1

University of Adelaide
Elder Conservatorium of Music

Research Project

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Bachelor of Music with Honours

Schoenberg’s Six Little Pieces Op. 19:

An Analysis, and Synthesis

Submitted by:
James Huon George
a1724175

Adelaide, May 2020

 2

Abstract

The first chapter consisted of an introductory personal, philosophical, and historical analysis on Schoenberg.
This served to establish context, raise questions, and ultimately laid out a solid foundation for the following
chapters to interconnect, and provide a deeper contextual understanding to what it was Schoenberg stood for
as an artistic identity; and what path aspiring musicians could take to honour him, and not subscribe to the
crowd who wish to stigmatise him. This will be followed by undertaking an evaluation, and comparison of
the differing interpretative choices via notable historical recordings of the works, including Steuermann’s
1949 recording, Maurizio Pollini’s 1974 recording, and Mitsuko Uchida’s 2000 recording. The decision to
analyse the performance of these three recordings is due to each pianists’ heavily distinctive interpretative
style, and on the account that their recordings are spaced out historically every twenty-five years, allowing
for a more contrastive analysis.

In the third chapter, a detailed harmonic analysis conducted by myself complements the historical recording
evaluation; instead of analysing the entire set of Op. 19 – as it would be too lengthy for an Honours
dissertation – only No. 2 Langsam, and No. 6 Sehr Langsam have been analysed on the basis that they are
the most harmonically pioneering out of the set. To solidify the validity of the research, the final chapter
synthesises all of the analyses conducted throughout the chapters via my own recording of the works. The
choices of my interpretation are explained in relation to research conducted.
 3

Declaration

The candidate declares that the material contained in this submission is his/her own work, and that
appropriate recognition has been given when referring to the work of others.

Signature:………………………..…….………

James Huon George

Date:…………………………..……….………
 4

Acknowledgements

Throughout my study, I have thoroughly benefited from the impeccable resources available at the Barr Smith
Library for the acquisition of primary source material, alongside the assiduity of their staff members.

For the recording process, I wish to acknowledge audio engineer Alex Mader for his efforts.

I extend my sincere thanks to my former teacher Prof. Stefan Ammer for his dedication to teaching, and
introducing me to Schoenberg’s music. Also, thanks to my current teacher Dr. Konstantin Shamray for his
musical guidance, and utmost generosity in all respects.

I wish to acknowledge all staff at the University of Adelaide, specifically Prof. Charles Bodman Rae, for his
dedication to teaching, enabling this research course to occur, and placing student needs above anything.
 5

Table of Contents

1. Introduction……………..….……...…………….…………………………………….………...6
2. Chapter 1: The context of Op. 19
2.1 Schoenberg: The Man Behind the Music……………...................................................................7
2.2 Influence of Mahler.………….…..………………..…………………..…………………...…….8
2.3 Composition of Op. 19……………………..……………….……………..……………………..9
3. Chapter 2: Analysis of recorded performance
3.1 Historical overview………………...……………………………………………………............10
3.2 Complete list of 20th century recordings…………………………………………...……………11
3.3 Recording A: Eduard Steuermann (1949)………………….…….…………...………..………..13
3.4 Steuermann score excerpts………………………………………………………………………14
3.5 Recording B: Maurizio Pollini (1974)……..……….…….…………................……..…………15
3.6 Pollini score excerpts……………………………………………………………………………16
3.7 Recording C: Mitsuko Uchida (2000)…………………...……….…...….……………..………17
3.8 Uchida score excerpts…………………………………………………………………………...18
4. Chapter 3: Harmonic analysis
4.1 Pitch-Class Set Theory: Allen Forte, Milton Babbitt………………….………………….……..19
4.2 Written analysis of No. 2 Langsam….…....………………………….………..…………….…..20
4.3 Harmonic analysis of No. 2 Langsam...………………………….………………………...……21
4.4 Written analysis No. 6 Sehr Langsam…...……….………………………….…………………..22
4.5 Harmonic analysis of No. 6 Sehr Langsam………………………………..……………………23
5. Chapter 4: Synthesis through performance
5.1 Interpretative evaluation of recording by author (2020).………..….….……………….…...….24
Conclusion……………………………………………………….…………………………………...26
List of sources
Musical scores………………………………………………………………………………………....28
Discography………………………………………...…………………………………………………28
Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………………………..29
Appendices
Original manuscript of Six Little Pieces Op. 19 (1911)………………………………………………
First published edition of Six Little Pieces Op. 19 (1913)…………………………...……………….
 6

Introduction

The Six Little Pieces Op. 19 by Austrian composer Arnold Schoenberg (1874-1951) are pivotal examples of tonal
abandonment within composition. Whilst Schoenberg retained a deep-rooted respect for established tonal music,
the harmonic innovations within the Op. 19 stem from his progressive will to locate a new means of artistic depth;
something which seemingly constituted the genetic makeup of Schoenberg’s psyche. Since the pieces were
conceived in 1911, pianists have treated these works in an interpretatively diverse manner. But why is this so? In
the broader context, during 1911, Schoenberg had been writing in an atonal manner for a number of years, having
previously finished the monodrama Erwartung (1909), and was on the cusp of completing Pierrot Lunaire (1912).
Therefore, situated in the middle of these two atonal developments, the Op. 19 could be deemed as an emblematic
initiation to Schoenberg’s atonal oeuvre; and their length raises the convenience to the analyst.

Schoenberg did not desire to be unknown; in fact, he made it clear that he wished to be understood, and
remembered principally as a composer, but as the 20th century drew to an end, it was the diversity of Schoenberg’s
achievements in many disciplines that enticed fascination.1 Schoenberg has received increasing attention over the
latter half of the 20th century, but his music still receives little attention from present-day performers. The principle
explanation may well be preconceived notion by those whom have had a musical tuition which associated
‘classical music’ – a historically meaningless idiom – with tonal music.2 It is often posited that in order for people
to enjoy atonal music, a comprehensive understanding of the 12-tone series, coupled with many years of intensive
study in music theory would be necessary. Neither of these conceptions are true, and tonality, is but a small part
of the picture in the history of western art music.3

Harmonically exploring atonal works is an often shied away practice for many musicians, and it may well have
contributed to the stigmatising of atonal music as ‘too complicated’, or ‘incomprehensible’. However, via the
efforts of notable music theorists over the course of the 20th century including Allen Forte, and Milton Babbitt,
the Pitch-Class Set Theory has been developed in order to make this process more feasible.4 It is unfortunate that
Schoenberg’s music has been frequently branded by listeners, and to an extent, performers, as esoteric, and
unapproachable. However, if approached with an open mind, one can find his music to be of great passion,
expressivity, and depth.5 Schoenberg, indeed, was not interested in creating conventionally “lovely” music, but
rather, felt compelled by an external force to write music which conveyed eternal feelings of the human condition
in their rawest, unembellished, and truest sense attainable.6

1
Ball, P. (2011). Schoenberg, serialism and cognition: Whose fault if No one listens?. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 36(1), 24-41.
London: Maney Publishing.
2
Botstein, L. (1999). Schoenberg and the audience: modernism, music, and politics in the twentieth century. Schoenberg and his World, 19-
54. New Jersey: Wiley.
3
Godlovitch, S. (1998). Musical performance: A philosophical study. Sussex: Psychology Press.
4
Heinemann, S. (1998). Pitch-class set multiplication in theory and practice. Music Theory Spectrum, 20(1), 72-96. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
5
Franklin, P. (2015). The Idea of Music: Schoenberg and Others. New York: Springer.
6
Wright, J. K. (2007). Schoenberg, Wittgenstein and the Vienna Circle (Vol. 6). Bern: Peter Lang AG.
 7

Chapter 1
The Context of Op. 19

2.1 – Schoenberg: The Man Behind the Music

Arnold Schoenberg was born on September 13th 1874 in the heart of Vienna, Austria. Apart from minor
counterpoint lessons with Alexander Zemlinsky (1871-1942), Schoenberg was mainly self-taught.
Schoenberg was, and still is, frequently portrayed as the classic example of the solitary, and misunderstood
genius; interestingly, this was a depiction that he often welcomed. Within one of his essays written in 1937,
titled How One Becomes Lonely, he expresses he often stood “alone against a world of enemies”.7 However,
the actuality of personality was far more involuted: he was interested in the cultural, social, and political
circumstances of the world, and was well connected with his contemporaries. These correspondences are
recorded primarily via the enormous quantity of letters he wrote over his life, many of which have now been
published, and are available online via the Arnold Schoenberg Centre website.8 Within these sources, one
can observe how he was heavily inspired, and enraged by the notions of others. It can be said that apart from
Schoenberg’s musical compositions, the most radiant proof of his intense urge to clash with, decode, and
change the world was is his remarkable capacity as a writer. 9 Whilst there is a great quantity that coalesces
Schoenberg’s philosophy throughout his life – especially via his musical language – his letters shed light on
what is divulged about the transformation in his thought, as he stood against others to work through all the
consequences of any given notion.10

