Atonality.

A term that may be used in three senses: first, to describe all music which is
not tonal; second, to describe all music which is neither tonal nor serial; and
third, to describe specifically the post-tonal and pre-12-note music of Berg,
Webern and Schoenberg. (While serial music is, by the first definition, atonal,
it differs in essential respects from other atonal music and is discussed in the
articles Serialism and Twelve-note composition; it is, therefore, not
considered here.)

1. Relations between tonality and atonality.

2. Differences between tonality and atonality.
3. The atonality of Schoenberg, Berg and Webern.
4. Theoretical issues.
5. Conclusion.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

PAUL LANSKY, GEORGE PERLE (1–3, 5), DAVE HEADLAM (4,

bibliography)

Atonality

1. Relations between tonality and atonality.

An important aspect of tonality is the way in which pitches are contextually

defined so that each particular definition of a given pitch yields a different
tonal function. A G which is the root of a G major triad, for example, has a
different function or meaning from that of a G which is the 3rd of an E major
triad. Such a definition is, in turn, further refined by larger musical contexts,
and the roles of rhythm, register, dynamics and timbre in tonal music are
closely related to, and interactive with, the definition of tonal functions.

Atonality may be seen roughly to delimit two kinds of music: (1) That in which
there is no such contextual definition with reference to triads, diatonic scales
or keys, but in which there are, nonetheless, hierarchical distinctions among
pitches. This category would include some of the works of Schoenberg,
Stravinsky and Hindemith. The inadequacy of theories of tonality in dealing
with this music lends support to such a classification. (2) That in which such
hierarchical distinctions are not so explicit, though sometimes present. This
includes some of the pre-serial music of Webern, Schoenberg and, to a lesser
extent, Berg.

The usual attitudes concerning atonality and its development are vague and
misleading. It is often said that tonality developed to a point of complexity
where it was no longer possible to determine contextual definition as
described, and tonal functions were therefore abandoned. This attitude has a
basis in reality but is a simplification which obscures essential issues. Two
compositions near either side of the imagined border between tonality and
atonality, Liszt’s Sonetto del Petrarca no.104 from the second book of Années
de pèlerinage, and Skryabin’s Prelude op.74 no.3, shed light on this question.

It is not difficult to determine tonal contextual definition in the opening

measures of the Sonetto (ex.1). The F dominant 7th chord at the downbeats
of bars 1, 4 and 5 serves as a dominant to the B dominant 7th in bar 5, which
is in turn the dominant of E in bar 7. In the opening bars of this composition,
however, the diminished 7th chord plays a fundamental role as a referential
collection through the use of different interpretations of that chord. The chords
at the upbeats to bars 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, and at the fourth quaver beats of bars
3 and 4, are all enharmonically equivalent forms of the initial diminished 7th
collection B , D , F , A, which is transformed into the dominant 7th chord C
, E, F , A on the downbeat of bar 1. In that bar the F octave moves to G as
an upper neighbour, at which point another diminished collection is implied: C
, E, G, (B ). The sequence is repeated at successive minor 3rd
transpositions until in bar 4 an octave transposition of the F dominant 7th
chord of bar 1 is reached. All pitches in bars 1–4 are thus enharmonically
equivalent members of one of two diminished 7th collections. While it is useful
to observe that these measures prolong the dominant of the dominant of E
major, the actual method of prolongation is most easily understood in relation
to the enharmonically undefined diminished 7th collections 0, 3, 6, 9 and 1, 4,
7, 10 (with 0 denoting C or B , 1 denoting C or D , etc.). The absence of a
key signature further emphasizes the non-diatonic nature of the passage.
The opening of Skryabin’s Prelude op.74 no.3 provides an interesting
counter-example (ex.2). The music is not tonal in the senses described above
or in the sense of the Liszt composition. It is not clear that any note is defined
as a member of a major or minor triad, or that the passage is using notes of
some major or minor scale. There is a ‘dominant 7th chord’ embedded in bar
2, but this does not seem to function as a dominant of D major or minor. On
the other hand a special aspect of this passage is that all notes except G in
bar 1 and D in bar 3 belong to one of the diminished 7th collections A , C ,
E, G and B , D , F , A; and Skryabin’s spelling is consistent with this view.
The ‘dominant 7th chord’ in bar 2 is thus understood as a conjunction of
members of these two collections. In bar 3 the tritone transposition of the right
hand of bar 1, against the untransposed bass, results in the appearance of
the same collection as in bar 1 since the diminished 7th collection is invariant
under transposition by a tritone, The G–A succession in the middle register
in bars 2–3 also emphasizes the unfolding of a diminished 7th collection.

In response to the above attitude concerning the development of atonality, it

would seem safe to say, rather, that tonality developed new ideas, which then
lost some of their association with older concepts, and in doing so gained
more independent status as compositional determinants. The diminished 7th
chord in the music of Mozart, for example, most often acts as a tonicizing
agent, with the two tritones resolving in contrary motion to a major or minor
triad, but in the Liszt piece this is not so clearly the case, in that the chord
seems to have some significance as a referential collection, and in the
Skryabin it certainly functions in a completely different way.

