Any Schoenberg guys here? I Need help

**Joe_Reynolds** · 08-11-2011, 04:53 PM

So I've been reading Arnold Schoenbergs 'structural functions of harmony' and shamefully have only really digested the first and second chapters, after that it gets a bit hard to understand as he talks about things but does not say why he uses them as he does.

(All of these examples are in relation to C major)
As an example he starts with the simple idea of raising the 6th and 7th of A minor ascending and then flattening descending. That's easy to grasp and is basic classical theory.

I see he has also said we can substitute the G in E phrygian for a G#, then I thought to myself "yer that makes sense since its the raised 7th of A minor'.

THEN, he goes on to suggest we flatten the fourth of lydian??

He also suggests raising the 7th in Dorian ascending and then making it natural and flattening the 6th descending, this is where I begin to get confused.

And finally he suggests raising the 7th of mixolydian, again a standard major scale.

My question is (more of a command) can someone explain the theory behind the alterations to the scale degrees that aren't the 6th and 7th of A minor to me?

Schoenberg....Where do you get off?

p.s. sorry if that's hard to read/understand for anyone, I needed to ask before it's out of my head

**whatswisdom** · 08-11-2011, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by Joe_Reynolds

(All of these examples are in relation to C major)...THEN, he goes on to suggest we flatten the fourth of lydian, once again that's the b6 of A minor so it's all making some form of sense.

Isn't the flat fourth of lydian "Bb"? You're saying a lot in your example but I'm not sure of the overall context pertaining to Schoenberg's rules. Is this all based on an example from composition?

**Joe_Reynolds** · 08-11-2011, 05:13 PM

Oh yep, sorry you're right there, not thinking straight.
This isn't based on composition no, more on his thoughts on harmony and the dissatisfaction with his students.
The opening chapter is basically what I have typed in my first post. There is a short introduction stating ' Just as the Minor scale has substitute tones and regions, so do the modes.' And then he goes on to show what I have said, but he does not explain WHY certain notes are substituted which is a bit frustrating

(I'll edit out my first post for errors)

**whatswisdom** · 08-11-2011, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by Joe_Reynolds

...he talks about things but does not say why he uses them as he does. (All of these examples are in relation to C major)...he starts with the simple idea of raising the 6th and 7th of A minor ascending and then flattening descending. That's easy to grasp and is basic classical theory. I see he has also said we can substitute the G in E phrygian for a G#, then I thought to myself "yer that makes sense since its the raised 7th of A minor'. THEN, he goes on to suggest we flatten the fourth of lydian?? He also suggests raising the 7th in Dorian ascending and then making it natural and flattening the 6th descending, this is where I begin to get confused. And finally he suggests raising the 7th of mixolydian, again a standard major scale. My question is (more of a command) can someone explain the theory behind the alterations to the scale degrees that aren't the 6th and 7th of A minor to me?

I doubt that does not say why he uses the alterations--maybe check again more closely to see if you can decipher. Okay. So the issues are pertaining to the following:

A Aeolian (raise 6 & 7 ascending = F# G#. nat. descending.)
E Phrygian (raise 3 = G#)
F Lydian (flat 4 = Bb)
D Dorian (raise 7 ascending = C#; C nat descending--also flat 6 = Bb)
G Mixolydian (raise 7 = F#)

So your issues are: Why are C and B altered? Right?

**Joe_Reynolds** · 08-11-2011, 06:01 PM

Yes! If anyone has a logical reason then I'd be all ears

**Joe_Reynolds** · 08-13-2011, 10:48 AM

Ok, I've got my own take on the C# for the dorian and that is quite basically that it's just a good leading tone into D.

As for the Bb I have a vague theory that it's because its the 7th overtone of C although that does not sound like the reason why.

There must be someone that knows?

**paynow** · 08-13-2011, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by Joe_Reynolds

So I've been reading Arnold Schoenbergs 'structural functions of harmony' and shamefully have only really digested the first and second chapters, after that it gets a bit hard to understand as he talks about things but does not say why he uses them as he does.

Not so shameful; I'm still digesting chapter one. It's not an easy book, but a valuable one. I'll have to follow this thread.

**Joe_Reynolds** · 08-13-2011, 03:41 PM

Ok I've worked out where the Bb comes from. In dorian and lydian...
It is a descending leading tone leading to the A the 3rd (In the lydian mode) and a descending leading tone leading to A the 5th (in the dorian mode)

It doesn't occur in the other modes because it would descend to an insignificant degree.

