1107046866music PDF

Schoenbergs Twelve-Tone Music
Jack Boss takes a unique approach to analyzing Arnold Schoenbergs twelve-tone music,
adapting the composers notion of a musical idea problem, elaboration, solution as a
framework and focusing on the large-scale coherence of the whole piece. The book begins by
dening musical idea as a large, overarching process involving conict between musical
elements or situations, elaboration of that conict, and resolution, and examines how such
conicts often involve symmetrical pitch and interval shapes that are obscured in some way.
Containing close analytical readings of a large number of Schoenbergs key twelve-tone
works, including Moses und Aron, the Suite for Piano Op. 25, the Fourth String Quartet,
and the String Trio, the study provides the reader with a clearer understanding of this
still-controversial, challenging, but vitally important modernist composer.
jack boss is Associate Professor of Music at the University of Oregon. His research
interests center on large-scale coherence in Schoenbergs music, and he has published
numerous articles relating to that topic in journals such as Journal of Music Theory, Music
Theory Spectrum, Perspectives of New Music, and Music Theory Online. He has co-edited
two collections of music-analytic essays: Musical Currents from the Left Coast and Analyzing
the Music of Living Composers (and Others).
Music since 1900
gener a l e di tor Arnold Whittall
This series formerly Music in the Twentieth Century offers a wide perspective on
music and musical life since the end of the nineteenth century. Books included range
from historical and biographical studies concentrating particularly on the context and
circumstances in which composers were writing, to analytical and critical studies concerned
with the nature of musical language and questions of compositional process. The
importance given to context will also be reected in studies dealing with, for example, the
patronage, publishing, and promotion of new music, and in accounts of the musical life
of particular countries.
Titles in the series

Jonathan Cross
The Stravinsky Legacy
Michael Nyman
Experimental Music: Cage and Beyond
Jennifer Doctor
The BBC and Ultra-Modern Music, 19221936
Robert Adlington
The Music of Harrison Birtwistle
Keith Potter
Four Musical Minimalists: La Monte Young, Terry Riley, Steve Reich, Philip Glass
Carlo Caballero
Faur and French Musical Aesthetics
Peter Burt
The Music of Toru Takemitsu
David Clarke
The Music and Thought of Michael Tippett: Modern Times and Metaphysics
M. J. Grant
Serial Music, Serial Aesthetics: Compositional Theory in Post-War Europe
Philip Rupprecht
Brittens Musical Language
Mark Carroll
Music and Ideology in Cold War Europe
Adrian Thomas
Polish Music since Szymanowski
J. P. E. Harper-Scott
Edward Elgar, Modernist
Yayoi Uno Everett
The Music of Louis Andriessen
Ethan Haimo
Schoenbergs Transformation of Musical Language
Rachel Beckles Willson
Ligeti, Kurtg, and Hungarian Music during the Cold War
Michael Cherlin
Schoenbergs Musical Imagination
Joseph N. Straus
Twelve-Tone Music in America
David Metzer
Musical Modernism at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century
Edward Campbell
Boulez, Music and Philosophy
Jonathan Goldman
The Musical Language of Pierre Boulez: Writings and Compositions
Pieter C. van den Toorn and John McGinness
Stravinsky and the Russian Period: Sound and Legacy of a Musical Idiom
David Beard
Harrison Birtwistles Operas and Music Theatre
Heather Wiebe
Brittens Unquiet Pasts: Sound and Memory in Postwar Reconstruction
Beate Kutschke and Barley Norton
Music and Protest in 1968
Graham Grifths
Stravinskys Piano: Genesis of a Musical Language
Martin Iddon
John Cage and David Tudor: Correspondence on Interpretation and Performance
Martin Iddon
New Music at Darmstadt: Nono, Stockhausen, Cage, and Boulez
Alastair Williams
Music in Germany since 1968
Ben Earle
Luigi Dallapiccola and Musical Modernism in Fascist Italy
Thomas Schuttenhelm
The Orchestral Music of Michael Tippett: Creative Development and the Compositional Process
Marilyn Nonken
The Spectral Piano: From Liszt, Scriabin, and Debussy to the Digital Age
Jack Boss
Schoenbergs Twelve-Tone Music: Symmetry and the Musical Idea
Schoenbergs Twelve-Tone Music
Symmetry and the Musical Idea
Jack Boss
University of Oregon
University Printing House, Cambridge CB2 8BS, United Kingdom
Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge.
It furthers the Universitys mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of

education, learning and research at the highest international levels of excellence.
www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781107046863
Jack Boss 2014
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception

and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,
no reproduction of any part may take place without the written
permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published 2014
Printed in the United Kingdom by CPI Group Ltd, Croydon CR0 4YY
A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Boss, Jack Forrest.
Schoenbergs twelve-tone music : symmetry and the musical idea / Jack Boss.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-107-04686-3 (Hardback : alk. paper)
1. Schoenberg, Arnold, 18741951Criticism and interpretation. 2. Twelve-tone system. I. Title.
ML410.S283B67 2014
781.20 68092dc23 2014026790
ISBN 978-1-107-04686-3 Hardback
Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of

URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication,
and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain,
accurate or appropriate.
To my mother, Jacqueline,
and to SunHwa, who reminds me of her
Contents
List of music examples page x

Acknowledgements xxv
List of abbreviations and notational conventions xxvii
1 Musical idea and symmetrical ideal 1
2 Suite for Piano Op. 25: varieties of Idea in Schoenbergs earliest
twelve-tone music 35
3 Woodwind Quintet Op. 26: the twelve-tone Idea reanimates a large
musical form 122
4 Three Satires Op. 28, No. 3: the earliest example of the symmetrical ideal
in a (more or less) completely combinatorial context 180
5 Piano Piece Op. 33a: the symmetrical ideal conicts with and is
reconciled to row order 243
6 Fourth String Quartet Op. 37, movement I: two motives give rise to
contrasting row forms, meters, textures, and tonalities (and are reconciled)
within a large sonata form 274
7 Moses und Aron: an incomplete musical idea represents an unresolved conict
between using word and image to communicate God 330
8 String Trio Op. 45: a musical idea and a near-death experience are expressed as a
conict between alternative row forms 395
Bibliography 426
Index 434
Music examples
1.1 Beethoven, Piano Sonata Op. 57, movement I, mm. 113