In as much as notation reflects compositional thinking, it is interesting to

observe the expanded denoting of key signatures in the late 19th and early
20th centuries as a kind of musical barometer. The point of a key signature in
the music of Debussy, for example, is often only to delimit a pitch-class
collection – usually the whole or part of a diatonic scale – rather than to
prescribe a diatonic scale with the implied functional associations of tonic and
dominant triads, consonance and dissonance, and so on, as in the notation
and music of Liszt. On the other hand, the key signature of four sharps in
Schoenberg’s Chamber Symphony op.9 serves more to indicate that an E
major triad will function in some hierarchically significant way than to delimit a
scale. The first pages of the composition are, in fact, so full of symmetrical
collections, such as the whole-tone scale and the augmented triad, that the
key signature serves virtually no practical purpose. In the fourth movement of
Schoenberg’s Second Quartet op.10 the convention of a key signature is
abandoned. Schoenberg commented upon this work as follows (as quoted by
W. Reich in Schoenberg, London, 1971, p.31):

there are many sections in which the individual parts proceed

regardless of whether or not their meeting results in codified
harmonies …. The key is presented distinctly at all the main
dividing points of the formal organization. Yet the overwhelming
multitude of dissonances cannot be balanced any longer by
occasional returns to such triads as represent a key.

The concept of atonality thus evolved as various components of tonality lost

the high degree of interdependence they had formerly possessed.

An important aspect of late 19th-century music lies in a set of relatively

abstract ideas about what music is and can be: a referential sonority (the
triad) as the basis of a musical language; a motif as a compositional tool; the
progress and unfolding of a musical composition as something defined by the
transformation and development of motivic, contrapuntal and harmonic ideas;
the concept of closure; significant relations between discrete parts of a
musical composition; and the hierarchic superiority of certain specific pitches
or configurations of pitches in a given composition. The first composers
whose music might be defined as atonal were trained in the traditions of 19th-
century tonality, and their music reveals, in one way or another, the profound
influence of these concepts, as may be exemplified by the opening of the
second of Schoenberg’s Five Orchestral Pieces op.16 (ex.3 is taken from
Webern’s two-piano reduction).
A succession of simultaneities between the two right hands unfolds
transpositions and inversions (of interval content) of the same referential
sonority: in bar 1, (A, D, G ), (F, C, G ); in bar 2, (A , D , G), (G, C, G ), (E,
B, F). The significance of the D–A dyad is emphasized by its role in the first
movement, where the trichord D, A, C is sustained as a pedal for most of the
movement, and by the octave doubling in bar 1 of ex.3 and the retention of
the D–A dyad for the first three bars. An important motivic idea here is a
three-note melodic cell consisting of some kind of 2nd and some kind of 3rd.
(In the opening of the first movement the cellos play the line (E, F, A, G , A,
C ) which consists of several interlocking versions of this cell.) The first three
bars form a phrase unit defined by the new rhythmic and registral placement
of the descending minor 3rd (G –F in bar 1; A –F in bar 3), and the rest on
the first beat of bar 4. The concept of a musical language as inferred from
tonality thus extends deeply into atonality and forms a significant basis for the
development of new ideas.

Atonality
2. Differences between tonality and atonality.

Although an attempt has been made to indicate the ways in which tonality
developed into atonality and the similarities between the two, there are also
significant differences. As has been noted, one of the remarkable aspects of
tonality is the high degree of interdependence between the various
dimensions of a composition, such as pitch, rhythm, dynamics, timbre and
form. In atonality the functional relations between these dimensions are not
clearly defined. The concept of a suspension in tonality, for example,
embodies a conjunction of rhythmic and harmonic ideas, but the body of
atonal works offers no similar operation as a general procedure. Comparisons
of this sort have given rise to a second prevalent attitude concerning atonality:
that its processes do not extend beyond the boundaries of a given
composition. Again, this attitude is not entirely without basis but is highly
oversimplified. As understanding of tonality is aided by the existence of a
relatively highly developed theory, while no such assistance exists for
atonality, the former is perceived as a more highly unified musical language
than the latter. Atonal works do, however, have properties in common, but the
manifestations of these properties are very different. Examples may be taken
from two compositions in which, as in exx.1 and 2, the diminished 7th
collection has some structural significance: the first movement of Bartók’s
Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta, and the opening of Varèse’s
Density 21·5 for solo flute.

