Re: [crazy_music] Monzo's dreary effort to defend the indefensible

Why this needless bashing of a composer who never forced anybody to
write according to his method (not "theory"), who developed this
method not in the isolation of a typical kook, but in close
community with other composers, a community which guided the makeup
of the Harmonielehre? (As to the equally needless bashing of list
members, I'm trying to ignore that.)

When Schönberg talked about the "emancipation of the dissonance", he
was in fact trying to treat dissonances and consonances equal.
Refuting Schönberg's purpose by pointing out the dissonance of
3/4-tones and the consonance of near-thirds is quite beside the
point. And what's wrong with referring to current musical or even
physical theory? However faulty it was, it had the value of being a
starting point for Schönberg's explorations. And every theory, even
Helmhotz's, is a legitimate theory if it can serve as a starting
point for its revision.

Schönberg's main instrument was the cello, and it was an easy thing
for him to make the overtones heard. The tuning used in the world
around him is another matter. If he chose to accept it, why blame
him? If he ever played in a string quartet (and he did), it was
clear to him that the thirds already do not conform to 12-equal. If
he does
not want to treat dissonances as dissonances, the current theory
tells him to incorporate them into some harmonic series and he will
get the flat third and seventh degrees as the seventh harmonic of
the
fourth and first, the tritone as the eleventh, the minor third as
the thirteenth... He does this to fill up the holes, the unusable
notes in a key in order to use them all freely. What's wrong with
this?

It's another thing to criticise him for not educating the listeners
to the true harmonics before giving them overtones in a tempered
version (going up, as Schönberg does, to the 13th harmonic, there
should be six different intonations for every 12tET step - and
that's only counting direct relations).

It's yet another thing to take the step towards treating all tones
and all intervals equally and revert to an essentially melodic
organisation in his compositions, as he eventually did. Again, it is
(I think) still an open question if thinking or talking about 13
harmonics is a necessary preliminay for this, but if he did think of
harmonic relations in his "free atonal" music, this would be the
consequence of acknowledging the many confalted notes.

But all this should not have any bearing on stylistic value
judgements which are purely personal and should be treated as such.
Compare Schönberg's music or painting to the music or painting of
his contemporaries (in Germany/Austria). Is it really the technique
that turns you off? Is it really Schönberg's dilettant ineptitude?
Or could it be that you don't like the expressive content?

From central Europe, which is at least as far removed from the
centers of civilisation as Boston, Mass.,

Klaus Schmirler

>
> FROM: mclaren
> TO: new practical microtonal list
> SUBJECT: Monzo's dreary effort to defend the indefensible
>
> In Message 16 of Digest 32, Joe Monzo made a fool of himself by
> making deliberate statements which are not true. Either Joe Monzo
> was lying outright, or he is pervasively ignorant of Arnold
> Schoenberg's
> writings.
>
&c.

--- In crazy_music@y..., xed@e... wrote:
> uploaded nothing lately. Graham Breed has uploaded nothing.

Graham uploaded at least four utterly unique pieces of music to the
Practical list. I have them right here on my hard disk. I'm
listening to one of them right now.

> John deLaubenfels has uploaded nothing.

He sent me a very nice CD once, with quite a lot of music on it.

As for Monz, he has many pieces of his music on his own website, the
address of which is kept no secret.

> Instead of creating music, these
> three attack dogs spew gibberish supported by ignorant fallacies and
> outright lies.

Brian, I know you feel strongly about this issue, but overstating your
case doesn't further you cause. You are in the habit of using a
non-standard definition of the word "lie." It's customarily reserved
for situations in which the speaker intentionally and knowingly
presents a falsehood with intent to deceive, not merely something the
listener believes to be false. By your usage, you should now call
yourself a liar for claiming that Graham and John have not created any
music. You did not lie about it, of course; either you had a wrong
opinion or I misunderstood you.

There is room here for more than one opinion. There is room here for
all opinions, even ignorant fallacies. There is not room for
name-calling or spewing rage. That won't get good music made. May I
quote from the ever-apropos Bible: "If I speak in the tongues of men
and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a
clanging cymbal."

David