Atonality: Relations Between Tonality and Atonality

Atonality
Dave Headlam, Robert Hasegawa, Paul Lansky and George Perle
https://doi.org/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.47354
Published in print: 20 January 2001
Published online: 2001
This version: 25 July 2013
Updated in this version

updated and revised 25 July 2013
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.

Paul Lansky and George Perle
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,
Page 1 of 33
Printed from Grove Music Online. Grove is a registered trademark. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an
individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: ArtEZ Hogeschool voor de Kunsten; date: 24 April 2021

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.
Atonality 1. Relations between tonality and atonality.: Ex.1
Page 2 of 33

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.
Atonality 1. Relations between tonality and atonality.: Ex.2
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.
Page 3 of 33

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).
Page 4 of 33

Ex.3
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.
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
Page 5 of 33

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.
Atonality 2. Differences between tonality and atonality.: Ex.4
Page 6 of 33

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.
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
Page 7 of 33

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.
Atonality 3. The atonality of Schoenberg, Berg and Webern.: Ex.7
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.
Page 8 of 33

4. Theoretical issues.
Although atonality can be taken, at the broadest level, to encompass all music which is not tonal,
theorists have tended to focus on a primarily European repertoire from the early 20th century, centred
on the pre-12-note music of Schoenberg, Berg and Webern but embracing other composers as well. For
instance, Allen Forte’s influential The Structure of Atonal Music (1973) also includes analyses of music
by Bartók, Busoni, Ives, Ruggles, Scriabin, Stravinsky and Varèse. Works displaying ‘free’ atonality
(free, that is, in comparison to music composed using serial and 12-note techniques) have been
particularly challenging to theorists. Compared to the wealth of composers’ writings on 12-note
technique, there are few accounts of how free atonal works were composed, and little evidence of a
shared set of compositional techniques. One result of this paucity of first-hand compositional accounts
is that theorists have had to infer the organization of atonal works from the pieces themselves. The
main challenge has been to develop concepts that can model the events of atonal works in a
meaningful way, defining relationships that have priority over others and principles that govern the
succession of notes and events. The result has been a wide range of approaches to conceptually
structuring atonal music, sometimes (though not always) drawing on contemporaneous accounts of
compositional technique.
(a) Compositional theories
One of the relatively rare detailed descriptions of an atonal work by its own composer is Schoenberg’s
analysis of his Four Orchestral Songs, op.22, prepared as a radio lecture in 1932 (Schoenberg, 1932;
Boss, 1992). Schoenberg himself objected to the term ‘atonality’, arguing that ‘everything implied by a
series of tones constitutes tonality, whether it be brought together by means of direct reference to a
single fundamental or by more complicated connections’ (Schoenberg, 1911). Schoenberg describes
the first song’s ‘musical logic’ as based on the relatively free application of developing variation,
starting from combinations of minor seconds and minor thirds (ex.8). The paired minor second and
minor third are subjected to variation techniques including change of direction, reordering,
transposition, rhythmic alteration and the addition of intervening notes. In many cases, a pitch is
displaced by an octave, changing for example a minor second into a major seventh. Further
transformations expand the minor second to a major second, and the minor third to a major third. As
Schoenberg admits, these changes in the size and direction of intervals make the motive a highly
changeable element, yet it can still function as a ‘building-stone’ in the construction of the piece.
Schoenberg’s emphasis on motivic development, as reflected in this analysis and theoretical writings
such as Fundamentals of Musical Composition (1967), has informed the underlying logic of virtually all
later theories of atonal music, including Perle’s concept of the ‘basic cell’ and Forte’s recurring pitch-
class sets.
Page 9 of 33

Ex.8 From A. Schoenberg: ‘Analysis of the Four Orchestral Songs Opus 22’ [1932], PNM, iii/2 (1964–5), 1–21
In comparison to Schoenberg’s later 12-note works, the seemingly ad hoc motivic alterations he
describes in the op.22 songs may seem capricious and inconsistent. Schoenberg himself spoke of his
free atonal works as a transitional period towards the development of the mature 12-note technique,
and many subsequent theories of atonal music have sought a more regimented organization in atonal
works comparable to the strictures of 12-note music. The legacy of Schoenberg’s 12-note method has
also been extremely influential on later accounts of atonal music, in particular the notion that, despite
their apparently intuitively composed surface, these works have a logical background structure based
on the manipulations of some basic musical materials. One of the most important borrowings from 12-
note theory is the assumption of octave equivalence. In 12-note composition, the registral position of a
note does not affect its membership in a row form: a row is conceived in terms of pitch classes,
abstracted from any specific register. A general assumption (though not one without its critics; see
Bernard, 1987 and Cramer, 2002) is that pitch classes, not pitches-in-register, are also the essential
building blocks of atonal music. Twelve-note theory also lent to atonal analysis an emphasis on the
operations of strict pitch-class transposition and inversion (retrograde is generally considered less
Page 10 of 33

important for the atonal repertoire, where it is often assumed that unordered sets take priority), and a
breakdown of traditional distinctions between the linear and harmonic dimensions of music: in 12-note
composition, a row segment can often be verticalized into a harmony (see Verticalization), and a similar
interpenetration of melody and harmony is assumed by most atonal theorists.
Though it is beyond the scope of this article to detail the wide range of atonal compositional theories,
designed primarily for the purpose of new musical creation but sometimes also applicable as analytical
concepts, the writings of composers offer valuable insight into compositional practice. Berg’s lecture
on his first opera Wozzeck (1929), the interview ‘Was ist atonal?’ (1936) and his letters to Schoenberg
outline various organizational procedures. Some are analogous to the harmonic and melodic functions
of tonality and some not, instead using motivic ‘constructive rhythms’ and irregular phrasing, interval
cycles and systematic treatments of instrumentation, articulation and so on that show an increased
concern with each aspect of the composition. The compositional theories of Messiaen and Elliott Carter
have been spelt out with particular detail. Messiaen’s accounts of his ‘musical language’ (Messiaen,
1944 and 1994–2002) emphasize the recurrent role of certain chords, modes or scales, and rhythmic
devices. Prominent among these are the ‘modes of limited transposition’, including the whole-tone and
octatonic scales. Carter developed a list of harmonies similar to Allen Forte’s set class list (see
§4(c)Pitch-class set theory); his later works show the frequent use of the two ‘all-interval tetrachords’
and the ‘all-triad hexachord’, which includes at least one instance of every three-note chord type
(Carter, 2002; Schiff, 1983).
(b) Symmetry and interval cycles
Based on certain assumptions about which relationships are musically significant, theorists have
attempted to ground the relatively loose analytical descriptions of Schoenberg’s developing variation
in a more systematic study of the inherent properties of the 12-pitch-class universe. Perle is among the
most influential of theorists operating in this vein. His theoretical writings on atonal music evince a
strong debt to the compositional theory of 12-note composition, in particular the use of the operations
of transposition and inversion. Perle’s definition of motives is stricter than Schoenberg’s, and he views
the manipulation of ‘basic cells’ by strict transposition and inversion as a significant compositional
technique (Perle, 1962). Perle’s later analytical writings explore pitch-class symmetries and interval
cycles, such as the circle of fifths, augmented triad, diminished seventh chord and whole-tone scale.
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 as an organizing force in atonal music (as
asserted by Perle, 1977). The letter includes a ‘master array’ which combines cycles of intervals
ranging from the semitone to the octave (ex.9). Perle’s studies of the abstract cyclical and symmetrical
properties of the 12-pitch-class system have led to the identification of intriguing parallels between
composers whose work is otherwise very different: Bartók and Berg, for example, or Bartók and
Varèse. Such properties seem to play the role of common resources, available for use by composers of
diverse aesthetic orientations. Tracing the origins of such symmetrical and cyclical structures back to
the tonal repertoire, Perle has identified such procedures in tonal music as ‘windows of disorder’ which
become ‘windows of order’ in atonal music.
Page 11 of 33

