# Schoenberg as 12-tone tonalist



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

*Schoenberg:* To those who assert that "serialism is not the product of 'inspiration," or that "the mechanics of serialism surpasses inspiration," or assert that "we remember Schoenberg not for his inspiration, but for his serialism," or that "it is precisely his method and mechanics which forces us to remember him in 21st century music ," I say:

It is not. Referring to Schoenberg as the father of serialism cuts both ways, and is neither totally good nor bad for critics or proponents. Silvina Milstein's book _Arnold Schoenberg: Notes, Sets, Forms_ reveals Schoenberg as a tonalist to the end, even into his twelve-tone period. He used the syntax of tonality in the 12-tone context, and this is precisely why Boulez rejected him in preference to Webern.

Some specifics:

1. Schoenberg broke his 12-note rows down into hexads, and 2, 3, and 4 note motives. He was a thematic composer to begin with, and remained so.

2. Although the strict twelve-tone works do not function tonally, they have "harmonic functions" nonetheless; these areas of "tone centricity" are produced by "boundary" notes of the hexads, various ways of emphasizing notes by phrasing and rhythm, and by the pitch content of the hexads themselves. It's a mistake to think that Schoenberg used the twelve-tone method in a mechanical way; he was always "musical" in his use of it.

Yes, the inspiration of his music surpasses the mechanics of serialism, because Schoenberg was an old-school thinker connected firmly to the earlier tradition of late Romanticism. After all, he never wrote a book on the twelve-tone method, but he did write a book on tonal harmony, his_Harmonielehre._

Schoenberg did not want to "reveal" his 12-tone method, and did so only because he felt he had to, in response to Hauer's publication of his 12-note book and "trope" method (tropes were like scales, unordered).

Schoenberg would have rather just continued writing music without this "system" ever being mentioned. Not out of "secrecy" or fear of misunderstanding (which turned out to be a valid fear), but for "musical" reasons: he saw his music, even the 12-tone stuff, as being a continuation of chromaticism, plain and simple. This is how he thought: as a musician, not a theorist. No wonder he felt misunderstood!

Schoenberg in fact never discussed the 12-tone method with anyone other than his "special" students, Berg & Webern, maybe a few others.

The point I'm making is that Schoenberg saw his music as continuing the "chromatic" way of thinking, a late version of tonality, which he was already using before he developed the "system." Bartok, Stravinsky, and others were already thinking this way as well. So for me this reinforces the view of Schoenberg as a tonalist.

Which brings me to my penultimate point: What is really meant by the term "chromaticism"? The gradual addition of non-diatonic notes happened anyway, so we see a direct connection to tonality. In Strauss'* Metamorphosen *and Schoenberg's *Pelleas,* we see more chromaticism, but the functional meanings of the harmonies becomes more ambiguous, or having multiple functions/meanings, or no function at all in the CP tonal sense. So "chromaticism" means not simply "more notes", but also a lack of functional clarity in a CP tonal sense.

For Schoenberg, the notion of "function" never went away. His division of the row into A and Eb areas still "functioned" as areas of tone-centricity. Is it fair, or accurate, to say that a tritone relation like this is "non-functional," since Schoenberg used it in "tonal" ways?


----------

