User talk:Hucbald.SaintAmand/Tonality

''This is the talk page of the article "Tonality" in revision. It may be advisable to summarize dissussions conducted here on the talk page of the article itself, Talk:Tonality, recalling the link to this page, User talk:Hucbald.SaintAmand/Tonality and the associated one, User:Hucbald.SaintAmand/Tonality, which otherwise may not be easily found.''

Mutable theory vs immutable notes
Jerome Kohl wrote:
 * To avoid confusion for the reader it is very important that we pay careful attention to keeping separate the discussion of tonality in music and the discussion of the development of the theory of tonality. It is very easy to start confusing ideas about what tonality is (or might be) with the data enshrined in scores. For example, here we are referring to "rules for the preparation and resolution of dissonances", which could easily end up being a discussion of (mutable) theory instead of the (immutable, or nearly so) notes in the scores of Bach or Beethoven.

I am not sure to understand what you mean here, and what we should beware of. Do you mean that one could believe that the rules of preparation and resolution of dissonances might seem deduced from the scores? This to some extent is true; but the fact remains that these rules predate tonality and are one of its causes. Indeed, they drastically reduce the number of chords that may precede and follow the dissonant chord or, in other words, drastically constrain the root motions. Consider a V7 chord, say G7: the fact that its dissonance, F, must descend one step reduces the possible following chords to those that include E or Eb, i.e. C, A or Ab, and E or Eb. And if F had to be included in the chord of preparation, the only possible chords would have been D or F (or B or Bb, but these are problematic for other reasons). The rules of preparation and resolution force the harmony to go from IV or II to V to I, VI or III. There are references documenting this. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, all that I mean is that the non-expert reader tends to confuse the music with the theory describing it. This was the foundation of the rather silly editorial dispute that resulted in the current, unacceptable form of the article's lead section. One editor added a sentence claiming that 100% of all popular music today is "tonal", without qualification. When asked for a source, that editor (or some other) replaced the claim with a quotation to the same effect from a book, which equally did not explain anything at all about what the word "tonal" was meant to signify. I intervened with contrary quotations from several articles and books that did clarify the difference (Everett, Moore, etc.), but of course these were based on comparisons of the different literatures (Led Zeppelin vs. Haydn, for example), whereas the blanket claim must have depended on some weakly formulated construal of "tonal" in the elemental sense of "centricity". It is of course important to put at the forefront of this article the notion that the term applies first and foremost to functional harmony of the common-practice period, but this of course is a body of literature with very specific attributes; the theories which have developed to describe this literature vary over time (Schenker does not describe the operations of tonality in ways that are entirely compatible with the theories of Fétis or Riemann, for example). It is at the same time possible (and indeed this is commonly done in beginning theory classes when first introducing the subject) to invoke "mere centricity" with an example from, say, a piano sonata by Haydn. The notion of "centricity" is certainly applicable to Haydn but, if this elementary concept is developed no further, it is equally applicable to most pentatonic folk music, to Gregorian chant, to Serbian epic recitation, to Scottish Pibroch, to Guillaume de Machaut, to Josquin, to Debussy, to Bartók's Music for Strings, Percussion, and Celesta, to Schoenberg's piano and violin concertos, to John Cage's Sonatas and Interludes, and to Black Sabbath's "Paranoid". In this broad sense, there exists virtually no music at all that is truly "atonal", which means that the definition has become trivial. At the same time, theories of tonality can become so highly refined that they begin to encounter problems when attempts are made to apply them to certain items in the literature they are actually meant to encompass. The innocent reader, encountering this Wikipedia article for the first time, is entitled not to be misled any more than necessary when being introduced to these concepts and distinctions.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I see your point and I fully agree with it. Yet, I remain puzzled why you first mentioned it in relation with the rules of preparation and resolution of dissonances. It is not really important. Note that I eagerly await that you and others put your hands on the new version of the article. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If my comment happened to be juxtaposed with rules of preparation and resolution of dissonances, that was unintentional. I merely wanted to issue a caution about how easily readers get confused when a term has several different meanings and, in this case, also potential differences of construal even of a single sense of the term. Even experts in the field (perhaps especially experts in the field) can lose track of such distinctions, when they assume "we all know what we are talking about". Now, on to the draft article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

