Schoenberg

Author(s): Arnold Whittall

Source: The Musical Times, Vol. 114, No. 1562 (Apr., 1973), pp. 377-378
Published by: Musical Times Publications Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/955183
Accessed: 15/05/2010 10:14

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://dv1litvip.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mtpl.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Musical Times Publications Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Musical Times.

http://dv1litvip.jstor.org
 Despite the similarities, Handel's duets differ
from Steffani's in two main respects. About a third
of them (nos. Ia, Ic, III, VIII, IX, XI, XV and
XVII) end in a different key from that in which
they begin. This striking feature is foreign to Steffani
and untypical of duets by his contemporaries (but
typical of Handel's solo cantatas). In many of his
duets, Steffani achieves uniformity of key by
restarting all or part of the first movement at the
end. Handel does this in Va, speme infida (VII),
though even here he reworks the material in the
repeat. The autograph of Tacete, ohime, tacete (X)
includes an instruction (not printed in Chrysander)
to repeat the first movement after the second; since
Conservate, raddoppiate (XI) resembles these
movements in style, there may be a case for a da
capo here. But there are no grounds for repeats in
the other duets. The type of triple-time fugue that
concludes Chrysander's edition of Sono liete, for
instance, is invariably found at the end in Steffani's
duets; Handel followed his example in Troppo cruda,
so presumably intended the same here. For musical
and poetical reasons a final restatement of the first
movement would be impossible in duets la and Ic,
Letters to the Editor
SCHOENBERG
In his review of Schoenberg Chamber Music (Jan
MT, p.35), Oliver Neighbour makes nonsense of a
quotation by turning my 'with' into his 'without'. A
trivial matter in isolation, but symptomatic of a
tendency to present parts of my book in a thoroughly
misleading light.
Mr Neighbour considers that my general plan
'involves subordinating the individual works to the
technical development, instead of placing them at
the centre of interest in their own right'. He seems to
believe that the subordination of such technical
matters is the best way of meeting Schoenberg's own
requirement-by analysis-that it throws 'the idea
into relief and shows how it is presented and worked
out'. Yet I do not see that to discuss a sequence of
compositions in terms of particular technical issues
fundamental to them all removes the centre of
interest from those works. Schoenberg, we know,
was 'dead against' showing people 'how it is done',
but in favour of helping them to see 'what it is'.
Did he mean that 'what' could be adequately
defined without reference to the 'how'? Or was he
merely objecting to the 'how' without the 'what'?
In an early letter referring to the 12-note method,
Schoenberg announced a 'precisely definable
aesthetic discipline', and it is as such that I discuss
it. I give the greatest emphasis possible in severely
limited space to fundamental, background matters
which link tonal and serial procedures, and I do
this because I believe that such analysis enhances
and increases the audible aspects of complex
compositions, as well as highlighting that 'idea'
which can be experienced as the totality of relation-
ships between all the various elements of a work.
When Mr Neighbour claims that I dismiss Schoen-
berg's warning about the dangers of 'serial analysis',
and highly improbable in nos. III, VIII, IX, XV
and XVII: Handel apparently chose to end away
from the tonic key.
His duets also differ in matters of form. About
half of Steffani's duets might be described as
through-composed: no movements are repeated,
so there is no overall formal pattern. The other half
are in a variety of forms that depend on repetition,
like ternary, rondo and strophic-rondo. Handel
almost entirely avoided repetition: only one of his
duets (Vd, speme infida) is not through-composed.
Moreover, while the majority of Steffani's duets
include solo movements, Handel's have none. This
may be a sign that Handel studied the contents of
Add. 37779. The duets in this book are unascribed;
the first 12 are by Steffani, but the last two are by
Carlo Luigi Pietragrua (originally known as Pietro
Grua), vice-Kapellmeister at Diusseldorf c1700-
16. Although the Grua duets are complete with
their solo movements, these are lacking in all
five of the Steffani duets that should have them.
