# Schoenberg's method: No big deal



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Here's how I'm beginning to sum-up Schoenberg: he was a consummate craftsman, and a traditionalist who understood tonality totally. Then he wanted to get more abstract (letters to Kandinsky), by using 'Brahmsian' motives and angular, expressionistic 'themes' and melodies, as this 'ugly,' angular, bizarre-sounding music was part of his Expressionist aesthetic. The 12-tone method allowed him to do this, and insured that the music would remain totally chromatic, at least horizontally/melodically, and discourage the perception of a tone center. That's the only use I think he had for the ordered tone rows of his 12-tone method.

The rest of it, the vertical, harmonic aspect, was determined by a looser use of the row. An ordered row cannot have 'vertical order' unless it's up/down; and to _specify_ that would be to create a* tonal bias* of _lower in favor of higher notes_ in the row. That's how tonality works; on a harmonic model, and that model goes from low to high (fundamental and higher partials). Schoenberg never specified how this vertical dimension would work, and so we must assume that it was open to chance.

So, the vertical aspect is also controlled by the row only, and its notes. Only this is left to the discretion of the composer, I must assume. But this is a total determination based on the row, one way or another; it has absolutely no basis in 'tonal function' or tonality.

Therefore, whatever sonorous effects we get from 12-tone music is determined by the row and how it is used, not by any structures or functions of the tonal hierarchy.

If it 'sounds tonal,' this may be due to 'tonal illusions' such as voice-leading and imitation of triads, or allusions to cadences.

But in this regard, Schoenberg is really no more innovative in creating this method than Bartok or Debussy; they were also using non-tonal (or atonal) thinking when they composed. Their sets of notes weren't _ordered_  like Schoenberg's, unless they used them that way as themes drawn from sets, which is more flexible, anyway. They could have their cake and eat it too; Schoenberg wanted us to believe that he invented the cake, and that this cake had to be done a certain way, according to his certain recipe; but this was not true in the long run. With Forte and Rahn's books, their codification of all possible sets into a giant index of possibilities, and Elliott Carter's own use of these sets, it was proven that Schoenberg, although unquestionably a great artist, came up with a method that was, in the long run...no big deal.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

The method was never the point. The music was the point.

Schoenberg's melodies and motifs sound distinctly like Schoenberg from Verklarte Nacht at the very latest. It's not as if he suddenly decided that he wanted to be more radical and intellectualized his way to a new method. That's the exact opposite of what happened.

Why can't we just accept the beauty of Schoenberg's music and stop worrying about the methods behind it? Its richness of harmony, of motivic development, of rhythmic interaction, deserve our full attention.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Mahlerian said:


> It's not as if he suddenly decided that he wanted to be more radical and intellectualized his way to a new method. That's the exact opposite of what happened.


Nonetheless he was conscious of having broken with tradition, just not completely.

For example in a 1948 essay, he wrote: "I was not destined to continue in the manner of Transfigured Night or Gurre-Lieder or even Pelleas and Melisande. The Supreme Commander had ordered me on a harder road. But a longing to return to the older style was always vigorous in me, and from time to time I had to yield to that urge."


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

I agree with mahlerian's statement. Schoenberg didn't use a calculator or computer to compose his music. He composed from the heart honestly.

In fact, one needs to realize that the 12-tone method of composition is a framework for which music would be inspired from. However, Schoenberg used it loosely across the decades of his career and never as an end for its means.

In fact, I strongly surmise that Schoenberg was an experimental romantic in his spirit. People make Schoenberg more difficult than needs to be. It's a matter of sitting down and chilling with his pieces.


----------



## TradeMark (Mar 12, 2015)

One of the main reasons I like expressionism is because it is expressive. The method has nothing to do with it.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Who was that guy who claimed Schoenberg's method was so important it would ensure the supremacy of German music for a hundred years?


----------



## Guest (Apr 19, 2015)

Nereffid said:


> Who was that guy who claimed Schoenberg's method was so important it would ensure the supremacy of German music for a hundred years?


