yet again... Schoenberg and microtonality

> From: <BobWendell@technet-inc.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 3:52 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Atonality, Information, and the Politics of
Perception
>
>
> Hi, all! Just joined. Enthusiastic! In my view the fundamental flaw
> in Schoenberg's pantonality, as he preferred to call it, was that it
> elevated the fudged tuning of a tempered system to the status of a
> first principle of musical composition. I believe that the greatest
> composers throughout history intuitively respected what we might call
> the "AURAL ERGONOMICS" of human musical perception.
>
> ...
>
> Perhaps we should consider that a dynamic concept of tonality such as
> Schoenberg proposed is beyond the perceptual grasp of most audiences,
> as opposed to simpler relationships to constant tonal centers. If we
> wish to become such elitists that we perform only for ourselves, I
> suppose anything goes, but I wonder how much even we would really
> enjoy that, and when does it become just a dry, intellectual game of
> one-up-manship?

Hi Robert,

I find your comments here about Schoenberg to be most interesting.
I've written an awful lot about his theories here and on other tuning
lists. Most notably perhaps, Brian McLaren and I just had a big
debate about it on the crazy_music list; take a look at the archives
from the month of July 2001 if you're interested:
</crazy_music>.

Schoenberg only "elevated the fudged tuning of a tempered system
to the status of a first principle" around 1920 when he created
the 12-tone (serial) method.

In the early "atonal" (really pantonal) compositions, c. 1907-1912
(which is the period I'm most interested in and have given the most
study), he was really only accepting the 12-EDO tuning as a more-or-less
unavoidable compromise. In my very carefully considered opinion,
his decision was based mainly on the need to have his compositions
performed at a time when he was barely able to make a living as
a composer.

He did in fact consider microtonal tunings, and rejected them
chiefly because of the lack of available instruments and the
concurrent lack of performances which would have resulted.
It's my belief (again, very carefully considered) that his
flirtations with microtonality around 1908 are what actually
finally propelled him into using the 12-EDO scale in the new
"pantonal" way.

I gave a presentation on "Microtonality in Berlin and Vienna
in the Early 1900s" in April at the Pomona, CA, Microfest 2001,
in which my study of this aspect of Schoenberg's work figured
very heavily. McLaren is supposed to be making a transcription
of it eventually, and if and when he does, I'll make sure to
put it into a webpage.

You may see some of my writings about this in my webpage
"A Century of New Music in Vienna"
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/schoenberg/Vienna1905.htm

I've also uploaded my lousy English translation of Dominik Schweiger's
article on "Webern's Rejected Microtones", which is what really
kicked my already intense interest in Schoenberg's ideas on
microtonality into high gear. Aaron Hunt had prepared a better
version of the translation, but I can't seem to find it; when
I do I'll replace this one with his.
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/webern/micro/webernmicro.htm

Enjoy!

love / peace / harmony ...

-monz
http://www.monz.org
"All roads lead to n^0"

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Thank you very much for your comments, Joe, and the links to your
interesting sites. You have pointed out something of which I was
completely unaware, not having made any significant study of
Schoenberg's life or that of his peers.

My comments were strictly derived from exposure to his concepts of 12-
tone or pantonal serial technique and it's broader context and
influence in the historical unfolding of compositional style. So it's
highly interesting that some sort of mirotonal alternatives were at
least considered, even if not so thoroughly explored in any practical
way.

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
>
> > From: <BobWendell@t...>
> > To: <tuning@y...>
> > Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 3:52 PM
> > Subject: [tuning] Re: Atonality, Information, and the Politics of
> Perception
> >
> >
> > Hi, all! Just joined. Enthusiastic! In my view the fundamental
flaw
> > in Schoenberg's pantonality, as he preferred to call it, was that
it
> > elevated the fudged tuning of a tempered system to the status of a
> > first principle of musical composition. I believe that the
greatest
> > composers throughout history intuitively respected what we might
call
> > the "AURAL ERGONOMICS" of human musical perception.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Perhaps we should consider that a dynamic concept of tonality
such as
> > Schoenberg proposed is beyond the perceptual grasp of most
audiences,
> > as opposed to simpler relationships to constant tonal centers. If
we
> > wish to become such elitists that we perform only for ourselves, I
> > suppose anything goes, but I wonder how much even we would really
> > enjoy that, and when does it become just a dry, intellectual game
of
> > one-up-manship?
>
>
>
> Hi Robert,
>
>
> I find your comments here about Schoenberg to be most interesting.
> I've written an awful lot about his theories here and on other
tuning
> lists. Most notably perhaps, Brian McLaren and I just had a big
> debate about it on the crazy_music list; take a look at the archives
> from the month of July 2001 if you're interested:
> </crazy_music>.
>
> Schoenberg only "elevated the fudged tuning of a tempered system
> to the status of a first principle" around 1920 when he created
> the 12-tone (serial) method.
>
> In the early "atonal" (really pantonal) compositions, c. 1907-1912
> (which is the period I'm most interested in and have given the most
> study), he was really only accepting the 12-EDO tuning as a more-or-
less
> unavoidable compromise. In my very carefully considered opinion,
> his decision was based mainly on the need to have his compositions
> performed at a time when he was barely able to make a living as
> a composer.
>
> He did in fact consider microtonal tunings, and rejected them
> chiefly because of the lack of available instruments and the
> concurrent lack of performances which would have resulted.
> It's my belief (again, very carefully considered) that his
> flirtations with microtonality around 1908 are what actually
> finally propelled him into using the 12-EDO scale in the new
> "pantonal" way.
>
> I gave a presentation on "Microtonality in Berlin and Vienna
> in the Early 1900s" in April at the Pomona, CA, Microfest 2001,
> in which my study of this aspect of Schoenberg's work figured
> very heavily. McLaren is supposed to be making a transcription
> of it eventually, and if and when he does, I'll make sure to
> put it into a webpage.
>
> You may see some of my writings about this in my webpage
> "A Century of New Music in Vienna"
> http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/schoenberg/Vienna1905.htm
>
>
> I've also uploaded my lousy English translation of Dominik
Schweiger's
> article on "Webern's Rejected Microtones", which is what really
> kicked my already intense interest in Schoenberg's ideas on
> microtonality into high gear. Aaron Hunt had prepared a better
> version of the translation, but I can't seem to find it; when
> I do I'll replace this one with his.
> http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/webern/micro/webernmicro.htm
>
>
> Enjoy!
>
>
>
> love / peace / harmony ...
>
> -monz
> http://www.monz.org
> "All roads lead to n^0"
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com