What the hell does this mean?

[Shawn]

Atonal Chromaticism

Can anybody take a crack at translating this description into English? I play guitar, but totally by ear...never learned theory or how to read standard notation. And honestly, I'm not versed in a lot of terms (I still have problems undersanding modes, etc).

But anyway...I ran across this phrase in an album review, I have a notion of what it means, but would like to hear it described by my esteemed board members.

Thanks!

[Spontooneous]

Term used to trash harmonies that the hearer didn't understand.

Edited February 16, 2005 by Spontooneous

[Nate Dorward]

Can you give the context? -- I suspect whoever wrote that knew nothing about atonality.

Roughly:

Atonality = not having a key centre, literally, but usually implying the kinds of dissonant chromaticism in post-Schoenberg music. (I suppose you could call something like a whole-tone composition "atonal" as it may imply no tonic, but I think on the whole it's music that is highly dissonant, drawing equally on all 12 tones of the scale, that's called "atonal".)

Chromaticism = drawing on tones outside the basic scale implied by a key centre or a chord. Or just: drawing on the chromatic scale (i.e. all twelve tones).

So the phrase, while not nonsensical, seems a bit redundant.

[Shawn]

The riffs are built on atonal chromaticism

That's the context of the sentence...written by one of the AMG reviewers...so to be taken with LARGE grain of salt. He's trying to describe the sound of Slayer's guitar riffs and single note lines...which are very dissonant (on purpose). When reading that phrase I was wondering if it actually made any sense or not.

[Joe G]

I think Henneman uses diminished scales a lot. I remember lots of tritones in the riffs, a la Black Sabbath. Without hearing what the reveiwer was listening to, I'd say that Spoontaneous has it right.

[AllenLowe]

well, if you are talking about chromaticism you are probably referring to the tonal ambiguity that can be created with chromatic playing - in other words there is no such thing as a wrong note, every note has some relationship to the key center. Jazz musicians have always used chromaticism to create a sense, really, of bi-tonality -

Edited February 16, 2005 by AllenLowe

[Nate Dorward]

Well as you've probably figured out most use of musical terms in record reviews is just bluffing. This seems to be an instance of that.

[AllenLowe]

wait - are you referring to my post or the review?

[AllenLowe]

because you're right on both -

[SGUD missile]

"Atonal Chromaticism" is criticspeak bloviating pure -dee word processor masturbating bullshit ...

Besides sorta being a non sequitir.....

[Nate Dorward]

Sorry Allen--I was referring to the original reviewer's bluffing not you!

Sigh. I do get fed up with the amount of quasi-musical terminology thrown around in reviews by people who don't know what they're talking about. Besides, it's simply not very useful since many readers aren't musicians either.

It's not a nonsequitur exactly, it's just a sloppy & redundant phrase. I think part of the problem is what Allen's indicated: often "chromaticism" implies the use of "colour notes" within tonal music (e.g. beboppers' using flat-9s & sharp-9s, or the use of the chromatic scale for passing tones), often creating a sense of bitonality, whereas "atonality" is something else entirely. But both words have lots of different shades of meaning depending on the context.

[AllenLowe]

this whole thing of reviewers and technical knowledge could start a whole other thread - I've never believed reviewers HAVE to be especially technically knowledgeable to write well on music, as a matter of fact, most of the best ones I've read have little tech knowledge. But they get themselves in trouble sometimes trying to sound authoritative. This has happened to Giddins on several occasions, even Martin Williams. I have a fair amount of technical knlwledge but am entirely self taught, so I find myslef treading carefully, or calling a friend like Randy Sandke to make sure I'm on firm ground (Randy being one of the most technically knowledgeable musicians I know) -

Edited February 16, 2005 by AllenLowe

[Nate Dorward]

Yes, I completely agree: reviewing doesn't require musical training/knowledge. It requires writing, thinking & listening skills, plus honesty, enthusiasm. A big record collection helps too.

The other problem with using technical musical terminology in a review is that if you don't goof it up your editor probably will. I recently submitted a review referring to "quartal chords" which was published with "quartile chords".

[Brandon Burke]

Can you give the context? -- I suspect whoever wrote that knew nothing about atonality.

Roughly:

Atonality = not having a key centre, literally, but usually implying the kinds of dissonant chromaticism in post-Schoenberg music. (I suppose you could call something like a whole-tone composition "atonal" as it may imply no tonic, but I think on the whole it's music that is highly dissonant, drawing equally on all 12 tones of the scale, that's called "atonal".)

Chromaticism = drawing on tones outside the basic scale implied by a key centre or a chord. Or just: drawing on the chromatic scale (i.e. all twelve tones).

So the phrase, while not nonsensical, seems a bit redundant.

Hmmm...

I was always under the impression that atonality could describe a single chord (and by this I mean an organization of tones existing at any one time) and not a progression. When I think of Schonberg I don't necessarily think of atonality. I think of a lack of resolution on the part of his compositions. Ives and Ruggles, after all, were atonal way before Schonberg. Schonberg, instead, introduced the deliberate avoidance of resolution.