(exposition, beginning of rst theme) and mm. 3540 (beginning of
second theme) 31
1.2 Beethoven, Piano Sonata Op. 57, movement I, mm. 5154 (exposition,
beginning of closing theme) 32
1.3 Beethoven, Piano Sonata Op. 57, movement I, mm. 18086 (recapitulation,
transition between second and closing themes) 32
2.1 Schoenbergs set tables for the Suite Op. 25. Schoenberg PIANO SUITE OP.
25, Copyright 1925 by Universal Edition AG, Vienna, Copyright
renewed. All rights reserved. Used in the U.S. by permission of Belmont
Music Publishers; used in the world excluding the U.S. by permission of
European American Music Distributors Company, agent for Universal
Edition AG, Vienna 39
2.2 Schoenberg, Prelude Op. 25: the palindromic basic form 40
2.3 Schoenberg, Prelude Op. 25: form chart 40
2.4 Schoenberg, Prelude Op. 25: the fteen row pairs that Schoenberg uses,
together with the order-number partitions (mosaics) that are applied to
them to create collectional invariance (palindromic dyads are indicated
through shading) 41
2.5 Schoenberg, Prelude Op. 25, mm. 13. Used by permission of Belmont
Music Publishers and European American Music Distributors 44
2.6 Schoenberg, Prelude Op. 25, mm. 5b7a. Used by permission of Belmont
2.10 Schoenberg, Prelude Op. 25, m. 13. Used by permission of Belmont Music
Publishers and European American Music Distributors 50
2.11 Schoenberg, Prelude Op. 25, mm. 1416a. Used by permission of Belmont
List of music examples xi
2.13a Schoenberg, Prelude Op. 25, mm. 17b19: ordering of row elements 53
2.13b Schoenberg, Prelude Op. 25, mm. 17b19. Used by permission
of Belmont Music Publishers and European American Music
Distributors 54
2.13c Schoenberg, Prelude Op. 25, mm. 17b19: dyads created by partition of
P4/I10 and I4/P10 55
2.14 Schoenberg, Prelude Op. 25, m. 20. Used by permission of Belmont
2.15 Schoenberg, Prelude Op. 25, m. 21. Used by permission of
Belmont Music Publishers and European American Music
Distributors 58
2.16 Schoenberg, Prelude Op. 25, m. 22. Used by permission of Belmont
2.17 Schoenberg, Prelude Op. 25, mm. 2324a. Used by permission of Belmont
2.18 Schoenberg, Prelude Op. 25, m. 24. Used by permission of Belmont Music
2.19 Schoenberg, Intermezzo Op. 25, mm. 03: phrase 1. Used by permission
Distributors 65
2.20a Schoenberg, Menuett Op. 25, mm. 12, with three pitch-class maps
illustrating hexachord and tetrachord exchanges (adapted from Peles,
Continuity, Reference and Implication, Figures 3ce). Used by
permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European American Music
Distributors 66
2.20b Schoenberg, Suite Op. 25: the four source rows, divided into
hexachords 67
2.21 Schoenberg, Menuett Op. 25, mm. 38. Used by permission of
Distributors 70
2.22 Schoenberg, Menuett Op. 25, mm. 911. Used by permission of Belmont
2.23 Schoenberg, Menuett Op. 25, mm. 14: tonal allusions. Used by permission
Distributors 74
2.24 Schoenberg, Menuett Op. 25, mm. 1216 (the B section). Used by
Distributors 75
2.25 Schoenberg, Menuett Op. 25, mm. 1720 (beginning of the A0 section).
Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European American
Music Distributors 78
xii List of music examples
2.28 Schoenberg, Menuett Op. 25, mm. 31b33. Used by permission of Belmont
2.29 Schoenberg, Gigue Op. 25: form chart 87
2.30a Schoenberg, Gigue Op. 25, mm. 14 (subsection a). Used by permission
Distributors 88
2.30b Schoenberg, Gigue Op. 25, mm. 59 (subsection a, continued). Used by
permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European American
2.31a Schoenberg, Gigue Op. 25, mm. 1013 (subsection a1). Used by
Distributors 92
2.31b Schoenberg, Gigue Op. 25, mm. 1416 (subsection a1, continued). Used by
Distributors 93
2.32 Schoenberg, Gigue Op. 25, mm. 1719 (subsection a2). Used by permission
Distributors 94
2.33 Schoenberg, Gigue Op. 25, mm. 2023 (subsection x). Used by permission
Distributors 97
2.34 Schoenberg, Gigue Op. 25, mm. 23b25 (subsection a3, last part). Used by
Distributors 99
2.35 Schoenberg, Gigue Op. 25, mm. 2628 (subsection b). Used by
Distributors 100
2.36 Schoenberg, Gigue Op. 25, mm. 2932 (subsection x1). Used by permission
Distributors 102
2.37 Schoenberg, Gigue Op. 25, mm. 3336 (subsection c). Used by
Distributors 103
2.38 Schoenberg, Gigue Op. 25, mm. 3739 (subsection b1). Used by permission
Distributors 105
List of music examples xiii
2.39a Schoenberg, Gigue Op. 25, mm. 4042 (subsection b2, stage 2). Used by
Distributors 106
2.39b Schoenberg, Gigue Op. 25, mm. 4344 (subsection b2, stage 3, rst part).
2.39c Schoenberg, Gigue Op. 25, mm. 4546 (subsection b2, last part of stage 3).
2.40 Schoenberg, Gigue Op. 25, mm. 4750 (subsection a4). Used by permission
Distributors 110
2.41 Schoenberg, Gigue Op. 25, mm. 5153 (subsection c1). Used by permission
Distributors 111
2.42 Schoenberg, Gigue Op. 25, mm. 5457a (subsection b3). Used by
permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European American
2.43 Schoenberg, Gigue Op. 25, mm. 5761a (subsection c1, continued). Used by
Distributors 114
2.44a Schoenberg, Gigue Op. 25, mm. 61b64a (subsection x2, rst part). Used
by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European American
2.44b Schoenberg, Gigue Op. 25, mm. 64b68 (subsection x2, last part). Used by
Distributors 117
2.45 Schoenberg, Gigue Op. 25, mm. 6972 (subsection b4). Used by permission
Distributors 119
2.46 Schoenberg, Gigue Op. 25, mm. 7375 (subsection a/b). Used by
Distributors 121
3.1 Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement I, mm. 17a: Grundgestalt
and underlying twelve-tone row. Schoenberg WOODWIND QUINTET
OP. 26, Copyright 1925 by Universal Edition AG, Vienna, Copyright
Music Publishers; used in the world excluding the U.S. by permission of
xiv List of music examples
3.2 Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement I: ordered invariant

pentachords between prime forms related by ordered pitch-class interval 7
and inverted forms related by ordered pitch-class interval 5 126
3.3 Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III, mm. 17 (Grundgestalt).
3.4 Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III: collectional invariances
underlying the Idea 129
3.5 Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III: form chart 132
3.6a Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III, mm. 1519a
(subsection a2). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and
European American Music Distributors 134
3.6b Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III: collectional invariance
between P3 and P3T3 under the three-stage partition 135
3.7 Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III, mm. 19b21 (cadence).
3.8a Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III, mm. 2226
(subsection a3, rst half). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers
and European American Music Distributors 138
3.8b Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III, mm. 2730a
(subsection a3, second half). Used by permission of Belmont Music
3.9 Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III, mm. 3034a (cadence).
(subsection b, rst half ). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers
3.10b Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III, mm. 3739
(subsection b, second half ). Used by permission of Belmont Music
(subsection b1, rst half ). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers
(subsection b1, second half ). Used by permission of Belmont Music
3.11c Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III: intervallic invariances
within the row that enable canonic textures using rows rotated by six
order positions 149
List of music examples xv
3.11d Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III: pitch-class invariances
between RI2 and R9 that supplement the ordered pitch-interval
canons 149
3.12a Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III, mm. 4649 (subsection
b2, rst half ). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and
(subsection b2, second half ). Used by permission of Belmont Music
3.12c Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III: invariances that enable
the connections in Examples 3.12a and 3.12b 155
3.13 Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III, mm. 5360
(subsection c). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and
3.14 Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III, mm. 7681 (cadence to
subsection c2). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and
(subsection a4, rst part). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers
(subsection a4, second part). Used by permission of Belmont Music
3.18a Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III, mm. 101b103
(cadence). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European
American Music Distributors 168
3.18b Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III, pitch-class
successions resulting from the three-stage partitions of rows used in
Example 3.18a 169
(subsection x1). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and
(subsection x2, rst part). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers
xvi List of music examples
(subsection x2, second part). Used by permission of Belmont Music
3.21 Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III, mm. 13538a
3.22 Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III, mm. 138b141 (nal
cadence). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European
4.1 Schoenberg, Suite Op. 29, Overture, mm. 12. Schoenberg SUITE OP. 29,
Copyright 1927 by Universal Edition AG, Vienna, Copyright renewed.
All rights reserved. Used in the U.S. by permission of Belmont Music
Publishers; used in the world excluding the U.S. by permission of
4.2 Schoenberg, Suite Op. 29, Overture, mm. 57. Used by permission of
Distributors 182
4.3a Schoenberg, Vier Stcke Op. 27, No. 3, Mond und Menschen, mm. 16.
Schoenberg FOUR PIECES FOR MIXED CHORUS OP. 27, #3 (Mond
und Menschen), Copyright 1926 by Universal Edition AG, Vienna,
Copyright renewed. All rights reserved. Used in the U.S. by permission of
Belmont Music Publishers; used in the world excluding the U.S. by
permission of European American Music Distributors Company, agent for
Universal Edition AG, Vienna 184
4.3b Schoenberg, Vier Stcke Op. 27, No. 3, Mond und Menschen: interval and
difference vectors in mm. 12 185
4.4 Schoenberg, Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3, mm. 111
(introduction and subsection a). Schoenberg THREE SATIRES FOR
MIXED CHORUS OP. 28, #3 (Der neue Klassizismus), Copyright
1926 by Universal Edition AG, Vienna, Copyright renewed. All rights
reserved. Used in the U.S. by permission of Belmont Music Publishers;
used in the world excluding the U.S. by permission of European American
Music Distributors Company, agent for Universal Edition AG,
Vienna 186
4.5 Schoenberg, Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3: invariant properties of
the basic row 188
4.6 Schoenberg, Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3: form chart 190
4.7 Schoenberg, Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3, mm. 1219 (beginning
of subsection b). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and
List of music examples xvii
4.8 Schoenberg, Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3, mm. 2730 (latter part
of subsection b). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and
4.9a Schoenberg, Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3, mm. 3337
(subsection a0 , rst phrase). Used by permission of Belmont Music
4.9b Schoenberg, Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3, mm. 3842a
(subsection a0 , second phrase). Used by permission of
Distributors 200
4.10a Schoenberg, Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3, mm. 43b47
(subsection a00 , rst part). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers
4.10b Schoenberg, Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3, mm. 4851
(subsection a00 , last part). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers
(subsection b0 ). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and
(subsection d, rst part) 209
4.12b Schoenberg, Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3, mm. 6264
(subsection d, second part) 210
4.13a Schoenberg, Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3, mm. 71b74
(subsection d000 , rst part). Used by permission of Belmont Music
4.13b Schoenberg, Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3, mm. 7579a
(subsection d000 , second part). Used by permission of Belmont Music
4.14a Schoenberg, Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3, mm. 8794 (rst
exposition). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and
4.14b Schoenberg, Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3, mm. 94b101a
(second exposition). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and
4.15 Schoenberg, Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3: ordered pitch-interval
invariances between retrograde-related rows that enable the fugues answers
to imitate its subjects 219
4.16a Schoenberg, Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3, mm. 10104a
(rst episode, rst part). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers
xviii List of music examples
4.16b Schoenberg, Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3, mm. 104b107a
(rst episode, second part). Used by permission of Belmont Music
4.17a Schoenberg, Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3, mm. 11722 (second
episode, rst part). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and
4.17b Schoenberg, Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3, mm. 12226 (second
episode, second part). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers
4.18a Schoenberg,Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3, mm. 13841 (third
episode, beginning of third stage). Used by permission of Belmont Music
4.18b Schoenberg,Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3, mm. 14245
(third episode, continuation of third stage). Used by permission of
Distributors 234
4.18c Schoenberg, Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3, mm. 14648a
(third episode, end of third stage). Used by permission of Belmont Music
(fourth statement). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and
(fourth episode, stage 1). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers
4.20b Schoenberg, Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3: a simplied version
of mm. 16366s classical perfection 239
(fourth episode, stage 3 and nal cadence). Used by permission of Belmont
5.1 Schoenberg, Piano Piece Op. 33a: form chart 245
5.2 Schoenberg, Piano Piece Op. 33a, mm. 15 (rst theme; subsections a
and b). Schoenberg PIANO PIECE OP. 33a, Copyright 1929 by
Universal Edition AG, Vienna, Copyright renewed. All rights reserved.
Used in the U.S. by permission of Belmont Music Publishers; used
in the world excluding the U.S. by permission of European American
Music Distributors Company, agent for Universal Edition AG,
Vienna 246
5.3 Schoenberg, Piano Piece Op. 33a, mm. 69 (rst theme; subsections a1
and b1). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European
List of music examples xix
5.4 Schoenberg, Piano Piece Op. 33a, mm. 1013 (rst theme;
subsections a2 and b2). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers
5.5 Schoenberg, Piano Piece Op. 33a, mm. 1418 (second theme; section c).
5.6 Schoenberg, Piano Piece Op. 33a, mm. 1923a (closing theme;
subsections a3 and c1). Used by permission of Belmont
5.7a Schoenbergs original sketch for the opening of Op. 33a. Used by
permission of Belmont Music Publishers 256
5.7b Transcription of Schoenbergs original version of the closing theme of
Op. 33a, rst part (original mm. 1921, which correspond to mm. 1920 in
the nal version) 257
5.7c Transcription of Schoenbergs original version of the closing theme of
Op. 33a, second part (original mm. 21b26a, which correspond to
mm. 2123a in the nal version) 258
5.8 Schoenberg, Piano Piece Op. 33a, mm. 23b25a (codetta; section a4). Used
by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European American Music
Distributors 260
5.9a Schoenberg, Piano Piece Op. 33a, mm. 25b28a (development, rst part).
5.9b Schoenberg, Piano Piece Op. 33a, mm. 28b32a (development, second
part). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European
5.10 Schoenberg, Piano Piece Op. 33a, mm. 32b34 (recapitulation, rst theme;
section a5). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European
5.11 Schoenberg, Piano Piece Op. 33a, mm. 3536 (recapitulation, second
theme; section c2). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and
5.12 Schoenberg, Piano Piece Op. 33a, mm. 3740 (coda; combining
subsections a and b). Used by permission of Belmont Music
6.1 Schoenberg, Fourth String Quartet Op. 37, movement I: row forms and
partitions that project the musical idea 277
6.2 Schoenberg, Fourth String Quartet Op. 37, movement I:
form chart 281
6.3a Schoenberg, Fourth String Quartet Op. 37, movement I, mm. 16a
(exposition, rst theme, rst part). Schoenberg STRING QUARTET No. 4
xx List of music examples
Op. 37, Copyright 1939 by G. Schirmer, Inc. All rights reserved.

