beautiful mountains or posteriors??

I have been very much "enjoying" the discussion between mclaren and
Monz regarding Schoenberg, his music and theories... despite the
hyperbole, which seems to be part of the, ahem, "style..."

I, also, was rather disappointed in _Harmonielehre_ upon my first
study... It seemed really like a book that Schoenberg *had* to write
in order to conduct his classes...

I can't imagine a modern editor letting an author include so
many "apologia" about the text and the book in a work. Obviously,
Schoenberg insisted on it, or had a very "liberal" editor...

In any case, Schoenberg's theories have little to do with the *best*
of his music, which can possibly be characterized as *dramatic* more
than anything. Take _Pierrot Lunaire_ for example. More drama,
really, than music. Not too much theory there, on the overall...

_Five Pieces for Orchestra_... well, there could be some theory there
in the "Klangfarbenmelodie..." However, when we hear possible "fish
are jumpin'" practically a la Gershwin, it belies the theoretical
emphasis on that third piece as well...

So, granted... Schoenberg was really not so much of a theorist... 12
tone system notwithstanding (which he later dropped in favor of
more "tonal" music.)

Perhaps Schoenberg is only a pimple on music THEORY'S posterior... it
comes from having much "sitzenfleish..."

______ ______ ______
Joseph Pehrson