hi there

i have just enrolled onto a theory course to try and improve my skills - seemed like a good idea at the time as you never stop learning!

i joined the advanced class but we had our first proper session last night and to be honest its not quite what i was hoping to do as it is focusing on classical music - put it this way - its more advanced than i thought as i was hoping to do moveable chords melody writing and stuff

anyway the tutor gave us our first assignment and he was on about tonal centers all evening - and lost me completely

for next week we have to assertain the 'tonal center' of this way out piece by bartok (i had never heard of him till last night - he does this weird wacky stuff) -

bartok piece

i dont get it - so to find the tonal center i went to the mid point of the piece - the 'center' as it were - about 3mins 50 secs in and that bit is no way tonal! its all out of tuney and weird pizzicato - all round that bit there is no tonal stuff at all

i am just tempted to write a paragraph saying that you should look at the whole piece to find out the key - it is a bit counter productive focusing on just the center

if anyone can give me some pointers about this that would help alot as i am really confused - thanks

TBH, you're in the wrong class, and it's not like anyone can quickly fill in the gap in theory that you're missing.

Ring your teacher immediately and tell him. He may be able to transfer you to a more appropriate group, or if there's no other group then maybe he'll be able to get you a refund on your course fee. Don't wait until next week - ring him up now and get yourself to the right course for next week. Otherwise you'll basically have wasted your money.

Quote grab:

---

TBH, you're in the wrong class, and it's not like anyone can quickly fill in the gap in theory that you're missing.

Ring your teacher immediately and tell him. He may be able to transfer you to a more appropriate group, or if there's no other group then maybe he'll be able to get you a refund on your course fee. Don't wait until next week - ring him up now and get yourself to the right course for next week. Otherwise you'll basically have wasted your money.

---

thats really really helpful thanks very much for taking the time to post

Hi skuttler c,

my limited understanding is this; Tonal Center is almost a euphemism for Key but its usually for a very short period of time - i.e. when dissecting a Jazz solo, the transcriber will refer to being in this tonal center for a couple of bars then another tonal center for the next couple of bars and so on (usually stringing together ii, v, 1 progressions and substitutions).

This is in contrast to modulating to a new key for a whole section or movement, but like I said my understanding is limited so don't quote me.

This is what I think they are after, although you might want to double-check with someone else:

If you are looking at modal music, as opposed to diatonic music, the tonal centre is the root of the 'home' mode being used.

Dunno much about Bartok, but in Jazz terms:

Miles Davis' "So What" is mostly in D dorian mode. This is a mode of the C Major scale, but by cunningly avoiding progressions that imply the C root (Like F, G7 C, for example), the improviser can play all over it while the listener hears the tonal centre as being D. D is also used in the bass. The key signature would show C major, but the mode and chord selection says otherwise.

Hope this pushes you in a useful direction. If this does turn out to be bollocks, I am sure someone will let me know.

Cheers
Sam

--------------------
Instant gratification is actually pretty good. It's fast as well.

read this and see if any of it makes sense .

It goes beyond key signatures or modulations: its a sense that you know what the principal harmony is at any particular point. The Bartok, which is lovely, is a great example of permanently shifting tonal centre. After bar 1 you would be pushed to sing the tonic note of the home key. I would defy anyone to sing a root note of any of those chords.

The stuff about D dorian being from the C major scale is all balls by the way.
here

--------------------
I've got rhythm, I ain't got pitch

From your link:

"Applied to a whole octave, the Dorian mode was built upon two Dorian tetrachords separated by a whole tone. This is the same as playing all the white notes of a piano (ascending, as in the modern reckoning) from E to E: E F G A | B C D E."

Wikipedia is in error. That is not a dorian scale, but a Phrygian. Why ? Because it has a flat 9th.

The Dorian scale goes from D to D using all white notes.

--------------------
Instant gratification is actually pretty good. It's fast as well.

Ooops - correction. On further reading Wikipedia draws a distinction between "Greek Dorian" and "Mediaeval and Modern Dorian".

Your link says of the Modern Dorian:

"The D Dorian mode contains all notes the same as the C major scale starting on D."

So it is a mode of C major.

QED.

Unless you meant the Greek Dorian, in which case D Greek Dorian would not be a mode of C major. This would not detract from the general point I was making, however, although something else might. Any takers ?