International copyright secured. Used by permission of
G. Schirmer, Inc. 285
6.3b Schoenberg, Fourth String Quartet Op. 37, movement I, mm. 6b9
(exposition, rst theme, second part). Used by permission of
6.3c Schoenberg, Fourth String Quartet Op. 37, movement I, mm. 9b16a
(exposition, rst theme, third part). Used by permission of
6.4 Schoenberg, Fourth String Quartet Op. 37, movement I, mm. 2124
(exposition, rst theme, continuation). Used by permission of
(exposition, transition, rst part). Used by permission of
6.6 Schoenberg, Fourth String Quartet Op. 37, movement I, mm. 34b37
(exposition, transition, rst part). Used by permission of
6.7a Schoenberg, Fourth String Quartet Op. 37, movement I, mm. 4247
(exposition, transition, second part: transition theme). Used by
permission of G. Schirmer, Inc. 296
6.7b Schoenberg, sketch for Fourth String Quartet Op. 37, movement I, showing
partition used in mm. 4244, adapted from Martha Hyde, The Roots of
Form, Example 2. Sketch used by permission of Belmont Music
Publishers 297
(exposition, second theme, beginning). Used by permission of
6.9 Schoenberg, Fourth String Quartet Op. 37, movement I, mm. 8595a
(exposition, second theme, end of continuation and cadence). Used by
permission of G. Schirmer, Inc. 303
(theme of the development, part I). Used by permission of
6.10b Schoenberg, Fourth String Quartet Op. 37, movement I, mm. 13440a
(theme of the development, part IV). Used by permission of
6.11a Schoenberg, Fourth String Quartet Op. 37, movement I, mm. 140b150a
(continuation of the development section). Used by permission of
List of music examples xxi
6.11b Schoenberg, Fourth String Quartet Op. 37, movement I, mm. 153b156
(development section, retransition to recapitulation). Used by permission
of G. Schirmer, Inc. 313
(recapitulation, rst theme). Used by permission of G. Schirmer, Inc. 316
(recapitulation, second theme). Used by permission of
6.14a Schoenberg, Fourth String Quartet Op. 37, movement I, mm. 23945a
(coda, section based on rst theme). Used by permission of
6.14b Schoenberg Fourth String Quartet Op. 37, movement I, mm. 24549
(coda, section based on rst theme). Used by permission of
6.15a Schoenberg, Fourth String Quartet Op. 37, movement I, mm. 252b257
(coda, preliminary measures to the second theme). Used by permission
of G. Schirmer, Inc. 325
6.15b Schoenberg, Fourth String Quartet Op. 37, movement I, mm. 25862a
(coda, beginning of second theme section). Used by permission of
(coda, nal cadence, rst part). Used by permission of
6.16b Schoenberg, Fourth String Quartet Op. 37, movement I, mm. 28084
(coda, nal cadence, second part). Used by permission of
7.1 Schoenberg, Moses und Aron: some partitions that play
leitmotivic roles 333
7.2a Schoenberg, Moses und Aron, Act I, scene 1, mm. 13: Depths of God.
Schoenberg MOSES UND ARON, Copyright 1951 by Schott Music
GmbH & Co. KG, Copyright renewed. All rights reserved. Used in the
U.S. by permission of Belmont Music Publishers; used in the world
excluding the U.S. by permission of European American Music Distributors
Company, agent for Schott Music GmbH & Co. KG 336
7.2b Schoenberg, Moses und Aron, Act I, scene 1, mm. 1113: Depths of God.
7.2c Schoenberg, Moses und Aron, Act II, scene 3, mm. 96266: Depths of God
modied so that both rows progress in the same direction, and a chromatic
hexachord is created from combining corresponding Y2 trichords. Used
xxii List of music examples

Distributors 340
7.3 Schoenberg, Moses und Aron, Act I, scene 1, mm. 811: Moses
Understanding of God. Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers
7.4 Schoenberg, Moses und Aron, Act II, scene 5, mm. 107375a:
Aarons Understanding of God. Used by permission of Belmont
Music Publishers and European American Music
Distributors 344
7.5a Schoenberg, Moses und Aron, Act I, scene 1, mm. 4347: Magic of the
Image. Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European
7.5b Schoenberg, Moses und Aron, Act II, scene 3, mm. 42328: Magic of the
Image. Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European
7.5c Schoenberg, Moses und Aron, Act II, scene 3, mm. 88188: conict between
the discrete and chromatic tetrachord partitions. Used by permission of
Distributors 352
7.6 Schoenberg, Moses und Aron, Act II, scene 5, mm. 108487: Gods Chosen
People. Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European
7.7a Schoenberg, Moses und Aron, Act II, scene 3, mm. 37174: Revelry
I. Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European
7.7b Schoenberg, Moses und Aron, Act II, scene 3, mm. 37579 (continuation of
Example 7.7a). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and
7.8 Schoenberg, Moses und Aron, Act II, scene 3, mm. 828b834: Revelry II.
7.9 Schoenberg, Moses und Aron, Act II, scene 3, mm. 33138a: Aarons
Handiwork IIII. Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and
7.10 Schoenberg, Moses und Aron, Act II, scene 3, mm. 35457: Aarons
Handiwork IV. Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and
7.11 Schoenberg, Moses und Aron, Act II, scene 3, mm. 40913: Alternating
Dyads. Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European
List of music examples xxiii
7.12 Schoenberg, Moses und Aron, Act II, scene 3, mm. 457b463: Sick
Woman. Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European
7.13 Schoenberg, Moses und Aron, Act II, scene 3, mm. 605b610: beginning of
Orgy of Drunkenness and Dancing, illustrating genesis of Peoples
Understanding from Depths of God. Used by permission of Belmont
7.14 Schoenberg, Moses und Aron, Act II, scene 3: form chart 374
7.15a Schoenberg, Moses und Aron, Act II, scene 5, mm. 107378: Aarons
Understanding taking over the typical texture of Depths of God and
creating some vertical symmetry (but not enough). Used by permission of
Distributors 378
7.15b Schoenberg, Moses und Aron, Act II, scene 5, mm. 1075b1078: intervallic
symmetries 380
7.16 Schoenberg, Moses und Aron, Act II, scene 5, mm. 108793: the musical
portrayal of Aarons nal victory, where he nally grasps the horizontally
symmetrical Y motive. Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers
7.17 Schoenberg, Moses und Aron, Act II, scene 5, mm. 110209: the people
marching offstage at the end of Act II to Peoples March. Used by
Distributors 388
7.18 Schoenberg, Moses und Aron, Act II, scene 5, mm. 112136:
Moses Failure bringing the opera to its close. Used by permission
Distributors 392
8.1 Schoenberg, String Trio Op. 45: basic rows 396
8.2 Schoenberg, String Trio Op. 45, m. 1. Schoenberg STRING TRIO OP. 45,
Copyright 1950 by Boelke-Bomart Music Publications, Copyright
Music Publishers; used in the world excluding the U.S. by permission
of European American Music Distributors Company, agent for
Boelke-Bomart Music Publications 397
8.3 Schoenberg, String Trio Op. 45: form chart 399
8.4 Schoenberg, String Trio Op. 45, mm. 14. Used by permission of Belmont
8.5 Schoenberg, String Trio Op. 45, mm. 1217. Used by permission of
Distributors 404
xxiv List of music examples
8.6a Schoenberg, String Trio Op. 45, mm. 17b22a. Used by permission
Distributors 406
8.6b Schoenberg, String Trio Op. 45, mm. 3440. Used by permission of
Distributors 407
8.7a Schoenberg, String Trio Op. 45, mm. 85b91. Used by permission
Distributors 410
Distributors 411
8.8a Schoenberg, String Trio Op. 45, mm. 13541. Used by permission
Distributors 414
Distributors 415
8.9a Schoenberg, String Trio Op. 45, mm. 28185. Used by permission
Distributors 418
Distributors 419
8.9c Schoenberg, String Trio Op. 45, mm. 29093. Used by permission
Distributors 420
Acknowledgements
This book was thirteen years in the making, and any project with such a long
gestation period will involve the contributions of a large number of people in
addition to the author. I will list most of them, from those who have become
recently involved with it to those who inuenced it or me during the days when
it was no more than an Einfall itself.
I am grateful to the publishers who hold the rights to the Schoenberg pieces
I analyze, for allowing me to reproduce large segments of them as excerpts. These
include Belmont Music Publishers, European American Music Distributors (licens-
ing agent for Universal Edition, Schott, and Boelke-Bomart), and G. Schirmer.
My editors at Cambridge University Press, Victoria Cooper, Rebecca Taylor,
Fleur Jones, Samantha Richter, Thomas OReilly, and Sarah Payne, and my series
editor, Arnold Whittall, were wonderful guides throughout the process of commis-
sioning and production of the book, patiently answering my many technical
questions and, in the case of Prof. Whittall, engaging with me in a delightful
discussion of the books subject matter. Fiona Little was a painstakingly careful
copy-editor, and helped me make the book clearer and more consistent, and Noel
Robson guided me through the process of making the musical examples more
legible. My colleagues at the University of Oregon, Robert Hurwitz, Steve Larson,
Stephen Rodgers, Tim Pack, and Roger Grant, were always ready to listen to my
lengthy, detailed explanations of whatever chapter I happened to be working on,
and were a constant source of encouragement. They, together with my deans at the
School of Music and Dance, Anne Dhu McLucas and Brad Foley, were responsible
for giving me two sabbatical leaves to work on the book, in 200304 and the winter
of 2011.
All of my University of Oregon students during the past thirteen years have
contributed to the book, mostly by listening and responding to countless presenta-
tions of its material (adapted to t whatever subject I was teaching: analysis,
counterpoint, twelve-tone music, the history of theory, etc., etc.). I will single out
Mindy Hodel, Alex LaFollett, Wing Lau, Meghan Naxer, and Joon Park, who
participated with me in fall 2011 in a seminar devoted to going through it, chapter
by chapter, testing my analyses and writing for clarity. Their contributions were
invaluable.
Many of my colleagues outside the University of Oregon and former teachers
have left their imprint on this book as well. I am grateful to Brian Alegant and
Andrew Mead for allowing me to take a few minutes during their workshops at the
xxvi Acknowledgements
2007 Mannes Institute on Schoenbergs music to discuss my analyses of the

