From: smoliar@argon.iss.nus.sg (Stephen Smoliar)
Subject: Re: tonality and modern music
Reply-To: smoliar@iss.nus.sg (Stephen Smoliar)
Organization: Institute of Systems Science, NUS, Singapore
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 22:52:48 GMT

In article <x#w1+yc@rpi.edu> mccomt@aix.rpi.edu (Todd Michel McComb) writes:
>
>Regarding dodecaphony, it is important to hear Schoenberg's music as an
>attempt at neo-classicism.  One only need listen to the first and fourth
>string quartets in succession to hear a huge difference.  The first is an
>arduous *tonal* work based in the late quartets of Beethoven, and making
>much use of modulations and chromaticism.  The fourth is a dodecaphonic work
>full of classical balance -- and reflecting an admiration of Mozart.  The
>style he developed allowed Schoenberg to express *his* ideas in a more
>straightforward manner.

These are interesting observations with which I think I disagree, at least in
part.  I am not sure what is to be gained from trying to contrast the first and
fourth quartets other than recognizing that one has to listen to them in
different ways.  Personally, I only began to really HEAR the first quartet
after having saturated myself (courtesy of the 92nd Street Y) in the chamber
music of BRAHMS.  There is no doubt that said music is rooted in Beethoven;
but, given the passion exhibited by his orchestration, one may assume that
Schoenberg, too, tended to have Brahms on his mind with much affection.  So
Brahms clues us in to the gesture idioms;  but, of course, there is far more
to that quartet than gesture.  (For such an enormous sprawling work, there had
better be!)  The discovery of a "secret program" for this quartet was, I think,
another insight--not because that program dictates the ONLY way in which the
quartet can be heard (just as one does not really need to follow the poem
"Verklaerte Nacht" line by line) but because the idea of being programmatic
becomes one on which one can hang those gestures.  The other influence which
improved my ability to listen to this quartet was exposure to the drama of
Strindberg.  From this point of view, I found that the music gestures took
on certain characteristics of RHETORICAL gestures:  The members of the quartet
were relating to each other more like actors in a drama whose language was
foreign to me than like musicians faithfully giving Brahms his due.  (Note
that I do NOT think that "Verklaerte Nacht" takes the same literary approach,
since that poem is NARRATIVE.  There, the musicians act as one to RELATE the
episode, while in the first quartet, they actually BECOME the episode.  As a
matter of fact, I am not sure I know of ANY other composition which works quite
the way this quartet does.)

The fourth quartet is quite another matter entirely.  I am not sure I would
call it neo-classical, particularly in light of Schoenberg's attitude towards
Stravinsky.  What it IS, in the truest sense of the word, is EXPERIMENTAL.
Schoenberg was experimenting with new ways in which he could assemble his
resources.  Part of the experiment involved abandoning those principles which
related pitches to each other on the basis of tonal harmony.  Those
relationships were replaced by new ones derived from the structure
of a twelve-tone row.  Fortunately, Schoenberg was well aware that
the structure of any given row could not necessarily be internalized
as readily as that of a scale or mode;  so he had to investigate OTHER
ways in which the mind behind the ear could perceive structure among the
stimuli.  As Virgil Thomson pointed out, the obvious place to seek out
structure was in rhythm;  from this it follows that one good way in which
to organize rhythms is in terms of traditional classical forms.  Did this
experiment work?  Well, the rhythms certainly still carry GESTURE impact;
but I, for one, find it hard to hear all that "classical balance" in the fourth
quartet.  The work still has impact for me;  but it does not "draw me in" the
way, for example, the string trio does.  It is an experiment from which much
can be learned;  but I am not sure to what extent it "works" as a model for
either subsequent composition or listening.

>  As for listening to this music, and understanding
>it, I do not think that written material will really help.  One must simply
>listen to lots of music; listen to what has gone before and what came after,
>and allow your expectations to be suspended in the interest of identifying
>with the artist.

I basically agree with this;  but if one is truly interested in "identifying
with the artist," then one cannot operate from a position of ignorance.
Reading note-by-note analyses may very well do more harm than good;  but
if one wishes to understand the personality context within which a particular
composition came to be, then one will probably have to achieve that
understanding through reading.  (Rosemary Brown didn't TALK to those
guys, did she?)  Another way of putting this is that one ought to approach
a performance with an appropriate disposition, and reading may be one of the
better ways to cultivate that disposition.
-- 
Stephen W. Smoliar; Institute of Systems Science
National University of Singapore; Heng Mui Keng Terrace
Kent Ridge, SINGAPORE 0511
Internet:  smoliar@iss.nus.sg
Organization: Freshman, H&SS general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA