Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #530055 in Books
• Published on: 1977-09-10
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 208 pages

Customer Reviews

Interesting ideas, but...
If the sole criterion for my review were the importance of a book's ideas, then this one probably deserves 5 stars. PC set theory is still the dominant framework for teaching both undergraduates and graduates how to conceptualize and analyze atonal music. However, I have to give the book 2 stars simply because the writing in which its groundbreaking ideas are expressed is so awful. Forte's prose is so dense and unwieldy that I sometimes still read the book to help myself fall asleep at night. Granted, were I to rate Kant's "Kritik der reinen Vernunft" (or anything by Hegel for that matter), I'd probably also give it 5 stars for intellectual content, and anywhere from 0 to 2 stars based on the author's ability to translate those ideas into readable prose.
Those seeking a clear, understandable introduction to the ideas contained in this book (albeit, with some slight modifications) would be advised to look at Joseph Straus's "Introduction to Post-Tonal Theory." Yes, it is ridiculously overpriced. Yes, theorists since Forte have revised PC set theory somewhat in the time since "The Structure of Atonal Music" was published. However, Straus's book has become the standard instructional textbook on this subject for a very simple reason: it's actually readable.

Math Phoney
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.

Music, not math
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.