Woodwind Quintet Op. 26 and the Piano Pieces Op. 33. Presenting my ideas to
some of the worlds most prominent Schoenberg scholars and hearing their feed-
back made a huge impact on my work. Regarding former teachers, there are two
Yale faculty in particular who stand out. Martha Hyde introduced me to many of
the ways of thinking about twelve-tone music that this book is based upon, whether
devised by her or by others, and gave me a foundation for the theoretical ideas that
I was able to come up with on my own. Allen Fortes contribution was even more
essential, in that he was the one to suggest, back in 2001, that I consider writing a
survey of Schoenbergs twelve-tone music. As it grew, developed, and changed into
the present book over the years, he and his wife, Madeleine Hsu Forte, were faithful
advisers and encouragers.
My father, Jack, and late mother, Jacqueline, supported me in more general ways,
as did my two children, Christine and Timothy, the former of whom also contrib-
uted her considerable artistic talents to the cover. She somehow captured the
essence of my book in her painting without being aware that she was doing so.
Finally, my greatest source of encouragement and strength during the past few
years has been my wife, the pianist SunHwa Lee Boss, who not only faithfully
listened to my thoughts as I worked through the books issues and offered constant
words of support, but also allowed me to coach her in her performance of the Op.
25 Piano Suite according to the patterns I uncovered in Chapter 2. To learn that my
work could enliven her performance of that piece was, to me, this books most
happy consequence.
Jack Boss
Eugene, Oregon
Abbreviations and notational conventions
Acc. accompaniment
AM: A major (key area)
Am: A minor (key area)
Ans. answer (in a fugue)
h1, h2 (or h1, h2) hexachord 1, hexachord 2: signifying the two discrete hexa-
chords of a twelve-tone row (divided evenly into two groups of
six, starting with the rst note)
hex, hexes hexachord, hexachords
Inv. inversion
Mel. melody
n1 invariance where two pitch-class sets hold all but one pitch class in
common, for example {0,1,3} and {0,1,4}
Px, Ix, Rx, RIx prime, inversion, retrograde, retrograde inversion. These four
symbols identify some succession of twelve notes as one of the
four canonical transformations of the source row. The number
in the subscript signies the rst pitch class of a prime or inver-
sion, and the last pitch class of a retrograde or retrograde inversion
Px 3 Px is stated three times
Px/h1, Px/h2 discrete hexachords of a specic row form (Px)
PxTy signies a rotated row form. Ty represents an order-number
transposition, and should be read as rotated y order positions
to the left
pc pitch class
r1, r2, r3, r4 (or r1, r2, trichord 1, trichord 2, trichord 3, trichord 4: the four discrete
r3, r4) trichords of a twelve-tone row (rst three notes, second three
notes, third three notes, fourth three notes)
Subj. subject (in a fugue)
t1, t2, t3 (or t1, t2, t3) tetrachord 1, tetrachord 2, tetrachord 3: the three discrete
tetrachords of a twelve-tone row (rst four notes, second four
notes, third four notes)
t3 transposition up three half steps in pitch-class space (can be
understood most easily as rotating a group of pitch classes three
spaces clockwise on the pitch-class clock, an arrangement of
the twelve pitch classes in a circle with 0 at the top)
tet, tets tetrachord, tetrachords
Trans. transposition
Var. variation
Vert. vertical (members of a twelve-tone row combined into a chord)
xxviii Abbreviations and notational conventions
Successions of pitch classes or intervals are enclosed in angle brackets, unordered

sets in curly brackets.
Interval and difference vectors are enclosed in square brackets.
Vertical (simultaneous) dyads are given in the text in the form 11-above-0.
Pitch-class numbers are not given in bold; order numbers are given in bold.
Voices
Sop. (soprano), Mezzo (mezzo-soprano), Ten. (tenor), Bar. (baritone). Alto and
bass are not abbreviated.
Instruments
Woodwinds (WW): . (ute), picc. (piccolo), ob. (oboe), E.H. (English horn), cl.
(clarinet), bass cl. (bass clarinet), Ef cl. (Ef clarinet), bsn. (bassoon), cbsn.
(contrabassoon).
Brass: hn. (horn), tpt. (trumpet), tb. (trombone), ta. (tuba).
Strings: vn. (violin), 1st vn. (rst violin), 2nd vn. (second violin), va. (viola), vcl.
(cello), cb. (contrabass), mand. (mandolin).
Percussion: timp. (timpani), cel. (celesta), glock. (glockenspiel), xyl. (xylophone).
Hp. (harp).
Pf. (piano): RH (right hand), LH (left hand).
1 Musical idea and symmetrical ideal
Arnold Schoenbergs response to Rudolf Kolischs analysis of his Third String