History of the term
Jerome, indeed, Tonart has been used in a variety of senses; but so where "key", modulation, and even tonalité itself. To these terms should be added "mode", and "tone", in all these languages; there must be terms in Italian too, along modo and tuono. For the time being, I retained only the quotations that seemed to me close enough to the modern meaning of "tonality"; I found no clear use of modulation in Rameau, nor in Rousseau; but most of their (frequent) usages of the term entertain some level of ambiguity. I presume that there are few other languages to consider, in Europe before the 19th century. I'll check Dutch, which has one or two important treatises (Van Blankenburg, mainly). To my knowledge, Russian, Polish, or the Scandinavian languages were not really used for this kind of things. In any case, we have a good job ahead sorting all this, and I very much hope we won't have to do all the work the two of us alone. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, all of these words have been used in different ways, and it quickly becomes very complicated when we start examining different languages. Some of these linguistic differences are more important than others (for example, the extant article has already a brief discussion of the problems created when the German terms Tonart and Tonalität have become confused in English translations that use "tonality" for both). This raises a question in my mind about the degree to which we can (or should) separate terms and concepts. In sifting through some possible sources today I came across one that is new to me (my background in 17th-century theory is particularly weak, I'm afraid), with a secondary source claiming that it is one of the earliest treatises to clearly repudiate the church-mode system in favour of a dual-Tonart conception. This is Camillo Angleria's 1622 treatise La regola del contraponto e della musical compositione—a substantially earlier source than the two German items you have cited for Tonart in this sense, though of course when I finally lay my hands on the facsimile reprint (I have had to summon it from deep storage in my institution's library system) I do not expect Angleria to use the German word Tonart in his discussion! The secondary source, ironically, will be more difficult for me to obtain, since it is in a journal (The Consort) neither held by my institution nor available electronically. My point, however, is that, if it turns out that Angleria is describing in Italian essentially the same concept given in Sulzer and Adelung under the German term Tonart, will it not probably be more helpful to the interested reader to describe these together under a general heading such as "Major/minor system", rather than separately in a "history of terms" section?
 * Naturally, I share your anxiety that we not be left alone for much longer in this task. Do you have any ideas about how we can attract more hands to help us in our labours?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that Angleria, like most 17th-century contrapuntists, is merely mentioning Banchieri's tuoni ecclesiastici, the church tones (or keys) conventionally representing the eight modes (or, as Powers believed, and as the guys from Princeton still believe after him, the eight psalm tones) (see for instance the Cambridge History of 17th-century music, pp. 509 sq.). These church tones were practiced in France as tons ecclésiastiques until the 18th century. They certainly predate tonalities in the modern sense, but this again will have to be discussed (and documented). Angleria must be available in Google Books, but their server appears to have problems this morning.

As to attracting more hands to help us, you'll probably have seen that I mentioned the creation of this page on the page of the Project Music Theory. We may repeat this and perhaps ask Kosboot to make a call on SMT Discuss (but they do not seem too enthusiastic about collaborating to WP: see https://discuss.societymusictheory.org/discussion/31/music-theory-entries-in-wikipedia). Otherwise, I see no other solution than to write to all people listed in the History page of the Tonality article; but wouldn't that equate inviting the cat among the pigeons? — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * According to the secondary source, Angleria repudiated the older system (I presume including Banchieri's version) in favour of a two-mode (major/minor) conception. I should be able to discover whether this is true or not this afternoon, since the library has informed me that the facsimile edition is now ready for pickup. The only GoogleBooks versions I could find were of the Bologna reprint, and none of them had even "snippet" views. I have come to prefer electronic versions when available since—frequent OCR errors notwithstanding—searching them with a computer is much faster than a visual inspection. If you discover a scanned version, please let me know.
 * I am aware of the longstanding SMT discussion of the Wikipedia music-theory problem, and the general reticence on the part of the professional music-theory community to get involved here is perfectly understandable. Academics are used to having the respect that their credentials demand, and it is infuriating to have them count for nothing when dealing with over-confident but under-informed Wikipedia editors. On the other hand, it is true that too many cooks may spoil the broth (and the present subject is especially prone to paralysis from academic factions), though at the moment I believe we sorely need a few more sous-chefs.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the suppression of "polysemic". I hardly can realize how such words may appear exotic in English; also, I see that the correct English form is "polysemous". But never mind, this introduction will change many times before we conclude...

As to Angleria, I cannot believe that Banchieri's tuoni would have been considered "the older system" less than ten years after their initial presentation. The two-mode conception is another matter, for sure, but it wasn't that "new" anymore by 1622. And a two-mode conception says little without a conception of (transposition) keys. But let me know what you read in the book, I am curious. I am afraid I will not find an electronic version (I too am a keen user of computer searching).

