SCHOENBERG AND ~CHtNK.

tK

1t seems, then, that Schoenberg made an intensive study of

in 1922 and 1923, especially in early lune 1923 (perhaps as
arelaxation from work on his Opp. 23 and 24, which were com-
in April).
SCHOENBERG A references in letters and in print add further to the picture
THE Schoenberg' s appraisal of Schenker. Among these is the abrasive
OF essay "Those who complain about the decline."2 This is dated lune
9, 1923, like the essay "About ornaments, primitive rhythms,
etc., bird song"3 was probably stimulated his recent study of
Schenker's writings. He scorns "these Spenglers, Schenkers and so
for being "totally lacking in creative talent," and in the last
paragraph singles out Schenker for a special attack. .
N a t o Hugo Leichtentritt, Schoenberg listed German The tone of this essay, a tone which frequently appears m the
writers on music who interested him. First on list he re- glosses in a milder form as the expression exasperation, was
cords "all Heinrich Schenker's writi.ngs."l This was in 1938: there is perhaps set as much by Schoenberg's impatience Schenker's
no evidence in Schoenberg's he acquired any dogmatic, euphuistic style as by an objection to the basic ideas.
subject Schenker after that ti.me. Those writings However may be, Schoenberg's assessment appeared to mellow
possessed in the Arnold Schoenberg are: as his period an active concern with Schenker's writing grew
Ein Beitrag zur Ornamentik (Universal-Edition: no date more distant. Already in 1931 he begins to value Schenker, saying in
Neue musikalische Theorien und Phantasien. Val. 1, Harmonielehre CJ. G. a letter to loseph Rufer that " ... there are very few people indeed
Cotta'sche Buchhandlung Nachfolger: Stuttgart, have any notion of beauty of musical form .... The few younger
Neue musikalische Theorien und Phantasien, Val. 2, CJ. G. ones are doubtless in a position to know it from me (perhaps also
Cotta'sche Buchhandlung Nachfolger: Stuttgart, from Schenker?)."4 In the Leichtentritt letter of 1938 he observes
Beethoven's IX. Sinfonie (Universal-Edition: Vienna, even he "disagree[s) almost everything" in
Der Val. 1 (Tonwille-Flugblätterverlag: Schenker, these books [that is, those of his 'opponents']
"Joh. Seb. Bach: Wohltemperiertes Klavier, Band I: Präludium C-Moll"
XV!9, June
to brought to the Americans' attention. It might help to
convert away from fossilised aesthetics." In his new
where more isolated from the German tradition
All materials contain glosses Schoenberg. These range
VW'-H'~V. European days, Schoenberg is now defending a
sporadic underHnings and marginal marks to notes of several sen-
1950 he is prepared to speak "the tradition of
tences, often written on pasted-in sheets. They amount to a sizeable
commentary Schoenberg on diverse topics in Schenker's
The date lune 1923 1S recorded twice in glosses to
UIJ'A.rLlU book, and a loose sheet laid into the same is
1922. Der bears especiaHy
gloss also came into Schoenberg's hands about time. In Schenk- and [deo.. (Faber and Faber: London, 1975. Edited Leonard Stein), pp.
er's Harmonielehre Schoenberg dates a gloss p. 45) lune 5, 1923.
298-311. This essay is dated November 21, 1922, and deals with several
issues appeared in Schenker's Beitrag.
1Amald Schaenberg Letters (Si. Martin's Press: New
by Erwin Stein; translated by Eithne Wilkins and Ernst 4Letters, ep. cit., p. 154.