Quartet reveals something important about the composers perspective on structure
in his serial works. Kolisch had apparently sent Schoenberg a row-count of some or
all of the quartet, to which the composer replied: But do you think ones any better
off for knowing it? . . . The only sort of analysis there can be any question of for me is
one that throws the idea into relief and shows how it is presented and worked out.1
One of the most basic motivations for what follows in my survey of Schoenbergs
twelve-tone music is a desire to do what the composer was asking that is, show
how the musical idea in the nine pieces and movements I will analyze is
presented and worked out. To do this, I will interpret musical idea as an analytic
framework: a process spanning the whole piece in which some sort of opposition or
conict between musical elements is presented at the beginning, elaborated, and
deepened through the course of the piece, and resolved at or near the end. The
musical elements and relationships that participate in such a process will be
described using the terminology of late twentieth-century twelve-tone theory for
the most part (but observations about tonal references will work their way into the
discussion from time to time). In this way, Schoenbergs Idea will serve as a scaffold
for the kinds of analytical observations that are typically made about his music
under categories like invariance, combinatoriality, harmonic area, multidi-
mensional set presentation, or isomorphic partitioning, in an attempt to show
how such observations contribute to the logic of the whole. The analyses in this
book are thus somewhat unique in the English-language literature on Schoenbergs
music, in that they endeavor to give a complete account of a piece (or scene in the
case of Moses und Aron) from beginning to end, not presenting the details measure
by measure necessarily, but accounting for the processes that characterize every
section of a piece. I rmly believe there is no other way to account for musical
idea as Schoenberg seems to be characterizing it.
In a number of the pieces I will analyze, the conict that sets the Idea in motion is
between a musical ideal and some musical reality that provides an imperfect
image of that ideal. (Schoenberg seems in this way to demonstrate his debt to
Arthur Schopenhauers World as Will and Representation, a book that was
1
Arnold Schoenberg, Letters, selected and ed. Erwin Stein, trans. Eithne Wilkins and Ernst Kaiser
(London: Faber and Faber, 1964; reprinted, New York: St. Martins Press, 1965; reprinted, Berkeley
and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1987), pp. 16465.
2 Schoenbergs Twelve-Tone Music
contained in his library and that he apparently knew well.)2 Typically, what marks
the ideal as such is pitch, pitch-class, and/or intervallic symmetry in the horizontal
and vertical dimensions. Examples of oppositions between ideal and real musical
shapes will be found throughout my book, starting with the rst piece we will
discuss, the Prelude from Op. 25. The Prelude begins with only a partial image of an
ideal horizontal pitch-symmetrical structure, but after obscuring that image further,
Schoenberg achieves it completely near the pieces end. And one of the last pieces
we will consider, the opera Moses und Aron, begins with its ideal structure clearly
expressed, a partition of a pair of rows that creates horizontal and vertical pitch and
interval symmetry on a number of levels. This partition accompanies Gods call to
Moses to prophesy, and it is a reasonable assertion that the multiple symmetries
represent Gods unattainable perfection.3 Moses and Aaron later have leitmotivic
partitions associated with each of them which capture some of Gods symmetries,
but not others (and the symmetries that Moses captures are different from the ones
Aaron does). The conict between ideal shape and the subsequent intervallic shapes
associated with the title characters then gives rise to other conicts between
partitions (as Aaron makes the Golden Calf, for example); in other words, the
opposition is elaborated. Unlike that of the Prelude Op. 25, however, Moses und
Arons central conict between Gods perfection and the brothers inability to
understand or communicate Him is never resolved: the Idea remains incomplete.
Now, it is important for me to assure my reader at the outset that my attempts to
throw the idea into relief throughout this book should not be interpreted as
detailed descriptions of the composers thought processes as he wrote these works.
At best, I can give a vague, blurry outline of what may have been going on; and in
certain places, I will venture, tentatively, to use his sketches to illustrate parts of that
outline. My response to the inevitable question of the composers intention with
respect to the representations of musical idea I nd in these works is the same as
my response to Ethan Haimos well-known denial of the notion that Schoenberg
composed with pitch-class sets.4 I believe that Schoenberg very well could have
been thinking about the concept we call set class in atonal works like Op. 11, No. 1,
but he would most likely have called it by a different name, if he used any name at
all; maybe he thought of the various sets in a class as close or remote motive
transformations. In the same way, the manifestations of musical idea through
2
See Pamela C. White, Schoenberg and Schopenhauer, Journal of the Arnold Schoenberg Institute 8/1
(June 1984): 42, 4547.
3
This assertion is similar, but not identical, to ones made by David Lewin and Michael Cherlin; see
Lewin, Moses und Aron: Some General Remarks, and Analytic Notes for Act I, Scene 1, Perspectives
of New Music 6/1 (FallWinter 1967): 117, and Cherlin, Schoenbergs Musical Imagination
(Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp. 24142, 27886.
4
Haimos challenge to the idea that Schoenberg composed with set classes can be found in Atonality,
Analysis and the Intentional Fallacy, Music Theory Spectrum 18/2 (Fall 1996): 16799.
Musical idea and symmetrical ideal 3
vertical and horizontal symmetry, combinatoriality, trichord exchange, collectional

invariance, tonal references, and so on that I will illustrate in this book could have
been part of his mental process as he composed the pieces I am studying, but he
would have called many of these relationships by different names. In the end, it is
impossible to know all the details of Schoenbergs thought process in composing his
twelve-tone works, but it is reasonably certain, given his expressed desire that his
analytic interpreters focus on the musical idea, that an analysis using musical idea
as a framework would comprehend his music in a worthwhile manner.
I also need to assure my reader that I do not consider my analytical readings of
these nine pieces to be the only correct ones, which will nally bring all the debates
about Schoenbergs music to an end, because they alone throw the idea into relief.
I am trying to avoid Richard Taruskins vice of criticism and scholarship that
assumes that that the meaning of artworks is fully vested in them by their creators,
and is simply there to be decoded by a specially-gifted interpreter.5 Rather, my
explanations of how [the Idea] is presented and worked out should be understood
as suggestions to hearers and readers of this music concerning one way they can
make sense of it, and invitations to them to respond with their own ways of
describing the Idea. For Schoenbergs music, David Lewins assertions in Music
Theory, Phenomenology, and Modes of Perception seem correct to me: that
different hearers can create coherence for themselves from the same piece in
different ways, and that ones viewpoint on the way things hang together can
even change in the middle of a hearing of the piece.6 This same viewpoint was
expressed succinctly by Schoenberg himself in the essay Gustav Mahler, respond-
ing to published criticism of Mahlers music:
In every case where human understanding tries to abstract from divine works the laws
according to which they are constructed, it turns out that we nd only laws which
characterize our cognition through thinking and our power of imagination. We are
moving in a circle. We always see and recognize only ourselves, only, at most, our own
being, as often as we think we are describing the essence of a thing outside ourselves.7
Despite Schoenbergs warning and my disclaimer, I will indeed make statements of

the sort Schoenberg did X or the piece does Y in this book, but I encourage the
reader to understand these statements as actually saying (It is reasonable, in my
opinion, to conceive that) the piece does Y or, even better, (To imagine that)
5
Richard Taruskin, introduction to The Oxford History of Western Music: Music in the Late Twentieth
Century (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), p. xiii.
6
David Lewin, Music Theory, Phenomenology, and Modes of Perception, Music Perception 3/4
(Summer 1986): 32792.
7
Arnold Schoenberg, Gustav Mahler (1912, 1948), in Style and Idea: Selected Writings of Arnold
Schoenberg, rev. paperback edn., ed. Leonard Stein, trans. Leo Black (Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press, 1984), p. 452.
Schoenberg did X (helps me to create for myself an interesting way of hearing the
piece as hanging together). After all, too many references to the fact that I am
explaining my understandings of coherence in these pieces rather than revealing
whats simply there would cause this book to grow even larger than its already
unwieldy size.
As I have been speaking of multiple, valid analytical perspectives, I would be
remiss not to mention an approach to Schoenbergs twelve-tone music that has
become very popular in recent years, but which contrasts sharply with my usual
modus operandi of illustrating conict, elaboration, and resolution using mostly
twelve-tone properties and elements. I am referring to the habit of Richard Kurth,
Michael Cherlin, and others to concentrate on references to functional tonal chords
and progressions that are brought out by certain segments of Schoenbergs twelve-
tone textures. As a result of their perspective and the fragmentary, incomplete
nature of such tonal references, these authors tend to understand his music as
disjointed and characterized by unresolved conict and confusion. In a number of
places, I will argue that synthesis in the realm of twelve-tone relationships super-
sedes such fragmentation, but there are others among my analyses where the tonal-
reference viewpoint is quite useful: the conicts between references to key areas
throughout a piece highlight and make more audible the problems in the twelve-
tone realm.
Finally, my last disclaimer before moving on to an explanation of Schoenbergs
concept and a survey of its ancestors in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century
German thought has to do with the issue of the perceptibility of the Idea, just
mentioned. After all, I have encouraged my reader to consider my analyses as one
way to make sense of Schoenbergs music, and that implies a listening strategy.
But at least some listeners will be strongly tempted to ask the question, after reading
my work and going back to hear the music again, Can I really hear (perceive, feel)
what he has labeled as a problem or solution in that way?
I have to admit that, in some pieces, the large narrative arc is indeed difcult to
perceive completely and immediately. My analysis in Chapter 6 of the rst move-
ment of the Fourth String Quartet serves as an example: it is hard to feel the union
of the opposing motives <D, Cs, A> and <G, Af, C> within a single row form, P6,
in the recapitulations second theme as a solution, especially for a listener trained
to be sensitive to patterns caused by dissonance and consonance in tonal music (as
most of us are). And, yet, understanding them as such pays dividends: it helps the
listener provide himself or herself with a large, overarching framework within
which the more perceptible details of the piece can be understood as logical
sequences. (In this way, the musical idea has a similar function to the Schenkerian
Ursatz.) For example, the rst part of the rst theme in the Fourth String Quartet,
mm. 16, features <D, Cs, A> along with a thicker texture and a quadruple heard
meter (for the most part). It can be understood as setting up a motivic opposition
with the second part of the rst theme, mm. 69, where <G, Af, C> appears
together with a thinner texture and a triple heard meter. Grasping the rst nine
measures as an opposition between motives helps the listener to grasp the obvious
contrasts between heard meter and texture in that passage as a logical sequence
within a larger context.
But there are pieces, mostly shorter ones, where the large framework, the Idea,
does present itself to the listener as something that can be felt. The Prelude Op. 25
that I mentioned above provides an excellent example. In it, a symmetrical pitch-
class pattern is hinted at, gradually obscured, approximated using a different
pattern, and nally achieved. The last two stages of this process are clearly marked
by a frightening increase in dynamics, texture, and register in mm. 1719 for the
approximation, followed by a sudden decrease in all three parameters to a peace-
ful level during the appearance of the symmetrical pattern, mm. 2021. It is
difcult not to perceive the latter two measures as a resolution of some sort, unless
the pianist fails to emphasize the dynamic and registral contrasts, or rushes
headlong through mm. 2021 (as often happens).
Schoenbergs musical idea

Since the existence of a musical idea as an overarching framework in any
Schoenberg twelve-tone work is the central hypothesis of my book, I should begin
by not only trying to give a better explanation of Schoenbergs conception of Idea as
described in his theoretical works, but also outlining some of its musical and
philosophical antecedents, as well as modern writings that have been inuenced
by it (and that have in turn inuenced my approach). This will give the reader an
aesthetic, historical, and theoretical context for the analyses in the following
chapters, which manifest Idea in a variety of ways. Throughout his career, Schoen-
berg struggled to formulate and describe his own precepts according to which a
traditional tonal composition could manifest a musical idea, and in some cases
suggested that the same principles should also be applicable to his atonal and serial
music. Listed below are ve quotations from the composer pertaining to different
aspects of the concept.
1. In its most common meaning, the term idea is used as a synonym for theme,
melody, phrase, or motive. I myself consider the totality of a piece as the idea: the
idea which its creator wanted to present. But because of the lack of better terms
I am forced to dene the term idea in the following manner: Every tone which is
added to a beginning tone makes the meaning of that tone doubtful. If, for instance,
G follows after C, the ear may not be sure whether this expresses C major or
G major, or even F major or E minor; and the addition of other tones may or may
not clarify this problem. In this manner there is produced a state of unrest, of
imbalance which grows throughout most of the piece, and is enforced further by
similar functions of the rhythm. The method by which balance is restored seems to
me the real idea of the composition.8
2. Through the connection of tones of different pitch, duration, and stress (intensity???),
an unrest comes into being: a state of rest is placed in question through a contrast.
From this unrest a motion proceeds, which after the attainment of a climax will
again lead to a state of rest or to a new (new kind of) consolidation that is
equivalent to a state of rest.
If only a single tone is struck, it awakens the belief that it represents a tonic.
Every subsequent tone undermines this tonal feeling, and this is one kind of unrest.
a) tonal, b) harmonic.
Such is also the case with duration and stress. A single attack or several attacks
equidistant from one another and of the same intensity would be perceived as a
state of rest or as monotony.
But by changing (?) the time span between (??) tones and the intensities of their
attacks unrest arises again. The unrest can be increased still further through the
dynamics (and through other means of performance) . . .
This unrest is expressed almost always already in the motive, but certainly in the
gestalt.
In the theme, however, the problem of unrest that is present in the motive or the
fundamental gestalt achieves formulation. This means that as the theme presents a
number of transformations (variations) of the motive, in each of which the
problem is present but always in a different manner, the tonic is continually
contradicted anew and yet, through rounding off and through unication an
apparent state of rest is established, beneath which the unrest continues.9
3. Every succession of tones produces unrest, conict, problems. One single tone is
not problematic because the ear denes it as a tonic, a point of repose. Every added
tone makes this determination questionable. Every musical form can be considered
as an attempt to treat this unrest either by halting or limiting it, or by solving the
problem. A melody re-establishes repose through balance. A theme solves the
problem by carrying out its consequences. The unrest in a melody need not reach
below the surface, while the problem of a theme may penetrate to the profoundest
depths.10
8
Arnold Schoenberg, New Music, Outmoded Music, Style and Idea (1946), in Style and Idea
(1984), pp. 12223.
9
Arnold Schoenberg, The Musical Idea and the Logic, Technique, and Art of its Presentation
(193436), ed., trans. and commentary by Patricia Carpenter and Severine Neff (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1995), pp. 10307. Parenthetical question marks and underlines are
Schoenbergs own.
10
Arnold Schoenberg, Fundamentals of Musical Composition, 2nd edn., ed. Gerald Strang and
Leonard Stein (London: Faber and Faber, 1970), p. 101.
4. [Each composition] raises a question, puts up a problem, which in the course of the
piece has to be answered, resolved, carried through. It has to be carried through
many contradictory situations; it has to be developed by drawing consequences
from what it postulates . . . and all this might lead to a conclusion, a
pronunciamento.11
5. I say that we are obviously as nature around us is, as the cosmos is. So that is also
how our music is. But then our music must also be as we are (if two magnitudes
both equal a third . . .). But then from our nature alone I can deduce how our music
is (bolder men than I would say, how the cosmos is!). Here, however, it is always
possible for me to keep humanity as near or as far off as my perceptual needs
demand I can inspect it from in front, and from behind, from right or left, above
or below, without or within; if I nd there is no other way of getting to know it
from within, I can even dissect it. In the case of the cosmos all this would really be
very hard to manage, if not impossible, and no success in cosmic dissection will
ever earn it any particular respect!12
These quotations depict a multi-leveled concept, working back from the piece
of music itself to something more metaphysical that the piece represents, which
has to do with the true nature of the human being and ultimately with the nature
of the cosmos.13 As a tonal musical entity, the Idea is, essentially, a compositional
dialectic (the outline of which is given to the composer as a sudden inspiration
[Einfall], and then he works out the details as he composes). Its three principal
characteristics are: (1) a specic succession of pitches and intervals associated
with a specic rhythm, which Schoenberg often called a Grundgestalt (thesis); (2)
problems concerning the uncertainty of appropriate tonal or metrical contexts for
features of the Grundgestalt such as pitch or harmonic or duration successions
(antithesis); and (3) a design that considers alternative solutions for these prob-
lems and poses new problems, and ultimately decides on one solution to each
problem posed, while reinforcing the pieces home key and meter (synthesis).
The problems produce unrest and imbalance and the ultimate solutions restore
balance within the overall design, which is the whole piece. Though it plays a
similar role as large framework, this musical design is something substantially
different from Schenkers Ursatz, and from recent adaptations of Schenker for
11
Schoenberg, My Subject: Beauty and Logic in Music (MS, late 1940s), cited by Patricia Carpenter
and Severine Neff in their commentary to The Musical Idea, p. 63.
12
Arnold Schoenberg, Hauers Theories (1923), in Style and Idea (1984), pp. 20910.
13
Charlotte Crosss article Three Levels of Idea in Schoenbergs Thought and Writings, Current
Musicology 30 (1980): 2436, is a much more thorough description of Schoenbergs multi-leveled
concept. She takes up, in turn, the notions of idea as piece of music, as description of the composers
nature, and as revelation about the cosmos and its Creator while at the same time discussing the
philosophical antecedents of the more metaphysical levels.
Schoenbergs music, in that it constitutes a diachronic process from beginning to

end of the piece (more accurately, a master process incorporating numerous
subprocesses), instead of a synchronic structure that guarantees coherence from
back to front.
The main purpose of this book is to show that a parallel musical design underlies
most of the twelve-tone pieces we will consider.14 As I suggested above, many times
the problem and its elaboration in a twelve-tone piece stem from the differences
between a symmetrical musical ideal and passages in the piece that only approxi-
mate it, as in the case of the Prelude Op. 25 and Moses und Aron. Other pieces we
will look at that have similar designs are the Piano Piece Op. 33a and the third
Satire Op. 28. In some of the other twelve-tone pieces we will study, the initial
opposition involves identical or different partitions of different rows that create
what seem like completely irreconcilable elements (set classes of different sizes that
are subsets of different referential collections, for instance). The solution in these
cases typically involves a demonstration of how all the conicting segments and
partitions can be traced back to the original source row. The third movement of the
Woodwind Quintet Op. 26 falls into this latter category, as does the opening
movement of the Fourth String Quartet Op. 37. The last piece we will look at, the
String Trio Op. 45, involves a conict between different source row forms for
primacy, which is only completely resolved at the pieces end. Finally, as
I mentioned above, fragmentary references to tonal chords and progressions often
participate in the conict and elaboration stages of an Idea, but are not usually part
of the ultimate solution (the nal cadence of the third Satire Op. 28 is an exception
to this rule).
Now, the characterization of Schoenbergs twelve-tone music as having to do
with problem, elaboration, and solution that I have just presented might seem to be
something of a stretch for readers familiar with Schoenbergs unpublished writings.
Specically, it seems inconsistent with certain comments he made in an early
14
Much of my work in the past ten years has been devoted to showing how the music of Schoenbergs
middle, atonal period also manifests musical ideas in the sense we are discussing. See The
Musical Idea and Global Coherence in Schoenbergs Atonal and Serial Music, Intgral 1415
(200001): 20964, which describes a parallel process in Seraphita from the Four Orchestral Songs
Op. 22; The Musical Idea and Motivic Structure in Schoenbergs Op. 11, No. 1, in Jack Boss and
Bruce Quaglia (eds.), Musical Currents from the Left Coast (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2008),
25681, which discusses one in the named Piano Piece; and 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 (2009): 22366, which considers a manifestation of Idea
that parallels Stefan Georges text in Als wir hinter dem beblmten Tore, song No. 11 from Das
Buch der hngenden Grten Op. 15.
manuscript (November 12, 1925) on the subject of representing a musical idea

tonally and as a twelve-tone piece:
Compositions executed tonally in every sense proceed so as to bring every occurring
tone into a direct or indirect relationship to the fundamental tone, and their technique
tries to express this relationship so that doubt about what the tone relates to can never
last for an extended period.
This is not only the case for the individual tone, but also all tone-progressions are
designed in this way, as well as all chords and chord-progressions.
Composition with twelve tones related only to one another (incorrectly called
atonal composition) presupposes the knowledge of these relationships, does not per-
ceive in them a problem still to be solved and worked out, and in this sense works with
entire complexes, similar to the way in which language works with comprehensive
concepts whose range and meaning are assumed generally to be known [italics
Schoenbergs].15
From this quotation, one could doubt whether a serial piece could represent a
dialectical Idea at all, in the sense of posing, elaborating, and solving a problem.
Could the twelve-tone musical idea in Schoenbergs thinking mean only a bare
assertion that all harmonic as well as melodic materials need to be derived from the
tone row? I believe it is important to notice that Schoenberg mentions only the
pitches (or tones) of a twelve-tone series in this quotation, claiming that none of
them are more foreign than any other (because of the lack of a referential tonic).
There are other planes on which musical elements can be opposed to one another
within a twelve-tone row, various intervallic planes, and Schoenbergs serial music
itself indicates that he may well have been aware of such locations for the repre-
sentation of an Idea, as this book will illustrate. Moreover, another passage from the
same November 1925 manuscript admits that even though there is no inherent
problem regarding the relationships of tones to each other in a twelve-tone piece, a
listener certainly might ask questions about how certain elements or passages at or
near the beginning relate to the source row, which need to be answered as the piece
progresses:
One such technique is offered by composition with twelve tones related only to one
another (in short, called composition with twelve tones). With this technique, the
relationship of the twelve tones is set once and for all for a whole movement, indeed
for a whole piece; and no other relationships can come in, except for those given
by the Grundgestalt. The course of the piece then serves to bring nearer to the
15
Zu: Darstellung d. Gedankens (November 12, 1925), cited and discussed in The Musical Idea,
pp. 14 and 416.
understanding all those things that could not be detected on the rst hearing, through
frequent repetition and diverse representations [italics mine].16
I am proposing, then, that Schoenberg was nding ways to create, elaborate, and
solve problems between symmetrical and non-symmetrical pitch-class and interval
shapes, between different kinds of interval, set class, referential collection, and
partition, in the 1920s just as he was asserting that no pitch in a twelve-tone context
is any more problematic than any other (but that a twelve-tone piece could pose
and solve problems nonetheless, at least from the listeners standpoint). He then
continued to develop and rene these new kinds of problems and solutions as his
career progressed.
Musical idea before Schoenberg

The rst of the ve Schoenberg quotations above alludes to the pre-history (before
Schoenberg, that is) of the term musical idea, which can be rendered in German
as musikalische Gedanke or musikalische Idee. As he puts it, In its most common
meaning, the term idea is used as a synonym for theme, melody, phrase, or motive.
Instances of the terms use for segments of a musical work smaller than the whole
can be traced back to the Baroque and Classical tradition of understanding and
describing a musical work in rhetorical terms, and in the nineteenth century,
conceptions of musical idea began to be modeled after contemporary philosoph-
ical denitions of the term Idea, while still retaining many of the features they
borrowed from rhetoric. Thus I will survey the works of a number of musicians
before Schoenberg who use the term, taking note of the inuence of late eighteenth-
century and early nineteenth-century German philosophy on some of those music
theorists and music scholars.
The terms corresponding to musical idea make their rst appearance in
writings on music in the eighteenth century, when composer-teachers and aesthet-
icians sought to train their students to understand the logic of whole movements in
the works of the masters and to create their own complete movements using the
terminology of rhetoric, which was a central part of European education at that
time.17 According to rhetoric, the creation of an effective oration, one that
16
Zu: Darstellung d. Gedankens (November 12, 1925), cited in Rudolf Stephan, Der musikalische
Gedanke bei Schnberg, sterreichische Musikzeitschrift 37/10 (October 1982): 534. The English
translation is my own.
17
Of course, the application of rhetoric to the composition and analysis of music predates the
eighteenth century; as Patrick McCreless reports in the Rhetoric chapter of The Cambridge History
of Western Music Theory, it began in the mid-sixteenth century and owered in Germany in the
seventeenth century as the Figurenlehre of Burmeister and Bernhard. But the eighteenth century
persuades its audience, divides into three stages: Inventio, where basic (verbal) ideas
are created, Dispositio and Elaboratio, where these ideas are ordered, elaborated,
repeated, varied, and articulated in the sequence of their ultimate deployment,18
and nally Elocutio, where the details of the oration are worked out. A quotation
from Johann Nikolaus Forkel (1788) illustrates the use of both Idee and Gedanke to
refer to the ideas and thoughts that make up the parts of an oration, and then
asserts that music should follow the same design, without, however, referring to
musical ideas:
In a language of ideas [Ideensprache], the highest degree of development is manifested
in an abundance of expressions for all possible thoughts [Gedanken] and their
concomitant relationships; in correctness and order in the concatenation of these
expressions with one another; and in the possibility of manipulating and using all
these expressions according to the various ends and goals that an orator can bring to
bear upon them. In just this manner, the language of notes must also have 1) an
abundance of combinations among notes; 2) correctness and order in the concaten-
ation of the same; and 3) a specic goal. These are the three characteristics of a true,
good and authentic music.19
But many treatises of the same time carry the terms Gedanke and Idee over to
music. Generally, these terms signify a portion of a piece, most often a theme but
sometimes a shorter segment. The whole piece will typically be referred to using
another term, sometimes musical oration (Klangrede) as in Johann Matthesons
writings,20 sometimes Melodie, as in Mattheson and Heinrich Christoph Kochs
Musikalisches Lexikon (1802), but also simply the whole. Two examples showing
the relationship between part and whole are provided by the following quotations,
from the second volume of Kochs Versuch einer Anleitung zur Composition (1787)
and from Johann Joseph Kleins Versuch eines Lehrbuchs der praktischen Musik
(1783):
brought an important change in the way rhetoric was used: a strong emphasis on adapt[ing] to
music the notion of a subject, or idea, of an oration embodied in rhetoric in the status theory of the
ancient Romans, with its loci topici (McCreless, Music and Rhetoric, in Thomas Christensen
(ed.), The Cambridge History of Western Music Theory (Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 873).
18
Mark Evan Bonds, Wordless Rhetoric: Musical Form and the Metaphor of the Oration (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1991), p. 80. Most of my quotations from Baroque and Classical
authors who use musical idea will be cited from Bondss book.
19
Johann Nikolaus Forkel, Allgemeine Geschichte der Musik, 2 vols. (Leipzig: Schwickert, 17881801),
vol. I, p. 19; cited and trans. in Mark Evan Bonds, Wordless Rhetoric, p. 67. I have changed Bondss
translation in one place, substituting expressions for Bondss thoughts in the clause in correct-
ness and order in the concatenation of these expressions with one another, because the original
reads Ausdrcke.
20
Such as Der volkommene Capellmeister (Hamburg: Christian Herold, 1739) and Kern melodischer
Wissenschaft (Hamburg: Christian Herold, 1737).
Not only the principal ideas [Hauptgedanken] of a composition, but also the subsid-
iary ideas [Nebengedanken] must be formed so that together they amount to a
beautiful whole [ein schnes Ganzes], in which every phrase is concordant with the
overall purpose and in its conguration with the rest harbors no contradiction.21
A melody [Melodie] consists . . . of sentences [Stze], each of which is a series of
successive notes that together constitute a musical thought [musikalische Gedanke] or
sense. These Stze may consist of one, two or more measures, or they may also
comprise only a part of a single measure; they are analogous to [units delineated by] a
comma in language. The Satz that constitutes the main idea [Hauptgedanke] of a
melody is called the Hauptsatz (Thema, subjectum).22
Note that both quotations distinguish, within the melody or whole, between the
main idea or principal theme and other, subsidiary ideas that can be relatively short
in length, but that all of these are called musikalische Gedanken. Of course, giving
precedence to the Hauptsatz is another way in which these quotations foreshadow an
important aspect of Schoenbergs Idea. Numerous eighteenth-century writers argue
that for a piece to be coherent or unied, the subsequent ideas need to elaborate
the principal idea, which looks forward to Schoenbergs ascription of primary and
generative importance to the Grundgestalt.23 One quotation that communicates the
dependence of the other ideas on the Hauptsatz a little more clearly than those given
above is the following, from Friedrich Wilhelm Marpurg (1761):
Will not an idea [Gedanke] soon come owing out of the main idea [Hauptsatz] of a
piece? In every musical work there must certainly be something that projects slightly
above the rest. This something, whether it appears immediately at the beginning, in
the rst section, or in the second, I call the Hauptsatz, which through repetitions,
transpositions, imitations and fragmentations must be manipulated. The passages that
arise in different fashions from these processes serve to preserve the unity of the
musical work.24
Before leaving our discussion of eighteenth-century music as rhetoric, it is