--------------------
Instant gratification is actually pretty good. It's fast as well.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be snippy. Just saying that if the first lesson is assuming a lot of experience you don't have, it's probably not something that can be filled in with a few lines on a web forum. Been there myself, so I know how annoying it is when everything's going over my head bcos I've jumped in too deep. (Would have sent this as a PM, but you're not accepting them.)

QED my arse.
"A mode of C major" doesn't mean anything. You are getting confused with the fact that they share the same notes. They are nothing to do with each other.
here's a quote:
The important thing to understand at this point is that this new scale is a "D" scale and not a "C" scale. Most people, when they first learn this stuff, assume that they should use D Dorian as a substitute for C major. This is not exactly how it works. Instead of thinking of this new scale as having anything to do with C, think of it as having only to do with D.

--------------------
I've got rhythm, I ain't got pitch

Chucho I think Secret Sam is well aware that if your playing "So What" in D dorian you can't think like your playing C major.

However saying D dorian has nothing to do with C major (ionian in this case) is not quite what your own quote says. Of course it has something to do with C Ionian - it's the same notes! Your quote is right but you are not.

Blame the greeks - they invented it, and modes.

Interesting that the modes were named after the main greek tribes, re-invented by the Christian church in the middle ages and then replaced by the modern method of key signatures in the 17th century. So it's not worth arguing too much about the Cmaj scale or the C Ionian mode - they are the same - just a different usage. In the real world we need to communicate ideas to each other as easily as possible so we are often guilty of mixing the language of modes with the language of keys. Does it matter though, as long as we understand what is being communicated?

thanks guys very interesting - so does a piece have to have a key then? i got my guitar and played a few chords along with this bartok piece and nothing seemed to fit - just when i thought c was kind of working then it all changed

so i dont get why he would of composed a piece in no key? but also this tonal center thing - i just dont get the sigificance of the center of the piece - like we just ignore the start and end?

but i read a bit further and got this theory book by eric taylor and he goes on about sonata form - so i was thinking maybe this could be whats going on here and the conclusion i think ive got from all this is as follows (and this is what i am going to present to the class in my next theory lesson) -

well it seems to me that a music piece is essentially something which is preparing you - the start bit - for the main bit - the middle bit - and then just relaxing you after all the excitement has died down - the end bit

you think of every bit of classical music and prog rock tracks and they all follow the same pattern - just look at tubular bells - starts mellow then gradually gets more intents before having a chilled out final section

so now when you look at it like this you can see why the tonal center is so important - because thats where all the action is - in the middle!!!

so one conclusion you could draw is that bands / composers who specialize in center sections are alot more successful than those who just do an intro which goes straight to the outro - or just a long intro like in minimalism (which has no middle bit or outro)

i was watching that beatles documentary the other day and they were saying that paul came up with this original idea for 'a day in the life' but they're was no middle bit a they were all panicking because it had to be finished the next day - but then john just came up with his idea and thats what made it great! - even better is that george did the outro so it was a true collaboration piece (they're wasnt that many beatles tracks where all three worked on it together)

so you could argue that the beatles were massive and the best band ever because they had someone who was great at intros and outros - paul - and another that was great at middle bits - john - so when combined you got the ultimate song every time!

its almost a blueprint for a songwriting template!

If you don't want to look like a total novice, please stop thinking that Tonal Centre has anything to do with the middle of the piece, as far as beginning, middle and end is concerned.
It is to do with what "key" the piece feels as if it is in, or more simply which note appears to be the root note.
Bartok, like many modern composers, will deliberately move the tonal centre, even while maintaining the same written key signature. It's part of the style- what makes it sound modern, and to many ears, uncomfortable.
In one phrase, the answer to your assignment is:-
"THE, single, tonal centre? -You're having a laugh!"
Cheers
Dave

This may be useful to some:

There are a number of texts that cover this material from a classical point of view. IIRC Mike Senior had a thread up here that listed a lot of them a couple of years back. May be worth a search.

From a jazz POV, Dan Hearle's The Jazz Language is a good, readable and mercifully short way of sorting through some of the concepts that are getting confused in this thread. It will take you from novice to second year university jazz theory in a couple of hundred pages.