27
26
 JUNAlJ:iAN 11,1. DGNSBY SCHOENBEKG AND ~L.tlJ::,Nl\..J::,K

great of Viennese teachers and theorists-the of Por- mm. 143ff. of the second movement of Beetho-
pora, Fux, Albrechtsberger, Sechter, Bruckner and ~'-'H'-'.~H'.''-L "5 (Beethoven, pp. 146-47) Schenker discusses the
a progression by 3rds in the bass, from C to D, giving the
Schoenberg's ambivalent attitude towards Schenker,
example:
was not a of his own situation or the
Schenker's writings. It appears from glosses that
intrigued Schoenberg an along. On p. 4 of 0L.Ht;H!\.t:l
~J·I J. I eJ. I J. !
~1()rl1p.lpf1rp example, Schoenberg a passage C-Dur: I
----
A-Moll: i l l - - I
expressed a central ----
F-Dur: i l l - - l
the musical idea: ----
D-Moll: i l l - - I
Repetition as of the motive.
Motive is aseries of tones which is repeated. He says a tonality can always modulate to its supertonic
Schoenberg this particular presentaüon 3rd steps. The triads in these
Hon "basic motive, but not a content wh ich
the comment of Schoenberg that a gives dear ab out diatonic status,"8 and in this sense
a piece: it is repeated."6 ~""H'-H.H "their effect is much more like that of harmonic progressions in the
passage on p. 45 Schenker's a cappella-style." Schoenberg counters a pasted-in sJ;!.eet)
the weak modulation effected by the progression in 3rds is con-
in the general pause, and this is "eased" by the last tonal
impression before pause minor), by the fact that this impres-
sion is not contradicted, and the confirmation in the new begin-
''-'''"U'''''5 to not ning. 9 In addition, this technique (that is, where a pause serves to
some significance-perhaps a is "specifically" Beethovenian-and Schoenberg
Ph. E. Bach and Bruckner (followed by one and
share certain views exelamation marks, respectively). He then writes his own
UK)U~.H
Schoenberg could the "harmonie sequence of ideas":
"insensitive"
the margins), Schoenberg was

in

arose.7

(Faber and Faber: London, 1967. Edited by

in which Schenker's Das Meisterwerk

HH~~HU1. 1926) took issue with Scho<~nt)er2:'s 8Translations from this point are own.
is discussed earl Dahlhaus this last is a reference to melody's A-D, outlining V-I in the new tonal-
Musical Associatiol1, Vol. 100,
word under the Generalpause is ("change of [tonal] meaning").

28 29
 SCHOENBERG ANlJ SUihNK..t.K
JUNAHIAN lv1. lJUNSBY

1t seems that Schoenberg and Schenker here on a importance this in judging SdlOenberg as a critic of Schenker is
from Felix Salzer's comment that "Schenker's last work, Der
emphasis, yet there is an underlying theoretical ,-,-,,-uu."
berg_regards three-measure rest as a primary r;L'+~~'-~H~.i.HaJ.j is a highly advanced and rather complex book for which
preparation [that is, in Schenker' s earlier writingsJ simply
tonal progression: therefore faUs to see Schenker
pl~ined passage. Moreover, from Schoenberg's comment does not exist."13
the most interesting theoretical dispute between
efrect, Generalpause this kind is typical in Beethoven,
it he could not accept Schenker' s Schoenber a and Schenker, then, was a preoccupation the early
b Urlinie. The engagement of their musical
melodie progression in this specific
place at a stage which could them apart.
generate supertonic On Schenker's
Schenker was searching a generative approach to reconcile his
_ Generalpause has no status in generat-
tonal structure. Therefore Schoenberg not VJU".l.UJCl acute sense for the details of a musical surface his perception of
music as a basic structural types in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century music.
rt was to emerge at the end of his life. Meanwhile he strove to
express that perception in terms which led Schoenberg to interpret
it as an to music fragmented into its "smallest com-
parts."14 Schoenberg was at the same time too receptive
to possibHity a unified analytical construct. He had
interest for a theoretical model of any kind, but was intent on
formulating a basic description of integral compositional
process-as he saw it. Thus Schenker, by shunning the abstract
position where a metaphoric reconstruction of the musical nomos
is safest, antagonized Schoenberg's compositional understand-
ing. Schoenberg, for his part, tried to comprehen? one partiaU?,
worked-out element of a limited theory in terms of hIS own composl-
tional vision. A gloss written by Schoenberg on Schenker's "Die Ur-
second essay in Der Tonwille, Val. }, p. 23), shows this
at work:
This is all circumscription of the most doubtful value. It should be said
with a single sentence what this Urlinie is (regardless of whether there
is somethino of value there or not): I will try to say what I gather trom
the impression of the notes (for I can't manage to read it in the text):