**Joe_Reynolds** · 09-01-2011, 07:04 PM

@Paynow, I don't suppose you've reached the chapter about regions yet? I'm having a hard time getting to grips with what he's talking about through most of it and how to establish a region

**paynow** · 09-02-2011, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by Joe_Reynolds

@Paynow, I don't suppose you've reached the chapter about regions yet? I'm having a hard time getting to grips with what he's talking about through most of it and how to establish a region

I have not yet; I just moved so my books are all in boxes.

**Reg** · 09-02-2011, 12:20 PM

What's the concept behind all of these changing or altering of pitches. The actual examples are simply products or results of the concept. Think about it. If still doesn't make sense... I'll try and break it down...Reg

**Joe_Reynolds** · 09-02-2011, 03:18 PM

It's not that I don't understand the concept of the regions but it's how you define a region as being registered (in that specific region) and also how you establish a region. Schoenberg says you must have 3 characteristics of a region to establish it but does not explain what the characteristics are (scale tones, chords etc...), the most obvious to me would be the I IV and V of that region but many of his examples do not have these so I am a bit lost, any of the bigger guys who know what they're on about please feel free to chime in

**Reg** · 09-03-2011, 11:38 AM

So you understand the substitutes and the regions and their source, or concept for their source... added notes principle. The rest is fairly simple... the resulting harmonic structures, chords are categorized and placed on his chart of regions. The further away from the center... the further the chords are from tonic, numbers game based on traditional harmony. The book goes on using this system of organization as reference for other harmonic structures or concepts of harmony. Obviously it's a little more detailed, are you aware of Bartok's four quadrants etc...

**Reg** · 09-03-2011, 02:18 PM

You are aware that this system of harmonic organization basically gets rid of modulations, it's a one tonal center concept... If your familiar with his twelve tone system of organization, you can see the similarities..

**Joe_Reynolds** · 09-03-2011, 08:06 PM

Originally Posted by Reg

are you aware of Bartok's four quadrants etc...

I'm not, I have very little knowledge about classical music theory, I took it in college but it was very standard stuff, if you can suggest any further reading then be my guest

**Reg** · 09-05-2011, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by Joe_Reynolds

I'm not, I have very little knowledge about classical music theory, I took it in college but it was very standard stuff, if you can suggest any further reading then be my guest

That would be a pretty long list... but a fairly simple and contemporary read could be, Leon Dallin's..."Techniques of Twentieth Century Composition". Gives you basic concepts,understandings and sources of many contemporary compositional techniques... In somewhat understandable language. Reg

**Revelen** · 09-25-2011, 12:57 AM

Jumping in with a first post here...

The first couple chapters of Structural Functions are basically a re-cap of the basics of Harmonielehre/Theory of Harmony. The practice of raising the 7th or lowering the 6th of the Dorian mode, lowering the 4th of Lydian, raising the 7th of Mixolydian, raising the 6th and 7th of Aeolian goes back long before Schoenberg. Before J.S. Bach and the basic understandings of tonality and triadic harmony we currently have, in fact. You can find the same alterations in Renaissance counterpoint.

Back in the day, when counterpoint was all the rage and eighth notes on the downbeat were too racy to be considered acceptable, certain notes were frequently raised when ascending or the inverse, as well as altered to avoid harmonizing with a tritone. Too illustrate, here are some examples from JJ Fux's Gradus ad Parnassum (1725). (In slightly Jazzified terms)

1. Altered Note in D Dorian for stronger Cadence.
Voice 1: E A D----D C# D
Voice 2: F E D

2. Altered Note in F Lydian to assist with descending melody (Also to avoid harsh tritone relation with preceding measure).
Voice 1: F D E
Voice 2: A Bb G

3. Altered note in G Mixolydian to avoid subsequent awkwardness with the altered note of the cadence.
Voice 1: C D B A G
Voice 2: A F# G F# G

4. Altered Note in F Lydian to avoid strong beat tritone harmony. (Also, descending line)
Voice 1: F----------
Voice 2: D C Bb A

So, Schoenberg deals with the leading tones in Dorian, Mixolydian, and Aeolian, as well as the Aeolian raised sixth to prevent the augmented second jump (though it does sound delicious, to our modern sensibilities. Actually, some of the Classical Era Composers used it too). These all fuction too increase linear pull to the target, and translate into a dominant V chord in terms of triadic harmony. Essentially, the lowered degree- fourth of Lydian and sixth of and Dorian does two things, it provides a more smooth and traditional descending (occasionally ascending as well) line, and avoid the tritone relationship with important chord tones. (maj6 against min3 in Dorian, #11 against root in Lydian)

I'm sure there are other interpretations and derivations and methods for sneaking the remaining five pitches into the basic tonal system, but this is my general understanding. Also, if you're into Schoenberg's teaching, Harmonielehre is fascinating. It's about 6 times the size of Structural Functions, and probably half his own philosophy, rather than theory, but it is well worth the undertaking!