Despite the revolutionary originality within his works, Schoenberg’s music has contains bonds with previous
musical conventions, from which it retains many dance rhythms, meters, phrases, and forms.11 This is the
case with the Op. 19, and although they are serial, and possess a strong experimental personality, many of
its ideas are constructed from established principles; it can be concluded that Schoenberg was certainly not
aiming to be ‘different for the sake of being different’.12 As will be explored in Chapter 3, the differing
interpretations serve to provide concrete evidence to prove music critics alike incorrect of the solid
uniformity across the interpretative scope of Schoenberg’s piano literature. In fact, Schoenberg was
conceiving his own musical conceptions by channelling traditional forms, whilst simultaneously expressing
the circumstances of his own era during the early 1910s, which was a time of tremendous apprehensiveness,
as well as an eagerness for future transformation.13

7
Botstein, L. (1999). Schoenberg and the audience: modernism, music, and politics in the twentieth century. Schoenberg and his World, 19-
54. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
8
Möser A., & Muxeneder T. (2004). Arnold Schoenberg Centre. Vienna: Journal of the Arnold Schoenberg Centre.
9
Cross, C. M., & Berman, R. A. (Eds.). (2013). Political and religious ideas in the works of Arnold Schoenberg. Routledge.
10
Frisch, W. (Ed.). (2012). Schoenberg and his World (Vol. 29). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
11
Cahn, S. J. (1996). Variations in manifold time: historical consciousness in the music and writings of Arnold Schoenberg. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
12
Stearns, M. L. (2007). Unity, God and music: Arnold Schoenberg's philosophy of compositional unity in trinitarian perspective (Doctoral
dissertation, University of St Andrews). St. Andrews: St. Andrews University Press.
13
Antokoletz, E. (1985). A Survivor of the Vienna Schoenberg Circle: An Interview with Paul A. Pisk. Tempo, (154), 15-21. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
 8

2.2 – Influence of Mahler

One of the few who stood with Schoenberg was the composer Gustav Mahler (1860-1911), who was a great
advocate, and supported him physically, financially, and spiritually.14 It is clear that Schoenberg was heavily
inspired by Mahler’s compositional writing too, specifically in orchestration, instrument balancing, and
utilisation of accompaniments.15 Schoenberg prioritised his idea of truth in music, even at the expense of
financial gain, but without Mahler’s assistance, Schoenberg would have faced struggle; it was convenient
that at the time too, as Mahler was recognised as one of Austria’s leading artists. 16

“I do not have a great deal to say about Gustav Mahler. Only this: he is one of the greatest
men there could possibly be.” 17 – Arnold Schoenberg

In the same year as the Op. 19 was composed, Schoenberg finally completed his large cantata Gurre-Lieder
which he commenced in 1900. It was a work that also symbolised the fusion of two 19th century German
music ideals: the notions of Brahms, via his employment of harmonic rhythm, coupled with the musical
language of Wagner. Uncharacteristically for Schoenberg, this work was a monumental success – at the
premiere in 1913, the work experienced a fifteen-minute-long applause from the audience.18 This was one
of the only occurrences in Schoenberg’s career he had received such an ovation. Mahler recognised that
Schoenberg’s music was a true union of two antithetical musical philosophies: a Brahmsian position
(theoretical, uniformed, baroque, and rhythmically harmonic), with the Wagnerian position (psychological
affliction, ornamentation, and narrative drive).19

Both composers had many attributes in common: they were theorists, firmly held the stance that Austro-
German music was superior to that of other nation, creative originators of lofty ideals, were on a musical –
as well as philosophical – mission to push the boundaries of established practise, and both did not live see
the manifestation of their efforts arise.20 In 1909, Schoenberg wrote to Ferruccio Busoni expressing:21

“My goal: complete liberation from form and symbols, cohesion and logic. Away with
motivic work! Away with harmony as the cement of my architecture! Harmony is expression
and nothing more. Away with pathos! Away with 24-pound protracted scores! My music
must be short. Lean! In two notes, not built, but "expressed". And the result is, I hope, without
stylised and sterilised drawn-out sentiment. That is not how man feels; it is impossible to feel
only one emotion.”22 – Arnold Schoenberg

14
Schoenberg, A. (1987). Arnold Schoenberg Letters. Edited by Erwin Stein. California: University of California Press.
15
Adorno, T. W. (2013). Mahler: a musical physiognomy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16
Sun, A. K. (2006). A critical study of Arnold Schoenberg's chamber transcription of Gustav Mahler's “Das Lied von der Erde” (the three
movements for tenor). North Texas: University of North Texas.
17
Brand, J., & Hailey, C. (Eds.). (1997). Constructive Dissonance: Arnold Schoenberg and the Transformations of Twentieth-Century
Culture. California: University of California Press.
18
Newman, E. (1914). Arnold Schönberg's Gurre-Lieder. London: The Musical Times.
19
McKee, E. (2005). On the Death of Mahler: Schoenberg's Op. 19, No. 6. Theory and Practice, 30, 121-151. New York: Music Theory
Society of New York State.
20
Williams, C. A. (2008). Mahler, Schoenberg, and the transmission of musical style. California: University of California Press.
21
Busoni, F., & Buttrick, J. (1988). Ferruccio Busoni. Zurich: Jecklin.
22
Beaumont, A. (1987). Arnold Schoenberg – Two Letters to Ferruccio Busoni. London: Faber & Faber.
 9

2.3 – Composition of Op. 19

Five of the Six Little Pieces Op. 19 were composed in one day, on February 19th, 1911. With their duration
between 9, and 17 bars, they portray vivid emotions, which are unmistakably dissimilar in personality, and
every one strive towards an autonomously pinpointed musical notion. Although Schoenberg avoids from
thematic contexts, and embellished narrative, the pieces nonetheless reveal motivic bonding methods,
alongside a healthy implementation of proportions. For instance, within the No. 2 Langsam, it employs an
ostinato on the sequence of thirds, and the third is constructed on bitonal theories (as explained in Chapter
3).23 In any case, there is no constant rhythm-meter proportion: the feeling of the unforeseeable within the
whole of the opus is juxtaposed, as Ernst Bloch described it, by the "expression-logical" equilibrium of each
characteristic of the work.24 No. 6 Sehr Langsam, which is the final piece of Op. 19 – composed in June,
1911 – was thought to be composed by Schoenberg as an eulogy-like memory of Gustav Mahler, who had
passed away the foregoing month. Additionally, the tribute forms a type of re-echoing within the set: this
work remains nigh motionless on a six-tone, and concludes with a non-interval in the lower register atop the
ceased six-tone chord, with no resolution.25 Within Schoenberg’s portrait illustration ‘Vision’ from 1910
which strangely mimics his own self-portrait, Schoenberg’s ardent music, exempt from the customs of time
signature, quote Mahler's late compositions, which often appear so unconnected.26

Historically, when these works were composed, the world was suspended between exhilaration, and
disintegration – with the unprecedented onset of WW1 – and it unquestionably influenced Schoenberg’s
shift in compositional direction.27 A decade earlier in 1897, one towering figure in 19th century composition,
and a major influence to Schoenberg’s compositional style was Johannes Brahms (1833-1897), who foresaw
these harmonic circumstances thoroughly: his Symphony No. 4 Op. 98 signals the commencement of 19th
century musical principles. In other words, Brahms was the rearmost successor of a continuous tradition,
with its domination of tonality, and the time-honoured composer immediately identified Schoenberg’s
genius upon a performance of his String Quartet in D Major.28 Schoenberg perceived Brahms, and many
composers of the previous century to be imprisoned by many exhausted musical traditions, and saw this as
an invitation to refresh the musical canvas with new colours of harmonic language. 29

“I venture to credit myself with having written truly new music which, being based on
tradition, is destined to become tradition.” 30 – Arnold Schoenberg

23
Simms, B. R. (2000). The atonal music of Arnold Schoenberg, 1908-1923. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24
Bloch, E., Lowy, M., & Hill, V. W. (1976). Interview with Ernst Bloch. New German Critique, (9), 35-45. Durham: Duke University
Press.
25
Väisälä, O. (1999). Concepts of harmony and prolongation in Schoenberg's Op. 19/2. Music Theory Spectrum, 21(2), 230-259. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
26
Adorno, T. W. (2013). Mahler: a musical physiognomy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27
Cherlin, M. (2000). Dialectical opposition in Schoenberg's music and thought. Music Theory Spectrum, 22(2), 157-176. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
28
Dietrich, A., & Widmann, J. V. (2000). Recollections of Johannes Brahms. Lakewood: The Minerva Group, Inc..
29
Frisch, W. (1982). Brahms, Developing Variation, and the Schoenberg Critical Tradition. 19th-century Music, 5(3), 215-232. California:
University of California Press.
30
Burkholder, J. P. (1984). Brahms and twentieth-century classical music. 19th-Century Music, 8(1), 75-83. California: University of
California Press.
 10