If you then have the appetite for more detail still, Mark Levine's The Jazz Theory Book is bigger, heavier and a little more daunting.

While you are reading, you should be able to pick up what the concept of "mode" is all about. Modes are scales. Substitutions are about chords and reharmonisation. Chord-scale relationships are something else again.

Probably one muso in a thousand has ears and instincts so good that they don't need the theory, but I found the reading pretty helpful.

--------------------
Instant gratification is actually pretty good. It's fast as well.

fletcher: let's compare the 2 scales.

C major and D dorian.
tonic notes: c and d
thirds are major and minor
7ths are natural and flattened

So thats 3 of the most important aspects of a scale and they are all different.
My quote is right but I am wrong ? My whole point is summed up by the quote.
These are 2 ENTIRELY different scales. Stop looking at the colour of the notes.

--------------------
I've got rhythm, I ain't got pitch

Hi Chucho

C major and D dorian are different scales indeed.

That one is a mode of the other simply means that they share the same notes. Don't get worried about this: there has to be a word to describe this concept.

Note that D dorian is a scale, not a chord. You seem to be groping for the idea that substituting a D minor chord for a C major chord would sound very odd, and you are right. You probably wouldn't think of soloing on a C major chord using D dorian scales, but there are other modes that you might use.

The idea of a mode has useful applications, including in explaining why some chords are "avoid" chords in modal harmony (which works very differently from diatonic harmony).

Back to work now. Have fun.

--------------------
Instant gratification is actually pretty good. It's fast as well.

your words, "They are nothing to do with each other."

your quote, ".....use D Dorian as a substitute for C major. This is not exactly how it works."

spot the difference.

Quote fletcher:

---

your words, "They are nothing to do with each other."

your quote, ".....use D Dorian as a substitute for C major. This is not exactly how it works."

spot the difference.

---

You've lost me now. I don't know what your point is.
I'm out of here anyway.

--------------------
I've got rhythm, I ain't got pitch

You're going to need the sheet music for this. Do you have it?

Let me ask you, do you have any experience in sonata form?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonata_form

There is a reason I ask this, because while it's unlikely that the Bartok piece is written as a typical sonata- although it may be, I don't know it- knowing sonata form is an important part of musical study, since it's a guideline as to finding tonal centers, deviations from them and return to them.

It's unlikely that Bartok wasn't using some grounding in what had happened in the past, whether he embellished or deviated from it. If you have that vocabulary under your belt, it's easier to see what he's going for. If you have no idea, then you may actually be in the wrong class, and should be placed in a different one- I don't mean to insult, but you need to progress in the study of music theory, not just jump in.

Let me ask you, you can read music? Can you tell the difference between a piece written in E Major as opposed to its relative minor of C#? Can you spot a modulation from E Major to B Major in a piece, that is, can you spot the tones that are used to modulate to another key as opposed to out of key chromatic passing tones? I would say if you can do this, then the ability to understand the Bartok thing is within your grasp, and if not, then you should take a step back and learn all of that.

Either way, don't give up! This class may be beyond you at this point, but only at this point. It all makes sense and it's all within almost anyone who wants to ability to grasp, but it has to happen over a period of time.

Let me know if you have the sheet music, maybe you can send me a PDF and I'll take a quick look. Good luck, L

Great piece of music, a very long time since I've heard it. Something for the weekend.
Bartok is 'stretching' tonality. You can't really say it's in a particular key or mode. But a lot of the time you can pick out phrases in isolation that could be labeled (possibly a scalic melody with 'wrong' notes in the harmony). You need to consider how these are related. Are they all in the same 'key', are they all major/minor/modal. If they are in different keys do they follow the traditional classical relationships (tonic/dominant etc.).
Sometimes even the more atonal pieces will have a particular note that seems to be have more emphasis than all the others, this begins to feel like 'home' (or the tonic) and would be described as the tonal centre. In this case is it the same note all the way through the piece or does it move, if so how?
Good luck

Repeat: you're in the wrong group. Ask to move to the intermediate group immediately.