Ex.9 From G. Perle: Twelve-Tone Tonality (Berkeley, CA, 1977, 2/1996)
Perle describes symmetries and cycles as ‘normative’ elements, lying beneath the surface of musical
works and acting as structuring devices in company with ‘reflexive’ or local elements (Perle, 1977 and
1990). Such ‘normative’ elements can unfold in countless ways, including: (1) voice-leading and
registral motion by interval cycles, where compositions can be motivated to fill gaps within cycles,
span cyclic intervals, transpose or invert cycles, or change to different cycles (see the discussion of the
Page 12 of 33

diminished-seventh chords or ‘3-cycles’ in Bartók and Varèse in §2); (2) cyclic collections as basis for
harmony, using either pure cycles or cycles with added ‘dissonant’ notes (e.g. the whole-tone subset
plus an added note C, 〈F–E♭–D♭–A–C–B〉, found at the beginning of Berg’s String Quartet op.3), with
developmental procedures including 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.
In Perle’s compositional system, described in Twelve-Tone Tonality (1977), the 12-pitch-class system is
structured by a combination of interval cycles with the operations of transposition and inversion. When
the 12 pitch classes are conceived in terms of modulo-12 arithmetic (as in contemporaneous work by
Babbitt, Forte and others), numerical labels are adopted for the 12 pitch classes, with C = 0, C♯/D♭ =
1, … A♯/B♭ = 10, B = 11 (to avoid the accidental misreading of two-digit numbers, 10 and 11 are also
notated variously as ‘t’, ‘e’ or ‘A’, ‘B’). In this numerical conception, transpositions are conceived as
pairing pitch classes with a constant difference (e.g. 〈C–E〉 and 〈D–F♯〉 are transpositions of one another,
since when expressed numerically as 〈0–4〉 and 〈2–6〉, 0 - 2 = 4 - 6 = 10), while inversions are conceived
as pairing pitch classes so that they have a constant sum (〈C–E〉 and 〈D–F♯〉 are inversionally related as
well, since 0 + 6 = 2 + 4 = 6). In Babbitt’s definition of inversion, this sum is called the ‘index number.’
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)) shared by the first movements of Berg’s Lyric Suite and Bartók’s Fourth String Quartet (Perle,
1977). Perle presents his system not only as the basis for his own compositions, but also as a theory
which can support insights into the music of Berg, Bartók and others. 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 cycle within the system, allowing for a hierarchy of
symmetrically-defined 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.
(c) Pitch-class set theory
Another theoretical system built on the exploration of inherent properties of the 12-pitch-class system
is pitch-class set theory, associated primarily with the theorist Allen Forte, but encompassing
contributions by other theorists including Milton Babbitt, David Lewin and Donald Martino. As for
Perle’s theories, the burgeoning literature on 12-note composition was a major impetus for the
development of pitch-class set theory; the theory also formalizes some of the ideas of motivic variation
described by Schoenberg. In its methodology, pitch-class set theory takes a number of ideas from
mathematical set theory, and represents the contributions of mathematically skilled theorists like
Babbitt and Lewin.
Any collection of pitches can be represented as a pitch-class set, by disregarding temporal ordering
and register, allowing enharmonic equivalence and eliminating any repeated pitch-classes. While all
pitch-class sets are unordered collections, theorists found it convenient to designate one ordering of
the set as a ‘normal form’ or ‘normal order’. Exact definitions of normal order vary from author to
author; the most widely accepted definition (from Forte, 1973) requires the pitch classes to be first
Page 13 of 33

arranged in ascending order, then rotated until the most compact ordering is found. Ties between
equally compact orderings are broken by finding the rotation with the smallest interval from the first
pitch class to the second, and if necessary, the first to third, fourth, and so on.
All of the possible pitch-class sets (numbering 4096, including the null set of zero members and the
complete aggregate of 12 notes) can be partitioned into equivalence classes in different ways, by
changing the way equivalency is mathematically defined. From a set-theoretic perspective, the
essential features of these partitions are that they must be both exhaustive and exclusive: every pitch-
class set must be assigned to one and only one equivalence class (Rahn, 1980; Schuijer, 2008). In
Forte’s first detailed formulation of set class theory (Forte, 1964), sets are defined as equivalent when
they share the same ‘interval vector’: that is, the same collection of unordered pitch-class intervals
between its members. For example, the pitch-class set {C, C♯, D, D♯} has an interval vector of
〈321000〉, identifying three interval class 1s, two interval class 2s, and so on. Clough (1965) challenges
this definition of pitch-class set equivalence, since it fails to differentiate between what Forte calls ‘Z-
related sets’, a small but significant minority of sets which share the same interval vector but cannot
be transformed into one another by transposition and/or inversion (e.g. the ‘all-interval
tetrachords’ {C, C♯ , E, F♯ } and {C, C♯, D♯, G} both with vector 〈111111〉). Exactly what type of
audible relationship is implied by Z-related sets remains a matter of debate among theorists; in
general, it seems to be assumed that Z-related sets share some sort of sonic similarity, due to their
shared interval content, but a weaker similarity than that produced by transposition or inversion. This
is an issue which seems only resolvable through empirical study, since the mathematical definitions
involved in equivalence are silent on the question of perceptibility. Clough’s alternative is to define sets
as equivalent only if they are related by transposition and/or inversion (Clough, 1965; Schuijer, 2008).
Equivalence, then, is defined by the application of certain operations: this idea is extended into the
more general idea of a ‘canonical group of operations’ in work by John Rahn, Robert Morris and David
Lewin (Rahn, 1980; Morris, 1987 and 2001; Lewin, 1977 and 1987). Depending on which operations are
admitted into the canonical group, sets may be considered equivalent when they are related by
transposition alone (Tn set classes), transposition plus inversion (Tn/I set classes) or transposition and
inversion plus the ‘circle-of-fifths’ transformations which map the chromatic scale onto the circle of
fourths or fifths, mathematically equivalent to multiplying the pitch class numbers modulo 12 by 5 or 7
(Tn/I/M set classes).
Page 14 of 33

