source file: m1388.txt Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 16:38:32 -0400 Subject: Re: Schoenberg From: monz@juno.com (Joseph L Monzo) >> Reinhard: >>> Schoenberg describes temperament as an >>> indefinitely extended truce (Harmonielehre p.25)... > Erlich: > The first comment is vague. I don't know what the war > was that resulted in the truce... Monzo: Schoenberg continually speaks of "problems" in connection with learning the craft of composition and also in connection with the act of composing itself. After spending years trying to divine as much as possible what Schoenberg had in mind as regards chromaticism, intonation, ratios, 12-eq, and pantonality (his term for what most of us know as his "free atonality" period), I have come to the conclusion that what Schoenberg meant in referring to "problems" is that given the acceptance of the 12-eq scale as a compositional medium, there are _many_ different ratios (both higher-prime "overtone" relationships in vertical sonorities as well as traditional 3- and 5-limit relationships in melodic movement) that can be represented by each 12-eq pitch-class, and the composer's task is to understand what those rational relationships sound like (and also to understand their psychological and emotional effects) and how to represent those sounds (and feelings) by notes available in the 12-eq scale. The relevant passage is quoted below: > Schoenberg [Theory of Harmony,1911, English trans., > 1978, p.25, in reference to the 5-limit diatonic major scale]: > > This scale is not the last word, the ultimate goal of music, > but rather a provisional stopping place. The overtone series, > which led the ear to it, still contains many problems that > will have to be faced. And if for the time being we still > manage to escape those problems, it is due to little else > than a compromise between the natural intervals and our > inability to use them -- that compromise which we call > the tempered system, which amounts to an indefinitely > extended truce. Monzo: I will continue the quote from this spot because it is pertinent to the discussion we've been having of Schoenberg [p. 25 and 26]: > Schoenberg: > This reduction of the natural relations to manageable > ones cannot permanently impede the evolution of music; > and the ear will have to attack the problems, _because > it is so disposed_. Then our scale will be transformed into > a higher order, as the church modes were transformed into > major and minor modes. Whether there will then be quarter > tones, eighth, third, or (as Busoni thinks) sixth tones, or > whether we will move directly to a 53-tone scale that Dr. > Robert Neumann has calculated, we cannot foretell. > Perhaps this new division of the octave will even be > untempered and will not have much left over in common > with our scale. However that may be, attempts to compose > in quarter or third tones, as are being undertaken here and > there, seem senseless, as long as there are too few > instruments available that can play them. Probably, > whenever the ear and imagination have matured enough > for such music, the scale and the instruments will all at > once be available. It is certain that this movement is > now afoot, certain that it will lead to something. It may > be that here again many digressions and errors will have > to be overcome; perhaps these, too, will lead to > exaggerations or to the delusion that now the ultimate, > the immutable has been found. Perhaps here, once > again, laws and scales will be erected and accorded > an aesthetic timelessness. To the man of vision, even > that will not be the end. He recognizes that any > material can be suitable for art -- if it is well enough > defined that one can shape it in accordance with its > supposed nature, yet not so well defined that the > imagination has no unexplored territory left in which > to roam, in which to establish mystical connection > with the universe. Monzo: (Many people have noted the similarities between Schoenberg and Partch -- if I didn't know better, I'd be ready to swear that Partch must have read this passage and used it as the catalyst for his life's work.) Schoenberg _clearly_ realized that composers (and performers) would eventually tackle the problems of using more complex scale resources. It is obvious that he knew that music would keep evolving, in ways which could not even be imagined at the time he wrote this. I wondered in my last posting why Schoenberg placed so much importance on numbers but manipulated them as 12-eq pitch-classes rather than as ratios. That last phrase about "unexplored territory" is probably the key: the 12-eq scale _in relation to its supposed representation of ratios_ is indeed "not so well defined" by Schoenberg, and apparently, purposely left so, in order to leave room to explore those "mystical connections". >> Monzo: >> ... >> I _do_ think Partch would disagree with this: as I pointed out, >> he emphazed that the undertone series _as an acoustical >> phenomenon_ was not a part of his theory, but the mathematics >> involved in calculating it was. > > Erlich: > Can you elaborate as to how this is a response to Schoenberg's > comments? > Monzo: Simply that Schoenberg (as well as Oettingen, Riemann, et al.) was using the _acoustical_ phenomenon of the overtone series as a basis for explanation, while Partch denied this single acoustical archetype as a basis for harmony, and emphasized instead the properties inherent in _numerical_ comparisons. > Erlich: > Anyway, thanks to Daniel Wolf and Joe Monzo for some > good history lessons. I agree with both of them! Monzo: In particular, I found Daniel Wolf's quoting of Schoenberg's letter to Yasser to be invaluable. I've never seen it before, and it clearly explains Schoenberg's position regarding the 12-eq scale and its rational implications. Joseph L. Monzo monz@juno.com 4940 Rubicam St., Philadelphia, PA 19144-1809, USA phone 215 849 6723 _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]