That's the idea of a Romantic Era Nationalist for sure.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Whether the method is a great deal or not doesn't much interest me as a listener: the music that resulted from the method is a pretty big deal to me :tiphat:


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

All I care about is he got the Piano Concerto right.

Well done, Arnold!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> The method was never the point. The music was the point.


That's what I'm saying as well. The 'method' was not really that innovative.



Mahlerian said:


> Schoenberg's melodies and motifs sound distinctly like Schoenberg from Verklarte Nacht at the very latest.


Verklarte Nacht, which is clearly tonal, compared to the Piano Concerto, the Violin Concerto, and the (gasp) String Trio? Ha ha ha haaa!



Mahlerian said:


> It's not as if he suddenly decided that he wanted to be more radical and intellectualized his way to a new method.


In a way, it is. The piano Suite; Six little Pieces...the Serenade...



Mahlerian said:


> That's the exact opposite of what happened.


Well, I guess, if you only count the Theme and Variations Op. 42...



Mahlerian said:


> Why can't we just accept the beauty of Schoenberg's music and stop worrying about the methods behind it?


Because it sounds so friggin' weird, I guess.



Mahlerian said:


> Its richness of harmony...


His uncanny ability to _even create _a vertical dimension out of those rows was amazing...



Mahlerian said:


> of motivic development, of rhythmic interaction, deserve our full attention.


...yeah, the Brahmsian rhetoric sold me, too.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

isorhythm said:


> Nonetheless he was conscious of having broken with tradition, just not completely.


That's why his hair fell out and he stopped eating.



isorhythm said:


> For example in a 1948 essay, he wrote: "I was not destined to continue in the manner of Transfigured Night or Gurre-Lieder or even Pelleas and Melisande. The Supreme Commander had ordered me on a harder road."


Uhh, yeah, sure, Arnie, you're on a mission from God.



isorhythm said:


> "...But a longing to return to the older style was always vigorous in me, and from time to time I had to yield to that urge."


Older style? He never left it. And I would not describe the basic structural changes wrought by the ordered row system to be merely 'stylistic. I think he must be talking about Expressionism vs. his older poetic style...like the Cabaret Lieder! :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Albert7 said:


> I agree with mahlerian's statement. Schoenberg didn't use a calculator or computer to compose his music. He composed from the heart honestly.


That's not entirely true. In Allen Shawm's book, some of Schoenberg's charts, movable wheels, and grids are revealed.



Albert7 said:


> In fact, one needs to realize that the 12-tone method of composition is a framework for which music would be inspired from.


I think his Expressionist aesthetic and his taste for the bizarre was his motivation, and the angular, leaping themes he derived from the method perfectly suited that.



Albert7 said:


> However, Schoenberg used it loosely across the decades of his career and never as an end for its means.


Yeah, he had to use it loosely if he wanted to get any semblance of vertical sonority out of it.



Albert7 said:


> In fact, I strongly surmise that Schoenberg was an experimental romantic in his spirit. People make Schoenberg more difficult than needs to be. It's a matter of sitting down and chilling with his pieces.


Okay, I'll chill with the String Trio. Or how about the Violin Concerto, which never fails to startle me out of my mystified somnabulence...


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> Who was that guy who claimed Schoenberg's method was so important it would ensure the supremacy of German music for a hundred years?


I dunno...it sounds like one of those German fanatics of that era...


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

brotagonist said:


> Whether the method is a great deal or not doesn't much interest me as a listener: the music that resulted from the method is a pretty big deal to me :tiphat:


That's a very tolerant attitude, considering that there are people here who still to this day carry a grudge that he 'destroyed tonality.'


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

The important thing to remember is that the 12-tone method is essentially melodic. An ordered row automatically embodies horizontal movement, as in melodies or thematic elements.

Any vertical (harmonic) use of the row is somewhat contradictory, is not part of the original definition that Schoenberg specified, and is never discussed much. You can't have 'order' in a vertical simultaneity. Linear order implies horizontal movement.