Chapter 2
Analysis of recorded performance

3.1 – Historical overview

The printed score of the Op. 19 has incited scholarly enquiry. There are two original sources: the initial
written edition, and a holograph. It has been postulated that Schoenberg likely planned for the holograph to
be utilised for performance, alongside keeping the written edition as an engraver’s duplicate. Nevertheless,
the first publication took the written edition (Universal Edition, 1913) as the consulting source, despite
Schoenberg making multiple corrections.31 Unfortunately, these corrections have been lost, but what is clear
is that Schoenberg’s holograph copy is an updated version of the initial published edition, containing
performance instructions. Specifically, pencil markings can be seen articulating tempo changes by Egon
Petri (1881-1962), who performed the Op. 19 in Berlin on January 22nd, 1912; a more formal premiering of
the works occurred on February 4th, 1912 by Belgian pianist Louis Closson (a pupil of Busoni). It has been
noted that Schoenberg found Petri’s rendition “too fast”, even though “technically perfect”, and he was even
less fond Closson’s, stating that he played them “without sufficient pauses”. Unfortunately, due to expense
of recording devices in the early 20th century, neither of these performances were recorded. 32 Thereafter, it
is difficult to assemble performance evidence of these works, particularly critiqued by Schoenberg himself.
Nevertheless, there do exist piano rolls of Walter Gieseking (1895-1956), and Henry Gil-Marchex (1894-
1970) performing the Op. 19 in the late 1920s, but due to the unreliability of piano rolls, faithful renditions
are compromised due to their indiscernibility.33 The first acoustic recording was made in 1937 by Jesús
María Sanromá (1902-1984), followed by subsequent recordings by Niels Viggo Brentzon (1919-2000),
Johana Harris (1912-1995), and Else C. Kraus (1899-1979).34 It was unknown whether Schoenberg
approved, or had even heard of these recordings. It is documented that American pianist Richard Buhlig
(1880-1952) was a pianist Schoenberg approved of. However, it was not until 1951, when Austrian pianist
Eduard Steuermann (1892-1964) recorded the complete piano works by Schoenberg. 35

On the following two pages, a compilation of all the known recordings of the Op. 19 undertaken throughout
the course of the 20th century have been listed; marked with an asterisk are three recordings selected twenty-
five years apart that will feature in the following analyses. It is important to include the list of these
recordings as they provide complete perspective into how these selected recordings fit in historically to the
entirety of the recordings. Additionally, it serves to eliminate any doubt which may exist of recordings by
pianists which may have been ignored.

31
Simms, B. R. (2000). The atonal music of Arnold Schoenberg, 1908-1923. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
32
Leong, D., & Ewen, H. (2019). Interpreting Schoenberg’s Klavierstück, Op. 19, No. 4. Performing Knowledge: Twentieth-Century Music
in Analysis and Performance, 59. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
33
Phillips, P. (2017). Piano rolls and contemporary player pianos: The catalogues, technologies, archiving and accessibility. Sydney:
University of Sydney Press.
34
Hernández, A. (2008). Jesús María Sanromá: An American Twentieth-Century Pianist. Maryland: Scarecrow Press.
35
Schuller, G., & Steuermann, E. (1964). A Conversation with Steuermann. Seattle: Perspectives of New Music.
 11

PERFORMER DATE RECORDING RELEASE TYPE RECORDING SERIAL

LOCATION LABEL NUMBER
Walter Gieseking 1925 Berlin, Germany Piano roll Welte 3828
Gil-Marchex 1927 Paris, France Piano roll Pleyela PM E 10296
Jesús María Sanromá 1939 San Juan, Puerto Rico Mono recording RCA Red Seal M 646
Niels Viggo Bentzon 1948 Copenhagen, Denmark Mono recording EMI X 7261
Carlo Pestalozza 1950 Vienna, Austria Mono recording EMI QCLP 12020
Johana Harris 1951 Ottowa, Canada Mono recording Cumberland Forest XTV 14148
Edward Steuermann* 1951 Berlin, Germany Mono recording Dial DLP 14
Else C. Kraus 1952 Ticino, Switzerland Mono recording (LP) Esquire TW 14-001
Johana Harris 1954 Pennsylvania, US Mono recording (LP) ASCAP CB 185
Paul Jacobs 1958 New York, US Mono recording (LP) Ducretet Thomson 320 C 125
Pál Kadosa 1958 Budapest, Hungary Mono recording (LP) Hungaroton LPX 12009
Else C. Kraus 1960 Amsterdam, Mono recording (LP) Bärenreiter MB 30 SL
Netherlands
Karl Steiner 1962 Vienna, Austria Stereo recording (LP) Centaur CRC 2241
Glenn Gould 1964 New York, US Stereo recording (LP) Columbia M2L 736
Glenn Gould 1965 New York, US Stereo recording (LP) CBS BRG 72459
Jorge Zulueta 1966 Torcuato Di Tella, Stereo recording (LP) Siglo XX JJ-012
Argentina
Martin Bjelik 1967 Berlin, Germany Stereo recording (LP) Österreichische 10003
Beveridge Webster 1967 Berlin, Germany Stereo recording (LP) Dover HCR 5285
Paul Jacobs 1968 New York, US Stereo recording (LP) Véga C 30 S 231
Jean Rodolphe Kars 1969 Royan, France Stereo recording (LP) Iramac 6703
Claude Helffer 1969 Paris, France Stereo recording (LP) Harmonia Mundi HM 20 752
Otto M. Zykan 1970 Vienna, Austria Stereo recording (LP) Amadeo SXAM 4176
Jürg von Vintschger 1970 Berlin, Germany Stereo recording (LP) Turnabout TVS 34378
Anne Chamberlain 1971 New York, US Stereo recording (LP) Mrs Nova AN 1007
Aleksei Liubimov 1972 Moscow, Russia Stereo recording (LP) Melodiia 33S10
Marie-Françoise Bucquet 1973 Paris, France Stereo recording (LP) Philips 6500 510
Christopher Schindler 1974 Washington, US Stereo recording (LP) NPM NPM 697
Maurizio Pollini* 1974 Munich, West Stereo recording (LP) Deutsche 2530 531
Germany Grammophon
Jean Rodolphe Kars 1974 Paris, France Stereo recording (LP) EMI 2C 065
Paul Jacobs 1975 New York, US Stereo recording (LP) Nonesuch H 71309
Liselotte Weiss 1975 Nacka Aula, Sweden Stereo recording (LP) Bis LP 023
Lydia Majlingová 1978 Pezinok, Stereo recording (LP) Opus 9111 0657
Czechoslovakia
Yuji Takahashi 1978 Toyko, Japan Stereo recording (LP) Denon OX 7159
Ionue Naoyuki 1979 Toyko, Japan Stereo recording (LP) Victor JRZ 2202
Monique Oberdoerffer 1979 Berlin, Germany Stereo recording (LP) Gallo FSM 53
Irene Pamboukjian 1978 Geneva, Switzerland Stereo recording (LP) FSM Aulos 53 330
 12

John McCabe 1983 London, United Stereo recording (LP) Pye Golden Guinea GSGC
14116
Kingdom
Louis-Philippe Pelletier 1983 Montreal, Canada Stereo recording (LP) Société Nouvelle SNE-509
James Boyk 1984 California, US Stereo recording (LP) PR PR 4
Aribert Reimann 1984 Cologne, Germany Stereo recording (LP) EMI 270078
Christodoulos Georgiades 1985 London, United Stereo recording (LP) Meridian E 77108
Kingdom
Jean-Pierre Armengaud 1986 Clermount-Ferrand, Stereo recording (LP) EMI 2M 047-13
France
Jürg Wyttenbach 1989 Basel, Switzerland Stereo recording (LP) Accord 200972
Stefan Arnold 1990 Würzburg, Germany Stereo recording (CD) Harmonia Mundi HM 924-2
Alain Neveux 1990 Paris, France Stereo recording (CD) Accord 200852
Katharina Wolpe 1991 Middlesex, United Stereo recording (CD) Symposium 1107
Kingdom
Takahiro Sonoda 1991 Toyko, Japan Stereo recording (CD) Evica TCA-1002
Frederick Moyer 1992 New York, US Stereo recording (CD) JRI J104
Barbara Witter 1994 Cologne, Germany Stereo recording (CD) Amati AMI 9302
Herbert Henck 1995 Munich, Germany Stereo recording (CD) Wergo WER 6286
Günther Herzfeld 1995 Siemensvilla, Stereo recording (CD) Edition Alseits EDA 008
Germany
Steffen Schleiermacher 1995 Arolsen, Germany Stereo recording (CD) Grimm MD G 613
Daniel Barenboim 1995 Chicago, US Stereo recording (CD) Teldec 46357846
Scott Holshouser 1995 Arolsen, Germany Stereo recording (CD) Koch International 3-7496-2 H1
Pi-Hsien Chen 1996 Sandhausen, Germany Stereo recording (CD) Hat Hut ART 125
Peter Hill 1996 Hampshire, United Stereo recording (CD) Naxos 8.553870
Kingdom
Jennifer Purvis 1997 Vienna, Austria Stereo recording (CD) Classico NA414012
Elisabeth Klein 1997 Oslo, Norway Stereo recording (CD) Scandinavian 180-181
Classics
Max Levinson 1997 Amsterdam, Stereo recording (CD) N2K Encoded N2K-10015
Netherlands Music
Thomas Larcher 1998 Innsbruck, Austria Stereo recording (CD) ECM 465 136-2
Janna Polyzoides 1999 Vienna, Austria Stereo recording (CD) Austro Mechana EM 1707
Russell Sherman 1999 Boston, Massachusetts Stereo recording (CD) GM Recordings GM2071CD
Mitsuko Uchida* 2000 Ohio, US Stereo recording (CD) Phillips 289 474 234

