La Monte Young on Schoenberg

From the excellent and lengthy interview of La Monte Young and Frank
Oteri now on NewMusicBox:

Even Schoenberg himself, the master of the democracy of the twelve
tones, wrote very tonal music and he often analyzed it in that way.
He was always thinking of how this was relating to tonality because
it's a simple physical phenomenon that we are totally enmeshed in.

http://newmusicbox.org

J. Pehrson

hi Joe,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> From the excellent and lengthy interview of La Monte Young
> and Frank Oteri now on NewMusicBox:
>
> Even Schoenberg himself, the master of the democracy of
> the twelve tones, wrote very tonal music and he often
> analyzed it in that way. He was always thinking of how
> this was relating to tonality because it's a simple physical
> phenomenon that we are totally enmeshed in.
>
> http://newmusicbox.org
>
> J. Pehrson

that was exactly Schoenberg's point in choosing to call his
non-tonal musical style "pantonality" instead of "atonality".

here's the revelant passage Schoenberg's book. it's in a
footnote which he added in the 1922 revised edition, in the
next-to-last chapter "Chords constructed in Fourths", just
after describing a 12-tone "4th-chord" containing every note
of the 12edo scale, and mentioning himself, Webern, Berg,
Bartok, and Schreker as examples of composers going "in this
direction". The footnote begins with Schoenberg disassociating
himself from the younger composers who call themselves "atonalists":

Arnold Schoenberg, 1978, _Theory of Harmony_
(Carter translation of _Harmonielehre_), p. 432;
comments in square brackets by Carter:

"... I am a musician and have nothing to do with things atonal.
The word 'atonal' could only signify something entirely
inconsistent with the nature of tone. Even the word 'tonal'
is incorrectly used if it is intended in an exclusive rather
than inclusive sense. It can be valid only in the following
sense: Everything implied by a series of tones (_Tonreihe_)
constitutes tonality, whether it be brought together by means
of direct reference to a single fundamental or by more
complicated connections. That from this single correct
definition no reasonable opposite corresponding to the word
'atonality' can be formed, must be evident. Where could the
negation be introduced? Is it that *not all* implications of
a series of tones, or *not any*, should characterize atonality?
[I.e. oes atonality exclude only certain implications or all
of them?] A piece of music will always have to be tonal,
at least in so far as a relation has to exist from tone to
tone by virtue of which the tones, placed next to or above
one another, yield a perceptible continuity. The tonality
[itself] may then perhaps be neither perceptible nor provable;
these relations may be obscure and difficult to comprehend,
even incomprehensible. Nevertheless, to call qany relation
of tones atonal is just as farfetched as it would be to
designate a relation of colors aspectral or acomplementary.
There is no such antithesis. Besides, there has been no
investigation at all of the question whether the way these
new sounds go together is not actually the tonality of a
12-tone series. It is indeed probably just that, hence would
be a phenomenon paralelling the situation that led to the
church modes, of which I say (page 25): 'The effect of a
fundamental tone was felt, but since no one knew which tone
it was, all of them were tried.' Here we do not yet even
feel the fundamental; nevertheless, it is therefore [?]
probably present. If one insists on looking for names,
'polytonal' or 'pantonal' could be considered. Yet, before
anything else, we should determine whether it is not again
imply 'tonal'. This is all then a piece of nonsense ..."

Schoenberg then goes on to describe (with his typically
amusing wordplay) a scenario of atonalists who "would not
succeed even in ... anything with tones", the necessity of
an early grounding in "accepted" musical technique, and then
the sense of "a mission" which a master feels he must fulfill
even against his will.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:

> Arnold Schoenberg, 1978, _Theory of Harmony_
> (Carter translation of _Harmonielehre_), p. 432;
> comments in square brackets by Carter:
>

argh ... i forgot to proofread it before i sent it ...
here's a corrected version of the quote:

> "... I am a musician and have nothing to do with things atonal.
> The word 'atonal' could only signify something entirely
> inconsistent with the nature of tone. Even the word 'tonal'
> is incorrectly used if it is intended in an exclusive rather
> than inclusive sense. It can be valid only in the following
> sense: Everything implied by a series of tones (_Tonreihe_)
> constitutes tonality, whether it be brought together by means
> of direct reference to a single fundamental or by more
> complicated connections. That from this single correct
> definition no reasonable opposite corresponding to the word
> 'atonality' can be formed, must be evident. Where could the
> negation be introduced? Is it that *not all* implications of
> a series of tones, or *not any*, should characterize atonality?
> [I.e. oes atonality exclude only certain implications or all
> of them?] A piece of music will always have to be tonal,
> at least in so far as a relation has to exist from tone to
> tone by virtue of which the tones, placed next to or above
> one another, yield a perceptible continuity. The tonality
> [itself] may then perhaps be neither perceptible nor provable;
> these relations may be obscure and difficult to comprehend,
> even incomprehensible. Nevertheless, to call any relation
> of tones atonal is just as farfetched as it would be to
> designate a relation of colors aspectral or acomplementary.
> There is no such antithesis. Besides, there has been no
> investigation at all of the question whether the way these
> new sounds go together is not actually the tonality of a
> 12-tone series. It is indeed probably just that, hence would
> be a phenomenon paralelling the situation that led to the
> church modes, of which I say (page 25): 'The effect of a
> fundamental tone was felt, but since no one knew which tone
> it was, all of them were tried.' Here we do not yet even
> feel the fundamental; nevertheless, it is therefore [?]
> probably present. If one insists on looking for names,
> 'polytonal' or 'pantonal' could be considered. Yet, before
> anything else, we should determine whether it is not again
> simply 'tonal'. This is all then a piece of nonsense ..."

-monz

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_47871.html#47877

>
>
> that was exactly Schoenberg's point in choosing to call his
> non-tonal musical style "pantonality" instead of "atonality".
>
> here's the revelant passage Schoenberg's book. it's in a
> footnote which he added in the 1922 revised edition, in the
> next-to-last chapter "Chords constructed in Fourths", just
> after describing a 12-tone "4th-chord" containing every note
> of the 12edo scale, and mentioning himself, Webern, Berg,
> Bartok, and Schreker as examples of composers going "in this
> direction". The footnote begins with Schoenberg disassociating
> himself from the younger composers who call themselves "atonalists":
>
>
> Arnold Schoenberg, 1978, _Theory of Harmony_
> (Carter translation of _Harmonielehre_), p. 432;
> comments in square brackets by Carter:
>

***Hi Monz,

Thanks for reminding me of this passage. Yes, I have it on the same
page in my paperback edition, in the *Appendix...*

Joe