Lisztener87 Wrote:
> --- You're right, this makes no sense. The
> progression has no key sig and therefore atonal.
Well be careful - all the pieces in C Major and A minor have no key signature either :-) Yet they're tonal!
Tonality is about establishing a tonal center. Atonality is about avoiding one!
You could have an Atonal piece with a "key signature" but really it's being used as an "accidental signature" - a shortcut to show which accidentals are used in the piece rather than specifically spelling out a "key" in the traditional sense.
> Incidentally, does this mean it makes little sense
> to talk about modulations in atonal music?
Yes, at least in the traditional sense. You can have something "between" Tonality and Atonality which is called "Centric" music. Centric music establishes a "primary" note or harmony, but it does so through non-traditional means. Centric music can "shift" to different pitch levels and so on - words like "chromatic displacement" get involved but terminology is still under-developed for post-tonal styles that are not pure "Atonality" (a la the Schoenberg school)
(note: maybe a distinction should be made between "Atonality" and "atonal" where the capital A is a specific style and the other a generic term, but those distinctions are not often made)
For
> example chords that move Cmaj > D7 > Gmaj are
> modualting from C to G but in an atonal score this
> seems to be not applicable.
In Tonal music, Modulations have to be CONFIRMED by a cadence in the new key.
Tonal music kind of works like this (oversimplified):
1. Establish primary key by using functional chord progressions unique to that key and typically confirming it by cadencing in that key.
2. If a piece is to modulate (virtually all do) the new key must introduce functional chord progressions unique to that key and confirm it with a cadence in the key.
3. Modulate back to the primary key via the same mechanism.
IOW, a chord doesn't establish or confirm keys. It may "hint at" or "point to" other keys, but it's functional harmonic progressions that establish and confirm the key.
When it's just a chord or two, we call it a "Tonicization" - the music hasn't really changed key, but there is a chord or two that "come from" and "hint at" some other key, but as soon as they go by we're back in the main key.
Atonal music avoids these things like the plague. In fact, atonal composers went out of their way to avoid ANYTHING that sounded REMOTELY Tonal!
So they didn't even use chords - not as we know them. They used "sonorities" or "vertical structures", etc. They are "chords" in the definition that the notes are sounding simultaneously, but they're not Major and minor triads and such.
They avoided anything that sounded like a V7-I cadence because that move is the very definition of tonal music. They avoided cadences, scales, - I mean, anything "familiar" about Tonal music got avoided.
As I was saying above, Tonality itself evolved to become "less Tonal" or "quasi Tonal" or "pseudo Tonal" or whatever we want to call it (Centric!) so some of these things (chords, familiar scales, etc.) were used but in a non-Traditional context.
The music therefore isn't either Tonal or Atonal (with capital letters) but "not-quite tonal" but "not-Atonal" either.
So in real deal "A"tonality, correct, makes no sense to talk about "modulating" - there are no keys, there's nothing to modulate to.
In "psuedo-Tonality" for lack of a better term, a piece could be in a Mode rather than a Key (that makes it Modal rather than Tonal) but it could work based on the principles of Tonality - such as using unique progressions to define the mode, and then "modulate" to a different mode.
It's the same kind of principle, but basically it's not "officially" a modulation by a strict definition (you'll hear words like "mutation" or "transformation" and things like that to describe changes of Center, etc.).
>
> 2. You choose the accidental largely on
> convenience...
> -- Thanks, makes sense.
An easy one!
>
> 3. Ok, the point about voice-leading...
> --- I see what you were saying here. I had written
> a chromatic progression in which the chords
> completely depart from a diatonic relationship.
Cool.
> Trying to then apply the rules which help write
> that satisfactory sort of almost "correct" sound
> when writing in a traditional 4 part harmony (like
> you would find in Bach chorale) which is
> questionable.
Possible. It is not uncommon to use "Tonal Principles" in non-Tonal music - just like how Modal music could still do something similar to "modulation", non-Tonal music could use some principles similar to tonal music - for example, you're using major triads - familiar chords. That's "somewhat tonal". You're using a principle of "harmonizing a melody", so that's a Tonal principle.
Why not use "voice-leading" - it might work...
It's like I've missed the whole
> concept of what 4 part writing is and am now
> trying to apply the same techniques to make the
> chromatic chords sound right and move in the same
> way - doesn't make sense.
Right. IOW, you might be able to apply the broader principles, but you'll have to "adapt" them. So, for example, if "consistency of texture" is your musical goal, then you need to adapt voice-leading "rules" (or create new ones) that maintain that. So you might find that parallel 5ths may actually do that better than contrary motion. Or you might find it necessary to cross voices more than you would in a Bach Chorale style setting.
But let's go with your saying you've missed the whole concept of 4 part writing.
If you're going to harmonize a melody, traditionally you would create a "soprano-bass counterpoint" and then "fill in" the harmonies with the inner voices.
