What is the tonal system? explanation and analysis

Very timidly, I would advise you to go beyond the 5 minutes and you will see that Cavallaro gives you the answer to your question!

Certainly his way of presenting himself results, especially in certain points, in being very condescending and, a tad vulgar and offensive but... what he says is interesting and, from what I can manage to understand, is substantially shareable.

The underlying confusion stems from this premise that almost all music of every culture and every time is tonal - including modal music - and that there is no tonal system as such because what we define so is the tempered system which is another thing and which, as such, was born in the 1700s.

To confuse matters even more, I quote here this thought by Schoenberg:

« Atonal could mean only: something that does not correspond at all to the essence of sound. Already the word tonal is used incorrectly if it is understood in an exclusive rather than an inclusive sense. Only this can be valid: everything that results from a series of sounds, whether through the means of direct reference to a single fundamental sound or through more complicated connections, forms tonality. It should be clear that from this definition, the only correct one, no sensible opposite concept corresponding to the term atonality can be deduced. A piece of music will always be tonal at least to the extent that there must exist a relationship between sound and sound by virtue of which the sounds, juxtaposed and superimposed, give a succession recognizable as such. Tonality can then perhaps be unperceivable or unprovable; these connections may result in being obscure, difficult to understand, or even incomprehensible. But calling certain kinds of relationships atonal is just as inadmissible as it would be to call relationships between colors a-spectral or a-complementary. Such an antinomy does not exist. Furthermore, we have not yet examined whether the way in which the new sonorities connect does not constitute precisely the tonality of a series of twelve sounds. In fact, it is probably so and we find ourselves in a situation similar to that which arose at the time when ecclesiastical modes were used. In this regard, I observe that back then, the effect of a fundamental note could be felt, but one did not know which it was and one tried with all of them. Here it is not heard, but nevertheless it is probable that it exists. If one really seeks appellations, one could resort to polytonal or pantonal. But in any case, one would have to establish whether it is not still simply a matter of tonality. »

Ok Daniele, but Schoenberg's thought must be placed in a historical context. For me too, an atonal system does not exist... because it is not a system. Usually - at least today - everything that is non-tonal is (erroneously) understood as such.

But we have: modality, serialism, dodecaphony, etc.

Therefore, it is a tad misleading

In a broad and therefore more extensive sense of the term, tonal music is all music that has a subordination around a pre-established sound. In this sense, almost all music is "tonal," including that of all non-Western cultures.

Modal music is also itself based on a preponderant note in terms of frequency of appearance and duration, and is therefore tonal.

The fundamental problem is the major misunderstanding that in the European—and thus Western—conception, tonal and tempered have been confused: the latter is a system, whereas what is truly misleading is speaking of a tonal system which, in reality, has never existed, precisely because of what I said before regarding the real meaning of tonal music.

Regarding dodecaphony, I refer to its inventor and thus to Schoenberg who, beyond the historical aspect which has nothing to do with this discussion, was and remains the most suitable person to explain what it is.

Serialism!

Already in dodecaphony. I think of Webern naturally—but also, outside of it, in Gian Francesco Malipero and Stravinsky, and even earlier in Mussorgsky, we have the first serial organizations. But it is with the post-Weberian avant-gardes that serialization was extended to all sound parameters, and indeed this is the only truly atonal music since it no longer has any reference to a main sound but is based on a rigorously preordained and invariable succession of sounds without any of them predominating.

I... at least see it that way!

Anyway, I insist: watch the video, invest 41 minutes of your time, and then we can discuss it more comprehensively and with sound judgment, and not just about that. For example, Cavallaro says it is not possible to think that Polyphony began to develop around the 9th century and reached completion in the 13th century. Polyphony, from his point of view—and here too I think he is right—has always existed since the dawn of music and, in the 1200s, in Europe—and thus in the West—only a certain polyphony was established... not polyphony itself.

danielescarpetti wrote:

3 hours ago, danielescarpetti said:

Polyphony, from his point of view - and I think he is right here as well - has always existed since the dawn of music and, in 1200, in Europe - and thus in the West - only a certain polyphony was established .. not polyphony.

One of the first characteristics of the "Great Tradition" listed by Victor Grauer is precisely polyphony. It would be enough to delve into some ethnomusicological texts to put European beliefs in order

Frank wrote:

1 hour ago, Frank said:

One of the first characteristics of the "Great Tradition" listed by Victor Grauer is indeed polyphony. It would be enough to delve into some ethnomusicological texts to put European beliefs back in order

To learn more!