At times I regret that Wikipedia does not really allow the use of credentials; on the other hand, it is a salutary game, one which some of our academic colleagues should more often play, lest they get lost in their auto-satisfaction. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. I think "polysemic" may also exist in English. I keep forgetting that English is not your native language.
 * I now have Angleria in my hand, and I am wondering where the secondary source got the idea that he describes a two-mode system. (Or maybe I have been misled by the abstract in WorldCat: "His writings contain the clearest account of the new 17th-c. church tones that formed the foundation of the major and minor scales. Angleria explained the new scale structure used in sacred music, which he called 'tones', making the understanding of modes irrelevant.") Angleria does not mention Banchieri, but describes himself as a disciple of Claudio Merulo. Concerning the "Tuoni, secondo l'uso moderno", he appears to be relying primarily on Zarlino (though he often speaks admiringly of Giovan Paolo Cima, who provided many of the examples), and on citations from the literature (Lasso, Palestina [sic], Orazio Vecchi, and of course Merulo). His language is methodical, and he proceeds slowly in agonizing detail. It will take me some time to sort out what he thinks is new about what he describes, and what on earth the secondary-source author (Ursula Brett) might think it has to do with major/minor thinking. So far, I would say we need not concern ourselves with this source, as far as the present article draft is concerned.
 * I know exactly what you mean about Wikipedia being a "salutary game" for academics who have become too complacent in their recognised authority. I am reminded of a case where a very senior professor submitted a rather odd proposal for a conference paper, which was read as an anonymous submission by the programme committee. It was agreed that, in the right hands, it could be a brilliant presentation but, without knowing who the author was, it had to be rejected; when the author's name was revealed, there was some consternation, but the committee stuck by its principles. Later, when the eminent man was told his proposal had been turned down—and why—he laughed and agreed it was the only acceptable course of action.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

History of the term: quotations of early usages
[Moved here from the main page, for further reference.]