Any way, I guess I've rambled enough, I hope you can pick something useful out of all that!

**princeplanet** · 09-25-2011, 06:46 AM

I'd have thought Schoenberg was better known for his contributions to 12 tone or Serial Theory.....

**Shadow of the Sun** · 09-25-2011, 06:50 AM

Oh, he definitely is, princeplanet.

But the massive amount of work he did on traditional harmony is a goldmine. I still think he was the best music theoretician in the 20th century.

**Revelen** · 09-26-2011, 04:29 PM

Interesting Schoenberg nugget as well: Schoenberg did what he did with a-tonal serialism because he was so intensely traditional as a matter of principle. He looked at Palestrina and saw a system of harmony arising from homophony, he looked at Bach and saw tertian progressions created, he saw Mozart extending this system, and Beethoven expanding it and twisting it, he saw Chopin adding extensions, he examined Tchaikovsky, Wagner, Ravel- through each generation of composers, he witnessed the realm of traditional harmony expanding, progressing, coming alive in new ways. The only way left he could see to continue in what he saw as the essential perpetuation of tradtion, was to, yet again, push harmony farther, and he believed the septatonic tonal system had reached it's limit.

Schoenberg was not trying to do something new, but to keep centuries of tradition alive. At least, so he thought; I think he did something new!

**Joe_Reynolds** · 09-26-2011, 04:32 PM

Thanks Revelen for that lengthy post, will definitely be revisting that book straight away, I should've bought 'Theory of Harmony' first had I have known it was a continuation...

**Revelen** · 09-26-2011, 06:01 PM

Yeah, sorry, didn't realize hwo long it was in the little reply box! As far as Harmonielehre, all the really salient and relevant bits are at least briefly covered to an extent where Structural Functions can be digested as a stand-alone text. As a warning, my copy is probably 400-500 pages, mostly text, and in very small print, it's not condensed and easy and fast to get to the point like Structural Functions. Definitely an amazing book to learn harmony from, though!

**Reg** · 09-26-2011, 08:40 PM

Yea... Schoenberg's Theory of Harmony is long, old and as with much of his work, incomplete and inconclusive. Very basic traditional explanations of counterpoint, voiceleading, fundamental bass theory, and harmonic duelism. The bass theory is basically straight from Rameau, and the dualism is based on traditional tonic as center and the relationships are related symmetrically, opposing forces that pull the tonic, example being Dominant, a fifth above being balanced by sub-domonant a fifth below.
His later Regions from Structural Functions of Harmony are somewhat based on this concept... many more details. Anyway all very basic and if you have an understanding of Species counterpoint and traditional voiceleading concepts, I would not spend the time... going through Theory of Harmony... more modern texts about harmonic theory are much more enlightening and not nearly as painful. But if your inclined, should go through Rameau and Reimann first maybe even Grout's history for perspective. ( I do have and have gone through all texts and many more, somewhat a disclaimer).
The one point in his Theory of Harmony that leads into his SFOH as well as his other books... is his attempts at creating methodology for nonharmonic tones and his belief that consonance and dissonance were relative concepts, as compared to absolutes.
So with his SFOH he explains sources of nonharmonic tones with use of substitutes and regions. Both quasi-diatonical, (similar to introduction of 7ths and 6ths in minor, with governing principles, rules) and chromatics, but with all modes. All this with the concept of monotonality as goal. Which Schoenberg believed his concepts of regions was a natural consequence of the principle of monotonality. A method of classification, and organization of. Every digression from the Tonic was still believed to be within the Tonality... within one of the regions. He or his assistant Leonard Stein charted out all the regions with substitutes, transformations, (relationships between Tonality and regions). The further away from the center of chart...the further away from tonality...
Composition generally involves aspects of creativity and methodology... His association with serial or 12 tone composition covered his quest for single all inclusive methodology, (somewhat), but had to much effect on creativity, or limit of creativity or as Revelen mentions his association with traditional tonality.
SFOH is great as a concept and good method of opening eyes and ears, but doesn't really work, is incomplete and really doesn't even cover traditional harmony... and in dealing with jazz harmony...not even close. But is a method of organization with an approach... that concept.... a method of organization with an approach is extremely important in Jazz... maybe all music, at least in composition with more traditional music and also with performance with jazz. Reg

**princeplanet** · 09-26-2011, 09:41 PM

When I was in music school in the 80's, Schoenberg, Webern, Berg etc were still all the rage, but I noticed their influence waned considerably soon after with with a return to a sort of Neo Classicism. Are they still considered heroes? Is pure Atonality a spent force? What about their ongoing influence on Jazz?