- In crazy_music@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> /crazy_music/topicId_820.html#820
>
> > http://thinkingapplied.com/tonality_folder/tonality.htm
>
>
> >Musical relationships arise from a succession of events unfolding
in
> >time. Since these events are not physically simultaneous, the
> >relationships that they create are perceived when we associate the
> events in short term memory.8 It then follows that to perceive a
> collection of tones as tonal, we must be able to maintain that
> collection in short term memory—an inability to recall the
> collection precludes our detecting any relationships within it.
When
> unprocessed data is continuously crowded out of short term memory,
we
> perceive atonality.
>
> I dunno. This seems pretty "simplistic" to me. In other words, if
> we are perceiving the patterns "correctly" in short-term memory we
> are always hearing "tonality," otherwise "atonality" as
> a "deficiency."
>
> How does that explain the perception of atonal patterns that are
> integral units of a composition where no tonality is either desired
> or part of the linguistic framework?
>
> Atonality, it seems, is an *entirely* different language that is
set
> up by cultural acceptance of certain intervallic patterns *outside*
> of any tonal framework.
>
> This is why, to a novice, atonality can sometimes seem unappealing,
> but after further exposure to the language, it begins to make
sense...
>
> There's nothing "lacking" in it, or outside of the capabilities of
> perception...
>
> >In the case of modern music, no perceptual model has yet won the
> >general acceptance of the musical establishment—although models
> >powerful enough to accommodate contemporary styles have been
> formulated.14 This being so, we can attribute the continued
> perception of atonality not only to the public's insufficient
> exposure to contemporary music (exposure too limited to reveal the
> tonality that exists in complex music), but also to the
institutional
> rejection of conceptual frameworks which, if applied, could bring
> about a revolution in musical perception.
>
>
> Huh?? How about the 12-tone system? It seems that such models
have
> been *more* than adequately formulated!
>
> So then, *everything* relates to some kind of "tonality." I guess
> that was Schoenberg's idea, but it is somewhat stretching a point...
>
> It all rests on definitions... but, to me, "tonality" has something
> to do with an organization related to the overtone system
> and "atonality" to set organization of pitches perceived, perhaps,
by
> their relationship to one another... not necessarily related so
> directly to the overtone series as a "deficiency."
>
> Both procedures can be used in the same piece of music, but saying
> that one is a "deficiency" or "lack of processing power" I believe
is
> inaccurate...
>
> __________ ________ _____
> Joseph Pehrson