Table 1 Number of possible pitch-class sets, Tn set classes, and Tn/I set classes (after R. Morris: Composition
with Pitch-Classes: a Theory of Compositional Design, New Haven, CT, 1987)
Pitch-class sets Tn set classes Tn/I set classes
0 1 1 1
1 12 1 1
2 66 6 6
3 220 19 12
4 465 43 29
5 792 66 38
6 924 80 50
7 792 66 98
8 495 43 29
9 220 19 12
10 66 6 6
11 12 1 1
12 1 1 1
Page 15 of 33

By the publication of The Structure of Atonal Music in 1973, Forte had adopted Clough’s canonical
group of transposition and inversion operations, resulting in the theoretically possible 224 Tn/I
equivalency classes or ‘set classes’ shown in A. In practice, Forte chose to omit set classes with
cardinalities less than 2 or greater than 10, resulting in a set class list consisting of the 208 set classes
of cardinality 3 to 9. (Comparable enumerations of sets and set classes appear in Klein, 1925; Hába,
1927; Hanson, 1960; Carter, 2002 and other sources: see Bernard, 1997.) An issue of labelling arises
again, since theorists need a way to refer to a set class as a generalized abstraction in a consistent
way. In theory, any member of a set class can represent the class as a whole, but in practice Forte
chooses a ‘prime form’, determined by transposing both the original and inverted forms of a
numerically-expressed set class to begin with 0, then selecting the one with the ‘best normal order’.
Forte’s 1973 list of set classes tabulates their prime forms and interval vectors, along with a set-class
‘name’ in the form 5-10, where 5 shows the set’s cardinality and 10 is an ordinal number showing the
set’s position in the list. Z-related sets are indicated by an added Z: e.g., 5-Z37. While many theorists
have adopted Forte’s set class names, set classes are also often referred to by their prime form alone:
e.g., [03458]. Ex.10 is an excerpt from the portion of the list showing set classes of cardinality 5 and 7.
Ex.10 From Allen Forte: The Structure of Atonal Music, New Haven (CT, 1973)
Page 16 of 33

Like mathematical set theory, pitch-class set theory invokes the concepts of inclusion relationships (one
set can be a subset or superset of another) and complementation (a set’s complement consists of all
the pitch classes which are not included in the set). These relationships may be either literal
(pertaining to specific pitch-class sets) or abstract (pertaining to relationships between set classes).
For example, the black-key pentatonic set {F♯, G♯, A♯, C♯, D♯) is the literal complement of the C major
scale, but the set class of all such pentatonic scales (5-35) is the abstract complement of the set class
of all diatonic scales (7-35). (For sets with cardinalities other than 6, Forte’s set names assign the same
ordinal number to a set class and its complement, and they are listed opposite one another in the list of
set classes. Six-note set classes are either their own complements, or are Z-related to their
complement.)
Forte 1964 and 1973 use set theoretic ideas to define set complexes that define networks of
relationships between set classes based on inclusion. Given a set class T and its complement Tʹ, any
other set class S of unequal size is part of the set complex about T and T’ if S is an abstract subset or
superset of either T or Tʹ (this set complex relation is labeled ‘K’). A more exclusive ‘Kh’ subcomplex
requires S to be a superset or subset of both T and Tʹ. Forte proposes that once a number of significant
set classes have been identified, they can be related by a ‘nexus’ set, a single set class which gives rise
to a K or Kh complex which includes all of the relevant set classes. The application of set complexes in
analysis has become less prevalent since the 1980s, due at least in part to doubts about the perceptual
relevance of K and Kh relationships. The effort to explain relationships between sets that differ in set
class and cardinality continues in studies of set class genera, the quantification of similarity
relationships and abstract voice-leading between set classes.
Forte’s 12 set-class genera (Forte, 1988) are based on the choice of trichordal ‘progenitors’, which are
used either singly or in pairs to generate networks of supersets similar in spirit to the Kh complexes of
Forte (1973; each member of the genus and its complement must contain the progenitor), but with
additional restrictions to guarantee that all member set classes reflect aspects of the generating
trichord. Genera are described as characteristic types of harmonies which appear in 20th-century
works: for example, the ‘whole-tone genus’ (with the progenitor 3-8 or [026]) or ‘chroma-dia
genus’ (with the dual progenitors 3-2 and 3-7, or [013] and [025]). The principle behind set class
genera, as behind their precursors, the K and Kh complexes, is that sets are similar to one another on
the basis of inclusion relationships. Parks (1989) is a notable adaptation of set genera as analytical
tools for the music of Debussy.
A quite different approach to set class similarity calculates relative degrees of similarity and difference
between set classes by comparing interval vectors, reflecting the notion that similar interval content is
the primary determinant of set class similarity (see Teitelbaum, 1965 and the ‘R’ relations of Forte,
1973). Other significant contributions to the study of set class similarity include Regener (1974–5),
Lewin (1977 and 1979–80), Rahn (1979–80), Morris (1979–80), Isaacson (1990), Castrén (1994) and
Quinn (2001 and 2006–7). The issue of set class similarity is a complex one, since it necessarily goes
beyond the original formulations of pitch-class set theory to engage with the psychology of hearing. An
asserted degree of set class similarity must consider the many different possible instantiations of the
set classes being compared, including many formations which may emphasize or hide similarity
through register, timbre, temporal design and so on.
Page 17 of 33

Yet another approach to set class similarity examines voice leading relationships between set classes
instead of inclusion relationships or intervallic content. By this measure, set classes are most similar
when they are closest in an abstract voice-leading space (Lewin, 1998; Morris, 1998; Straus, 1997,
2003 and 2005; Callender, 2004 and 2007). Ex.11 reproduces Straus’s map of trichordal voice-leading
space. Lines connect set classes which can be transformed into one another by the minimal voice-
leading of one semitone: e.g., set classes 3-1 ([012]) and 3-2 ([013]). Straus’s theory formalizes certain
intuitions about ‘fuzzy’ voice-leading: any pitch class set which is a member of set class 3-1 can be
transposed or inverted into a member of set class 3-2 with a voice-leading ‘offset’ of just one semitone.
Tymoczko 2006 examines the properties of abstract voice leading spaces called orbifolds, which
include ‘multisets’, sets which may include repeated members like [002]. In an earlier geometrical
model of set-class space, Walter O’Connell created a six-dimensional space to represent set-classes,
with each of the six interval-classes assigned its own spatial orientation (O’Connell 1962). Roeder 1987
describes an intervallic grid, building on Bo Alphonce’s invariance matrices (Alphonce 1974) and
models of musical spaces defined by Morris and Lewin, in which geometrically described spatial
relations model pitch-class relations.
Page 18 of 33

