Arnold Schoenberg debate thread

Cafe Society
1

I noticed the other Schoenberg thread, and I wanted to respond, but since it’s an “appreciation” thread, I want to avoid stepping on toes. So I’m starting my own thread about Arnold Schoenberg - specifically a discussion of people’s opinions about 12-tone music.

So here’s my opinion: I think Schoenberg was an extremely gifted composer. I think his early tonal compositions, Verklärte Nacht and Pelleas & Melisande are wonderful. He pushes traditional tonality to its limits (and beyond). But I don’t really care that much for his 12-tone music, and here’s why:

Tonal music is based on a very real and natural aspect of sound - the overtone series. Every sound we hear consists of overtones, the mathematical divisions of the soundwave into octave, perfect fifth, perfect fourth, major third, minor third, whole tone, semitone. These divisions are psychologically important to us, because they are component parts of every tone we hear. Now, folk music takes the most psychologically compelling interval, the octave, and divides it into 5 parts to get the pentatonic scale, whereas classical music divides the octave into 12 parts, to get the chromatic scale. But the structure of the underlying harmonies still reflects the mathematical nature of the overtone series. Smaller and smaller divisions of the octave have more psychological “tension”, so chords with major and minor seconds in them have more tension than chords with perfect fifths, perfect fourths, and major thirds. This is what creates interest in tonal music.

Now what Schoenberg did was to take a more or less arbitrary aspect of tonal music, the division of the octave into 12 parts, and chose arbitrary progressions from one note to the next. So there is no longer any connection to the way that the human mind processes sound. And that’s why his music doesn’t make “sense” tonally to many people. Now it’s true that he still had the elements of rhythm, timbre, and dynamics to create interest, but he essentially cut off the element of tonality, relegating it to a rigid formulaic construct. Contrast that with Paul Hindemith, who also moved beyond traditional tonality, but did so in a way that still incorporated the psychological connection the mind has with sound waves. Hindemith recognized the way we hear the mathematical divisions of the sound wave, and incorporated that into the way he used tonality.

That’s why Schoenberg is not my favorite composer. I welcome other opinions, likes, and dislikes.

2

You’ve made a huge assumption that the tonal system is based in nature. It’s not.

The only tonal interval that exists in the overtone system is the octave. Everything else in the equal temperament is abstract. The perfect fifth of a piano doesn’t correspond to that of the maths. Less so the third. And where, anywhere in the overtone series, can you explain the equivalence of major and minor chords?

One aspect (and only one aspect) of Schoenberg’s music was to acknowledge the abstract nature of chromaticism, and to create a new system out of it.

And to make a comment such as abandoning tonality shows that “there is no longer any connection to the way that the human mind processes sound” shows a complete ignorance of non-European musical systems.

3

To me, the compositions of Arnold Schoenberg are the absolute epitome of music that looks brilliant on paper, but sounds hideous when played. I’ve just enough musical education to appreciate how the structure of a composition contributes to (or detracts from) the listening experience. On the other hand, I do not have nearly enough musical education to overlook Schoenberg’s complete disdain for aesthetic value.

When it comes right down to it, I’d rather listen to an hour of fingernails on a chalkboard than five minutes of Schoenberg.

4

Schoenberg has always been one of my favorite composers. I enjoy his music and revere his writings (the way he describes tonic-dominant relationships as some sort of epic battle is just too cool :slight_smile: ). While perhaps some of the composers associated with the modernist era may have valued the “theory” more than the music, Schoenberg always seemed to be a Romantic at heart. Even his most dense pieces have a strong emotional effect- rather than sounding like an intellectual exercise (YMMV).

So, while I still struggle with say, some of Babbit’s or Boulez’s work, Schoenberg just speaks to me.

5

Fun fact: The Decepticons’ theme in The Transformers: The Movie was an 8-tone row.

6

I’ve never studied music, so I can’t offer much theoretical insight into Schoenberg’s work. However, I am currently rehearsing for a performance of Gurrelieder, in which I’ll be singing Tenor I in one of the three male-voice choirs. The performance is on Saturday week in Melbourne.

I’m really enjoying the experience. I haven’t found *Gurrelieder * especially difficult in a musical sense, although it’s certainly a very taxing work physically. I gather that it’s one of Schoenberg’s earlier pieces, written when he was still composing relatively “tuneful” music. To me, there are distinct Mahlerian and Wagnerian overtones throughout the choral parts. I’m really looking forward to the performance.

7

The key to understanding Schoenberg, for me, has been to divorce myself of any notion that expressivity is based solely in Western, “accessible” harmony.

Think of the 12-tone system of composition as a means to an end. Think of it as a tool. If you get hung up on thinking of that mode of writing as the end result, or as the only “achievement” of the piece, you could miss what Schoenberg is trying to SAY.

Major elements that attract people to music - emotion, expressiveness, even accessibility - are all still present in these works. Listen, for example, to his piano concerto: the sweeping sense of tension and release is very present, and I get the same sense of expression out of it as I do from any other major piano concerto. It may not elicit the teary-eyed quality that the Big Tune in a Rachmaninov concerto does, but it’s still there.

You also have works like Ewartung. The very goal of that piece is to evoke a sense of unease and dread, and no matter which method Schoenberg uses to paint that emotion, it’s still absolutely palpable in a classic Expressionist sense.

For me, early Schoenberg (Gurrelieder and the aforementioned Pelleas and Verklärte Nacht, for instance) communicate equal amounts of atmosphere as do his 12-tone pieces. He just uses different means to get the idea across.

Signed,
Barrytown, who considers a concert performance of Moses und Aron to be one of the greatest concert experiences in his life :slight_smile:

8

I’m going to agree with Israfel (who has a heart like a lute–EAP, right?).

