Structure of Atonal Music [Hardcover]

Allen Forte (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: January 14, 1974 | ISBN-10: 0300016107 | ISBN-13: 978-0300016109

Describes and cites examples of pitch-class sets and relations in atonal music.

--This text refers to the Paperback edition.

Product Details

• Hardcover: 233 pages
• Publisher: Yale University Press (January 14, 1974)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0300016107
• ISBN-13: 978-0300016109
• Average Customer Review: 2.9 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (17 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,432,619 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

51 of 51 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Music, not math, May 23, 2004

By 

"zelf" (Salt Lake City, UT United States) - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Structure of Atonal Music (Paperback)

Forte's book is, as its title suggests, a work on
atonal music. In this role, it is regarded as an
important and seminal work. While it uses a quantitative
language, as does all music theory, and indeed music
itself, it is not a treatise on mathematics.

A few reviews below have criticized Forte for what are
claimed to be mathematical flaws. As a researcher with
a PhD in mathematics and a side interest in composition,
I'd like to counter this. As long as Forte is analysing
music, and not claiming to prove Fermat's Last Theorem,
I'm happy to let him use whatever terminology suits his
purpose. I am no more concerned about his set theory
than I am whether classical harmony is a good number
system.

Pedantry about mathematical terminology in this context
may sound impressive to non-mathematicians but is likely
based on shallow knowledge/understanding of mathematics.
More importantly, it certainly distracts from the central
focus, which is how well Forte's framework contributes to
understanding and composing a certain kind of music.

In particular, a review titled "quackery" below has been found
useful (as of this writing) to 5 of 8 readers. The
"quackery" reviewer cites the use of the term "cardinality"
as an abuse of mathematical terminology when applied to
finite sets. In fact, applying "cardinality" to finite
sets is commonplace, about as controversial as using stringed
instruments in an orchestra.

5 of 6 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Very Objective and Approachable Writing Style, September 2, 1999

By A Customer

This review is from: The Structure of Atonal Music (Paperback)

Sorry, I beg to differ with both "fatuous" and "childish and absurd". As an aspiring composer who is not a formally trained instrumentalist, and is not formally trained, but self-taught, in music theory, this book is FAR more objective than Perle's (I didn't even finish reading Perle's, the writing style was so opaque), and doesn't assume either the ability to read music or an affinity for Schoenberg, Berg and/or Webern. Plus the writing style is way more transparent. Perle's book is mostly a musicological piece, not an objective assessment of available musical materials.

11 of 15 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Math Phoney, May 13, 2006

By 

Daniel Pi (Minnesota) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: The Structure of Atonal Music (Paperback)

I can't comment on Forte's book, since it was not *my* introduction to musical set theory. However, I would like to respond to a rather stupid reviewer from Nov. 11, 2001, who seems to believe that cardinality is a concept unique to infinite sets (in mathematical set theory). This is simply not the case. Finite sets have cardinality as well (e.g. the set {X,Y,Z} has a cardinality of 3} . In fact, the concept of cardinality for infinite sets is far more tenuous than it is for finite sets, and due to problems such as the independence of the continuum hypothesis, some philosophers and mathematicians speculate that infinite cardinality may be an untenable concept. Most do not agree, but it is certainly misinformed to criticize Forte for introducing the concept of cardinality to musical set theory with finite sets of pitches.

As to the reviewer from Nov. 27, 2001, if you don't agree with the material, why'd you pick up a book on atonal theory in the first place? You should be commenting on whether this is a good intro to atonal theory, not the merits of atonal theory itself. For that, you may feel free to argue with a sock puppet.