36 37 38
, ,

36
Dunsby, J. (2006). A Bibliographic Catalog with Discography and a Comprehensive Bibliography of Arnold Schönberg. Rochester:
Eastman School of Music Press.
37
Latino, F. R. (2015). Walter Gieseking in Belgium, 1938-1944: The Controversial Appearances of a Prominent German Pianist. Revue
belge de Musicologie/Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Muziekwetenschap, 69, 269-281. Leuven: Leuven University Press.
38
Da Costa, N. P. (2012). Off the record: performing practices in romantic piano playing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 13

3.3 – Recording A: Eduard Steuermann (1949)39

It is apparent that within Steuermann’s recording, he views the score quite freely; markings on the score,
and melodic direction appear to be prioritised at the expense of rubato, and colour, as well as some
technically insecure passages discerned in the fourth piece No. 4 Rasch, Aber Leicht (as observed in
Figure 1). Moreover, Steuermann’s general tempo is comparatively fast, and at times, rather capricious.
As one analyses Schoenberg’s score indications in relation to Steuermann’s performance, it becomes
patent that Steuermann is purposefully indulging liberally in rubato, especially in No. 1 Leight, zart (as
observed in Figure 2). Interestingly, in his 1957 re-recording of the works, Steuermann plays them
stricter in time, utilises less pedal, and more carefully adheres to the score markings.40

Steuermann employs generous pedal throughout, notably in a passage within No. 3 Sehr Langsam (as
observed in Figure 3). Conversely, in the case of his 1949 recording, his interpretative style – with
strong rubato, and grander shaping – renders a more rounded, tender, and ‘romantic’ interpretation. 41
It has been noted that to the modern ear, it is somewhat surprising to hear a pupil of Schoenberg interpret
these works in such a way, and even more interesting that Steuermann himself disapproved of his own
recordings. He was heavily apprehensive about submitting his recordings to Schoenberg. 42 In 1949,
upon receiving Steuermann’s interpretations of the Op. 19, Schoenberg expressed:

Los Angeles, October 3rd, 1949

“My very dear Steuermann,

I am so glad to hear from you that you have already recorded my piano music. I do not
at all share your anxiety lest anyone should hear a wrong note. I am convinced that it has
happened only a few times in the history of musical reproduction that some wrong notes
did not get in. There is no absolute purity in the world; pure water contains infusoria. But
I am convinced that you can play these pieces so convincingly that it evokes the
impression of purity, artistic purity, and after all, that is all that matters. Let’s leave this
quasi-perfection to those who can’t perceive anything else.”43

– Arnold Schoenberg

39
Dubal, D. (2004). The art of the piano: Its performers, literature, and recordings. Wisconsin: Hal Leonard Corporation.
40
Kolisch, R., & Boynton, N. (1995). Schoenberg as a performing artist. Tempo, (193), 34-35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
41
Gielen, M. (1997). Mein Onkel Eduard Steuermann (1990). In Michael Gielen (pp. 169-177). Stuttgart: JB Metzler
42
Cone, E. T. (1972). Editorial Responsibility and Schoenberg's Troublesome" Misprints". Seattle: Perspectives of New Music.
43
Stein, E. (1987). Arnold Schoenberg Letters. California: University of California Press.
 14

3.4 – Steuermann score excerpts

Figure 1: Circled in red are

Steuermann’s technically
insecure passages within
No. 4 Rasch, Aber Leicht.

Figure 2: Circled in red are

two passages within No. 1
Leight, zart whereby
Steuermann employs a
marked quantity of rubato.

Figure 3: Circled in red are

two passages within No. 3
Sehr Langsam whereby
Steuermann employs a
conspicuous quantity of
pedal, thus smudging the
harmonies together.
 15

3.5 – Recording B: Maurizio Pollini (1974)44

Italian pianist Maurizio Pollini (1942-), unlike Steuermann’s recording, is faithful to Schoenberg’s
score markings. Pollini commences the first piece Leicht, zart slower than both Steuermann, and
Uchida, and is subsequently able to more effectively sustain this tempo throughout the duration of the
piece. Additionally, Pollini’s rendition is the most rhythmically precise; indeed, all three pianists
prolong the demisemiquavers, and compress the dotted eighth notes, but Pollini does this the least.
Similar can be said of Pollini’s shaping, which is purer, and less camouflaged than the others, and his
pauses very well outline entire phrases. This is evident within the impeccable pearl-like legato achieved
in opening bars of No. 5 Etwas rasch (as observed in Figure 4). Pollini achieves this by commencing
each phrase with a note which is a little quicker than what succeeds.45

Regarding his dynamics, overall, they are rather sharp: his fortes are inclined to occur on downbeats,
indicating a ‘measured’ execution, especially in the final diamond chords of No. 4 Rasch, Aber Leicht
(as observed in Figure 5). In volume, Pollini’s offbeat chords mimic the score most authentically; he
smoothly controls diminuendos, and one can discern differences between his piano, pianissimo,
pianississimo, and pianissississismo within No. 6 Sehr Langsam (as observed in Figure 6). However,
these impeccable score observations by Pollini are no secret, for he is known for his utter methodical
rigidness in his renderings, and this can be observed in all genres.46 Unquestionably, Pollini achieves
the nearest to what Schoenberg had in mind (from the pure sense of his score markings), but whether
or not Schoenberg would have approved of Pollini’s interpretation is another matter entirely.47

44
Schoenberg, A., & Pollini, M. (1975). Three Piano Pieces, Op. 11; Six Little Piano Pieces, Op. 19; Five Piano Pieces, Op. 23; Suite for
Piano, Op. 25; Piano Piece, Op. 33a; Piano Piece, Op. 33b. Berlin: Deutsche Grammophon.
45
Schoenberg, A., Pollini, M., Petazzi, P., Whyte, C., Höfer, S., Olivieri, B., & Carrasco, A. (1988). The piano music. Berlin: Deutsche
Grammophon.
46
Langner, J., & Goebl, W. (2002, April). Representing expressive performance in tempo-loudness space. In Proceedings of the ESCOM
10th Anniversary Conference on Musical Creativity (pp. 109-113). Vienna: Austrian Research for Artificial Intelligence.
47
Leong, D. (2019, November). Performing Knowledge: Twentieth-Century Music in Analysis and Performance (pp. 71-92). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
 16

3.6 – Pollini score excerpts

Figure 4: Circled in red are Pollini’s impeccable legato achieved in No. 5 Etwas rasch.

Figure 5: Circled in red is where Pollini reinforces the upbeat of each bar via strong dynamics.

Figure 6: Circled in red is where Pollini skillfully discerns the differences between his piano,
pianissimo, pianississimo, and pianissississismo within concluding bars of No. 6 Sehr Langsam.
 17

3.7 – Recording C: Mitsuko Uchida (2000)48

Japanese pianist Mitsuko Uchida (1948-) is without doubt the most individualistic in her interpretation;
this is evident with her crystal-clear phrasing, free spirited tempo, and rich rubato. She uses employs
accelerations, and decelerations – often exaggerating the dynamics – in order to outline shapes, and
contours in the wider narrative.49 Especially in No. 2 Langsam, within in bars 3 & 6 (as detailed in
Figure 7). This is something that was not so convincingly achieved by Steuermann, or Pollini.50
Nevertheless, throughout the entirety of the six pieces, Uchida consistently opts to locate melodic detail,
alongside allowing each phrase to clearly commence, and conclude. Moreover, unlike Pollini, Uchida’s
tempo, and volume curves blatantly do not conform to Schoenberg’s score markings in any strict sense,
and in even some passages in the second piece Langsam, and the fifth piece Etwas rasch, oppose
Schoenberg’s specified intentions altogether. This is pronounced in bars 3, 4, 5 & 6 within No. 1 Leight
zart, whereby Uchida’s piano’s, and pianissimo’s, are more mezzo-forte’s (as depicted in Figure 8).