Schoenberg speaks to me like no other composer.

I don’t want to invalidate all the OP said. Fifths and thirds and other intervals have their appeal. So do, as GorillaMan says, plenty of intervals that are not in Western music.

But Schoenberg did use the intervals of Western music in a whole new way. The fifths and fourths are in there as an element of the tone rows. Schoenberg himself never called his music atonal (or at not least not the 12-tone work) but “pantonal.”

It takes a bit to develop one’s ear, but there are wonderful melodies and patterns in Schoenberg’s work. He created the 12-tone technique yet was an instant master of it. Listen to the wind quintet with its beautiful sonata structures.

9

Well I didn’t intend to start a debate on acoustics, but what you say is not true.

http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Arts/music/elements/generalities/harmonic/harmonic.htm

That’s because equal temperament is a compromise. Older systems of tuning resulted in different keys sounding “different”, and made it nearly impossible to play in certain keys on a keyboard instrument, because the further you got away from the key of “C”, the more “out of tune” it sounded.

But equal temperament is close enough to the mathematical divisions that the psychological effect is still there. And you will find that chamber groups, especially strings, will tend to abandon equal temperament and go for “perfect” intervals when possible. But there is most definitely a real psychological effect. It’s the reason Gregorian Chant, when sung in parallel 5th’s, sounds “eerie” to us, for example.

I happen to have a chart of frequencies, and I hope it’s correct, because I’m not an expert in acoustics by any means. But according to this chart, the frequency of A at the bottom of the bass clef staff is 110. The natural harmonic above that would be 164.81377. The E above A in equal temperament would be 165. As you can see, it’s close, but not exact. The octave of course is 220 naturally and in equal temperament. The next overtone is 277.18262, while C# in equal temperament is 275. Further off, but still close. The E above is 277.18262 vs. 330. The G above that is 391.99534 vs. 385. You’ll notice that so far, we have spelled out an A Major Seventh chord. The seventh chord is the crux of traditional tonality. I assure you I didn’t make this stuff up; it’s commonly accepted as fact.

And of course, any accomplished musician knows to adjust the intervals when possible to align with the natural harmonics. Rule #1 is “lower the third in a major chord”. Why? Because equal temperament sets it too high.

I don’t know what that has to do with the topic. Schoenberg certainly didn’t base his compositions on non-Western tonalities.

If it helps people not be on the defensive, I’m not trying to say anything BAD about Schoenberg. I’m just explaining why it’s not my particular cup of tea. I’m suggesting that Schoenberg CHOSE to serialize the chromatic scale. That’s certainly not bad per se, but IMO, in doing so, he forfeited one of the parameters used to foster tension and release in music.

10

I enjoyed all your comments. I just wanted to point out, in case anyone misunderstood me, that I’m most definitely not saying that we must return to traditional harmony, or that it is inherently superior to any other system. My point was that one does not have to abandon the nature of acoustics to progress beyond traditional tonality. Many composers have gone way beyond traditional tonality, but at the same time have avoided more or less abitrary, formulaic selection of pitches.

11

yes, it’s still possiblep to exploit some of the acoustic elements of overtones via equal temperament. But the harmonic series does not explain major/minor tonality at all.

Commonly accepted, but only by people who’ve never actually heard the intervals you describe - it doesn’t sound anything like a dominant seventh. And in any case, the functional seventh is a late development of western harmony.

12

Oh, please. If you want to contend that there is no connection between the overtone series and tonal music, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I really can’t have a serious discussion with anyone who is so dismissive as to proclaim that music theory is devised by people who have “never heard the intervals”.

13

There’s no direct connection between the overtone series and the predominance of major/minor tonality. I’ve already posed the (unanswerable) question of how major-minor equivalence is a result of acoustics. The functional seventh does not sound like any overtone.

I’m saying that an attempt to rationalise the dominance of one tonal system by vague cross-referencing with acoustical phenomena doesn’t prove anything.

14

The difficulty of explaining major/minor tonality does not invalidate the entire theory. Here’s a good primer on the connection between the overtone series and tonal music:

http://www.smu.edu/totw/overtone.htm

Who’s “rationalizing the dominance of one tonal system”? I specifically told you that’s not what I’m trying to do. There is more than one tonal system. I already gave the example of Hindemith’s tonal system, which does relate to the overtone series, but is not common-practice tonality. There are many more composers, and many more systems. But Schoenberg’s system does not relate to the overtone series.

15

Sorry, but that site lost me once it claimed that “…some of the overtones are slightly out of tune with our Western tuning scales. These notes are shown in parentheses” - and incorrectly chose to not bracket most of the ‘out of tune’ notes, because to do so would invalidate everything else on the page. And it also makes the mistake I’m repeatedly mentioning, of introducing minor harmonies which do not occur anywhere in the overtone series.

16

This is going nowhere. I’ll just have to say I vehemently disagree with you and leave it at that.

17

Are you serious? Come on. Take the first 5 notes in the harmonic series. Major chord. C-C-G-C-E.

As for minor, well, it’s not easy to represent in the harmonic series, but maybe that’s what defines its character.

18

WWSS?

(What would Schoenberg say?) :slight_smile:

19

Yes, a close approximation of the major triad appears in the overtone series. (Note that it was ignored for centuries, in favour of fourths and fifths.)

And to define the minor chord as something that isn’t definable via overtones is my whole point! We hear a C Major triad as matching a C Minor one. The major one has some correlation to overtones. The minor has no correlation whatsoever. Why is that chord defined as the minor chord? Why not another?

20

“There is still a lot of good music waiting to be written in C major”

Arnold Schoenberg, 1951