Schoenberg on art and politics

alec ramsdell a_ramsdell at hotmail.com
Mon Dec 14 08:26:59 PST 1998


Have a few minutes on the internet before work, so I thought I'd post this short piece. From _Style & Idea_, Arnold Schoenberg, University of California Press, 1975, pp. 249-250.

IS IT FAIR? 1947

It has become a habit of late to qualify aesthetic and artistic subjects in terms borrowed from the jargon of politics. Thus mildly progressive works of art, literature or even music might be classified as "revolutionary" or "left wing", when they only evolve artistic possibilities. On the other hand, old-fashioned products are called "reactionary", without any clarification of what its antonym might mean in contrast.

No wonder, then, that there are people who call the method of composing with twelve tones "bolshevik". They pretend that in a "set of twelve tones", upon which such compositions are founded, since there is no tonic nor dominant, every tone is considered independent, and consequently exerts equal functions.

This is wrong in every respect; yet it is curious to note that even the exact contrary has been contended. The German composer, Paul von Klenau, during Hitler's time, composed a whole opera in twelve-tone style. After a successful performance, he published an essay in which he "demonstrated" that this method is a true image of national-socialist principles! This, of course, also is politics--though of the opposite color.

As a matter of fact, the structural independence of the single tone is rather limited in a set of twelve tones, because every tone is bound unchangeably to a definite place. For example, observe the following set:

[sorry, no notation . . .]

In a "fascist" interpretation, the basic set accordingly would represent the leader, the Duce, the Fuehrer, on whom all depends, who distributes power and function to every tone, who also is the originator of all the three mirror forms, and who is responsible for all the subsequent transpositions of the basic set and its derivatives--to function as sub-Fuehrer in minor affairs.

Whether this concept is an advantage or a handicap to the composer or to the listener, certainly it has nothing in common with "Liberty, Equality and Fraternity", neither with the bolshevik, fascist, nor any other totalitarian brand.

Most important: is it an evaluation?

December 2, 1947

______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list