At 11:08 AM 11/16/02, Andrew Stiller wrote: >Tonality is not the opposite of atonality. I find it highly ironic >that most of the people who use the term this way don't care for >atonal music, but are by this usage conceding it an empire that it >does not govern nor ever claimed.
Lumping everything that one doesn't like into a single category is hardly uncommon. In fact, I'd say it's a basic part of the human condition. Consider religion or foreign policy, among other things. >When composers began to write music that included progressions that >could not be accounted for under the tonal system, conservative >critics coined the term "atonal" to refer to such lapses from >orthodoxy. The word was modelled on "atheist," and was meant to imply >that [...] Serious question, not rhetorical: Was the word really modeled on "atheist" specifically, and not all the various other "a-" words (asexual, amoral, asymmetrical, etc.)? If it wasn't, then I think your implication overreaches. mdl _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