Being able to play an instrument doesn't mean you're at an advanced level in musical theory, just like being able to read doesn't mean you're qualified for a PhD in literature. And telling your tutor that you're in the wrong group doesn't mean you're losing face or admitting failure. It happens, and all tutors can easily handle moving people to different groups that suit their experience level. Going to a suitable group will get you a successful result in terms of improving your knowledge, and likely a passing grade. And the advanced course will still be there next year when you've passed the intermediate course.

What *will* piss your tutor off though is if you don't tell them, and then at the Q&A session you steam in with something which tells them that you haven't understood a word of the last two lessons. You'll be wasting your time and his - your time, because if you don't understand (or misunderstand) what he's saying then you won't have learnt a thing, and his time, because he'll be spending time trying to correct you when he could be using it for other students who *are* at the level he's teaching. And what's more, you won't pass the course either, or you may get annoyed at not understanding and drop out, or you may even be asked to leave. Not a good use of time and money.

Repeat: That's not a criticism that you don't know this theory - I've not myself done theory to the extent of analysing something like that Bartok. It *is* a criticism of trying to fake your way through without understanding the course.

hi there guys

well this weeks class didnt go very well tbh - when it came round to me i said that the center didnt have tonality as it sounded way out of tune - which raised a bit of a laugh from my 'classmates' who all seem to be dead snobby and more interested in classical which im not - i dont know why they found this so amusing because they're offering wasnt brilliant - like someone said the tonal center was A which it obviously isnt - ive played pieces in A on my guitar and they dont sound like that

so it seems that tonal center has actually nothing to do with the center of the piece after all - so its misleading and i told them so - this is why many people find classical music irritating - that might even explain why their trying to take it off the curriclum and replace it with up to date stuff

but i took alot of what you guys said above on board - so i suggested that there were elements of dorian and lydian mode - the lecturer picked up on this and said that in a way i was right because bartok was very keen on using polytonality! (this is when you get pieces in several keys at once) - that sort of made me look good : )

i dont know if i want to continue with the class - i had a word with the tutor afterwards and he suggested i see how it goes for a few weeks so i dont know

he said that the module covers atonality and classical music from 'schernberg to stokhousen'

anyway for this weeks class we have to listen to this -

messien piece

well thankfully it isnt as horrible as that bartok thing! what we have to do is a question in two parts

1- 'comment on the use of modes'

this is going to be dead easy i think because i can just put down dorian or lydian as they're is quite a good chance that one of these will be correct - they're is also no evidence of polytonality! (i am going to try and use that whenever i can)

2 - 'what is unusual about this piece'

again this is quite obvious and i have put a few things down already like -

the piano is just playing chords ie - they're are no scaley fast bits as you normally get in classical music

the piece starts soft and gets louder again this is unusual because classical usually gets louder then softer then usually repeats this pattern over and over again

they're is no orchestra - usually in classical music its written for orchestra

they're is no flashy ending - classical music (2001 space music for example) always ends with a flashy big loud chord - like in that wagner ad music you here everywhere

if you can suggest any more things that would be great!

thanks

Quote theory student:

---

hi there guys


anyway for this weeks class we have to listen to this -

messien piece

well thankfully it isnt as horrible as that bartok thing! what we have to do is a question in two parts

1- 'comment on the use of modes'

this is going to be dead easy i think because i can just put down dorian or lydian as they're is quite a good chance that one of these will be correct - they're is also no evidence of polytonality! (i am going to try and use that whenever i can)

---

Glad you liked Messiaen. However, he never used the Lydian and Dorian modes (or any of the other mediaeval ones). Do a Google search for "Modes of Limited transposition". Ignore the wikipedia entry then read the one on the "musicteachers.co.uk" website, which will tell you which modes Messiaen used.

Quote:

---

2 - 'what is unusual about this piece'

again this is quite obvious and i have put a few things down already like -

the piano is just playing chords ie - they're are no scaley fast bits as you normally get in classical music

the piece starts soft and gets louder again this is unusual because classical usually gets louder then softer then usually repeats this pattern over and over again

they're is no orchestra - usually in classical music its written for orchestra

they're is no flashy ending - classical music (2001 space music for example) always ends with a flashy big loud chord - like in that wagner ad music you here everywhere