It may be said that Uchida’s interpretation is a purposeful imaginative rebuttal to Schoenberg’s score;
and considering Steuermann’s recording (taking similar, but not as extreme, liberties with the score)
was approved by Schoenberg, he may have reacted enthusiastically to Uchida’s approach. In many
ways, Uchida may have indeed done what Schoenberg had intended, and perhaps a strict adherence to
the score is somewhat metaphorical from Uchida’s perspective. After all, she specialises in performing
Viennese composers, viz. Mozart, Schubert, and Schoenberg, and provides an interesting, historically
valuable, and philosophical rendering to the pieces.51

48
Schoenberg, A., Berg, A., Boulez, P., Uchida, M., & Webern, A. (2001). Piano concerto: Klavierstücke, op. 11 & op. 19. Amsterdam:
Philips.
49
Scruton, R. (2016). Understanding music: Philosophy and interpretation. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
50
Kagan, S. (2007). "Beethoven Piano Sonatas": No. 30 in E Major, Opus 109; No. 31 in A-Flat Major, Opus 110; No. 32 in C
Minor/Major, Opus 111. Mitsuko Uchida, Piano (Unidentified). The Beethoven Journal, 22(1), 35. California: American Beethoven Society.
51
Crispin, D. M. (2013). Of Arnold Schoenberg’s Klavierstück op. 33a,“a Game of Chess,” and the Emergence of New Epistemic
Things. Experimental Systems: Future Knowledge in Artistic Research, 68. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 18

3.8 – Uchida score excerpts

Figure 7: Circled in red within No. 2 Langsam is where Uchida employs accelerations, and
decelerations – often exaggerating the dynamics – in order outline contours in the wider narrative.

Figure 8: Circled in red within No. 1 Leight zart whereby Uchida heavily exaggerates
Schoenberg’s dynamic markings, substituting the soft indications for louder ones.
 19

Chapter 3
Harmonic analysis

4.1 – Pitch-Class Set Theory: Allen Forte & Milton Babbitt

It was during 1910, that Schoenberg wrote his Theory of Harmony, and suggested that the book was the
musical parallel to Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. But when understanding early 20th century atonal works,
theorists Milton Babbitt (1916-2011), and Allen Forte (1926-2014) rose to the challenge. From building on
Schoenberg’s constructed principles, Babbitt, and later, Forte, codified the harmonic make-up that fortify
the Pitch-Class Set Theory. Since the theory was published in 1973, in Forte’s book The Structure of Atonal
Music52, it has proven to be a favoured method of harmonic analysis with analysing atonal music, and some
argue it is more effective than traditional roman numeral analysis.53 Within this book, Forte strives to present
a general theoretical skeleton for the description, and analysis of musical pitch-structures that withstand
explanations in terms from established tonal systems. Because of this, it has been the thread of fierce
argument between progressive music theorists, and historically attuned musicologists.54

4.2 – The Influence of Dr. Kenneth Hicken

Within my analysis of Op. 19, I have drawn upon the heretofore mentioned methods by Forte, and Babbitt,
as well as from a leading contemporary Schoenberg scholar, Dr. Kenneth Hicken (1934-), who still teaches
at the University of Lethbridge. The following analyses are constructed on perceptions which locate pitch
within these pieces to be arranged more in terms of expansion, instead of a complete cessation of tonality.
Within the Op. 19, Dr. Hicken discovered two rudimentary components of extension: the first being "mono-
tonal", and the second being "fused bitonal."55 The mono-tonal mode, also expressed as "extended tonal
chromaticism”, is evident in the majority of the pieces: No. 2, 3, 4 & 5, and whilst No. 1 & 6 are primarily
mono-tonal too, they include a fleeting fused-bitonal passage. In my analyses below, mono-tonal, and fused-
bitonal components of harmonic arrangement are narrated, accompanied by my own harmonic analyses of
No. 2, and No. 6. As Hicken points out, what is observed in 18th, and 19th century Western tonal music is
that pitch is arranged with referral to a distinct tonal centre at any given time. However, the harmonic lexicon,
comprising of chords, and non-harmonic tones show an expansion of the customarily established tonal
system; within any musical passage, modulation could, or could not take place.56

52
Forte, A. (1973). The Structure of Atonal Music. Yale: Yale University Press.
53
Forte, A. (1964). A theory of set-complexes for music. Journal of Music Theory, 8(2), 136-183. Durham: Duke University Press.
54
Babbitt, M. (2012). The collected essays of Milton Babbitt. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
55
Hicken, K. (1974). Schoenberg's ‘Atonality’: Fused Bitonality?. Tempo, (109), 27-36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
56
Imberty, M. (1993). How do we perceive atonal music? Suggestions for a theoretical approach. Contemporary music review, 9(1-2), 325-
337. Abington: Routledge.
 20

4.3 – Written harmonic analysis of No. 2 Langsam

No. 2 Langsam demonstrates mono-tonal arrangement in the absence of modulation. It is the sole piece
within the set where modulation does not take place. Throughout the piece, tonal centre remains at G. The
piece starts by affirming the root, and the 3rd, followed by the 3rd, and 5th of the G major triad. Whilst the
root, and 3rd of the tonic triad proceed to be repeated (as observed in measures 2 & 3), a leading-tone
diminished-7th chord slowly emerges: F sharp, A, C, E flat. The third of this chord (which happens to be an
A) is then reduced by a semitone (as observed in measure 3), altering the chord into a German 6th on the
flatted supertonic: F sharp, A flat, C, E flat.57 The root, and third of the tonic triad then proceed in their
reoccurrence, decorated by an epigrammatic implementation of a subdominant minor harmony (as expressed
in measure 4). As alluded to before, the harmonic language within monotonal arrangement symbolises an
expansion of 18th, and 19th century tonal techniques.58 One such kind of expansion is distinguished via the
manifestation of two dissimilar types of chord components at once: for instance, the 3rd, 5th, or 7th.59 An
example of such an expansion happens at the commencement of measure 5 in a leading-tone 7th chord which
comprises two 7th’s, one of which is minor, and the other, diminished. The components of this chord are the
root (F sharp), the raised 3rd (A sharp), the 5th (C), the minor 7th (E), and the diminished 7th (E flat). The root,
and 3rd are restated in the same measure – but in the bass – whilst components of tonic harmony proceed to
resonate.

To follow, a 1st inversion dominant 13th chord accompanied by minor 9th’s takes place within measures 6,
and 7.60 Once more, two types of a chord component are in existence synchronously: the major, and the
minor third (F sharp, and F natural). Succeeding the reversed dominant 13th chord, tonic harmony reappears
fleetingly (as observed in measure 7), and then a transitory movement to the subdominant harmony occurs
(as observed between measures 7 to 9). Eventually, the piece finishes with a plagal cadence (as observed in
measure 9); the terminating chord of this cadence is a tonic major 7th accompanied by major, and minor 3rd’s,
and an supplementary minor 6th; the chord is constructed of the root (G), major 3rd (B), minor 3rd (B flat), 5th
(D), 7th (F sharp), and added minor 6th (E flat). In essence, this piece symbolises a sizeable expansion of the
established harmonic language; integral to the arrangement intrinsic within these pieces is the Schenkerian
sustaining of the tonic triad.61

57
Forte, A. (1973). The structure of atonal music (Vol. 304). Yale: Yale University Press.
58
Perle, G. (1972). Serial composition and atonality: an introduction to the music of Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern. California: University
of California Press.
59
Lerdahl, F. (1989). Atonal prolongational structure. Contemporary Music Review, 4(1), 65-87. Abington: Routledge.
60
Haimo, E. (1996). Atonality, Analysis, and the Intentional Fallacy. Music Theory Spectrum, 18(2), 167-199. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
61
Teitelbaum, R. (1965). Intervallic relations in atonal music. Journal of Music Theory, 9(1) Yale: Yale University Press.
 21

4.4 – Visual harmonic analysis of No. 2 Langsam

 22

4.5 – Written analysis of No. 6 Sehr Langsam

No. 6 Sehr Langsam begins with an opening three-tone harmony of B, F sharp, and A, thereupon a quartal
triad, comprising of G, C, and F, is implemented. The initial harmony could be comprehended in C: this
leading-tone chord – whose 9th is situated at the lowest voice – serves as a secondary dominant of the
mediant. The following sonority, which is an amalgamation of the opening sonority, and the quartal triad, is
in addition an amalgamation of the leading tone 9th chord, as well as of the dominant 9th chord in root
position. The root (G), and the 7th (F), of the last mentioned originate from the quartal tetrad; its 3rd (B), and
9th (A) originate from the opening sonority. Thus, this work could be comprehended as opening with a
development from the leading-tone harmony (dominant of the mediant), to an amalgamation of this, and the
dominant harmony.62 This beginning harmonic motion occurs twice anew in the mono-tonal passage (as
observed between measures 2 to 4, and 4 to 5). Throughout part of the earliest reoccurrence (as observed in
measures 3, and 4), D sharp pronounces, serving as the formerly absent 3rd of the leading-tone chord,
concurrently as a raised 5th within the dominant 9th. This D sharp takes place basically in octaves, with the
peak tone of the octave decorated by an overlying neighbouring tone (E).