The Ms must have given Handel an unbalanced
impression of Steffani's duets, and it apparently
influenced his attitude to the form.
he himself dismisses the associated comment about
whether Schoenberg meant merely listing sets in
sequence. I do consider the implications of Schoen-
berg's remark, and I don't believe it requires us to
underplay the fundamental relationship between
tonal and serial hierarchies which is what my book-
in necessarily simplified terms-is all about. To
Neighbour, this amounts to a 'special' viewpoint.
I see it simply as a response to Schoenberg's own
concept of his position in musical history, a position
he defined in the remarks quoted at the beginning
and end of the book.
Mr Neighbour credits me with the idea that
Schoenberg's greatest serial works are those in
which all 48 versions of the basic set appear. What I
actually wrote was: 'his greatest serial works are
those in which that tonal background is interpreted
through the properties of the entire 12-note group-
the 48 versions of the basic set-even when P-O
is treated, in combination with 1-5, as primus inter
pares'. To your reviewer this may read like an
attempt to 'by-pass complexity', but its meaning is
rather different from that of his own over-simplified
precis. There are other examples of such over-
simplification, notably with reference to the Fourth
String Quartet, as well as a tendency to criticize,
rather than answer it. Neighbour's own apparently
uncritical approach to Schoenberg is most apparent
when he refers to the dance movements of the
Serenade. He detaches my remark about Schoenberg
and simplicity from its origins in the context of what
I call the 'Mahlerian fixation on a powerful con-
junction of grandeur and banality', and dismisses
these admittedly speculative opinions as 'total
misunderstanding' with no real discussion of their
implications. It is also ludicrous to suggest that my
uneasiness about these movements may be the
377
result of 'anxietynot to lose all creditwith orthodox
serial opinion'.
The review describes in caricatured form the
'theoretical jungle' (presumably of American
writing on 12-note theory by Perle, Babbitt and
others) through which I have had to fight my way
and fromwhoseeffectsNeighbourimaginesI am still
suffering.If it werenot for this infection,apparently,
I would realize that it is somethingof a red herring
to ask the question 'why, in his serial works, did
Schoenberg retain forms developed during the
years when tonality was central to all music?'.
Neighbour assumes that I pose this question in a
tone of surprise, but the book makes it clear that
the question is simply a response to the facts.
Broadly speaking, Schoenbergretainedtonal forms
in his serial works, whereasin some earlier, atonal
works he had shown signs of moving in a different
direction. So my question implies curiosity, not
criticism.But, since I am supposed to be in a state
of convalescenceafter a severebout of the Princeton
Disease, Neighbourcan side-stepthe most important
aspect of the later part of my book, which aims to
trace the emergenceand exploitation of hierarchies
-those elementswhich establish so much common
ground between Schoenberg's tonal and serial
compositions.
In writingan introductionto a group of elaborate,
sophisticated compositions, I chose to stress
continuity of development, but only to the point
where it did not compromisethe identitiesof indi-
vidual works. This, to me, is what the natureof the
music demands.I believe that the profound vitality
and individuality of Schoenberg'sworks, and the
ability to sense the 'particularconception' of each,
are enhanced by analysis of what they owe to
each other, and above all by study of how serial and
tonal proceduresinterrelate. I am naturally sorry
that Mr Neighbourshould rejectthis approach,but
that rejectiondoes not justify the presentationof my
argumentsin so barely recognizablea manner.
Cardiff ARNOLD WHITTALL
OLIVER NEIGHBOUR writes:
First my apologies for blotting that quotation. The
error bringsits own punishmentsince my argument
depends on the correct text. I do not think I mis-
representedDr Whittallin other ways,but readersof
his book must decide about that for themselves,as
about Schoenberg'sSerenade.
Dr Whittall and I disagree about the relative
importance of the various traditional elements in
the serial works. He finds a fundamentalrelation-
ship betweentonal and serialhierarchieswhereI see
only an analogy which cannot be pushed very far.