Now, the retrograde and inversion ideas Schoenberg came up with are probably the most innovative aspect of the method.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Am I the only one who finds it weird that 12-tone music sounds so "random" to a lot of people, when on paper it looks like the problem would be the opposite: music being too predictable. I mean, obviously an ordered set should sound more predictable than an unordered set?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Dim7 said:


> Am I the only one who finds it weird that 12-tone music sounds so "random" to a lot of people, when on paper it looks like the problem would be the opposite: music beng too predictable. I mean, obviously an ordered set should sound more predictable than an unordered set?


No, I've seen this brought up by others.

There are two factors which contribute to the impression of randomness in some listeners:

1) The complexity of the musical language, particularly its basis in the chromatic scale rather than a diatonic or modal scale, and the lack of literal repetition. Complexity of rhythm also plays a role.

2) The patterning is deliberately obscured, and remains under the surface. People can't hear tone rows because they're usually not meant to, and this is not made an important part of the music.

Can you hear where the repeats are in this movement?


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

At 2:23 it seems to go back at the beginning.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Dim7 said:


> At 2:23 it seems to go back at the beginning.


Indeed. The minuet is in compound ternary form: AABCCDDAB

Each section also contains repeats:

There is a repeat of A at the 0:24 mark, and then B begins at 0:48.

The repeats in the trio are harder to hear because the lines keep going over the bar and the sections are so short (4 bars each), but they can be found at about 1:54 and 2:10, respectively.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Well, as we all know now, if Schoenberg hadn't come up with it, Adrian Leverkuhn would have a few years later.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Personally, it's hard for me to hear how anyone could listen to Schoenberg's music and not sense the innate musicality of his works.

I used to not hear it either. I can't remember why though.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> ....
> _*But in this regard, Schoenberg is really no more innovative in creating this method than Bartok or Debussy; they were also using non-tonal (or atonal) thinking when they composed.*_ Their sets of notes weren't _ordered_ like Schoenberg's, unless they used them that way as themes drawn from sets, which is more flexible, anyway. They could have their cake and eat it too; Schoenberg wanted us to believe that he invented the cake, and that this cake had to be done a certain way, according to his certain recipe; but this was not true in the long run. With Forte and Rahn's books, their codification of all possible sets into a giant index of possibilities, and Elliott Carter's own use of these sets, it was proven that Schoenberg, although unquestionably a great artist, came up with a method that was, in the long run...no big deal.


I agree entirely. Atonal music development was inevitable, a natural course of development, which in my opinion more as a matter of musical theory and Schoenberg got there first.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ArtMusic said:


> I agree entirely. Atonal music development was inevitable, a natural course of development, which in my opinion more as a matter of musical theory and Schoenberg got there first.


It was inevitable that someone would think of it (whatever we mean by "it"); what was done with it - what music actually sounded like - was not inevitable, but resulted from certain people doing certain things at certain times. Only Schoenberg could have written Schoenberg's music and exerted the specific influences he did. The "historical inevitability" theory has its limits.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

...unless you look at the history as a history of ideas. "..._which in my opinion more as a matter of _musical theory_ and Schoenberg got there first."_ 
I agree with that. A method is a method (it), notes are notes. No, the specifics are not inevitable, but the overall pattern that results is consistent with a certain input of ideas and ways of handling the material.

It's like fractal-generating algorithms used in computer imaging; the end results can't be predicted precisely, but the end result "always looks like trees," rocks, or clouds, or whatever the algorithm was designed to create. The chromaticism of 12-tone music exemplifies this. The music will circulate all 12 notes, so it's going to have a certain overall effect.


----------



## drmdjones (Dec 25, 2018)

I believe that the importance of the 12-tone system lies in it's ability to reign in free atonality, with which Schoenberg had experimented earlier.

To make aesthetic judgements the question is not simply "what has this composer done," but rather, " what has this composer done within the constraints of his/her system." There needs to be some backdrop against which to judge the music, in my opinion.


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

Dim7 said:


> Am I the only one who finds it weird that 12-tone music sounds so "random" to a lot of people, when on paper it looks like the problem would be the opposite: music being too predictable. I mean, obviously an ordered set should sound more predictable than an unordered set?







