On May 26, 2007, at 9:09 PM, John Howell wrote:
Andrew wrote:
And another thing: non-tonal and atonal are not synonyms.
I often agree with Andrew and respect his depth of knowledge, which
goes well beyond my own, and with this I can definitely agree. But
again, I read in his comments that he's referring to the use of
common-practice functional harmony and NOT simply to the presence of
absence of a tonal center.
That is correct. The reason I do so is that atonality is a highly
restricted idiom both culturally and chronologically. It is so small a
portion of the total body of human music, that to make the dichotomy
tonal/atonal on the basis you prefer is as fundamentally silly as to
divide all music into impressionist vs. non-impressionist. Beyond that,
if tonal and atonal are considered as co-equal terms, that ironically
gives to atonal music a prominence and importance far beyond what it
deserves. Finally, if "tonal" means any music with a tonal center, than
what are we to call the harmonic idiom of 1660-1900--for which, I might
add, the adjective "tonal" was originally employed?
Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
http://www.kallistimusic.com/
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