The tonal hierarchiesin a composition are audible
and can make sense of a kind as a graph; the serial
ones are only partially audible and do not yield a
quasi-Schenkerian substratum with any overall
structuralmeaning. Analysis and aural experience
alike confirm the primary importance of two of
Schoenberg'spronouncements:that serialism is a
method, not a system, and that the series functions
in the mannerof a motif. Throughserialismhe was
able to createa motival perspectiverich enough to
compensate in part for the loss of the coherence
provided by tonality (some aspects of this task
devolved on rhythmicorganization),and to elevate
developing variation to the leading structuralrole.
The livingtissueof developmentis the sole consistent
vehicle of Schoenberg'sthought, its demands often
dictate the choice of set-form in a purely ad hoc
fashion,thoughthereis certainlya two-wayprocessat
work here: Schoenberg liked to keep a table of
378
related set-forms handy as an aid to cogency and,
in a sense, to inspiration. The preferencethat he
gives to initial set-forms and to certain notes and
intervalswithinthemas recurrentpoints of reference
continues a practice already observable is several
pre-serialatonal works. Whittall writes well about
the way in which Schoenberg's tonal habits of
mind are reflected here and in related serial pro-
cedures. It is clear that Schoenberg,though appar-
ently unawareof his frequentstylistic reminiscences
of tonality, sometimes employed such analogies
consciously. But he did not follow them through
as he would have felt it a point of honour to do (to
use one of his phrases)had he consideredthema real
element of composition. They do not seem to me a
sound basis for a theory of his serial writing.
TOLHURST'S RUTH
I enjoyed Sir Anthony Lewis's witty article (Feb
MT, p.142) very much indeed. But before we start
merry-makingat poor Tolhurst'sexpense, would it
not be wise to see this regrettablecomposition in
perspective?Emphaticpublic ridicule of the tenth-
rate invariablyhas the effectof hardeningprejudice;
and it would be a pity if denigrationof one deplor-
able example from a genre now generally out of
favourwereto encourageunwarrantedcontemptfor
the music of composers who did so much better
what the Tolhurstsof this world were only fumbling
to achieve.Nothing sickensme more than to have to
contemplatethe growingbody of evidencethat much
English music of Tolhurst's period has been
decisively and authoritatively condemned by
superiorpeople who have never heard a note of it.
Let us by all means admit that most of the Ruths,
Daniels, Judiths,Last Judgmentsand so forth are
unacceptableto those who have been brought up
on Beethoven,Wagner,Berlioz and Mahler; at the
same time it might be helpful to ask exactly why
at one time Costa'sEli and Sullivan'sGoldenLegend
gained the respect and admiration of not wholly
unintelligentmusicians.The answer might surprise
US.
University of Sheffield E. D. MACKERNESS
STEREO STRINGS
The picture of Queen's Hall on p.72 of the Elgar
book is Queen's Hall as I first knew it (Feb MT,
p.145). Whetherthe alterationto the organ and the
lighting (and also general decoration) was done
before or after the 1914 war I cannot remember,
but it is quite correct that the console was finally
placed in front of the organ, as your correspondent
says, on a little shelf in the middle.
In regard to the placing of the second violins
Mr Collier touches a tender spot for me. I have
always,with very rareexceptions,placed the second
violins as they were invariablyseated in my young
days. I am convincedit sounds better in every hall,
and this has beenconfirmedfor me by manylisteners
in many places. The new seating is, I admit, easier
for the conductor and the second violins, but I
firmly maintain that the second violins themselves
soundfar betteron the right. The tone from a violin
does not come out of the f-holes, but from the
whole instrument-I believe this has been scientifi-
cally proved.Whenthe new fashionreachedus from
America somewhereabout 1908 it was adopted by
some conductors,but Richter,Weingartner,Walter,
Toscanini, and many others kept what I feel is the
right balance:in a very faithfulplace like the Royal
Festival Hall I find it most unpleasantto hear most