Within the second reoccurrence of the beginning motion, the D sharp is once more non-existent, as depicted
in the opening.63 The ensuing chord (as observed in measure 9) is a root-position tonic containing major,
and minor 3rd’s, no 5th, a major 7th, and a supplementary 6th: A flat, C flat, C, F, and G. The F added 6th could
be very well apprehended as an incomplete upper neighbouring tone of the root (E flat) of the foregoing
dominant chord. Therefore, it could be additionally apprehended as a replacement for the non-existent 5th of
the tonic chord; and the B flat precursory the tonic chord could be considered as an octave displaced
neighbouring tone. More generally, at whatever stage in a fused-bitonal movement, one of the parts could
be aurally more noticeable than the other. For instance, within measure 8, the dominant 13th chord in A flat
prevails aurally above the leading-tone 9th chord in D, whilst conversely, within measure 9, when the 3rd-
less submediant seventh chord commences, the D positioning is more intense than that of A flat.
Conclusively, by the point in time where the unresolved tones of the septad have intruded, the A flat
centrality once again carries the most harmonic weight.64

62
Forte, A. (1972). Sets and nonsets in Schoenberg's atonal music. Seattle: Perspectives of New Music.
63
Samson, J. (1974). Schoenberg's ‘Atonal’ Music. Tempo, (109), 16-25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
64
Simms, B. R. (2000). The atonal music of Arnold Schoenberg, 1908-1923. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 23

4.6 – Visual harmonic analysis of No. 6 Sehr Langsam

 24

Chapter 4
Synthesis through performance

5. 1 – Interpretative evaluation of 4th recording by James Huon George (2020)

Recording location: Elder Hall, University of Adelaide
Audio engineer: Alex Mader
Date: May 20th, 2020
Recording device: Korg MR-100
Recording format: CD (attached to thesis)

No. 1 Leight, zart

Within the opening bars, I opted to create an anxious atmosphere via employing the pedal in a conservative manner, and thus
allowing each rhythmic division to be carefully distinguished. Similar to Pollini’s treatment, I felt that in order to capture the
tempestuous elements within this piece, strict adherence to timing was needed. However, akin to Uchida’s approach, I made
an exception, and was generous during the length of the ritardando in bars 12 & 13, which acts as a meditative central division.
During bar 4, I decided to pay close attention to the delicacy of the pianississimo during the ‘flüchtig’ triplets, ensuring they
entered in an unobtrusive manner – Steuermann achieves this very convincingly. Within bars 14 & 15, Schoenberg indicates
‘mit Ton’ (with sound); of course, I did not treat this as fortissimo, but rather as a more ‘weighted’ sound than what succeeded
it. Additionally, I ensured that in the commencing measures (bars 16, 17 & 18) it was very rhythmically precise, as I have
noticed in many recordings that these final bars are often not actually played strictly in time. These subtle errors can in fact
jeopardise Schoenberg’s intended atmosphere.

No. 2 Langsam
Striking the two notes that comprise the ostinato together, is a rather tricky technical difficulty within this piece; as I have
experimented myself, if those two notes do not fall together, it can negatively impact on the mood, and especially the balance
when the right hand – accompanied with the melodic material – is introduced in bar 2. Furthermore, Schoenberg’s opening
instruction states ‘äußerst kurz’ (very short), meaning the ostinato must be released with no sustain – Pollini attained this
articulation well. Therein, I concluded that this piece required the least amount of pedal out of the set, apart from the
employment of some pedal during bar 5; specifically, the rolled chord in the upper register to prevent it from being a bit
unnecessarily ‘harsh’, and disruptive. As inspired by Uchida’s rendition, during bar 6, where Schoenberg marks ‘etwas
gedehnt’ (slightly stretched), I employed a strong crescendo which culminated in volume at commencement of the bar. To
conclude, in the final bars, I ensured the series of interrupted ostinatos were well balanced in dynamics; Schoenberg marks
pianissimo, and ‘gut im takt’ (well on time) – both of which required utmost concentration.

No. 3 Sehr Langsam

Sehr Langsam is a deceptively difficult piece. Although it visually appears to be ‘easy’, Schoenberg asks for very specific
dynamics: the right hand to be forte, whilst the left hand to be pianissimo. Both of them often playing simultaneously too. I
was most drawn to Steuermann’s interpretation out of the three; I mimicked his ghostly opening by exaggerating the dynamics
(making forte, fortissimo, and making piano, pianissimo). At the conclusion of bar 4, there is a slight pause in the music; in
some recordings, the pedal is not often cleared, consequently causing the harmonies to smudge. From the score markings,
Schoenberg did not indicate whether, or not the pedal should indeed be cleared, however, it seems his utilisation of rests are
so specific, one would be urged to take them seriously. Furthermore, the following passage is quite different character, as he
instructs both the left, and right hand to play at same dynamic of pianissimo; different to the original instruction. Therefore, I
chose to clear the pedal at that particular moment, almost creating a subtle division in the music. Conclusively, the G semi-
breve in the final bar, should be held until the conclusion of the bar; something which had appeared to be overlooked (or
potentially misread) within Steuermann’s recording.
 25

No. 4 Rasch, aber leight

The opening of this piece is very particular. It is common in recordings for performers to not readily distinguish between the
semi-quavers, and demi-semi-quavers in the opening bars of this piece due to the hastily tempo; I employed a metronome
frequently during my practise sessions to ensure the note values were implemented correctly. Uchida’s tempo was the quickest
out of the three recordings of this work, and I felt it worked most convincingly; furthermore, this makes the work more
juxtaposing to the succeeding (and following) pieces. During bars 5, and 6, Schoenberg for the first time during the whole set
indicates the employment of pedal; it could be said that this is a specific choice, with an intended purpose to create a mystical
‘smothering’ of harmonies – directly juxtaposing the opening. In the following bars, Schoenberg lays out a similar dynamic
range framework: introducing soft contemplative, ‘wandering’ chord progressions, to then be heavily contrasted by a loud
single-lined ‘martellato’ (hammered) passage. I wanted to accentuate this polarisation as strongly as possible by completing
clearing the pedal at the commencement of bar 11. Within the final three bars (12, 13 & 14) containing diamond chords, it
made sense to carry on the same obtrusive character established in bar 11.

No. 5 Etwas rasch

I found this piece the most challenging out of the set due to the shaping, coupled with its ‘zart’ (tender) character. Via
experimenting with the pedal, I concluded that no pedal was necessary in the opening bars; careful legato seemed to suffice in
creating a very lonely, yet tender opening. Similar to Pollini, I took Schoenberg’s crescendo, and diminuendo markings very
seriously in order to create a ‘reaching out, reaching in’ quality to the music; interestingly, these are written very close together
– often only a single note falls between them – so by nature, they are very short-lived accentuations. I found this valuable to
identify throughout this piece, and therefore created a large dynamic range. Subtle pauses indicated in the score by Schoenberg
observed in bars 3 & 7 provide a window for the phrases to ‘catch their breath’, whilst still retaining the direction of the
overarching framework; it was important to not allow this work to feel empty even during silences. Within bars 9 & 10,
Schoenberg asks for a technically difficult combination of left hand staccato, and right hand legato to occur simultaneously –
it took me a few attempts to be satisfied with the balance achieved, particularly in this passage. A lengthy ritardando spanning
the final four bars (12, 13, 14 & 15) is a culminative manifestation of the ‘rising, and falling’ dynamic notion explored
throughout the work. Thus, I emphasised the forte’s, and used the pedal generously.

No. 6 Sehr Langsam

Within the final piece – a supposed elegy to Gustav Mahler – I decided to ensure every chord transitioned audibly. I found
that Uchida’s recording contained the greatest quantity of discernibility; owing to the fact that the piece is very slow, soft, and
silence constitutes a significant portion of it, it is important to allow the music to shine. Within bars 3 & 4, Schoenberg’s
dynamic markings indicate pianissississismo, to be combined with piano – taking from Uchida’s rendering of this work, and
general philosophy towards interpretation, ensuring that every note sings even amidst challenging passages was something I
aimed for. Ensuring all notes were struck at the same time during the isolated chords were a technical challenge I encountered;
I opted for a solemn, penetrative, bell-like sound, but one that was not abrasive in any way. During the concluding bars,
Schoenberg is very specific about his instructions, which appear in each of the three bars: ‘mit zehr zartem Ausdruck’ (with
tender expression), immediately followed by ‘genau im Takt’ (exactly in time), and ‘wie ein hauch’ (like a breath) – each of
these instructions I studied in relation to Schoenberg’s dynamic markings.
 26

Conclusion

Akin to Brahms, Arnold Schoenberg was fusion of a conservative, and progressive ideals. He was
unquestionably one of the foremost pioneers of atonality; something which Schoenberg viewed as simple
progression on heretofore established musical traditions. The Six Little Pieces Op. 19 represent a pioneering
musical development in harmonic territories few composers of the time would dare to venture into.65
Schoenberg sacrificed his livelihood to relentlessly prioritise his idea of artistic truth, and it was something
that was noticed, and nurtured by those who stood with him.66 Whilst Schoenberg’s mission was to carry
music into the beyond, he constructed a solid trail for others to follow: many of his important pupils including
Alban Berg (1885-1935), Anton Webern (1883-1945), Hanns Eisler (1898-1962), and Egon Wellesz (1885-
1974) religiously upheld, preserved, and built upon his pioneering.