Page 19 of 33

Ex.11 From J. Straus: ‘Uniformity, Balance, and Smoothness in Atonal Voice Leading’, Music Theory
Spectrum, xxv (2003), 305–52
In all forms of pitch-class set theory, one of the most complex analytical questions is how sets are
extracted and identified in a work of music. This issue of ‘segmentation’ has been the basis of some of
the sharpest criticisms of pitch-class set theory, particularly the accusation that analysts identify set
boundaries which do not correspond to musically meaningful articulations (Perle, 1990). The technique
of ‘imbrication’, the methodical, mechanical division of the musical surface into units in search of
specific set class features, has attracted particular disapproval. Forte’s segmentation (1981) of the
opening of Schoenberg’s Piano Piece, op.11, no.1 is shown in ex.12; Haimo (1996) argues that aspects
of Forte’s segmentation are ‘abtruse’ and ‘apparently arbitrary’. In practice, questions of segmentation
invoke aesthetic principles as well as a variety of overlapping psychological criteria comparable to
criteria of Gestalt psychology (Hasty, 1981: Lefkowitz and Taavola, 2000; Hanninen, 2001 and 2004).
Pitch-class set analysis often seeks to demonstrate non-obvious relationships between sets which
extend beyond traditional ‘shape’ definitions of motive, and thus invokes segmentations which may
appear non-intuitive. If an analysis undertakes the discovery of equivalent sets and segments the music
by this criteria, it is open to the charge of circularity: set classes are deemed important because they
are found repeatedly in the segmentation, but the segmentation itself is based on a search for related
sets (Lerdahl, 1989).
Page 20 of 33

Page 21 of 33

Ex.12 From A. Forte: ‘The Magical Kaleidoscope: Schoenberg’s First Atonal Masterwork, opus 11, no.1’,
Journal of the Arnold Schoenberg Institute, v (1981), 127–68
Pitch-class set analyses have also been attacked for their apparent disregard for tradition and
historical context. Perle (1990) echoes Taruskin’s description of certain set class analyses by Forte as
resembling the work of ‘Martian musicologists’ (Taruskin, 1987). Taruskin himself (1986) argues that
pitch-class set analysis (in this case, Forte’s 1978 study of the Rite of Spring) proceeds from an
unsustainable stance of ‘phenomenological virginity’, ignoring the historical background of the
composition and the composer. Forte’s reply (1986) is that such ‘extreme historicism’ unnecessarily
limits the breadth of analytical inquiry. Issues of appropriate historical context and compositional
intent are also addressed in Haimo (1996), which claims that the line between analysis as an
interpretation of musical meaning and analysis as a reconstruction of compositional process is often
blurred in set theory analyses. One reaction to the perceived ahistoricity of pitch-class set analysis has
been the adaptation of the theory to reflect unique properties of the music of specific composers: such
works include Schmalfeldt (1983) and Headlam (1996) on Berg, Baker (1986) on Skryabin, van den
Toorn (1984) on Stravinsky, Parks (1989) on Debussy, and Antokoletz (1984) and Wilson (1992) on
Bartók. In contrast to Taruskin’s call for historicity, other theorists have emphasized the creative,
poetic nature of analysis as an interpretive act (Lewin, 1986; Christensen, 1993).
Perle’s 1990 critique also questions whether it is necessary that every pitch be explained through its
membership in a set class; while not denying the significance of transpositional and inversional
relationships, he would allow the greater influence of other organizing factors, including symmetrical
structures and the equivalent of tonal passing and neighbour non-chord tones. Like other critics, Perle
also challenges the audibility of some set class relationships, claiming that the equivalences proposed
by the theory have dubious perceptual value. This issue has been explored in empirical studies
including Kuusi (2001).
(d) Other theoretical paradigms
Pitch-class set theory has also been criticized for its intentional omission of temporal ordering and
register. A central assumption of pitch class set theory is that the essential features of pitch
organization are conveyed by unordered pitch-class sets, not ordered successions or pitches in
register. One antidote to this omission is contour theory, which focuses on the relative pitch of tones in
ordered sets rather than their pitch classes (Friedmann, 1985; Morris, 1987 and 1993; Marvin and
Laprade, 1987; Marvin, 1991; Quinn, 1997). Contour theory can thus draw equivalences between
melodies with the same relative shape, but different exact pitches. Bernard’s analyses of the music of
Varèse and Ligeti (Bernard, 1987 and 1994) share with contour theory a concern with register. His
pitch-space graphs of works represent time on the x-axis and pitch (not pitch-class) on the y-axis, and
support analyses which describe the evolution and interaction of pitch formations in specific registers.
Cramer (2002) examines music by Schoenberg and Webern with principles borrowed from the music
psychology subfield of auditory scene analysis, resulting in analyses with renewed focus on the
influence of register on atonal harmony.
As demonstrated in the Liszt and Scriabin examples in §1, it is difficult to draw a strict boundary line
between tonality and atonality. One of the earliest theorists to treat ‘atonal’ music as a kind of complex
or extended tonality was Hindemith, who analyzed Schoenberg’s 12-note Piano Piece, op.33a using his
Page 22 of 33

own theory of tonal syntax (Hindemith, 1937–9). Two published analyses of Schoenberg’s Piano Piece
op.11, no.1 challenge its designation as ‘atonal’ and discuss aspects of key centricity in the work
(Brinkmann, 1969; Ogdon, 1981). Other theorists, including Schenker himself in an analysis of
Stravinsky’s Piano Concerto, have applied versions of Schenkerian analysis to works by composers
ranging from by Bartók and Stravinsky (Schenker, 1926; Travis, 1959) to works by Berg, Skryabin,
Schoenberg and others (Baker, 1986; Larson, 1987; Forte, ‘New Approaches’, 1988, and 1992). These
Schenker-style analyses raise methodological questions about the meaning of prolongation in a non-
tonal context, explored in papers by Straus (1987) and Väisälä (1999). Lerdahl (2005) proposes a
formalization of atonal prolongation in a ‘flat’ space, as opposed to the hierarchically organized spaces
of his tonal theory.
While not explicitly a theory of atonal music, Lewin’s transformational theory (Lewin, 1987) shares
close ties to both 12-note and set-class theory. Lewin’s theory, however, is considerably more general,
and is able to make statements about both atonal and tonal pitch structures as well as other musical
parameters like rhythm and timbre. The objects of the theory are conceptualized as a set of elements
in a metaphorical ‘musical space’: these elements can be pitches, pitch-class sets, durations,
timepoints and so on. Frequently, the elements of this space suggest ‘a family of directed
measurements, distances, or motions of some sort’: these are taken as ‘intervals’ in a general sense.
For example, if we define a musical space consisting of the chromatic pitches, one way of measuring
intervals would be to consider the directed distance in semitones from one pitch to another. The
combination of a musical space and a group of intervals which describes the relationships between its
elements is formalized as a Generalized Interval System (GIS). Lewin’s theory is flexible in that it is not
prescriptive: different systems of intervals can be developed depending on the analytical purpose. It
might be preferable, for instance, to redefine the musical space and its intervallic ‘yardstick’ to create
a new GIS which measures intervals in diatonic rather than chromatic steps, or to consider the
elements as pitch classes and measure intervals as pitch-class intervals. To maintain a coherent idea of
‘interval’, however, certain restrictions apply (stemming from group theory symmetries): the intervals
must form a mathematical group, and combine with one another consistently and coherently.
Lewin’s theory, then, is less a theory of a specific repertoire than a set of guidelines for constructing
meaningful intervallic or transformational relationships in a variety of contexts. As long as the general
rules of GIS structure are observed, musical spaces and intervals can be tailored to bring out specific
formal features of the work under examination. Lewin’s analytical approach favours strongly
individualized readings of specific pieces, which invoke work-specific musical spaces and intervals.
Lewin demonstrates GIS theory with a number of examples, including an analysis of the third
movement of Webern’s Piano Variations which links together (as a ‘direct-product GIS’) two separate
intervallic systems measuring pitch-class interval and temporal distance measured in quarter-note
beats. This GIS allows the isolation and discussion of a number of musical features which emerge only
when pitch and rhythm are considered in tandem.
Expanding on the idea of the GIS, Lewin (1987) proposes an alternative way of conceiving relationships
between elements of musical spaces. The GIS theory’s Cartesian model of an outside observer,
dispassionately measuring distances in space, is contrasted with a transformational model of an active
participant, moving through that space by characteristic motions. In many cases, the shift is one of
attitude and emphasis within the same theoretical framework: in fact, every GIS can be reconceived in
transformational terms. The reverse does not hold true, however: not every transformation can be
reconceived under the stricter rules of a GIS. In the latter half of Lewin (1987), elements and
Page 23 of 33