---

I don't agree with any of your assumptions about classical music here - they suggest to me that you haven't listened to very much of it. You could start by thinking about the combination of instruments in the piece - can you find any other pieces by any composer for the same combination. Have you tried to find out anything about the history of the piece - where it was written, what the title means, what else the composer was writing at the same time, and so on?

actually i have listened to bits and pieces and am influenced by classical-crossover composers like brian eno pink floyd and genesis - ok not beethoven but they have used violins string quartets and proper classical sections and suchlike in they're most famous pieces

for example have you heard atom heart mother by pink floyd?? that is mainly classical till the rock comes in

tbh i think you are falling into the trap of lumping classical music into one pigeon hole by saying 'its this' - yeah ok 'its this' but then again its 'this and this also' - classical music - like the lecturer said the other night - is organic

you simply disregard my points out of hand as if they are completely worthless but maybe im looking at it holistically from a different angle - your just zeroing into 'beethoven mode'

but i do intend on listening to more and today got a cd out of the library of vangelis - he was classically trained but uses synths and does arrangements of classics like mozart etc

btw looked up the messien modes and if you break it down youve basically just got dorian and lydian and just basic minor like i said above

ok so it seems he was fond of say - c d flat e flat e

well correct me if im wrong but isnt that just like going b c d e flat in c minor? ok my theory isnt great but like my gran used to say -

'if it look like duck - it walk like duck - it duck'

messien can give them all this fancy names but at the end of the day hes just using the same scale as everyone from handle to led zep

hi,

to be honest, i'm not sure what's going on in this thread. either the OP is taking the piss or he is earnest but enormously ill-informed and ill-prepared to be taking an advanced theory class. i don't know which but either makes this kind of pointless.

that said, as to the OP's OQ: a piece of music (classical or not) can be in a key/mode and yet over the course of the piece multiple tonal centers can be employed. if the tonal center is 'strong' enough, you've basically changed key a/o mode. it's really that simple.

as for the business about knowing what A sounds like 'cause you play it on your guitar, well, i've been playing guitar for 30 years and i don't know what A 'sounds like' on my gtr. all in all, i suspect a wind up. if not, then i suggest the OP start with a music appreciation class before taking any theory. for starters, a large fraction (probably a majority) of classical pieces don't involve an orchestra at all.

cheers (or not)

d

--------------------
"Patsy had the drug tolerance of Keith Richards and the moral rectitude of Brian Jones." - Dr. Walter Bishop, "Fringe"

wind up me thinks

still, probably took as long to write as the answers did.

Quote dubbmann:

---

the OP is taking the piss

---

this is this only rational conclusion. anything else would destroy your faith in humanity...

--------------------
hourglass | random thoughts | doubledotdash!? collective

Quote theory student:

---

messien can give them all this fancy names but at the end of the day hes just using the same scale as everyone from handle to led zep

---

Now try reading the article properly.

in all fairness your all probably right and this class is to advanced for me so i will have a chat this week and see about changing - in my defence it wasnt really made clear at the outset what the crack was

also it might seem that i am a total numpty with no theory knowledge but that actually isnt the case as ive done a music tech course - just because i didnt do 'classical' doesnt necessarily make me a bad person or a wind up merchant - and just because i am not an expert in messiens modes doesnt make me a thicko

i just wanted advice not insults so maybe best if i take my theory queries elsewhere

i cant see me posting here again tbh but thanks to those of you who made practical suggestions

lets keep this forum just for musical genuises eh i think thats for the best

Dude, you're not a thicko for not knowing this. No-one's born knowing theory.

What *is* wrong is thinking that you do know it when clearly you don't (and in fairness you're now appreciating that you don't). Music tech teaches you maybe grade 1 theory - enough to know what a chord or key is, and that's yer lot. In an advanced class, you're playing with the big boys at grade 7-8. So it's like you've just learnt "Chopsticks" and now you're expecting to be able play a Rachmaninov piano concerto. And you're expecting other people to take you seriously when you say it. It ain't going to happen.

Don't give up - theory's all good stuff to know. But do get yourself onto the right course for you, pronto. Don't prat about on the advanced course when you're just wasting your time, your instructor's time and the other students' time. That *would* make you a numpty.

Quote theory student:

---

thanks guys very interesting - so does a piece have to have a key then?

---

No.

