Re: Chord Function?

"Orlando Enrique Fiol" <ofiol@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:MPG.22f2a1cfc6e026cf9896a1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> In many serial compositions, great pains are taken to render underlying
> structures inaudible, all under the auspices of avoiding anything the
> ear might label as tonality. The assumption is that the ear cannot make
> sense of atonality and therefore, audible structures are automatically
> suspect. I think history and audience feedback have won that war.
>
> Orlando

I think there are two camps Orlando - one camp avoids tonality (to greater

or lesser degrees, and to the exclusion of) but also seeks to avoid any 
other elements that might also be considered "traditional". To use a 
pejorative term, it strives to be "Anti-Music" by traditional definitions.

The other camp also avoids tonality, but in its place tries to provide
other 
unifying factors instead. An example is "process" music (which can use 
serial elements) where establi****ng a key center may not be the "point" of

the work, but the "point" is to cycle through X possible permutations. So 
rather than trying to listen for a key, or a tonic chord, we are instead 
recognizing a pattern and our "expectations of finality" are granted by - 
not a tonic chord - but an arrival at the logical conclusion of the
process 
(completion of a cycle for example).

I find the latter much more to my liking. While I'm not at all a staunch 
advocate of traditionalism, I do still like to "recognize" elements within
a 
piece of art. If it's "too abstract" for me, I simply lose interest
because 
I can't hear anything cool happening.

Best,
Steve