transformations are represented graphically by the nodes and arrows of a transformation network: the
network is defined primarily by the arrows, which represent the same operations even when new
contents are assigned to the nodes. Lewin’s ‘Klumpenhouwer’ networks (developed with Henry
Klumpenhouwer) relate pitch classes by a combination of transposition and inversion operations,
suggesting new types of equivalencies (‘isographies’) between sets which are analogous to Perle’s
combinations of sum and difference relationships in ‘cyclic sets’ (Perle, 1993; Headlam, 2008). Ex.13
shows how the same Klumpenhouwer network of transposition and inversion arrows can generate the
pitch-class sets {A, F♯, B} and {B♭, C, F}.
Ex.13 From D. Lewin: ‘Klumpenhouwer Networks and Some Isographies that Involve Them’, Music Theory
Spectrum, xii (1990), 83–120
For the study of atonal music, Lewin’s theory offers an expanded repertoire of relationships between
pitches, pitch-class sets and other musical entities. In addition to transposition and inversion, Lewin’s
theory can incorporate contextually defined transformations, often devised explicitly for the analysis of
a single piece. For example, Lewin’s analysis of Stockhausen’s Klavierstück III (Lewin 1993) identifies a
contextual transformation J, which applies only to pentachords of the set class 5-4 (0,1,2,3,6). The
transformation J inverts any 5-4 pentachord so that the chromatically conjunct subset is preserved: {C,
C♯, D, D♯, F♯} is transformed by J into {A, C, C♯, D, D♯}. This transformation differs from traditional
inversion in that the inversional axis is not chosen in advance, but is instead determined by the set on
which it acts. After demonstrating that J transformations combine intelligibly with standard pitch-class
transposition (T), Lewin uses this group of operations to develop a transformational network, where
5-4 pentachords (P or p, depending on whether the pentachord is of the prime or inverted form) are the
contents of each node, and are related to one another by J and T arrows (ex.14). Numerical labels show
the transposition level of each P/p pentachord and the magnitude of each T operation; Jn is equivalent
to the compound effect of J followed by Tn. Certain characteristic operations like J0 and T6 structure
the network into ‘an abstract space of P-forms through which the piece moves’; the piece’s temporal
Page 24 of 33

unfolding can be understood as the tracing of a path through the space. This approach to analysis is
highly flexible and provides a more dynamic musical conception than the static equivalence relations of
traditional pitch-class set theory, emphasizing the characteristic transformations from one musical
element to another that are unique to individual works.
Ex.14 From D. Lewin: Musical Form and Transformation (New Haven, CT, 1993)
Applications of Lewin’s theories by other analysts include Santa (1999) and Hook (2007), both of which
examine transformations which map musical elements from one space to another: for example, from
the chromatic scale onto diatonic scale degrees. A particularly influential subfield of transformational
theory is ‘neo-Riemannian’ theory: the application of transformations to tonal triads or ‘Klangs’ (Lewin,
1987; Hyer, 1995; Cohn, 1996 and 1997; Hook, 2002). The musical space of all major and minor triads
is linked to a group of transformations based on the contextually defined inversions L, P, and R
(leading-tone exchange, parallel, relative): like Riemann’s Wechsel, these operations change major to
minor chords (or vice versa) by keeping two chord members and moving the third by step. For
example, L applied to a C major triad {C, E, G} yields E minor {B, E, G}, while L applied to a C minor
triad {C, E♭, G} yields A♭ major {A♭, C, E♭}. These three basic operations can be chained together to
Page 25 of 33

create other triadic transformations. Neo-Riemannian theory has been particularly useful in the
analysis of 19th-century chromaticism, demonstrating the efficacy of transformational thought in tonal
as well as atonal contexts.
5. Conclusion.
Paul Lansky, George Perle, Dave Headlam and Robert Hasegawa
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.
Bibliography
A. Schoenberg: Harmonielehre (1911, 3/1922; Eng. trans., 1978)
H. Eimert: Atonale Musiklehre (Leipzig, 1924)
F.H. Klein: ‘Die Grenze der Halbtonwelt’, Die Musik, 17/4 (1925), 281–6
H. Schenker: Das Meisterwerk in der Musik, 2 (Munich, 1926; Eng. trans. 1973 and 1996)
A. Hába: Neue Harmonielehre des diatonischen, chromatischen, Viertel-, Drittel-, Sechstel-, und
Zwölftel-Tonsystems (Leipzig, 1927)
A. Berg: Lecture on Wozzeck [1929], Eng trans. in H. Redlich, Alban Berg: The Man and his Music (New
York, 1957)
H. Cowell: New Musical Resources (1930/R)
A. Schoenberg: ‘Analysis of the Four Orchestral Songs Opus 22’ [1932], PNM, 3/2 (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, 21 (1934), 167; repr. in Style and Idea (New York, 1950, 3/1984),
268–87
A. Berg: ‘Was ist atonal?’, 23: eine wiener Musikzeitschrift, 6–7 (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)
D. Lewin: ‘Intervallic Relations between Two Collections of Notes’, JMT, 3 (1959), 298–301
R. Travis: ‘Toward a New Concept of Tonality?’, JMT, 3 (1959), 257–84
Page 26 of 33