Quote theory student:

---

i just wanted advice not insults so maybe best if i take my theory queries elsewhere

i cant see me posting here again tbh but thanks to those of you who made practical suggestions

lets keep this forum just for musical genuises eh i think thats for the best

---

ok. here's the problem: if you are a troll, this is exactly what you'd say. and if you aren't a troll, this is exactly what you'd say. see the problem?

i read this thread for 20+ posts before i jumped in. as i said in my post, either you're a troll or you're very inexperienced, not least in internet etiquette. there were a number of long posts in reply to your 'query' that took knowledgeable individuals time to compose. you ignored it all. it seemed like a 'spitting image' windup.

anyway, if you're not a windup, here's my advice: pursuing knowledge of theory is EXACTLY the right thing for any aspriring muso to do. no one who has learned it has regreted it. that said, you need to start with the basics, which is in essence an anagram for BACH. find a theory class focused on the baroque and you'll understand way more than trying to chart bartok or ligetti.

anyway, just my two p...

d

--------------------
"Patsy had the drug tolerance of Keith Richards and the moral rectitude of Brian Jones." - Dr. Walter Bishop, "Fringe"

thanks! i went to the local music shop and the guy hooked me up with theory exam papers and he suggest i work through them starting at grade 1 so this is what i am going to do! i think i will postpone the advanced classical classes for now

thanks for the advice

hi TS,

i'm glad to hear that you haven't given up. as i said in an earlier post, i think learning music theory is a GREAT move. learn it and worst case then you can ignore it. ignore it w/o learning it and you're just ignorant.

i think your instincts that led you to enroll in the class are absolutely correct, it's just that you jumped into the deep end too soon. for that matter, i think that learning bach is worth a 1000 bartoks. (and i like bartok, it's just that bach is a frickin' GOD).

my advice: keep posting here (assuming you're not a troll ;-) with your questions as you get into the material. there are some seriously educated people (not me, i hasten to add) who will take the time to construct a helpful reply to almost any honest/earnest question posted. it really is a great community, and we help our own ;-)

cheers,

d

--------------------
"Patsy had the drug tolerance of Keith Richards and the moral rectitude of Brian Jones." - Dr. Walter Bishop, "Fringe"

Yeah, don't give up, and disregard the negative posts- it just probably rankled folks that you were saying listening to Atom Heart Mother and Yes albums while stoned was going to give you the tools you needed here. Obviously, that ain't the case. And there is a big difference between art rock pretensions- and Atom Heart Mother is not a complex piece, at least it sure doesn't seem like it in my mind at the moment. I don't get high enough anymore to listen to it again to really tell you. But it was freaky enough merging those two genres together at all without removing the concept of a "tonal center" as well, which would have freaked the hippies out and likely been too much for them to handle.

But now that I've come back around to the point, the whole concept of throwing a piece out there and asking what is the tonal center is because the tonal center is deliberately obscured by the composer! This is different than the [ ****** ] from Emerson Lake and Palmer spewing out notes while wearing a cape and being rotated around on a stage.

In the twentieth century, composers had achieved relative artistic freedom yet were coming to the realization that they still had what they thought of as limitations within the 12 tone Western music system. In an effort to keep classical music alive, and not keep regurgitating the same sounds with the same themes using the same instruments (calling Rock and Roll!) composers started looking outside the formalized styles of the sonata form of presenting musical ideas and modulation of keys, among other things.

This is why I told you to find out about sonata form! Not only will it help you to understand the way a lot of music was written, but also to understand why a lot of music was NOT written using it!

Anyway, composers were looking to expand on what had been techniques of composing using major/minor keys, modes within those keys and modulation standards for moving from one key to the other. They used chromatic tones found in folk music of their countries for inspiration, among other sources, and there was a group of folks who decided to throw out the concept of "keys"- which are tonal centers- and replace them with music that did not have a tonal center. Believe it or not this was sort of popular for a while. In the 21st century, I found myself in a composition class where it was expected I write music in a 12 tone style or a derivative of it- much after the expiration date of the whole thing, if you ask me, but then again, no one can say you're wrong when there are no rules.

In short: a key is a tonal center. A very obvious one. Modulation to another key is just moving to another tonal center. Playing a mode starting on D but using the C Major scale obscures the tonal center slightly and gives a different feel.