Tone, Ton; Mode, modus Key Modulation Tonart [Comment: Yes, though "Tonart" is not always used in this narrow sense (e.g., Hermelink 1960 in the list of references in the Tonality article). It will take some care to establish when and how it has this particular sense of "major/minor system".] Tonalität
 * Charles Masson, Nouveau traité, 1694: Les anciens se servaient du terme de Mode mais la plus grande partie des Modernes ont mis en usage celui de Ton en la place de celui de Mode à cause que les différentes manières des Chants de l'Église s'appellent Tons. Mais enfin de faciliter les moyens de parvenir plus promptement à la Composition, je ne montrerai que deux modes, sçavoir le Mode majeur et le Mode mineur.
 * Mattheson, Neueröffnete Orchestre, 1713, pp. 60-61: Ist diese [Tertia] major / so heist der Modus, dur, ist sie aber minor / nennet man denselben moll [...]. Es müssen aber diese 8. Tone wiederum nicht mit den 8. Tonis Ecclesiasticis oder Gregorianis confundiret werden, etc.
 * Thomas Morley, A Plaine and Easie Introduction to Practicall Musicke, 1596, p. 124: "the composers of that age making no accoumpt of the ayre nor of keeping their key"; p. 147: "euery key hath a peculiar ayre proper vnto it selfe, so that if you goe into another then that wherein you begun, you change the aire of the song".
 * Keller, Complete method, 1707: "All keys are known to be flat or sharp not by the flats plac'd at the beginning of a Lesson, but by the third above the key, for if your Third is flat the key is flat, or your Third is sharp the key is sharp", quoted after Riemann, Geschichte, p. 448.
 * François Campion, Addition au traité d'accompagnement et de composition par la Régle de l'Octave, 1730, p. 54: Ton, mode, modulation, octave ou notte tonique, sont sinonimes et signifient la même chose.
 * Jean Serré de Rieux, Apollon, ou l'origine des spectacles en musique, 1734, pp. 9-10: La modulation est l'art de composer un chant dans un mode ou octave, et après l'avoir fait passer successivement dans diverses octaves par le secours de la note sensible, de le faire retomber dans la finale du mode par lequel la modulation a commencé. Il y a deux especes de modes, l'un majeur, l'autre mineur.
 * Denis Diderot=Bemetzrieder, Leçons de clavecin et principes d'harmonie en dialogues, 1771, p. 206: En majeur de si, dans le mode majeur de si, dans la modulation majeure de si, est très-bien dit, et non en si majeur, comme disent communément et mal les musiciens, car si, ni aucune autre note n'est majeure ou mineure. See p. 244: Ainsi des vingt-quatre modulations dont douze sont majeures et douze mineures.
 * Mattheson, Generalbaszschule, 1735: according to Grimm's Deutsche Wörterbuch, this is the first work to use the word Tonart.
 * Scheibe, Critischer Musikus, 1745: according to Grimm's Deutsche Wörterbuch, one of the first works to use the word Tonart.
 * Sulzer, Allgemeine Theorie der Schönen Künste, vol. 2., 1774, p. 1161-62: Tonart. Wir nehmen dieses Wort hier in der genau bestimmten Bedeutung, nach welcher es das ausdrückt, was die ältern Tohnlehrer durch das lateinische Wort Modus auszdrüken pflegten; nämlich die Beschaffenheit der Tonleiter, nach welcher sie entweder durch die kleine oder große Terz aufsteigen. Jene wird die kleine, oder weiche, diese die große, oder harte Tonart genennt, welches man auch durch die Worte Moll und Dur ausdrükt. [...] Es giebt also nur zwey Tonarten, die harte und die weiche, die man auch die große und die kleine nennt; und nach der gegenwärtigen Einrichtung hat jeder der zwölf in dem System einer Octave befindlichen Töne seine harte und seine weiche Tonleiter. Etc. See also Tonica (Musik), pp. 1164 sq.
 * Adelung, Grammatisch-kritisches Wörterbuch der Hochdeutschen Mundart, vol. 4, 1801, p. 625: Die Tonart, [...] die Art und Weise des in einem Stücke herrschenden Tones, welches auch nur der Ton schlechthin genannt wird. Eine harte Tonart, dur, zum Unterschiede von der weichen, moll..
 * Hugo Riemann, Musikalische Syntaxis, 1877, p. 14: Die Bezogenheit eines Harmoniegefüges auf einen Hauptklang nennt man (seit Fétis) Tonalität.
 * Hugo Riemann, Lexicon, 1882, p. 923: Tonalität, ein moderner Begriff, der sich nicht völlig mit "Tonart" deckt, da die Bedeutung der T. weit über die Grenzen der durch die Tonleiter repräsentierten Tonart hinausreicht. T. ist die eigentümliche Bedeutung, welche die Akkorde erhalten durch ihre Bezogenheit auf einen Hauptklang, die Tonika. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk • contribs) 09:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Tonality in early music
If there is one area I might be able to add is the use of the word tonality in terms of early music. This is part of the subject I am working on for my recently approved dissertation so I can see where I can add things as necessary. Best — Devin.chaloux (chat) 11:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I, for one, eagerly expect your contributions. Would you mind proposing a first draft? There certainly is a lot to discuss (and I certainly will discuss!), but it would clarify matters if somebody as deeply involved as you are with your dissertation gave the start. Would you have more time, say, after June 6 ? ;-))
 * Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I second the motion (I think that makes us unanimous). The only thing is, I thought this page is already a "first draft" area.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, Jerome, but the section on early music is at best merely foreseen at this point, and its content remains in need of a first draft. However Devin might not be available before June 6 – and possibly for some time after that, say if they intended a travel to Venice (Italy), or the like. If this sounds obscure to you, consult Google and congratulate them, as I do herewith ;–)) Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see! Yes, congratulations are certainly in order, and I now see why drafting Wikipedia articles before that date might not take top priority!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Very long and up-front definitional emphasis
Hi, when musicians ask each other: "Is it tonal?", they're usually referring to whether it's written in a system of keys with a hierarchy of triads, centering on a tonic triad, with a typical expectation that this applies to complex music between about 1600 and 1900, plus certain popular-music genres. Readers are faced at the opening with a very long historical (and in my view small-sample) definitional section that is probably not what most of them are looking for. Tony  (talk)  03:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * When you write at the opening, do you refer to the lead [lede] of the new article? What is written there is highly provisional: as you certainly know, the lead is the last thing to be written, after all the rest. As it is now, it must be considered rather a sort or programme for the writing of what follows. In any case, suggestions will be welcome...
 * Let me add, however, that one of the purposes of the article may be to make the lay(wo)man realize that her or his conception of tonality ("a system of keys used about 1600-1900") is only a little part of the story. After all, the purpose of Wikipedia is not, or should not be, to encourage naive vews of complex matters. Our aim should be to explain in simple terms all the complexity of the term and the concept of tonality. (And let me add that when I teach, in an undergraduate class about medieval modality, that this modality somehow is of the order of tonality, nobody thinks I am speaking of "a system of keys 1600-1900"...) — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)