H. Hanson: Harmonic Materials of Twentieth-Century Music (New York, 1960)
M. Babbitt: ‘Set Structure as a Compositional Determinant’, JMT, 5 (1961), 72–94
D. Martino: ‘The Source Set and Its Aggregate Formations’, JMT, 5 (1961), 224–73
W. O’Connell: ‘Der Ton-Raum’, Die Reihe, 8 (1962), 35–61; Eng. trans. in Die Reihe, 7 (1968), 34–67
G. Perle: Serial Composition and Atonality (Berkeley, 1962, 6/1991)
A. Forte: ‘Context and Continuity in an Atonal Work: a Set-Theoretical Approach’, PNM, 1 (1963), 72–82
A. Berger: ‘Problems of Pitch Organization in Stravinsky’, PNM, 2/1 (1963–4), 11–42
A. Forte: ‘A Theory of Set-Complexes for Music’, JMT, 8 (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, 9 (1965),
163–71
R. Teitelbaum: ‘Intervallic Relations in Atonal Music’, JMT, 9 (1965), 72–127
G. Perle: ‘The Musical Language of Wozzeck’, Music Forum, 1 (1967), 204–59
A. Schoenberg: Fundamentals of Musical Composition (New York, 1967)
D. Lewin: ‘Inversional Balance as an Organizing Force in Schoenberg’s Music and Thought’, PNM, 6/2 (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
R. Brinkmann: Arnold Schonberg: Drei Klavierstucke Op. 11. Studien zur frühen Atonalität bei
Schönberg (Wiesbaden, 1969)
B. Boretz: ‘Meta-Variations: Studies in the Foundation of Musical Thought’, PNM, 8/1 (1969), 1–74; 8/2 (1969), 49–
111; 9/1 (1970), 23–42; 9/2–10/i (1971), 232–70; 11/1 (1972), 146–233; 11/2 (1973), 156–203
J. Maegaard: Studien zur Entwicklung des Dodekaphonene Satzes bei Arnold Schönberg
(Copenhagen, 1972) [review in MQ, 63 (1977), 273]
A. Forte: ‘Sets and Nonsets in Schoenberg’s Atonal Music’, PNM, 11/1 (1972–3), 43–64
A. Forte: The Structure of Atonal Music (New Haven, CT, 1973)
B. Alphonce: The Invariance Matrix (diss., Yale U., 1974)
E. Cone: ‘Sound and Syntax: an Introduction to Schoenberg’s Harmony’, PNM, 13/1 (1974–5), 21–40
E. Regener: ‘On Allen Forte’s Theory of Chords’, PNM, 13/1 (1974–5), 191–212
P. Lansky: ‘Pitch-Class Consciousness’, PNM, 13/2 (1974–5), 30–56
W. Berry: Structural Functions in Music (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1976)
C. Gamer and P. Lansky: ‘Fanfare for the Common Tone’, PNM, 14/2–15/1 (1976), 229–35
R. Chrisman: ‘Describing Structural Aspects of Pitch-Sets using Successive-Interval Arrays’, JMT, 21 (1977), 1–28
Page 27 of 33

D. Lewin: ‘Forte’s Interval Vector, My Interval Function, and Regener’s Common-Note Function’, JMT, 21 (1977),
194–237
G. Perle: ‘Berg’s Master Array of the Interval Cycles’, MQ, 63 (1977), 1–30
G. Perle: Twelve-Tone Tonality (Berkeley, CA, 1977, 2/1996)
A. Chapman: A Theory of Harmonic Structure for Nontonal Music (diss., Yale U., 1978)
A. Forte: The Harmonic Organization of the Rite of Spring (New Haven, CT, 1978)
D. Starr: ‘Sets, Invariance, and Partitions’, JMT, 22 (1978), 1–42
D. Beach: ‘Pitch Structure and the Analytic Process in Atonal Music: an Interpretation of the Theory of Sets’, Music
Theory Spectrum, 1 (1979), 7–22
D. Jarman: The Music of Alban Berg (Berkeley, CA, 1979)
D. Lewin: ‘A Response to a Response: on Pcset Relatedness’, PNM, 18 (1979–80), 498–502
R. Morris: ‘A Similarity Index for Pitch-Class Sets’, PNM, 18 (1979–80), 445–60
J. Rahn: ‘Relating Sets’, PNM, 18 (1979–80), 483–98
G. Perle: The Operas of Alban Berg, 1: Wozzeck (Berkeley, 1980)
J. Rahn: Basic Atonal Theory (New York, 1980)
J. Tenney and L. Polansky: ‘Temporal Gestalt Perception in Music’, JMT, 24 (1980), 205–41
A. Forte: ‘The Magical Kaleidoscope: Schoenberg’s First Atonal Masterwork, opus 11, no.1’, Journal of the Arnold
Schoenberg Institute, 5 (1981), 127–68
C. Hasty: ‘Segmentation and Process in Post-Tonal Music’, Music Theory Spectrum, 3 (1981), 54–73
C. Lord: ‘Intervallic Similarity Relations in Atonal Set Analysis’, JMT, 25 (1981), 91–111
W. Ogdon: ‘How Tonality Functions in Schoenberg’s Opus 11, No. 1’, Journal of the Arnold Schoenberg
Institute, 5 (1981), 169–81
R. Morris: ‘Review of John Rahn’s Basic Atonal Theory’, Music Theory Spectrum, 4 (1982), 138–54
R. Morris: ‘Set Groups, Complementation, and Mappings among Pitch-Class Sets’, JMT, 26/1 (1982), 101–44
M. Kielian-Gilbert: ‘Relationships of Symmetrical Pitch-Class Sets and Stravinsky’s Metaphor of Polarity’, PNM,
21 (1982–3), 209–40
D. Lewin: ‘Transformational Techniques in Atonal and Other Music Theories’, PNM, 21 (1982–3), 312–71
R. Morris: ‘Combinatoriality without the Aggregate’, PNM, 21 (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, 27 (1983), 181–201
D. Schiff: Music of Elliott Carter (New York and London, 1983, 2/1998)
J. Schmalfeldt: Berg’s ‘Wozzeck’: Harmonic Language and Dramatic Design (New Haven, CT, 1983)
Page 28 of 33

P. van den Toorn: The Music of Igor Stravinsky (New Haven, CT, 1983)
E. Antokoletz: The Music of Béla Bartók (Berkeley, 1984)
C. Hasty: ‘Phrase Formation in Post-Tonal Music’, JMT, 28 (1984), 167–90
G. Perle: ‘Scriabin’s Self-Analyses’, MAn, 3 (1984), 101–22
A. Forte: ‘Pitch-Class Set Analysis Today’, MAn, 4 (1985), 29–58
M. Friedmann: ‘A Methodology for the Discussion of Contour: its Application to Schoenberg’s Music’, JMT, 29
(1985), 223–48
J. Baker: The Music of Alexander Scriabin (New Haven, CT, 1986)
R. Taruskin: Letter to the Editor from Richard Taruskin, Man, 5 (1986), 313–20
A. Forte: Letter to the Editor in Reply to Richard Taruskin from Allen Forte, Man, 5 (1986), 321–37
D. Lewin: ‘Music Theory, Phenomenology, and Modes of Perception’, Music Perception, 3 (1986), 327–92
J. Bernard: The Music of Edgard Varèse (New Haven, CT, 1987)
C. Hasty: ‘An Intervallic Definition of Set Class’, JMT, 31 (1987), 183–204
S. Larson: ‘A Tonal Model of an “Atonal” Piece: Schönberg’s Opus 15, Number 2’, PNM, 25 (1987), 418–33
D. Lewin: Generalized Musical Intervals and Transformations (New Haven, CT, 1987)
E.W. Marvin and P. Laprade: ‘Relating Musical Contours: Extensions of a Theory for Contour’, JMT,31 (1987), 225–
67
R. Morris: Composition with Pitch-Classes: a Theory of Compositional Design (New Haven, CT, 1987)
J. Roeder: ‘A Geometric Representation of Pitch-Class Series’, PNM, 25 (1987), 362–409
J. Straus: ‘The Problem of Prolongation in Post-Tonal Music’, JMT, 31 (1987), 1–21
R. Taruskin: Reply to van den Toorn, In Theory Only, 10 (1987), 47–57
R. Cohn: ‘Inversional Symmetry and Transpositional Combination in Bartók’, Music Theory Spectrum, 10
(1988), 19–42
A. Forte: ‘New Approaches to the Linear Analysis of Music’, JAMS, 41 (1988), 315–48
A. Forte: ‘Pitch-Class Set Genera and the Origin of Modern Harmonic Species’, JMT, 32 (1988), 187–270
R. Wason: ‘Tonality and Atonality in Frederick Rzewski’s Variations on “The People United Will Never Be Defeated”’,
PNM, 26/1 (1988), 108–43
F. Lerdahl: ‘Atonal Prolongational Structure’, CMR, 4 (1989), 65–88
A. Mead: ‘The State of Research in Twelve-Tone and Atonal Theory’, Music Theory Spectrum, 11 (1989), 40–48
R. Parks: The Music of Claude Debussy (New Haven, CT, 1989)
J. Roeder: ‘Harmonic Implications of Schoenberg’s Observations of Atonal Voice Leading’, JMT, 33 (1989), 27–62
J. Baker: ‘Voice Leading in Post-Tonal Music: Suggestions for Extending Schenker’s Theory’, MAn, 9 (1990), 177–200
Page 29 of 33