In the Bartok piece, he was likely deliberately obscuring it for artistic effect. It's possible he didn't want there to be one at all. It's possible that he didn't want there to be one yet there is one anyway. It's also possible that he didn't want there to be one but there is one and maybe more than one interpretation of what it is!

The way to know is to listen to it a lot, and after a while the dissonances are not glaring and actually they become pleasant as any music. Then you can read through the music and notice the notes 1) repeated together- are they a scale? A chord? Do they imply a key, if only for a little bit? 2) the parts when the music becomes more dramatic will probably contain some clues as to what the tonal center is, but then again, they could be emphasized for jarring or even frightening effect.

If it's Twelve Tone Music composition, then it is designed not to have a key or a tonal center, and everything about it in the strict sense is designed to AVOID having one, so there isn't one. But again, if the composer keeps emphasizing C#-E-F#, then you could make a case for that being a tonal center.

Music is like any other language. It can be as complex or as simple as you want to make it. There is a lot of room for artistic use. There is no real right or wrong.

I hope any of this helps you, it was fun to think about again. I hate atonal music, by the way. I do like to study music. But start with the basics, remember that when you have a handle on sonata form, then you can probably handle anything else that will be thrown at you, because you will have learned the structure of a language, and will know when that structure is being changed and how. Probably not why. Good luck, L

I discovered this:

http://solomonsmusic.net/diss7.htm

Make of that what you will. I don't know the piece, I'll listen to it. But I can say that if he is really making a point of chromatic tones played between a repeating A-Eb then he is deliberately trying to make it atonal is all I can figure.

The I-V note sequence always implies a key, even if it is passing notes in another key then it seems like a fast bit of another key. By removing the I-V from a composition will make it always sort of ambiguous. Especially if you never allow another one or five of any other key in there, and always keep on never letting anything resolve.

Good luck reading that thing I posted, I hope anybody is interested in this at all at this point.

If you write something along the lines of

Quote:

---

classical music is usually written for orchestra

---

- you will probably be shot. I'd advise against it

--------------------
Daniel Davis
Edinburgh Recording Studio Windmill Sound

As for Bartok ...

In tonal music the pitches in the scale or mode have a hierarchy - so there is a concept of a tonic to which the music will return.
A lot of music written at a similar time to Bartok was written atonally - where there may be no hierarchy amongst pitches.
Bartok on the other hand uses all 12 pitches, but does have a hierarchy (the exact rules will change in each piece) - and typically returns melodically or harmonically to a fixed place - and so this gets described as a tonal centre - a slightly looser definition than tonic.

Incidentally Bartok often uses a new harmonic language in each piece - you can usually pick up the rules of the piece from the opening section - where he often uses repetition to tell you what is important.

Whilst some atonal music is quite obscure, Bartok is actively helping you to understand what he is trying to do. Melodic development, harmony and structure are layed out as if he's talking you through it - one of the reason's why he's often used in teaching materials.

--------------------
Daniel Davis
Edinburgh Recording Studio Windmill Sound

Interesting insight Daniel. Maybe I'll write something atonal again, what I use is Sibelius and virtual instruments, not quite the same thing, but then again, for an intellectual exercise it's OK.

"they're is no flashy ending - classical music (2001 space music for example) always ends with a flashy big loud chord - like in that wagner ad music you here everywhere"

Well, that "flashy big loud chord" is the tonic, you're hearing the composer's resolving to the tonic from the five to the one. It provides a sense of closure to the piece, and makes it seem as if you have been on a journey, "classically" from an opening key to others and "typically" ending right back where you started.

I'm assuming this is what you mean when you say this, the truth of the Richard Strauss composition used in that film is a little different (I had to Wikipedia this, I'm not that familiar with the thing):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Also_sprach_Zarathustra_(Richard_Strauss)

Fun to talk about it. I'll get the Bartok piece and no doubt it'll end up in my iTunes "Party Jamz" rotation and I'll let you know how they dig it.

"they're is no flashy ending - classical music (2001 space music for example) always ends with a flashy big loud chord - like in that wagner ad music you here everywhere"

Most likely the 'big flashy ending' you refer to is about 2 minutes into the track. This isn't actually the ending. The whole piece is approaching 40 mins!