Ex.4 is the theme of the ‘fugue’ that opens the Bartók work. The voices of the
fugue make their entries at successive perfect 5ths alternately above and
below the original entry until, in bars 26 and 27, F and C are reached, a
major 13th above and below the original entry. The F and C are members of
the same diminished 7th collection as the initial A. They are doubled at the
octave to emphasize their structural significance, and they initiate a more
complex process of development which culminates in bar 56 where an E
(the pitch class at which the two diverging cycles of 5ths meet, and the
remaining member of the diminished 7th collection A, C, E , F ) is reached.
The linear structure of the theme is relevant to the large-scale structure of the
movement. The first two phrases span A–E , an interval of the diminished 7th
collection; the third and fourth phrases span B–E and B –E , respectively.
Thus a tritone, an interval which figures in the large-scale structure, is
outlined by the first and second phrases, and also by the third and fourth
phrases together. The span of the entire theme is a perfect 5th, anticipating
the second statement on E. At bar 65, after E is stated in several octaves,
the literal inversion of the theme is introduced, and at the end of the
movement (ex.5) a simultaneous statement of the second phrase of the
theme and of its inversion, both beginning on A, telescopes structural aspects
of the movement in the unison A and octave E , and in the statement of all 12
pitch classes, a totality implied by the succession of fugal transpositional
levels, and created by any two adjacent fugal entries.

Ex.6 contains the first large phrase of Varèse’s Density 21·5. The number 0,
1, or 2, inserted below each note, shows the diminished 7th collection to
which that note belongs: 0 denotes the collection on C, 1 that on C and 2
that on D. Except for the Fs in bars 1 and 3, all notes in bars 1–10 belong to
the 0 and 1 collections. These bars seem, in addition, to prolong the 1
collection since the 0 collection appears less frequently and with less rhythmic
emphasis. The opening F–E–F motif is special in that it contains one
member of each collection. Bar 9 represents an important structural point: it is
the loudest moment in the piece so far; the initial rhythmic figure returns, but
with new and more emphatic articulation; an octave has been spanned from
the lowest note so far and, since the 1 collection is now represented on the
first semiquaver of this figure, a kind of ‘modulation’ occurs. The repetition of
D –C in bars 9 and 10 delays the arrival of D (dynamically emphasized) until
the downbeat of bar 11, thus prolonging a transposition of the initial motif. In
bars 11–13 there are successive prolongations of the 2 and 0 collections, and
a final return to the initial 1 collection. The B –E dyad in bars 13–14 contains
the remaining members of the 1 collection as it appeared in its first salient
statement in bar 2.
In both the Bartók and the Varèse a governing structural principle is the
symmetrical partition of the octave through the diminished 7th collection. But
the compositional procedures are very different and the respective results
could hardly be more dissimilar.

Atonality

3. The atonality of Schoenberg, Berg and Webern.

Many of the atonal compositions of Berg, Webern and Schoenberg use

procedures and concepts such as those discussed in relation to
Schoenberg’s op.16 no.2. Just as tonality yielded concepts which were
reinterpreted for use in atonality, so the interactions between the various
aspects of the atonality of Berg, Webern and Schoenberg yielded new
concepts which eventually became relevant to serialism. A fundamental
development was the elimination of hierarchical pitch-class distinctions,
typified in tonality by entities such as the major scale. This led to the use of all
12 pitch classes within smaller time spans. Webern’s Bagatelles for string
quartet, for example, emphasize the unfolding of 12-note collections through
a reduction of pitch and pitch-class repetition, and by very careful and precise
attention to the articulation and orchestration of individual pitch classes (ex.7).
The extreme brevity of each of the Bagatelles is a consequence of this
approach.
The sense of octave relations as manifested in tonality undergoes a radical
transformation in a composition such as the Bagatelles. Clearly defined
octave relations would shift the focus away from an unfolding of the 12 pitch
classes. This thinking strongly influenced the development of the 12-note
system where the collection of 12 pitch classes plays a fundamental role.
(The meaning of an octave relation in this music differs profoundly from that in
the Bartók and Varèse examples quoted above. In the latter compositions the
octave has significance as a boundary, framing its symmetrical divisions – the
whole-tone scale, the diminished 7th collection, the augmented triad, the
tritone and the cycles of 5ths and semitones – and octave intervals may thus
signify the culmination of a process of development or a common feature of
different subdivisions.) In this sense one motivic idea of the Bagatelles is a
tendency towards the unfolding of 12-note collections. In general the concept
of a motif in this music merges into a much broader background
encompassing the rhythmic and instrumental textures.

The atonal works of Berg, Webern and Schoenberg employ a wide variety of
procedures and techniques for securing musical coherence. It is only
necessary to compare Schoenberg’s Erwartung with his Six Little Piano
Pieces op.19, for example, to see, on the one hand, a large-scale unfolding of
complex and varied pitch relations, and on the other, a small, detailed and
precise expression of specific and simple musical ideas. The evolution to the
12-note system and serialism was guided mainly by a tendency to subdue
traditional hierarchical pitch distinctions and to emphasize the use of ordered,
or partially ordered, collections of pitch classes, or motifs, to generate chords
and lines. Eventually the former tendency, in its encouragement of the use of
12-note collections, merged with the latter to become Schoenberg’s 12-note
system.

Atonality
4. Theoretical issues.

In the latter half of the 20th century, three theories of organizational structures
in atonal music emerged and became influential in musicians' perceptions
and understanding: (1) normative structures based on symmetry, from
George Perle; (2) pitch class set theory, from Allen Forte; and (3)
transformational networks, from David Lewin. The last two are influenced by
the premises of twelve-note theory given by Schoenberg and later expanded
on by Babbitt. Each theory, while decidedly non-tonal in approach, defines
relationships that have priority over others and govern successions of notes,
in ways that are at least remotely analogous to the hierarchies of tonality.

These three theories share some general principles; in particular, two

interpretations of melodic and harmonic events in atonal music have proven
seminal. The first stems from the recognition that the referential sonorities in
atonal music are not triads and that the organization is no longer based on
tonal function and the hierarchical organization of key centres. Notes freed
from tonal obligations have come to be regarded as enharmonically
equivalent and functionally indistinguishable, and generalized into 12 pitch
classes. In principle, any group of pitch classes can occur in a chord, melody
or combination, and these note-groups may succeed each other without the
dependent relationships of tonality. The second interpretation in atonal music
is a focus on intervals rather than pitches for relating note-groups. With this
change in orientation have come changes in the way intervals are described:
they are no longer divided into ‘consonant’ and ‘dissonant’ categories;
intervals are named by the number of semitones they contain, rather than by
their tonal names; and equivalences of intervals related by octaves (defined
as 12 ‘pitch class intervals’), and even by octave complements (those that
add up to an octave, defined as six ‘interval classes’), are asserted. Thus,
rather than talking about pieces being in keys, writers describe pieces as
having intervallic tendencies among non-triad note-groups.

Without the organizing force of a tonic key note and hierarchical grouping and
voice-leading between triads, new criteria for classification and relationships
among note-groups have also developed: (1) collectional or order
equivalence, where a note-group is recognizable as a categorized ‘collection’
when presented in any order, which may include horizontal or vertical; (2)
transpositional equivalence, where a note-group is not differentiated
functionally from transpositions of itself; (3) inversional equivalence, where a
note-group is not differentiated functionally from inversions of itself; and (4)
symmetry as a structural property, with mirror symmetry, symmetrical
collections (those in which inversions are equivalent to transpositions) and
interval cycles acting as alternatives to the chord progressions and voice-
leading of tonality. All these criteria relate to ‘invariance’, a central concept in
which some aspect of a note-group – either pitch, pitch class, interval or
interval class – is retained following some operation.
Many writers have codified the possible collections available by various
intervallic successions, initially as ‘scales’ for compositional resources and
later as lists of equivalent note-groups. The traditional equivalence operations
are transposition and inversion, where, for instance, the note-groups C–E –G
and A–C–E (transposition) and C–E –G and C–E–G (inversion) are
considered equivalent. A later addition is equivalence under ‘M’ or
multiplicative operations, where ‘M5’- or ‘M7’-related collections – for example
C–C –D and C–F–B at M5, with exchanged interval class 1 and 5 values –
are considered equivalent. Such lists and criteria are often defined using
numbers and mathematical relationships, with C = 0, C /D = 1, … A /B =
10, B = 11 (10 and 11 are also notated variously as ‘t’, ‘e’), with transposition
expressed as addition and inversion as subtraction, and even with
geometrical shapes and equations (see O'Connell, 1962, and Roeder, 1987).
Some notational conventions are: (1) 〈 x, y, z〉 (〈 C, E , G〉 ) for unordered
collections of pitches or pitch classes, that is, those in which order is not
considered an identifying feature; (2) 〈 x–y–z〉 (〈 C–E –G〉 ) for ordered
collections of pitches or pitch classes, that is, those in which order is an
identifying feature; and (3) [xyz] ([037]) for a set class, an equivalence class
of all unordered pitch class collections related by transposition or inversion to
a representative note-group, here {C, E , G}.

(i) Symmetry.

A letter from Berg to Schoenberg (27 July 1920), in which Berg outlined his
interest in interval cycles and symmetry, is the strongest source evidence for
symmetry being an organizing force in atonal music (as asserted by Perle).
Perle has described symmetrical procedures in tonal music as ‘windows of
disorder’ which become ‘windows of order’ in atonal music.

In reference to music principally by Berg and Bartók, but also by Schoenberg,

Webern, Stravinsky, Skryabin and others, Perle describes ‘normative’
elements that underlie the surface in similar ways, stemming from the
symmetry of the 12-note equal-tempered collection, which act as priority
elements among other ‘reflexive’ or local elements in pieces. This symmetry
is manifested as interval cycles (e.g. ‘3-cycles’ of 〈 C–E –F –A〉 , 〈 C –E–
G–B 〉 and 〈 D–F–A –B〉 ) and cyclic collections (e.g. {C, E, F , A } as a
collection from the complete whole-tone collection {C, D, E, F , G , A }), and
in inversional complementation (e.g. 〈 c'–e'〉 as the complement or mirror
pair to 〈 d–f 〉 around axis note a: 〈 d–f –[a]–c'–e'〉 ).