Out of the three interpretations, it can be concluded that Steuermann’s the freest, Pollini’s is the most score
adherent, and Uchida’s is the most experimental. It is crucial to allude to the fact that pieces No. 1-5 were
composed in a day (No. 6 was composed later as an elegy for the death of Gustav Mahler), and consequently
there is an impromptu characteristic to their creation: one may conjecture if the nigh spontaneous attributes
support this approach in their actual performance.67 Furthermore, Schoenberg’s score markings allows multi-
directional structures enabling creative interpretative answers; precise, yet lavishly poignant markings also
accentuate both the significance of the musical exactness, and flexibility within the set. Steuermann does not
abide by the score, nor does he generate uniform dynamic contours. By preference, he imbues the pieces
with tinges of Brahmsian-like romanticism, expressing tiny rubato’s, and relishing in employment of the
pedal. Uchida amalgamates an airy, and crystalline touch, which is apparent in volume, and the general
tempo discrepancy to propel the works into the territory of a Debussyian-like flavour of impressionism;
Pollini serves up the rendition with the greatest portion of perpetuality, strictness, and score faithfulness.68

Ultimately, the comparison of the differing interpretative choices shed light on the range of possibilities that
can be achieved by future performers. With this awareness, performers can more thoughtfully approach these
works, with artistic confidence to infuse as much of their interpretative ideas as possible. To propel this
understanding, my own recordings, and interpretative evaluation of the Op. 19 draws the context of this
project close to home, whilst the detailed harmonic analyses complement ones understanding of both the
interpretative evaluation, and in aiding performers understand the structure of his composition. All of which
comprise of tools to discern, and appreciate Schoenberg’s logical thought processes, and serve as
ammunition to fire against those who falsely dismiss his works as illogical randomness.69

65
Rosen, C. (1996). Arnold Schoenberg. University of Chicago Press.
66
Yasser, J., & Schoenberg, A. (1953). A Letter from Arnold Schoenberg. California: Journal of the American Musicological Society.
67
Bravo, F. (2012, June). The influence of music on the emotional interpretation of visual contexts. In International Symposium on
Computer Music Modeling and Retrieval (pp. 366-377). Berlin: Springer.
68
Cook, N. (1999). Analysing performance and performing analysis. Oxford: University of Oxford Press.
69
Jalowetz, H. (1944). On the Spontaneity of Schoenberg's music. The Musical Quarterly. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 27

Taking into account Schoenberg’s audience reception accounts not only enables one to further research to
what ingredients yield composers – or indeed compositions – unpopular, but it also conveys what steers
works into our popular music oeuvre.70 Comprehending the avenue by which Schoenberg’s music was either
suppressed, or publicised moulds a structure, and methodology whereby one can evaluate any quantity of
leitmotifs. Examining documentation evidence encompassing Schoenberg’s reception can provide
awareness into the methods by which composers acquire cultural importance overtime.71 Moreover, we can
swivel our inquisitive stratagem back upon ourselves, questioning with regard to our own principles,
consternations, and dreams as they are mirrored in our wrestling with historical subjects. Ultimately, similar
to any composer of prevailing music, Schoenberg plants many seeds of possibilities for further study, and
consideration. Further study for a Masters, or PhD program may entail the full Pitch-Class Set theory analysis
of the Op. 19, in relation to the earlier atonal work Three Piano Piece Op. 11, alongside a public
performance.72

“I find above all that the expression, "atonal music," is most unfortunate — it is on a par with
calling flying "the art of not falling," or swimming "the art of not drowning." Whether one calls
oneself conservative or revolutionary, whether one composes in a conventional or progressive
manner, whether one tries to imitate old styles or is destined to express new ideas -- whether one
is a good composer or not -- one must be convinced of the infallibility of one's own fantasy, and
one must believe in one's own inspiration.”73

– Arnold Schoenberg

70
Botstein, L. (1999). Schoenberg and the audience. Schoenberg and his World. Chichester: Princeton University Press
71
Schiller, D. M. (2003). Bloch, Schoenberg, and Bernstein: Assimilating Jewish Music. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
72
Keller, H. (1974). Schoenberg: The future of Symphonic thought. Seattle: Perspectives of New Music.
73
Schoenberg, A. (1987). Arnold Schoenberg Letters. Edited by Erwin Stein. California: University of California Press.
 28

List of sources

a) Musical scores

Brahms, J. (1886) Symphony No. 4 Op. 98. First edition. Berlin: N. Simrock.
Schoenberg, A. (1960) Six Little Pieces Op. 19. Edited from the composer’s manuscript by Edward
Steuermann. Vienna: Universal Edition.
Schoenberg, A. (2007) Six Little Pieces Op. 19. Arranged for orchestra from the composer’s manuscript
by Alessandro Palazzani. Verona: Alessandro Palazzani.
Schoenberg, A. (1897) String Quartet in D Major. Edition prepared by O.W. Neighbour. London: Faber
Music.
Schoenberg, A. (1920) Gurre-Lieder. Edited by the composer. Los Angeles: Belmont.
Mahler. G (1876) Piano Quartet in A minor. Holograph manuscript. Hamburg: Hans Sikorski.

b) Discography

Steuermann recording:

YouTube. 2020. Schoenberg - Eduard Steuermann (1951) Piano works - YouTube. [ONLINE]
Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zeIE8AIIRA. [Accessed May 2020].

Date: 1951
Location: Berlin, Germany
Form: Mono recording
Recording label: Dial
Serial number: DLP 14

Pollini recording:

YouTube. 2020. Arnold Schoenberg - Six Petites pour Piano, Op. 19 - Maurizio Pollini - YouTube.
[ONLINE] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANk7nctBxOg. [Accessed May 2020].

Date: 1974
Location: Munich, West Germany
Form: Stereo recording (LP)
Recording label: Deutsche Grammophon
Serial number: 2530 531

Uchida recording:

YouTube. 2020. Mitsuko Uchida: Works of Schoenberg, Berg, Webern - YouTube. [ONLINE]
Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1SA1-DvvI0. [Accessed May 2020].

Date: 2000
Location: Ohio, US
Form: Stereo recording (CD)
Recording label: Phillips
Serial number: 289 474 234
 29

c) Bibliography (APA)

Books:

Adorno, T. W. (2007). Philosophy of modern music. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Albright, D. (Ed.). (2004). Modernism and music: an anthology of sources. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Alperson, P. (Ed.). (2010). What is music?: an introduction to the philosophy of music. Pennsylvania:
Penn State Press.
Arndt, M. (2017). The Musical Thought and Spiritual Lives of Heinrich Schenker and Arnold
Schoenberg. London: Routledge.
Auner, J. (2008). A Schoenberg reader: documents of a life. Yale: Yale University Press.
Barham, J. M. (2007). The Cambridge Companion to Mahler. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Bazzana, K. (2010). Wondrous strange: The life and art of Glenn Gould. Toronto: McClelland &
Stewart.
Betz, A. (1982). Hanns Eisler political musician. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brand, J., & Hailey, C. (Eds.). (1997). Constructive Dissonance: Arnold Schoenberg and the
Transformations of Twentieth-Century Culture. California: University of California
Press.
Brown, J. (2014). Schoenberg and Redemption. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carpenter, P. (2005). The Piano Music of Arnold Schoenberg. Theory and Practice, 30, 5-33.
Carter, E. (1978). Theory of harmony. California: University of California Press.
Cross, C. M., & Berman, R. A. (Eds.). (2013). Political and religious ideas in the works of Arnold
Schoenberg. London: Routledge.
Christensen, J. (1984). The spiritual and the material in Schoenberg's thinking. Music &
Letters, 65(4), 337-344. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cherlin, M. (2007). Schoenberg's Musical Imagination (Vol. 24). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Crawford, J. C., & Crawford, D. L. (1996). Expressionism in twentieth-century music. Indiana:
Indiana University Press.
Dahlhaus, C. (1987). Schoenberg and the New Music: Essays by Carl Dahlhaus. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Dudeque, N. (2005). Music theory and analysis in the writings of Arnold Schoenberg (1874-1951).
Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
Eimert, H., & Stockhausen, K. (1959). Anton Webern. Lausanne: L'âge d'homme.
Feder, S. (2004). Gustav Mahler: A life in crisis. Yale: Yale University Press.
Feisst, S. (2010). Schoenberg reception in America, 1933-51. In The Cambridge Companion to
Schoenberg (pp. 247-257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Frisch, W. (1997). The early works of Arnold Schoenberg, 1893-1908. California: University of
California Press.
Frisch, W. (1990). Brahms and the principle of developing variation (No. 2). California: University of
California Press.
Fischer, M. (1993). Wittgenstein as a modernist philosopher. Philosophy and Literature, 17(2), 279-
285. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Fischer, J. M. (2011). Gustav Mahler. Yale: Yale University Press.
Gieseking, W., & Leimer, K. (2013). Piano technique. Chelmsford: Courier Corporation.
Gieseking, W., & Leimer, K. (1972). Piano technique consisting of the two complete books The
shortest way to pianistic perfection and Rhythmics, dynamics, pedal and other
problems of piano playing. Chelmsford: Courier Corporation.
Gil-Marchex, H., & Rothwell, F. (1926). Ravel's Pianoforte Technique. 67(1006), 1087-1090.
London: The Musical Times
Gur, G. (2012). Arnold Schoenberg and the Ideology of Progress in Twentieth-Century Musical
Thinking. Muzykalia XIII/Judaica, 4. Zagreb: Croatian Musicological Society
 30