!3Strnctural Hearing (Dover Publications: New York, :,962), p. ~;r~. Another v!ew
the 1934 Das Wesen des musikalischen Kunstwerks would say that there is significant p~epa:ati(:m, ~~.d that a~eq~,ate IS onl!, a 10glCal
Jo~as ; . Vien~a. ~ev~sed edition, Universal-Edition: 'Vienna l
safety-net for this extreme view. By Imphcatlon, mtr:oductl0r:s. to Der f~ele Satz ~nd
?
. Quoten
-9'2
In
CT' '.
Rufer s The Works
d . _ _.
(Fa-b; er ane' F b .
' . 1 . - a er. reinterpretations oE t~e theory may seem to have a ~lgher pr~onty than lts adequate
:,_o~: 1 0 . uanSlaw Dlka Newlm), 178-79. This is not fou.nd en the
c translation. Nevertheless, the contrast Salzer notes IS undemable.
U~;I;;I~ as RUi~r _ but at end ef the essay "Franz Schubert:
Blle (Der Vol. 1, pp. 46-49), p. 49. 14Rufer, ap. eiL, p. 179.

31
30
 SCHOENBERG AND SCHbNKbK
JUNAIHAN M. DUNSBY

In Schenker could not hope to evaluate contem-

The_ Urlinie is _the uniform reduction of all appearances to their sim-
1

Ples}t ~ase and shows not the characteristics of the ideas - porary music if his premises about motivation for eighteenth-
to t1elr common
f ' .. but also that 1'·L l'S'In 1'ts ' -
a aevel- nineteenth-century compositional practice were so mistaken.
opment OL the basIc ldea. It is the real in~piration of the composer, that This dis agreement was no small issue for Schoenberg. He feit every
s~e~ all a~ once and yet contaming of step he to be conceived in terms of that practice.
_ wn.l~h a pIece of music is conceived as a
More could be said, but that would then be more The materials specify Schoenberg's reaction to Schenker
Schenker. have been exposed-though there are many more significant glosses
Schenker's views were formulated in have been mentioned-and considered the objective of
Schoenberg not to grasp. Schoenberg suggesting two projects. First, these materials are available more
~VHHn.C He wtas certain that it came to an to see extensive to deepen an understanding Schoen-
the value mos S Clh enk er was not berg's and to see Schenker's earlier analysis tested
of a lack of ta~te-and, after SdlOenberg a composer of the most acute critical perception. Second, they
~~,-~~,- of a wlde musical culture outside the Ger- a starting point is both concrete and diverse for iden-
" more _ of a fundamental misunder- interrelatedness of Schoenbergian theory-the
of thelr common heritage. This is in a significance which are still open questions-and the
" __" On. p. xvi Schenker chooses theories of Schenker. The tendency theoretical inter-
S[ra~s: s muslC_ as an example of the of est to concentrate on one point of view, especially theoretical
mUSlC m general, wh ich as " He goes on to say, system has become a popular commodity in music education, is a
in a senten ce Schoenberg underlined: poor reflection of the provocative, factional atmosphere in wh ich
contemporary first began to develop away from the aesthetics of
also revel once again nrilTl"r; century. Schoenberg's library, with its extensive com-
which had to be given up com- mentary on Schenker, Riemann, Busoni, Hauer, Casella and others,
the of is a source for recapturing that atmosphere.
Los Angeles
this to reaction a

Isn't
Like Schenker h doinO" here-as
. b _. . '
-he censures . '
m others?
_ ~ ~. al~~ beheves that there were great masters at one time
t- . Except .LhaL ne means the time from Bach to ???
ehe
, present time. 1s it true, " tha'L' an d- from Bach'means
to Beethoven' S~were therefore a.,uu'l""" . was therefore
. . aS a merchant glVes up a business doesn't
because lt the OIr the
. cont~m
~ " Shoes WhIC""
- . , .h'l'p-

b
d er .., t1 ' f f
ne geneSiS o.eet. 1s form a boot and isn't theH Ä •

Hoot _ _condltlonal
h-;i;' ~
on the presence of a foot and not.. t "h e oth-er . -' \,
rOUllQ'"
~t;s
1..

ow c üdlSh!bt
Content
~" embraces
., . th- eh 1 , h
'f t ' h '
Li ere 1S sup-.
LO e a ,-on~ent whlcn 1S not form too.
r.t~,"UHHIlt<
• t
thaL a flrst

1923

33
32