Symmetry results not only from the division of musical space into equal-
division pitch space, resulting in ‘mirror symmetry’ and an ‘axis’ of symmetry,
but in a more general sense from relationships among collections of pitch
classes (e.g. 〈 C–E〉 and 〈 D–F 〉 expressed numerically as 〈 0–4〉 and
〈 2–6〉 , then related by the sum of complementation 6, from 0+6 [C+F ] and
4+2 [E+D]: Babbitt's term for this sum is ‘index number’). Different
symmetrical bases can combine, with pitches or pitch classes lying both
inside and outside the prevailing symmetrical system(s), or acting as
transitions to some new cyclic aspect of the system, allowing for a hierarchy
of symmetrical and non-symmetrical notes. Where it occurs, symmetry is thus
in a constant state of interruption and regeneration, tension and release,
somewhat analogously to tonal stability and instability by motion away from
and back to a tonic key.

The principal elements of symmetry are: (1) voice-leading and registral

motion by interval cycles, where composition can be motivated to fill gaps
within cycles, span cyclic intervals, transpose or invert cycles, or change to
different cycles; (2) cyclic collections as a harmonic basis, either from pure
cycles or cycles with added ‘dissonant’ notes (e.g. a whole-tone collection
plus an added note C, 〈 F–E –D –A–C–B〉 , from the beginning of Berg's
String Quartet op.3), with procedures such as transposition to different cycle
forms, changes or reinterpretation in cyclic basis (e.g. 〈 C–C –D–E〉 as a 1-
cycle 〈 C–C –D〉 collection plus E reinterpreted as a 2-cycle 〈 C–D–E〉
collection plus C ), and opposition and reconciliation of cyclic bases; (3)
embedded cyclic collections functioning within larger note-groups, which are
influenced by the intervallic properties of the interval cycle; and (4) a
structural role for symmetrical note-groups, with their transpositional or
inversional invariances, and axes of symmetry or pitch class sums of
complementation. Such sums are identified by Perle as ‘keys’ and used to
relate different pieces, such as the sum 9 relationship pairing E/F, E /F ,
D/G, D /G , C/A and B/B (in numbers, 4/5, 3/6, 2/7, 1/8, 0/9, 11/10 (mod
12)) between the first movements of Berg's Lyric Suite and Bartók's Fourth
String Quartet.

(ii) Pitch class set theory.

Pitch class set theory, as set out principally by Forte, establishes a theoretical
context in which pitches are grouped into pitch class sets, which are then
further categorized into set classes equivalent under transposition and
inversion. Set classes are labelled by cardinality, placement within a list
ordered by interval class content and prime form (e.g. set class 4–1 [0123]
indicates four notes, e.g. {C, C , D, D }, with its interval class ‘vector’ of
〈 321000〉 identifying three interval class 1s, two interval class 2s etc., placed
first in the list of four-note set classes, and with a prime or most compact form
[0123]). Set classes grouped or ‘segmented’ in analyses of pieces are related
to each other in several ways: in ‘literal’ relationships two sets share pitch
classes; in ‘abstract’ relationships two sets share interval classes. Two other
relationships are the ‘complement’ of a set, which may be a literal
complement consisting of the remaining pitch classes or the abstract
complement consisting of the set class of the remaining pitch classes, and a
‘Z-relation’, in which two set classes of the same cardinality have the same
interval class vector but not the same prime form (e.g. [0137] and [0146], both
with vector 〈 111111〉 ).

The organization of atonal pieces is interpreted by a hierarchical network

relating as many set classes as possible to a central ‘nexus’ set – a set,
usually a hexachord, that shares the greatest number of interval class
relationships with surrounding sets and their complement sets. Two types of
network exist: (1) a ‘K’ network, which results when, among two set classes of
different cardinalities, S and T, and their complements S' and T', S is a subset
or superset of either T or T'; and (2) a more exclusive ‘Kh’ network, yielding a
smaller number of related sets, which results when set class S is a subset or
superset of both set classes T and T'.

Many writers have expanded on pitch class set theory to show the ‘normative’
elements that result from the 12-note equal-tempered system: (1) the
equivalent invariance properties and intervallic structures of complementary
sets, where interval class vector entries differ by the difference in cardinalities
(e.g. given set class 3–1 {C, C , D} vector 〈 210000〉 and complement 9–1
{D , E, F, F , G, G , A, A , B} vector 〈 876663〉 , 876663 − 210000 =
666663, with the interval class 6 entry halved due to its invariance); (2) the
tendency of hexachords to be nexus sets; (3) the presence of Z-related pairs
of sets; and (4) the similarity of relationships, sharing pitch class and interval
class content, between pitch class sets, usually expressed as percentages in
a scale of 0 to 1. These ‘normative’ structures provide a context for the
‘reflexive’ elements of individual pieces. See also Set.

(iii) Transformational networks.

