Armonia Tonal

Schoenberg's Harmonielehre

© 1999 by Joe Monzo
[pic]
This project is under construction!
[pic]
1 : Theory or System of Presentation?
Someone who teaches musical composition is called a theory teacher;
but if he has written a book on harmony, he is called a theorist.
Yet a carpenter will never think of setting himself up as a theory teacher,
although of course he, too, hasto teach his apprentices the handicraft.
He may very well be called a master carpenter,
but this is more a designation of his proficiency than a title.
Under no circumstances does he consider himself anything like a scholar,
although he, too, undoubtedly understands his craft.
If there is a distinction, it can only be that
the technique of musical composition is "moretheoretical"
than that of carpentry.
This distinction is not easy to grasp.
For if the carpenter knows how to join pieces of wood securely,
this knowledge is based no less on fruitful observation and experience
than is the knowledge of the music theorist
who understands how to join chords effectively.
And if the carpenter
• knows which types of wood are requiredby a particular job and
• selects accordingly,
he is thus taking natural relationships and materials into account,
just as does the music theorist when,
appraising the possibilities of themes,
he recognizes how long a piece may be.
On the other hand,
whenever the carpenter introduces flutings to enliven a smooth surface,
he exhibits
o bad taste equalto that of most artists, and
o almost as little imagination;
even so
his imagination and taste equal that of all music theorists.
 
If, therefore,
the carpenter’s teaching,
just like that of the theory teacher,
rests on
o observation, experience, reasoning, and taste, on
o knowledge of natural laws and of the requirements ofthe material -
is there then really any essential distinction?
 
 
Why then do we not also call
a master carpenter a theorist, or
a music theorist a master musician?
Because there is a small distinction:
• the carpenter could never
understand his craft in a merely theoretical way, whereas
• the usual music theorist has no practical skill at all -he is no master.
And still another distinction:
the true music theorist is embarrassed by the handicraft because
it is not his, but that of others.
Merely to hide his embarrassment
without making a virtue of it
does not satisfy him.
The title, master, is beneath him.
He could be taken for something else, and here we have a third distinction:the nobler profession must be designated by a correspondingly nobler title.
For this reason,
although even today the great artist is still addressed as "master",
music does not simply have instruction in its craft, its techniques - as does painting;
music has, rather, Instruction in Theory.
 
 
And the result:
the evolution of no other art is so greatlyencumbered by its teachers
as is that of music.
For no one guards his property more jealously
than the one who knows that, strictly speaking, it does not belong to him.
The harder it is to prove ownership, the greater the effort to do so.
And the theorist, who is
• not usually an artist, or is
• a bad one (which means the same), therefore understandably
takes painsto fortify his unnatural position.
He knows that
the pupil learns most of all
through the example shown him by the masters
in their masterworks.
And
• if it were possible to watch composing
in the same way that one can watch painting,
• if composers could have ateliers as did painters, then
it would be clear
• how superfluous the music...