E. Isaacson: ‘Similarity of Interval-Class Content between Pitch-Class Sets: The IcVSIM Relation’, JMT, 34 (1990), 1–
28
D. Lewin: ‘Klumpenhouwer Networks and Some Isographies that Involve Them’, Music Theory Spectrum, 12
(1990), 83–120
G. Perle: The Listening Composer (Berkeley, 1990)
G. Perle: ‘Pitch-Class Set Analysis: an Evaluation’, JM, 8 (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)
R. Bass: ‘Sets, Scales, and Symmetries: The Pitch-Structural Basis of George Crumb’s Makrokosmos I and II’,
Music Theory Spectrum, 13 (1991), 1–20
E.W. Marvin: ‘The Perception of Rhythm in Non-Tonal Music: Rhythmic Contours in the Music of Edgard Varèse’,
Music Theory Spectrum, 13 (1991), 61–78
J. Boss: ‘Schoenberg’s Op. 22 Radio Talk and Developing Variation in Atonal Music’, Music Theory Spectrum, 14
(1992), 125–49
A. Forte: ‘Concepts of Linearity in Schoenberg’s Atonal Music: a Study of the Opus 15 Song Cycle’, JMT, 36 (1992),
285–382
D. Headlam: ‘Fritz Heinrich Klein’s “Die Grenze der Halbtonwelt” and Die Maschine’, Theoria, 6 (1992), 54–96
P. Wilson: The Music of Bela Bartók (New Haven, CT, 1992)
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
T. Christensen: ‘Music Theory and Its Histories’, Music Theory and the Exploration of the Past, ed. C.
Hatch and D. Bernstein (Chicago, 1993), 9–40
D. Lewin: Musical Form and Transformation (New Haven, CT, 1993)
R. Morris: ‘New Directions in the Theory and Analysis of Musical Contour’, Music Theory Spectrum, 15 (1993),
205–28
G. Perle: ‘Communication (Re: Lewin, “Klumpenhouwer Networks”)’, Music Theory Spectrum, 15 (1993), 300–
03
J. Bernard: ‘Voice Leading as a Spatial Function in the Music of Ligeti’, MAn, 13 (1994), 227–53
M. Castrén: RECREL: a Similarity Measure for Set-Classes (Helsinki, 1994)
O. Messiaen: Traité de rythme, de couleur, et d’ornithologie (Paris, 1994–2002)
R. Morris: ‘Recommendations for Atonal Music Pedagogy in General; Recognizing and Hearing Set-Classes in
Particular’, Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy, 8 (1994), 75–134
A. Schreffler: Webern and the Lyric Impulse (Oxford, 1994)
B. Hyer: ‘Reimag(in)ing Riemann’, JMT, 39 (1995), 101–38
Page 30 of 33

G. Perle: The Right Notes (Stuyvesant, NY, 1995)
R. Cohn: ‘Maximally Smooth Cycles, Hexatonic Systems, and the Analysis of Late-Romantic Triadic Progressions’,
MAn, 15 (1996), 9–40
E. Haimo: ‘Atonality, Analysis, and the Intentional Fallacy’, Music Theory Spectrum, 18 (1996), 167–99
D. Headlam: The Music of Alban Berg (New Haven, CT, 1996)
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
R. Cohn: ‘Neo-Riemannian Operations, Parsimonious Trichords, and Their Tonnetz Representations’, JMT, 41
(1997), 1–66
P. Lambert: The Music of Charles Ives (New Haven, CT, 1997)
I. Quinn: ‘Fuzzy Extensions to the Theory of Contour,’ Music Theory Spectrum, 19 (1997), 232–63
J. Straus: ‘Voice Leading in Atonal Music’, Music Theory in Concept and Practice, ed. J.W. Baker, D.W.
Beach and J.W. Bernard (Rochester, NY, 1997), 237–74
R. Cohn: ‘Introduction to Neo-Riemannian Theory: A Survey and Historical Perspective’, JMT, 42 (1998), 167–80
D. Lewin: ‘Some Ideas about Voice-Leading Between Pc-Sets’, JMT, 42 (1998), 15–72
R. Morris: ‘Voice-Leading Spaces’, Music Theory Spectrum, 20 (1998), 175–208
G. Perle: ‘Berg’s Style of Freedom’, MT, 139 (1998), 12–31
M. Santa: ‘Defining Modular Transformations’, Music Theory Spectrum, 21 (1999), 200–29
O. Väisälä: ‘Concepts of Harmony and Prolongation in Schoenberg’s Op. 19/2’, Music Theory Spectrum, 21
(1999), 230–59
M. Buchler: ‘Relative Saturation of Subsets and Interval Cycles as a Means for Determining Set-Class Similarity’,
PNM, 38 (2000), 52–87
D. Lefkowitz and K. Taavola: ‘Segmentation in Music: Generalizing a Piece-Sensitive Approach’, JMT, 44 (2000),
171–229
B. Simms: The Atonal Music of Arnold Schoenberg, 1908–1923 (New York, 2000)
D. Hanninen: ‘Orientations, Criteria, Segments: a General Theory of Segmentation for Music Analysis’, JMT, 45
(2001), 345–433
T. Kuusi: Set-Class and Chord: Examining Connection between Theoretical Resemblance and
Perceived Closeness (Helsinki, 2001)
R. Morris: Class Notes for Advanced Atonal Music Theory (Lebanon, NH, 2001)
I. Quinn: ‘Hearing Similarity Relations’, PNM, 39 (2001), 108–58
E. Carter: Harmony Book (New York, 2002)
D. Cope: ‘Computer Analysis and Composition Using Atonal Voice-Leading Techniques’, PNM, 40 (2002), 121–46
Page 31 of 33