Lewin's focus has been on the spans between musical events rather than on
the events themselves – durations rather than attacks, intervals rather than
pitches. These spans, called ‘intervals’ in a more generalized sense, are
regarded as active rather than passive, transformational rather than simply
measurable or classifiable, ordered in time and space, and interpretable
according to relative, rather than absolute, criteria. By combining defined
musical spaces (‘S’, e.g. pitch), a group of mathematical operations (IVLS,
e.g. the addition of semitones), and defined mappings of objects on to one
another by specific intervals (a function ‘int’ mapping s on to t, e.g.
transposition), Lewin's analytical apparatus, the Generalized Interval System
(GIS), can encompass aspects of many existing theories of atonal and tonal
music. The successive intervals transforming one object through a
succession of other objects are displayed in transformational networks, which
are internally ordered and logical, and to varying extents independent of the
objects being transformed.
In practice, Lewin's analyses are governed by several premises. Like Perle,
Lewin defines intervals both as differences (transpositions) and sums
(inversions). Inversion is described in terms of inversional ‘balance’,
manifested as either pitch axes or pitch class sums that group surrounding
notes (e.g. the axis A/B groups note pairs A/B , G /B, G/C, F /C , F/D and
E/E . The completion of either a pitch-inversional dyad in register or of a pitch
class-inversional pair is often a compositional premise. Intervals are regarded
as having tendencies to propagate themselves as transpositional or
inversional levels. Lewin allows for the equivalences of pitch class set theory,
and combines transposition and inversion within the same set as
‘Klumpenhouwer networks’ (e.g. 〈 A–F –B〉 with interval 2 〈 A–B〉
transposed to 〈 A –B 〉 , and interval 〈 A–F 〉 symmetrically expanded at
sum 3 to 〈 A –G〉 to yield 〈 A –G–B 〉 ), analogous to Perle's combinations
of sum and difference relationships in the ‘cyclic sets’ that are the basis of his
12-note tonality. Analytically, Lewin stresses pitch relationships with registral
extremes or boundary notes as significant elements.

Noteworthy in analytical commentary from Lewin's approach are the following:

aggregates and aggregate completion; instances of symmetrical pitch
inversion as more ‘audible’ realizations of pitch class inversional
complementation; axis notes of inversion occurring as adjacent notes in a
series; and ordered relations among symmetrically related notes. The point of
the analysis is often to relate as many collections as possible by a similar set
of transformations – particularly to show that different collections, whether
symmetrical or asymmetrical, adjacent or divided on the surface by register,
have similar transformational relationships – and in this way to demonstrate
the underlying unifying principles that connect the first note to the last in a
passage. A transformational scheme is valued for including virtually every
note, and is validated by recurring ‘motivic’ pitch registral connections on the
surface and in relation to other movements.

Atonality

5. Conclusion.

Atonality thus roughly delimits a wide range of compositional practices whose

only features are the absence of the normative and interrelated procedures of
tonality and of the basic concept of serialism. It remains to be seen to what
extent atonality is a useful or relevant musical category. The tendency of
historical criticism to construct systems of classification which attempt to
index individual entries as neatly and unambiguously as possible has
certainly been frustrated so far. The individuality of the contributions of
Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Bartók, Webern, Berg and others ultimately
transcends and trivializes such attempts, if it does not contradict them.
Atonality

