âThat autopilot mentality ⊠â and ditto the Classic BRITSâ smorgasbord of stale musical leftovers â freeload off the hard fought-for expressive truths of others, reducing to nought those dark, sometimes unknowable, contradictions that give composers of integrity a reason to get up in the morning. Tonality is asset stripped; removed from the context of its own history and the word âsoundbiteâ becomes wholly apt.â
Philip Clark, Gramophone
Philip Clark also writes in the same article: âEarlier this summer my Gramophone colleague Ivan March wrote a blog post headlined âThe Art Of Melodyâ in which he floated that hoariest assumption of them all â that the word âtonalityâ is somehow interchangeable with âmelodyâ, while âatonalityâ represents a simple negation of that, as Ivan put it, âdiscordant groups of notes and chords, which entirely fail to appeal to the listener.â â
Stephen Strauss concludes from Harvard psychologist Jerome Kaganâs research that âchildren seemed calmer and more content when harmonious sounds were playedâ.
And Graham Lynch writes âSo, is tonality dead or alive? I donât know. But I do notice that consonant harmony has made more of a return, but within a pacing and context that is clearly 21st century.â
First of all though, what is tonality? And what is the difference between working in tonality and working with tonalityâa distinction that Reinhard Febel, my old colleague from the Mozarteum, makes.
Must tonality be functional? Or is it more about consonance?
Must it be triadic? Or is tension and release the key issue?
To be considered alive and well, must tonality still be developing?
Turning this another way, is tonal music dead music? Or is it a matter of the musicâs function i.e. to what end the music is being made (entertainment, spiritual services, advertisting)?
Leave a Reply