Somewhat along these lines, here is John Corigliano commenting on organization vs. perception in serial music.

If the video doesn't start at the correct place, Corigliano is at the 25'30" mark.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Dim7 said:


> Am I the only one who finds it weird that 12-tone music sounds so "random" to a lot of people, when on paper it looks like the problem would be the opposite: music being too predictable. I mean, obviously an ordered set should sound more predictable than an unordered set?


It sounds "predictably random." You know that it's going to be a series of 12 different notes, so that's predictable; but it's hard to get a grip on 12 different notes which always vary after each group of 12 notes.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba (Oct 15, 2018)

With a tone-row of 11 , how long should it take for the listener to understand one is missing ?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Tikoo Tuba said:


> With a tone-row of 11 , how long should it take for the listener to understand one is missing ?


Probably even longer than it takes him to discern the existence of the row. Probably forever.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Tikoo Tuba said:


> With a tone-row of 11 , how long should it take for the listener to understand one is missing ?


Do you count notes of the C major scale when you listen to Mozart? No. Mozart does not use all 7 notes of the scale in one long sequence, anyway. You listen for meaningful groups of notes, derived from that scale. Serialism is the same. Rarely do we hear a tone row all by itself.

This question seems to reveal a miscomprehension of the purposes of serial music, which by nature is highly and continuously chromatic, and thus creates no sense of definite, sustained tonality; and can use smaller, recognizable groups of the 12 notes.

As far as the harmonic aspect, to create a sense of tonality, 6-note sets are the least redundant, most efficient way to exhibit variety. when you add more notes, redundancy (repeats of intervals) increases. So theoretically, an 11-note set is easier to recognize tonally/intervalically than a 12-note set.

As seen in the following chart, tonality gets "ruled out" as more notes are added.

Atonal music is nearly or completely chromatic. Scales, and the idea of scales, become irrelevant.

We seem to veering from the fact that we are talking about atonal music, which is music that is highly and continuously chromatic, and thus creates no sense of definite, sustained tonality.

Howard Hanson's Harmonic Materials of Modern Music shows:

If we begin with one note, and begin adding notes by fifths, we get the following:

2 notes (C-G): 1 fifth
3 notes (C-G-D): 2 fifths, 1 major second
4 notes (C-G-D-A): 3 fifths, 1 minor third, 2 major seconds
5 notes (C-G-D-A-E): 4 fifths, 1 major third, 2 minor thirds, 3 major seconds
6 notes (C-G-D-A-E-B): 5 fifths, 2 major thirds, 3 minor thirds, 4 major seconds, 1 minor second
7 notes (C-G-D-A-E-B-F#): 6 fifths, 3 major thirds, 4 minor thirds, 5 major seconds, 2 minor seconds, 1 tritone
8 notes (C-G-D-A-E-B-F#-C#): 7 fifths, 4 major thirds, 5 minor thirds, 6 major seconds, 4 minor seconds, 2 tritones
9 notes (C-G-D-A-E-B-F#-C#-G#): 8 fifths, 6 major thirds, 6 minor thirds, 7 major seconds, 6 minor seconds, 3 tritones
10 notes (C-G-D-A-E-B-F#-C#-G#-D#): 9 fifths, 8 major thirds, 8 minor thirds,8 major seconds, 8 minor seconds, 4 tritones
11 notes (C-G-D-A-E-B-F#-C#-G#-D#-A#): 10 fifths, 10 major thirds, 10 minor thirds, 10 major seconds, 10 minor seconds, 5 tritones
12 notes (C-G-D-A-E-B-F#-C#-G#-D#-A#-E#): 12 fifths, 12 major thirds, 12 minor thirds, 12 major seconds, 12 minor seconds, 6 tritones

Each new note adds one new interval, plus adding one more to those already present; but beyond seven tones, no new intervals can be added. In addition to this loss of new material, there is also a gradual decrease in the difference of the quantitative formation; i. e., redundancy begins to set in.