BIBLIOGRAPHY

B. Ziehn: Harmonie- und Modulationslehre (Berlin, 1887–8; Eng. trans.,

1907)
A. Schoenberg: Harmonielehre (1911, 3/1922; Eng. trans., 1978)
B. Ziehn: Five- and Six-Part Harmonies and How to Use Them (Milwaukee,
1911)
E. Bacon: ‘Our Musical Idiom’, The Monist, xxvii (1917), 560–607
H. Eimert: Atonale Musiklehre (Leipzig, 1924)
F.H. Klein: ‘Die Grenze der Halbtonwelt’, Die Musik, xvii/4 (1925), 281–6
A. Hába: Neue Harmonielehre des diatonischen, chromatischen, Viertel-,
Drittel-, Sechstel-, und Zwölftel-Tonsystems (Leipzig, 1927)
H. Cowell: New Musical Resources (1930/R)
A. Schoenberg: ‘Analysis of the Four Orchestral Songs Opus 22’ [1932],
PNM, iii/2 (1964–5), 1–21; repr. in B. Boretz and E.T. Cone, eds.:
Perspectives on Schoenberg and Stravinsky (Princeton, NJ, 1968,
2/1972), 25–45
A. Schoenberg: ‘Problems of Harmony’, MM, xxi (1934), 167; repr. in Style
and Idea (New York, 1950, 3/1984), 268–87
A. Berg: ‘Was Ist atonal?’, 23: eine wiener Musikzeitschrift, vi–vii (1936), 1–
11; Eng. trans. in N. Slonimsky: Music since 1900 (New York, 1938,
5/1994), 1027–9
P. Hindemith: Unterweisung im Tonsatz (Mainz, 1937–9, 2/1940; Eng trans.,
1941–2, 2/1948)
J. Schillinger: Kaleidophone: New Resources of Melody and Harmony (New
York, 1940)
O. Messiaen: Technique de mon langage musical (Paris, 1944; Eng. trans.,
1956)
F. Salzer: Structural Hearing: Tonal Coherence in Music (New York, 1952)
D. Lewin: ‘Intervallic Relations between Two Collections of Notes’, JMT, iii
(1959), 298–301
R. Travis: ‘Toward a New Concept of Tonality?’, JMT, iii (1959), 257–84
H. Hanson: Harmonic Materials of Twentieth-Century Music (New York,
1960)
W. O'Connell: ‘Der Ton-Raum’, Die Reihe, viii (1962), 35–61; Eng. trans. in
Die Reihe, vii (1968), 34–67
G. Perle: Serial Composition and Atonality (Berkeley, 1962, 6/1991)
A. Berger: ‘Problems of Pitch Organization in Stravinsky’, PNM, ii/1 (1963–4),
11–42
A. Forte: ‘A Theory of Set-Complexes for Music’, JMT, viii (1964), 136–83
J. Tenney: Meta/Hodos and META Meta/Hodos (New Orleans, 1964)
J. Clough: ‘Pitch-Set Equivalence and Inclusion (A Comment on Forte's
Theory of Set-Complexes)’, JMT, ix (1965), 163–71
R. Teitelbaum: ‘Intervallic Relations in Atonal Music’, JMT, ix (1965), 72–127
E. Carter: ‘Expressionism and American Music’, PNM, iv/1 (1965–6), 1–13
R. Travis: ‘Directed Motion in Schoenberg and Webern’, PNM, iv/2 (1965–6),
85–9
G. Perle: ‘The Musical Language of Wozzeck’, Music Forum, i (1967), 204–
59
D. Lewin: ‘Inversional Balance as an Organizing Force in Schoenberg's
Music and Thought’, PNM, vi/2 (1967–8), 1–21
R. Craft: ‘Schoenberg's Five Pieces for Orchestra’, Perspectives on
Schoenberg and Stravinsky, ed. B. Boretz and E.T. Cone (Princeton, NJ,
1968, 2/1972), 3–24
B. Boretz: ‘Meta-Variations: Studies in the Foundation of Musical Thought’,
PNM, viii/1 (1969–70), 1–74; viii/2 (1969–70), 49–111; xi/1 (1972–3),
146–233; xi/2 (1972–3), 156–203
B. Boretz: ‘The Construction of Musical Syntax (I)’, PNM, ix/1 (1970–71), 23–
42
J. Maegaard: Studien zur Entwicklung des Dodekaphonene Satzes bei
Arnold Schönberg (Copenhagen, 1972) [review in MQ, lxiii (1977), 273]
A. Forte: ‘Sets and Nonsets in Schoenberg's Atonal Music’, PNM, xi/1 (1972–
3), 43–64
A. Forte: The Structure of Atonal Music (New Haven, CT, 1973)
B. Alphonse: The Invariance Matrix (diss., Yale U., 1974)
E. Cone: ‘Sound and Syntax: an Introduction to Schoenberg's Harmony’,
PNM, xiii/1 (1974–5), 21–40
E. Regener: ‘On Allen Forte's Theory of Chords’, PNM, xiii/1 (1974–5), 191–
212
P. Lansky: ‘Pitch-Class Consciousness’, PNM, xiii/2 (1974–5), 30–56
C. Gamer and P. Lansky: ‘Fanfare for the Common Tone’, PNM, xiv/2–xv/1
(1976), 229–35
R. Chrisman: ‘Describing Structural Aspects of Pitch-Sets using Successive-
Interval Arrays’, JMT, xxi (1977), 1–28
D. Lewin: ‘Forte's Interval Vector, My Interval Function, and Regener's
Common-Note Function’, JMT, xxi (1977), 194–237
G. Perle: ‘Berg's Master Array of the Interval Cycles’, MQ, lxiii (1977), 1–30
A. Chapman: A Theory of Harmonic Structure for Nontonal Music (diss., Yale
U., 1978)
D. Starr: ‘Sets, Invariance, and Partitions’, JMT, xxii (1978), 1–42
D. Beach: ‘Pitch Structure and the Analytic Process in Atonal Music: an
Interpretation of the Theory of Sets’, Music Theory Spectrum, i (1979), 7–
22
D. Lewin: ‘A Response to a Response: on Pcset Relatedness’, PNM, xviii
(1979–80), 498–502
R. Morris: ‘A Similarity Index for Pitch-Class Sets’, PNM, xviii (1979–80),
445–60
J. Rahn: ‘Relating Sets’, PNM, xviii (1979–80), 483–98
