Re: Chord Function?

Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
> llatham@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>> Like I said Orlando, I think initially there was a concern that if the
music 
>> was not "totally opposite" of tonality, people whose listening
experiences 
>> had been rooted in virtually only one thing (remember, we didn't have
the 
>> kind of world-wide communication we have today) would still "listen
for" 
>> that thing in their music. So for them, I don't believe it was a
question of 
>> creating atonality, but one of negating tonality. Even distribution
wasn't a 
>> characteristic of tonality, so it seemed like the most obvious
alternative. 
> 
> Why this particular obsession with negation of tonality? Few poets have 
> opted to negate vocabulary or grammar in favor of gibberish. Yet, the 
> twentieth century saw a unique proliferation of highly organized music 
> that sounded identical to entirely random music, both bent on avoiding 
> tonality.


LOL--this analogy sounds totally apt to me.  Do you think most modern 
composers agree?

Steve
> 
>> Furthermore, we always say "atonality" but Schoenberg was interested in

>> "Pantonality" - where "all" note had equal rights to be the most
im****tant. 
>> Even distribution again seems like a logical methodology to achieve
this.
> 
> Except that they misapplied popular monotonal theories of their day. 
> These theories held that people could maintain a tonal center in their 
> minds even when music wandered into very distant keys and remained there

> for long periods. What in fact happens with most listeners is that they 
> just assume the tonal center has ****fted without necessarily caring how 
> it happened. Schoenberg, in short, gave people's ears too much credit.
> 
> Orlando