Preferred Citation: Brand, Juliane, and Christopher Hailey, editors. Constructive Dissonance: Arnold Schoenberg and the Transformations of Twentieth-Century Culture. Berkeley:  University of California Press,  c1997 1997. http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft52900620/


 
Notes

Five Schoenberg and the Origins of Atonality

1. Carl Dahlhaus asserts both that the rise of atonality was not a historical necessity and that it is ''impossible to give a reason for Schoenberg's decision" to cross the frontiers of tonality; see Carl Dahlhaus, "Schoenberg's Aesthetic Theology," in Schoenberg and the New Music, trans. Derrick Puffett and Alfred Clayton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 81-93, esp. 88. I agree with the first assertion; my reasons for disagreement with the second are the substance of this paper.

2. Reinhold Brinkmann, Arnold Schönberg: Drei Klavierstücke op. 11: Studien zur frühen Atonalität bei Schönberg (Wiesbaden: Fritz Steiner Verlag, 1969), 40. László Somfai, however, asserts that the first work of Schoenberg that Bartók studied was the String Quartet op. 7; see his article on Bartók in New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, ed. Stanley Sadie (London and Washington: Macmillan, 1980), 2:207.

3. There remains much disagreement about when tonality disappeared from Schoenberg's music, with some authors questioning whether it ever completely disappeared. It is my belief that some residual aspects of tonality remained in Schoenberg's music until approximately op. 23.

4. See Jan Maegaard, Entwicklung des dodekaphonen Satzes, vol. 1. The most significant remaining lacunae in the chronology are the unreliable chronological ordering for the individual songs of op. 15, and the questionable dating of "Am Strande."

5. Three essays, written in 1909, apparently represent Schoenberg's first literary forays: "Eine Rechtsfrage" ("A Legal Question," in Style and Idea, 185-189); "Ein Kunsteindruck" ("An Artistic Impression," in Style and Idea, 189-191); and "Über Musikkritik,'' Der Merker 1/2 (1909), 59-64 ("About Music Criticism," in Style and Idea, 191-197).

6. Among the pertinent essays are "Gesinnung oder Erkenntnis" (1925) ("Opinion or Insight?" in Style and Idea, 258-264); "Neue Musik: Meine Musik" (c. 1930) ("New Music: My Music," in Style and Idea, 99-106); "Wie man einsam wird" (1937) ("How One Becomes Lonely," in Style and Idea, 30-53); and "My Evolution" (1949), in Style and Idea, 79-92.

7. Schoenberg, Harmonielehre (Vienna: Universal Edition, 1911). Schoenberg revised his treatise rather extensively for the third edition, published in 1922, which served as the principal basis for the English translation by Roy E. Carter, Theory of Harmony. Carter's translations will be used throughout this article because for every passage case cited, the 1911 and 1922 texts coincide either exactly or very closely. Further, for the sake of convenience, reference will be made throughout the text to chapter numbers as they appear in Carter's translation, even though there were none in the 1911 edition.

8. Maegaard, Entwicklung des dodekaphonen Satzes, 1:68-69.

9. Walter Frisch, Brahms and the Principle of Developing Variation (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1984), 9-18.

10. For a similar reading of Schoenberg's motivations, see Carl Dahlhaus, "Schoenberg and Schenker," in Schoenberg and the New Music, 134-140, esp. 137-138.

11. For instance, example 30b (1911 ed., 94; Theory of Harmony, 80) has the following harmonic progression: inline image .

12. See Robert Wason, Viennese Harmonic Theory from Albrechtsberger to Schenker and Schoenberg (Ann Arbor, Mich.: UMI Press, 1985), 136-139.

13. Schoenberg, Theory of Harmony, 120. For the original German, see Schoenberg, Harmonielehre (1911), 138 (very similar in the 1922 edition, 146).

14. It is highly revealing to compare the Harmonielehre with Schoenberg's later treatise on harmony, Structural Functions of Harmony, ed. and rev. Leonard Stein (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1969), where in the opening chapter, "Structural Functions of Harmony," he distinguishes between "successions" that are "aimless" and "progressions" that have the "function of establishing or contradicting a tonality."

15. Schoenberg, Theory of Harmony, 175. For the original German, see Schoenberg, Harmonielehre (1911), 199-201 (very similar in the 1922 edition, 213-215).

16. Schoenberg, Theory of Harmony, 229. For the original German, see Schoenberg, Harmonielehre (1911), 250 (very similar in the 1922 edition, 278).

17. Schoenberg, Harmonielehre (1911), 174-175 (1922 edition, 188); Schoenberg, Theory of Harmony, 426.

18. See, for instance, Bryan R. Simms, "Who First Composed Twelve-tone Music, Schoenberg or Hauer?" Journal of the Arnold Schoenberg Institute 10/2 (1987), 109-133.

19. See Schoenberg's 1951 essay "Anton Webern: Klangfarbenmelodie," in Style and Idea, 484-485.


Notes
 

Preferred Citation: Brand, Juliane, and Christopher Hailey, editors. Constructive Dissonance: Arnold Schoenberg and the Transformations of Twentieth-Century Culture. Berkeley:  University of California Press,  c1997 1997. http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft52900620/