G. Perle: The Operas of Alban Berg, i: Wozzeck (Berkeley, 1980)
J. Rahn: Basic Atonal Theory (New York, 1980)
J. Tenney and L. Polansky: ‘Temporal Gestalt Perception in Music’, JMT,
xxiv (1980), 205–41
A. Forte: ‘The Magical Kaleidoscope: Schoenberg's First Atonal Masterwork,
opus 11, no.1’, Journal of the Arnold Schoenberg Institute, v (1981),
127–68
C. Hasty: ‘Segmentation and Process in Post-Tonal Music’, Music Theory
Spectrum, iii (1981), 54–73
C. Lord: ‘Intervallic Similarity Relations in Atonal Set Analysis’, JMT, xxv
(1981), 91–111
R. Morris: ‘Review of John Rahn's Basic Atonal Theory’, Music Theory
Spectrum, iv (1982), 138–54
R. Morris: ‘Set Groups, Complementation, and Mappings among Pitch-Class
Sets’, JMT, xxvi/1 (1982), 101–44
M. Kielian-Gilbert: ‘Relationships of Symmetrical Pitch-Class Sets and
Stravinsky's Metaphor of Polarity’, PNM, xxi (1982–3), 209–40
D. Lewin: ‘Transformational Techniques in Atonal and Other Music Theories’,
PNM, xxi (1982–3), 312–71
R. Morris: ‘Combinatoriality without the Aggregate’, PNM, xxi (1982–3), 432–
86
J. Baker: ‘Schenkerian Analysis and Post-Tonal Music’, Aspects of
Schenkerian Theory, ed. D. Beach (New Haven, CT, 1983)
J. Clough: ‘Use of the Exclusion Relation to Profile Pitch-Class Sets’, JMT,
xxvii (1983), 181–201
J. Schmalfeldt: Berg's ‘Wozzeck’: Harmonic Language and Dramatic Design
(New Haven, CT, 1983)
E. Antokoletz: The Music of Béla Bartók (Berkeley, 1984)
C. Hasty: ‘Phrase Formation in Post-Tonal Music’, JMT, xxviii (1984), 167–90
G. Perle: ‘Scriabin’s Self-Analyses’, MAn, iii (1984), 101–22
A. Forte: ‘Pitch-Class Set Analysis Today’, MAn, iv (1985), 29–58
J. Bernard: The Music of Edgard Varèse (New Haven, CT, 1987)
D. Lewin: Generalized Musical Intervals and Transformations (New Haven,
CT, 1987)
R.D. Morris: Composition with Pitch-Classes: a Theory of Compositional
Design (New Haven, CT, 1987)
J. Roeder: ‘A Geometric Representation of Pitch-Class Series’, PNM, xxv
(1987), 362–409
J. Straus: ‘The Problem of Prolongation in Post-Tonal Music’, JMT, xxxi
(1987), 1–21
A. Forte: ‘New Approaches to the Linear Analysis of Music’, JAMS, xli (1988),
315–48
A. Forte: ‘Pitch-Class Set Genera and the Origin of Modern Harmonic
Species’, JMT, xxxii (1988), 187–270
R. Wason: ‘Tonality and Atonality in Frederick Rzewski's Variations on “The
People United Will Never Be Defeated”’, PNM, xxvi/1 (1988), 108–43
A. Mead: ‘The State of Research in Twelve-Tone and Atonal Theory’, Music
Theory Spectrum, xi (1989), 40–48
 J. Roeder: ‘Harmonic Implications of Schoenberg's Observations of Atonal
Voice Leading’, JMT, xxxiii (1989), 27–62
J. Baker: ‘Voice Leading in Post-Tonal Music: Suggestions for Extending
Schenker's Theory’, MAn, ix (1990), 177–200
D. Lewin: ‘Klumpenhouwer Networks and Some Isographies that Involve
Them’, Music Theory Spectrum, xii (1990), 83–120
G. Perle: The Listening Composer (Berkeley, 1990)
G. Perle: ‘Pitch-Class Set Analysis: an Evaluation’, JM, viii (1990), 151–72
J. Straus: Introduction to Post-Tonal Theory (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1990)
J. Straus: Remaking the Past: Musical Modernism and the Influence of the
Tonal Tradition (Cambridge, MA, 1990)
E.W. Marvin: ‘The Perception of Rhythm in Non-Tonal Music: Rhythmic
Contours in the Music of Edgard Varèse’, Music Theory Spectrum, xiii
(1991), 61–78
S. Neff: ‘An American Precursor of Non-Tonal Theory: Ernst Bacon (1898–
1990)’, CMc, no.48 (1991), 5–26
D. Headlam: ‘Fritz Heinrich Klein's “Die Grenze der Halbtonwelt” and Die
Maschine’, Theoria, vi (1992), 54–96
D.W. Bernstein: ‘Symmetry and Symmetrical Inversion in Turn-of-the-
Century Theory and Practice’, Music Theory and the Exploration of the
Past, ed. C. Hatch and D.W. Bernstein (Chicago, 1993), 377–407
R. Morris: ‘New Directions in the Theory and Analysis of Musical Contour’,
Music Theory Spectrum, xv (1993), 205–28
G. Perle: ‘Communication (Re: Lewin, “Klumpenhouwer Networks”)’, Music
Theory Spectrum, xv (1993), 300–03
R. Morris: ‘Recommendations for Atonal Music Pedagogy in General;
Recognizing and Hearing Set-Classes in Particular’, Journal of Music
Theory Pedagogy, viii (1994), 75–134
G. Perle: The Right Notes (Stuyvesant, NY, 1995)
E. Haimo: ‘Atonality, Analysis, and the Intentional Fallacy’, Music Theory
Spectrum, xviii (1996), 167–99
J.W. Bernard: ‘Chord, Collection, and Set in Twentieth-Century Theory’,
Music Theory in Concept and Practice, ed. J.W. Baker, D.W. Beach and
J.W. Bernard (Rochester, NY, 1997), 11–51
G. Perle: ‘Berg’s Style of Freedom’, MT, cxxxix (1998), 12–31