A. Cramer: ‘Schoenberg’s Klangfarbenmelodie: a Principle of Early Atonal Harmony’, Music Theory
Spectrum, 24 (2002), 1–34
J. Hook: ‘Uniform Triadic Transformations’, JMT, 46 (2002), 57–126
J. Straus: ‘Uniformity, Balance, and Smoothness in Atonal Voice Leading’, Music Theory Spectrum, 25 (2003),
305–52
C. Callender: ‘Continuous Transformations’, Music Theory Online, 10 (2004)
D. Hanninen: ‘Associative Sets, Categories, and Music Analysis’, JMT, 48 (2004), 147–218
F. Lerdahl: Tonal Pitch Space (Oxford, 2005)
C. Neidhöfer: ‘A Theory of Harmony and Voice Leading for the Music of Olivier Messiaen’, Music Theory
Spectrum, 27 (2005), 1–34
J. Straus: ‘Voice Leading in Set-Class Space’, JMT, 49 (2005), 45–108
E. Haimo: Schoenberg’s Transformation of Musical Language (Cambridge, 2006)
D. Tymoczko: ‘The Geometry of Musical Chords’, Science, 313 (2006), 72–4
I. Quinn: ‘General Equal-Tempered Harmony’, PNM, 44/2 (2006), 6–50, xlv/1 (2007), 6–65
C. Callender: ‘Continuous Harmonic Spaces’, JMT, 51 (2007), 277–332
J. Hook: ‘Cross-Type Transformations and the Path Consistency Condition’, Music Theory Spectrum, 29 (2007),
1–40
J. Hook: ‘Why Are There Twenty-Nine Tetrachords? A Tutorial on Combinatorics and Enumeration in Music Theory’,
Music Theory Online, 13 (2007)
M. Callahan: ‘Mapping Sum-and-Difference Space: Parallels between Perle and Lewin’, Theory and Practice, 33
(2008), 181–217
D. Headlam: Introduction to special issue on George Perle, Theory and Practice, 33 (2008), 1–47
M. Schuijer: Analyzing Atonal Music: Pitch-Class Set Theory and its Contexts (Rochester, NY, 2008)
See also
Nationalism, §15: The last of the Herderians and the Cold War
Hauer, Josef Matthias
Schoenberg, Arnold, §4: Personality and beliefs
Rhythm, §III, 4: Current rhythm research: Post-tonal rhythm and metre
Aleatory
Entartete Musik
Twelve-note composition
Page 32 of 33

Page 33 of 33

Atonality: Relations Between Tonality and Atonality

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Atonality: Relations Between Tonality and Atonality

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Atonality: Relations Between Tonality and Atonality

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Atonality

Dave Headlam, Robert Hasegawa, Paul Lansky and George Perle

Updated in this version

1. Relations between tonality and atonality.

Subscriber: ArtEZ Hogeschool voor de Kunsten; date: 24 April 2021

Atonality 1. Relations between tonality and atonality.: Ex.1

Subscriber: ArtEZ Hogeschool voor de Kunsten; date: 24 April 2021

Atonality 1. Relations between tonality and atonality.: Ex.2

Subscriber: ArtEZ Hogeschool voor de Kunsten; date: 24 April 2021

Subscriber: ArtEZ Hogeschool voor de Kunsten; date: 24 April 2021

2. Differences between tonality and atonality.

Subscriber: ArtEZ Hogeschool voor de Kunsten; date: 24 April 2021

Atonality 2. Differences between tonality and atonality.: Ex.4

Atonality 2. Differences between tonality and atonality.: Ex.5

Subscriber: ArtEZ Hogeschool voor de Kunsten; date: 24 April 2021

Atonality 2. Differences between tonality and atonality.: Ex.6

3. The atonality of Schoenberg, Berg and Webern.

Subscriber: ArtEZ Hogeschool voor de Kunsten; date: 24 April 2021

Atonality 3. The atonality of Schoenberg, Berg and Webern.: Ex.7

The sense of octave relations as manifested in tonality undergoes a radical transformation in a

Subscriber: ArtEZ Hogeschool voor de Kunsten; date: 24 April 2021

(a) Compositional theories

Subscriber: ArtEZ Hogeschool voor de Kunsten; date: 24 April 2021

Subscriber: ArtEZ Hogeschool voor de Kunsten; date: 24 April 2021

(b) Symmetry and interval cycles

Subscriber: ArtEZ Hogeschool voor de Kunsten; date: 24 April 2021

Subscriber: ArtEZ Hogeschool voor de Kunsten; date: 24 April 2021

(c) Pitch-class set theory

Subscriber: ArtEZ Hogeschool voor de Kunsten; date: 24 April 2021

Subscriber: ArtEZ Hogeschool voor de Kunsten; date: 24 April 2021

Pitch-class sets Tn set classes Tn/I set classes

Subscriber: ArtEZ Hogeschool voor de Kunsten; date: 24 April 2021

Subscriber: ArtEZ Hogeschool voor de Kunsten; date: 24 April 2021

Subscriber: ArtEZ Hogeschool voor de Kunsten; date: 24 April 2021

Subscriber: ArtEZ Hogeschool voor de Kunsten; date: 24 April 2021

Subscriber: ArtEZ Hogeschool voor de Kunsten; date: 24 April 2021

Subscriber: ArtEZ Hogeschool voor de Kunsten; date: 24 April 2021

Subscriber: ArtEZ Hogeschool voor de Kunsten; date: 24 April 2021

(d) Other theoretical paradigms

Subscriber: ArtEZ Hogeschool voor de Kunsten; date: 24 April 2021

Subscriber: ArtEZ Hogeschool voor de Kunsten; date: 24 April 2021

Subscriber: ArtEZ Hogeschool voor de Kunsten; date: 24 April 2021

Subscriber: ArtEZ Hogeschool voor de Kunsten; date: 24 April 2021

H. Eimert: Atonale Musiklehre (Leipzig, 1924)

H. Cowell: New Musical Resources (1930/R)

R. Travis: ‘Toward a New Concept of Tonality?’, JMT, 3 (1959), 257–84

Subscriber: ArtEZ Hogeschool voor de Kunsten; date: 24 April 2021

M. Babbitt: ‘Set Structure as a Compositional Determinant’, JMT, 5 (1961), 72–94

G. Perle: Serial Composition and Atonality (Berkeley, 1962, 6/1991)

A. Berger: ‘Problems of Pitch Organization in Stravinsky’, PNM, 2/1 (1963–4), 11–42

A. Forte: ‘A Theory of Set-Complexes for Music’, JMT, 8 (1964), 136–83

J. Tenney: Meta/Hodos and META Meta/Hodos (New Orleans, 1964)

R. Teitelbaum: ‘Intervallic Relations in Atonal Music’, JMT, 9 (1965), 72–127

G. Perle: ‘The Musical Language of Wozzeck’, Music Forum, 1 (1967), 204–59

A. Schoenberg: Fundamentals of Musical Composition (New York, 1967)

A. Forte: The Structure of Atonal Music (New Haven, CT, 1973)

B. Alphonce: The Invariance Matrix (diss., Yale U., 1974)

P. Lansky: ‘Pitch-Class Consciousness’, PNM, 13/2 (1974–5), 30–56