Can we do this with this type of melody? Possibly, let's try:
G - A - D - Eb - C# - C - D
G - F - Bb - Ab - A - G - F#
Now we choose harmonies:
G - F - Bb - Ab - A - C - D
Or
Em - Dm - Gm - Ab - F#m - Cm - Bm
One important thing to remember is that you're placing a LOT of restrictions on yourself by using only Major triads. If you don't want it to sound "too tonal", you can avoid progressions like F to Bb, and you'd definitely want to avoid starting Gm - F - Bb (will sound just like Bach!) but certainly Em - F - Gm.
And here's another thing - even Tonal composers didn't restrict themselves to just triads - they used 7th chords, melodic tones (non-chord tones) and so on.
If youre first chord was Em:
G
B
E
G
There's a certain "roughness" to that chord - it's "congested" and not "open" sounding.
If you then move to F:
G - A
B - C
E - F
G - F
you'll probably hear a "density change". Now there are parallel 5ths in there but it's not about that - it's the voicing. I could move the E down to C giving it a somewhat "gothic" sound, or I could move the B down to A - or I could do both - each yields a different character.
What you as a composer needs to decide is which of those characters you want and how much or how little change you want from the Em/G chord.
I might, for example, just keep the E:
G - A
B - C
E - E
G - F
Em/G to Fmaj7 - yes, a 7th chord. But play it and see how it sounds.
Try Dm/F
I think the Em/G to F has a "similar level of density" so they're nicely matched.
Now I want to go to Bb:
G - A - D
B - C - Bb
E - E - F
G - F - Bb
Or maybe you want a real shocker now, but still want a similar "density" going on:
G - A - D
B - C - Bb
E - E - Gb
G - F - Bb
B+ augmented - wow.
G - A - D - Eb
B - C - Bb - C
E - E - Gb - En
G - F - Bb - Ab
To an Ab addb6? Who cares, does it sound good? Does it sound like what you want it to sound?
IOW, when composing, you should place restrictions on yourself or else you'll never write anything because there are too many possibilities. When you work within a style there are "rules".
But, you've taken it a bit further and are trying to use rules from one style with only major chords and avoiding typical progression all at the same time. It's a bit TOO restrictive.
So by allowing something more similar to tonal music - major AND minor and 7th chords, and even + and addb6 chords, it becomes "easier on yourself" to apply the voice-leading concepts, and follow only those parts of the rules that help you achieve your musical goal.
Now I started with "write a contrapuntal bass line" but it would come out vastly different if I applied something like "move to the next closet consonant note" instead:
G - A - D - Eb
G - F# - F# - F# (as Gb).
Or I could say, move, but must move - not remaining on the same note:
G - A - D - Eb
G - F# - F - Gb
Or I could have written it "top down" rather than "outside in" and it would be Alto voice that has to first harmonize with the melody line.
Additionally, some melodies just may not allow for the consistency of sound (if that is your goal) if you're trying to apply quasi-traditional 4 part writing procedures so maybe it only needs to be 3 part writing - or even 2 part writing.
You should experiment with each and see what kinds of sounds you get, and store those techniques in your mental toolbox so when you want that sound, you can reproduce it.
>
> So what exactly is it you're trying to
> accomplish?
> --- I assumed there was a more logical method to
> making chromatic chord progressions sound good
> other than just using my ear.
It's music - it's based on sound, not logic :-)
But maybe we should say, that the "logic" of one style may not apply to the logic of another.
>
> From you answer I really understood that when
> dealing with chromatic progressions it seems the
> only test for this is your own ear and opinion of
> what sounds good. If it sounds good it probably is
> good. Hope this is what you were saying.
Pretty much.
You have to develop you're own logic and own rules because it is basically "uncharted territory" - we don't have a long evolutionary history of composing this way to draw from. And there has been no "common practice" and every individual composer approaches it their own way.
You should listen to later Romantic period and early 20th century music to really get a hold on how composers treated these more chromatic progressions - R. Straus, Wagner, Liszt, Chopin (one of the earliest - listen to the Prelude in Em), Debussy, Ravel, Prokofiev, Stravinksy, Bartok, Holst, etc.
FWIW, the French composers probably had "the most natural evolution" in terms of advancement of chromatic harmony while still maintaining some measure of tonal hold overs - where the Germams in the 2nd viennesse school abandoned tonality more readily (Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern)>
Oh, that reminds me - check this piece out:
[
www.youtube.com]
Pretty "tonal" still - but really funky chromatic chord changes, right?
Now this:
[
www.youtube.com]
This is Modal music - but same deal - funky chromatic chord changes.
Do they sound "logical"?
What about this:
[
www.youtube.com]
There's a totally different kind of "logic" here but it's basically triads in one hand against triads in the other (bi-Tonality - two different keys being played simultaneously)