The sound of a sonority, whether it be harmony or melody, depends on what is present, but also on what is not present. The pentatonic sounds as it does because it contains mainly perfect fifths, and also maj seconds, minor thirds, and one major third, but also because it does not contain the minor second or tritone.

As sonorities get projected beyond the six-range, they tend to lose their individuality.

In other words, a sustained sense of tonality cannot be maintained. This does not mean that atonal, 12-tone, or serial music cannot have sonorities and harmonic meaning and color. It simply means that, when using all 12 notes continuously, no overall "gestalt" of harmony or sonority will be dominant. There will be no sustained harmonic consistency which will be continuously exerting influence and gravity towards one note, or even a larger tonal area. The effect is "spread out" evenly among the 12 notes, and any sense of tonality which one thinks one perceives is fleeting, and must be grasped from moment-to-moment, which is not really the way real Western tonality was intended to function. Here, with atonality, we have entered a world of "moment time" which is instantaneous, and is really more "Eastern" and vertical by nature.

What is harmonic content, and what are cross-relations in a scale? It means that every note is related to every other note:

C Major scale: C-D-E-F-G-A-B

Relations: First note, C: 
C-D; C-E; C-F; C-G; C-A; C-B

Then, next note, D: 
D-E; D-F; D-G; D-A; D-B

Then, next note, E: 
E-F; E-G; E-A; E-B

Then, next note, F: 
F-G; F-A; F-B

Then, next note, G: 
G-A; G-B

Then, next note, A:
A-B

These intervals can be counted, to come up with a "harmonic content" of the scale: 
minor seconds: 2 (E-F, B-C)
major seconds: 5 (C-D, D-E, F-G, G-A, A-B)
minor thirds: 4: D-F, E-G, A-C, B-D)
major thirds: 3: C-E, F-A, G-B
fourths: 5: C-F, D-G, E-A, G-C, A-D
tritones: 1: (B-F)

20 relations; with 6 basic interval types (the rest are inversions): m2/M7, M2/m7, m3/M6, M3/m6, 4th/5th/, and tritone.

*You can't do this with a tone-row, because the relations are restricted by ordering:*
C-C#-D-D#-E-F-F#-G-G#-A-A#-B (chromatic set)

C-C#, C#-D, D-D#, D#-E, E-F, F-F#, F#-G, G-G#, G#-A, A-A#, A#-B, B-C

There a 12 interval relations. This is not a good row because the intervals are all the same, minor seconds. 

Yes, tone rows create harmonic effects, but do this only by the intervals of adjacent notes in the row, or by verticalities which result from combinatoriality, or the "stacking" of rows. Also, these harmonic simultanities are not "functional" in any referential sense; they stand alone as separate harmonic entities


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Tikoo Tuba said:


> With a tone-row of 11 , how long should it take for the listener to understand one is missing ?


Or maybe the question should be whether the listener would care and how long it would take them to care. If so - if _something_ seems to be missing and that matters for the music - then that is significant. Otherwise it is just a feature of the mechanics of the piece.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Yes, one of the movements of Schoenberg's Serenade op. 24 uses an 11-note row, but when I listen to it I'm not concerned with counting notes.
Come on, let's quit insulting the listener's intelligence.


----------



## BabyGiraffe (Feb 24, 2017)

ArtMusic said:


> I agree entirely. Atonal music development was inevitable, a natural course of development, which in my opinion more as a matter of musical theory and Schoenberg got there first.


Well, he didn't manage to get there first. There were many theorists and composers experimenting with atonality and chromatic methods around his time. He just got famous in North America. That's it.
There is a reference on 12 tones methods in "Cambridge's History of Western music theory" that you may wish to check.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

This relentless vilification of Schönberg is ridiculous. Can we not just except that he was one of greatest 20th century composers regardless of method?


----------



## Tikoo Tuba (Oct 15, 2018)

With an 11-note row there is opportunity for an extreme accidental . Should it be a delightful surprise every time a listener attends the music's performance , then it's been exactly well-placed .


----------