Hook, J., & Douthett, J. (2008). Uniform triadic transformations and the twelve-tone music of
Webern. Princeton: Perspectives of New Music.
Hullot-Kentor, R. (2006). Things beyond resemblance: Collected essays on Theodor W. Adorno.
Columbia: Columbia University Press.
Jarman, D. (1985). The Music of Alban Berg. California: University of California Press.
Johnson, B. A. (2010). Training the Composer: A Comparative Study Between the Pedagogical
Methodologies of Arnold Schoenberg and Nadia Boulanger. Cambridge: Cambridge
Scholars Publishing.
Littlewood, J. (2004). The Variations of Johannes Brahms (Vol. 1). London: Plumbago Books and
Arts.
Milstein, S. (1992). Arnold Schoenberg: notes, sets, forms (Vol. 3). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Moortele, S. V. (2009). Two-Dimensional Sonata Form: Form and Cycle in Single-Movement
Instrumental Works by Liszt, Strauss, Schoenberg, and Zemlinsky. Leuven: Leuven
University Press.
Newlin, D. (2013). Bruckner-Mahler-Schoenberg. Worcestershire: Read Books Ltd.
Patterson, D. (Ed.). (2013). John Cage: music, philosophy, and intention, 1933-1950. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Pfrogner, H. (1948). Hans Erich Apostel. Vienna: Österreichische Musikzeitschrift.
Platt, H. A. (2011). Johannes Brahms: a research and information guide. London: Routledge.
Rosen, C. (1996). Arnold Schoenberg. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Schmidt, J. (2004). Mephistopheles in Hollywood: Adorno, Mann, and Schoenberg. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Schwarz, B. (1965). Arnold Schoenberg in Soviet Russia. Seattle: Perspectives of New Music.
Simms, B. R. (2000). The atonal music of Arnold Schoenberg, 1908-1923. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Stein, E. (1987). Arnold Schoenberg Letters. California: University of California Press.
Stein, L., & Strang, G. (1967). Fundamentals of musical composition. London: Faber.
Schoenberg, A., & Ennulat, E. M. (1991). Arnold Schoenberg Correspondence: A Collection of
Translated and Annotated Letters Exchanged with Guido Adler, Pablo Casals,
Emanuel Feuermann, and Olin Downes. Maryland: Scarecrow Press.
Shawn, A., & Schönberg, A. (2002). Arnold Schoenberg's journey. New York: Macmillan.
Willson, R. B. (2009). The Parallax Worlds of the West–Eastern Divan Orchestra. 134(2), 319-347.
London: Journal of the Royal Musical Association.
Watkins, H. (2011). Metaphors of Depth in German Musical Thought: From ETA Hoffmann to
Arnold Schoenberg (Vol. 21). Cambridge University Press.
Zbikowski, L. M., & Zbikowski, L. M. (2002). Conceptualizing music: Cognitive structure, theory,
and analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Peer-reviewed journals:

Babbitt, M. (1973). Since Schoenberg. Princeton: Perspectives of New Music.

Bailey, K. (2001). 'Composing with Tones': A Musical Analysis of Schoenberg's Op. 23 Pieces for
Piano. London: Royal Musical Association.
Benjamin, W. E. (2013). Abstract Polyphonies: The Music of Schoenberg’s Nietzschean Moment.
In Political and Religious Ideas in the Works of Arnold Schoenberg (pp. 25-64).
London: Routledge.
Boss, J. (2009). The Musical Idea and the Basic Image in an Atonal Song and Recitation of Arnold
Schoenberg. Gamut: Online Journal of the Music Theory Society of the Mid-
Atlantic, 2(1), 8. Oregon: University of Oregon Press
Borio, G. (2001). Schenker versus Schoenberg versus Schenker: The Difficulties of a
reconciliation. Journal of the Royal Musical Association, 126(2), 250-274.
Cahn, J. (1996). Variations in manifold time: historical consciousness in the music and writings of
Arnold Schoenberg. New York: State University of New York Press.
 31

Covach, J. (1996). The Sources of Schoenberg's" Aesthetic Theology". 19th-century Music, 19(3),
252-262. California: University of California Press.
Eggers, K. (2011). Wittgenstein and Schoenberg on Performativity of Music as Method for
Philosophy. In Word and Music Studies: Essays on Performativity and on Surveying
the Field (pp. 243-261). Leiden: Brill Rodopi.
Ewell, P. A. (2013). Russian Pitch-Class Set Analysis and the Music of Webern. Gamut: Online
Journal of the Music Theory Society of the Mid-Atlantic.
Feisst, S. M. (1999). Arnold Schoenberg and the cinematic art. The Musical Quarterly, 83(1), 93-113.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Feisst, S. M. (1999). Arnold Schoenberg and the cinematic art. The Musical Quarterly, 83(1), 93-113.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Forte, A. (1986). Reply to Richard Taruskin from Allen Forte. Music Analysis, 5(2/3), 321-337.
New Jersey: Wiley.
Forte, A. (1966). A program for the analytic reading of scores. Journal of music theory, 10(2), 330-
364. New York: University of Rochester Press.
Guter, E. (2011). “A Surrogate for the Soul”: Wittgenstein and Schoenberg. In Interactive
Wittgenstein (pp. 109-152). Berlin: Springer.
Harris, D. (1977). Some Thoughts on the Teacher-Student Relationship between Arnold Schoenberg
and Alban Berg. Princeton: Perspectives of New Music.
Hill, R. S. (1936). Schoenberg's Tone-Rows and the Tonal System of the Future. The Musical
Quarterly, 22(1), 14-37. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lubet, A. (1982). Vestiges of Tonality in a Work of Arnold Schoenberg. Indiana Theory
Review, 5(3), 11-21. Indiana: Indiana University Press.
Meggett, J., & Moritz, R. (1974). The Schoenberg Legacy. Notes, 31(1), 30-36. Middleton: Music
Library Association.
Milhaud, D. (1944). To Arnold Schönberg on his seventieth birthday: personal recollections. The
Musical Quarterly, 30(4), 379-384. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Montgomery, K. (1994). Schenker and Schoenberg on Harmonic Tonality. Indiana Theory
Review, 15(1), 53-68. Indiana: Indiana University Press.
Pisk, P. A. (1975). Arnold Schoenberg, the Teacher. Cincinnati: The American Music Teacher.
Roeder, J. (1994). Interacting Pulse Streams in Schoenberg's Atonal Polyphony. Music Theory
Spectrum, 16(2), 231-249.
Salley, K. (2015). On Duration and Developing Variation: The Intersecting Ideologies of Henri
Bergson and Arnold Schoenberg. Music Theory Online, 21(4).
Saslaw, J. K. (1997). Life Forces: Conceptual Structures in Schenker's" Free Composition" and
Schoenberg's" The Musical Idea". Theory and Practice, 22, 17-33.
Schoenberg, A., Stein, L., & Strang, G. (1967). Fundamentals of musical composition (p. 25).
London: Faber & Faber.
Szeto, W. M., & Wong, M. H. (2006). A graph-theoretical approach for pattern matching in post-tonal
music analysis. Journal of New Music Research, 35(4), 307-321.
Tarsi, B. (2001). Manifestations of Arnold Schoenberg's Abstract Versus Concrete
Dichotomy. Modern Judaism, 21(3), 238-255.
 32

Appendices

Original manuscript of Six Little Pieces Op. 19:

Location: Arnold Schoenberg Centre in Vienna, Austria

Image archive ID: 5512
Date: 1911
Author: Arnold Schoenberg
33
34
35
36
37
 38

First published edition of Six Little Pieces Op. 19:

Publisher: Universal Edition

Date: 1913
Plate: U.E 5069
Location of publication: Vienna, Austria
39
40
41
42
43
44