That's my understanding of it, anyway. Of course, there's no shortage of holes in my understanding of Western concert music so.....

[Alon Marcus]

The AMG used to have a glossary of terms in its classical part in the past. Can't find it now for some reason.

Edited February 17, 2005 by Alon Marcus

[Nate Dorward]

If you don't think of atonality when you think of Schoenberg, then I'm not sure what to say!

[Brandon Burke]

If you don't think of atonality when you think of Schoenberg, then I'm not sure what to say!

Okay. You're right.

Schonberg's post-Transfigured Night work is very obviously dissonant...atonal...whatever. I was simply trying to make a point regarding the use of the word "atonal". I think that too often it gets used in relation to the 12-tone row when, (again) as I understand it, the 12-tone row was developed as a method of composing progressions, not harmonies (e.g. the organization of multiple tones at any one given moment).

You see what I'm saying...?

[AllenLowe]

well, not quite - atonal means lacking a a tonal or key cetner - dissonance refers to tones that clash - some have described atonality as bi-tonality - read Schuller on Cecil Taylor -

Edited February 17, 2005 by AllenLowe

[Epithet]

I have a fair amount of technical knlwledge but am entirely self taught

Any tips?

[Jazzmoose]

I thought atonality and the twelve tone scale were the same darned thing, but then I'm about as far from being an expert in this area as Karl Rove is from being a 'fair play' expert...

(Sorry, GregK; it's early, and it's the only thing I can think of right now. )

[Free For All]

I thought atonality and the twelve tone scale were the same darned thing, but then I'm about as far from being an expert in this area as Karl Rove is from being a 'fair play' expert...

The twelve tone scale is a collection of notes, aka the chromatic scale (all half steps).

The term "twelve tone" is also used to describe a type of composition- the notes are ordered into a "tone row". Coltrane's Miles Mode head or Brookmeyer's ABC Blues are examples of a tone row.

Atonality refers to the nature of a composition, how these notes are assembled. A piece can be atonal w/o necessarily being twelve-tone (or chromatic)based.

Atonality and dissonance have the same relationship- a piece can be atonal w/o being dissonant, and vice-versa.

The terms are related, but they don't mean quite the same thing.

Edited February 17, 2005 by Free For All

[Peggy-Ann]

I asked a friend, who asked a friend, to explain Atonal Chromaticism and this is

the friend of a friends response. Hope this helps.

********

I gave enough detail (hopefully) to make the point, but I did gloss over some stuff.

----------------------------

CONCEPT OF CHROMATICISM:

chromaticism refers to all 12 tones

there are only 12 'different' tones, they replicate themselves across the octaves creating the illusion that there is more than 12.

a a# b c c# d d# e f f# g g# | next octave: a# b c c# d d# e f f# g g# | ................

Note: there are 2 ways to notate enharmonic (same) tones/notes, eg a-sharp is the same tone/note as b-flat

----------------------------------------------

CONCEPT OF TONAL SYSTEMS (IE. KEYS)

Need to understand what is meant by "tonal system", because "atonal" is a system that is "not tonal"

A tonal system is composed of 7 tones (99% of the time, there are a few exceptions such as pentatonic "5 tones") selected from the set of 12 chromatic tones.

For "major" keys, you have: (there also exist minor and modal keys, but they use 7 tones also in a structured way)

key: set of tones (there are 12 keys because there are 12 tones to choose from for 'starting' points)

a a b c# d e f# g#

a# ponderous notation, they 'always' instead call this b-flat (there is no flat symbol on the keyboard, so I'll use 'b' as the 2nd char)

bb bb c d eb f g ab

b b c# d# e f# g# a#

c c d e f g a b c

etc for the remaining 'starting' points

These patterns are not random, and they actually follow the laws of physics. I'll explain this in detail if you're interested.

It is these 'patterns' of notes that create the illusion of tone system, major, minor, or modal.

Ie. If a composer sticks to just the notes "c d e f g a b". a seasoned musician will immediately 'hear' this as the key of c.

----------------------

ATONAL CHROMATICISM

In atonal music, they "don't" stick these sets of 7 tones, rather they will use all 12 tones, destroying the illusion of a key, or tonal system.

[Nate Dorward]

well, not quite - atonal means lacking a a tonal or key cetner - dissonance refers to tones that clash - some have described atonality as bi-tonality - read Schuller on Cecil Taylor -

Allen--where's Schuller on Taylor? I'd be interested in reading that. I haven't sat down & analysed Taylor but my impression is that his work is by no means atonal: there are lots of tonal implications in his locked-hands patterns, & my impression is that often it's a matter of quickly establishing tonal centres & shunting them around the keyboard (CT does have his pet transposable patterns he relies on again & again). Of course, the pummelling bits where he's hitting alternate swatches of black & white keys are a different matter.

[7/4]

Of course, the pummelling bits where he's hitting alternate swatches of black & white keys are a different matter.

Tritone sub?

[Shawn]

I'm really enjoying the conversation guys...of course alot of it is "greek" to me...but it's still fun reading nonetheless.