important to point out that the notion of a musical work playing itself out through a
21
Heinrich Christoph Koch, Versuch einer Anleitung zur Composition, 3 vols. (Leipzig: Bhme, 1787),
vol. II, p. 132, trans. Nancy Kovaleff Baker in Aesthetics and the Art of Musical Composition in the
German Enlightenment, ed. and trans. Nancy K. Baker and Thomas Christensen (Cambridge
University Press, 1995), p. 204.
22
Johann Joseph Klein, Versuch eines Lehrbuchs der praktischen Musik (Gera: C. F. Bekmann, 1783),
pp. 5960, cited and trans. in Bonds, Wordless Rhetoric, p. 92.
23
Mark Evan Bonds also discusses the inuence of eighteenth-century notions of elaborating the
Hauptsatz on Schoenbergs Grundgestalt, in a brief passage from Wordless Rhetoric characterizing
his theoretical work as an amalgamation of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century metaphors of form.
See Wordless Rhetoric, pp. 15861.
24
Friedrich Wilhelm Marpurg, Kritische Briefe ber die Tonkunst 85 (November 7, 1761): 161, cited
and trans. in Bonds, Wordless Rhetoric, p. 99.
conict that is elaborated and resolved, what I understand to be the most basic
feature of Schoenbergs musical idea, also is strongly foreshadowed in these
writings, though on the surface of things it may seem paradoxical when placed
against some of the descriptions of musical unity we have just discussed.25 Baroque
and Classical theorists tend to understand the opposition as happening outside the
Grundgestalt rather than within it, usually much later in the piece (of course there
are also modern applications of Schoenbergs concept, including some of mine, that
locate the problem outside the Grundgestalt). But their insistence on conict and
resolution adumbrates Schoenbergs concept in signicant ways nevertheless. For
instance, consider this quotation from Johann Nepomuk Reichenberger (1780):
The composer introduces his Satz, or theme, early on: and he repeats it briey once or
twice at this point, in order that it be well understood. He continues . . . until he nally
brings together everything announced earlier. And often, after he has fought his way
through passages and progressions that may have rst seemed contradictory to his
intentions [italics mine], after he has aroused, by means of the most rened harmonies
and rhythms, all affects and passions that are useful to his intentions after all these
routes, he nally arrives once again at his sentence and goal in the original key.26
The necessity for ghting through what at rst seems to be contradictory material
in Reichenbergers account has a parallel in rhetoric: it is identied in rhetorical
treatises as that part of an oration called refutatio. Two of the best-known
eighteenth-century works that provide outlines for the form of a piece of music
in terms of rhetoric, Johann Matthesons Kern melodischer Wissenschaft (1737) and
Johann Nikolaus Forkels Allgemeine Geschichte der Musik (1788), include refutatio
or similar Latin or German terms (Mattheson calls it confutatio or Widerlegung,
Forkel also calls it Widerlegung). And in Forkels account, refutation of opposing
ideas is followed immediately by the conrmation of the main idea (Bekrftigung),
foreshadowing Schoenbergs solution or restoration of balance.27
As the eighteenth century passed into the nineteenth, music theorists, composers,
and aestheticians gradually transformed the metaphors they used to describe music,
increasingly making use of the biological organism rather than rhetorical categories.
25
Peter Hoyt explains the paradox in terms of theorists desire to account for differences in musical
style (or different perspectives on the same musical style); when eighteenth-century writers wanted
to emphasize a works thematic unity, they borrowed ideas from rhetoric that worked well for such a
purpose, and when they wanted to discuss the necessity for thematic contrast, they found other
rhetorical parallels that would serve that end. See Hoyts review of Bonds, Wordless Rhetoric, in
Journal of Music Theory 38/1 (Spring 1994): 12930.
26
Johann Nepomuk Reichenberger, Die ganze Musikkunst, 3 vols. (Regensburg: Hochfrstlich-
bischiches Schulhaus bey St. Paul, 177780), vol. III, pp. 16061; cited and trans. in Bonds,
Wordless Rhetoric, p. 100.
27
See Bonds, Wordless Rhetoric, pp. 8590, for a description of and quotations from Matthesons
outline, and pp. 12126 for Forkels.
Mark Evan Bonds describes how this trend went hand in hand with the early
nineteenth centurys celebration of absolute, instrumental music as an autonomous
entity which had no need to persuade a listener, and claims that it caused a split
between inner, generative concepts of form (which t the organic metaphors quite
well) and notions of form as general categories that contain large groups of pieces
(which he calls conformational approaches). He also shows how concepts from
rhetoric nevertheless continued to inuence theorists through the nineteenth cen-
tury, down to Schoenberg, whom he considers a prime example of a theorist who
mixes organic and rhetorical metaphors.28 What Bonds does not do is to discuss the
sources of musical organicism in the philosophy of the time, the German Idealists
and others, whom many musicians, including Schoenberg, studied and who inu-
enced them in important ways. Thus my next step in this history of musical idea
is to summarize the work of a number of the philosophers who contributed to the
development of the concept some who apparently inuenced Schoenberg directly,
as he owned their works and made references to them, and others who inuenced
him indirectly through the work of nineteenth-century music theorists.
Among the philosophers commonly associated with German Idealism, Imman-
uel Kant (17241804), in his discussion of the aesthetic judgment or judgment of
taste in Critique of Judgement (1790), describes music cognition in ways that
would profoundly inuence Schoenbergs understanding of the musical idea as
whole work, according to Patricia Carpenter. In section 49 of Critique of Judgement
he denes the aesthetic idea as that representation of the imagination which
induces much thought, yet without the possibility of any denite thought whatever,
that is, concept, being adequate to it, and which language consequently can never
get quite on level terms with or render completely intelligible.29 An aesthetic idea
is represented by something called an aesthetic attribute, which could be a piece
of music. Apparently, in Kants understanding, the aesthetic idea is that some-
thing that, as I listen to a piece of music, enables me to synthesize all the different
sense impressions, sounds and silences, into what my brain comprehends as a
musical object. It takes the place of a concept like chair in ordinary perception
and cognition (as I perceive a chair, my brain also takes in a manifold of sense
impressions that I can unify under that particular concept), but unlike chair, the
Idea of a piece of music cannot be adequately described with language. Carpenter
understands this formulation as anticipating many of the features of Schoenbergs
28
See chapters 3 and 4 of Bonds, Wordless Rhetoric.
29
Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgement, trans. James Creed Meredith (Oxford University Press,
1952), cited in Patricia Carpenter, Musical Form and Musical Idea: Reections on a Theme of
Schoenberg, Hanslick and Kant, in Edmond Strainchamps, Maria Rika Maniates and Christopher
Hatch (eds.), Music and Civilization: Essays in Honor of Paul Henry Lang (New York: Norton,
1984), p. 407.
musical idea as well as Eduard Hanslicks (which will be described in detail below)
particularly the sense that it is an ineffable something that generates the actual
piece; yet despite its ineffability it forms the basis for the listeners comprehension
of the piece (musical form being the agent of that comprehensibility) and enables
the listener to appreciate it as beautiful.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (17491832), particularly in his studies of botany,
dened organicism in ways that inspired Schoenbergs conception of musical idea,
according to Severine Neff. Several of Goethes works devoted to plant morphology
and development provide concepts that anticipate important components of
Schoenbergs notion: his Urpanze, the abstract vision reecting the potential
contents and form of all plants, anticipates Schoenbergs concept of
monotonality, the tonal matrix within which a tonal musical idea plays itself
out.30 Goethes concept of Blatt, the leaf form, the inner nucleus which is
transformed to create the other parts of a plant, is reected in Schoenbergs
concepts of Grundgestalt and Hauptmotiv (transformations of the latter create the
tonal problem of the work in Neffs understanding). The transformation process
itself is described by Goethe as controlled by a centrifugal force that would lead to
formlessness if it were not balanced by a centripetal force, the drive for specic
character that results in a single structure that can be identied. Schoenberg also
makes use of the adjective centrifugal to describe the development of the works
problem toward further problems and foreign key areas, the imbalance of a tonal
work, and centripetal to characterize the solution that brings the foreign elements
back into relation with the tonic.31 Finally, Goethe claims that the transformation of
the Blatt creates a hierarchy of parts of the plant which are interdependent, all
having their essential functions within the whole. This conception, which in
important ways parallels the eighteenth centurys understanding of parts of an
oration described above, also contributed to Schoenbergs conception of a musical
work as having parts (themes, transitions, etc.) that contributed in unique ways to
the function of the whole.
An early work on human existence and consciousness by Johann Gottlieb Fichte
(17621814) features two of the components of Idea just discussed, the notion that
it grows out from some basic seed and that it does so through creating an
opposition and then reconciling the opposed element to itself in some kind of
synthesis. (Indeed, Fichte introduced many of the components of dialectic that are
30
Severine Neff, Schoenberg and Goethe: Organicism and Analysis, in Christopher Hatch and David
W. Bernstein (eds.), Music Theory and the Exploration of the Past (University of Chicago Press,
1993), pp. 41113, 41516. Of course, the music-theoretical tradition also provided inspiration for
this matrix, Schoenbergs chart of regions, in the Tonnetze found in the works of nineteenth-
century theorists like Gottfried Weber and Hugo Riemann.
31
Neff, Schoenberg and Goethe, pp. 413, 41618.
more commonly associated with Hegel.) Fichtes Review of Aenesidemus (1794) was
one of the rst documents of the Idealist tradition to claim that philosophy requires
a generative rst principle or Grundsatz to attain the status of a science. Fichtes
rst principle is the absolute subjects act of positing itself without empirical
evidence. This thesis, with the antithesis of the subject positing all that is not itself
(i.e. the absolute object) are synthesized in the Principle of Consciousness, by
which the subject arrives at consciousness through distinguishing the representa-
tion from both the subject and the object and relating it to them both.32
The relationship of the philosophical work of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
(17701831) to Schoenberg is something of a paradox. Hegels notion of Idea as
whole, which he calls Idee, parallels Schoenbergs Idea as whole in four ways that
I have been able to determine. And yet, there is no evidence that Schoenberg ever
read or studied the work of Hegel. Schoenbergs extensive library, the catalog of
which may be found on the Arnold Schoenberg Center website,33 contains works by
a number of the other authors we have discussed and will discuss: H. C. Koch, Kant,
Goethe, Schopenhauer, and Adolph Bernhard Marx, but nothing by Hegel. One
modern scholar goes so far as to say that Hegels philosophy played no role in
Schoenbergs thinking about the Gedanke.34 My opinion is that Schoenberg had
some sort of second-hand knowledge of Hegels thought, which he could have
obtained from studying the work of A. B. Marx, a music theorist who was strongly
inuenced by Hegel in numerous ways (and who will be discussed in detail below).
Or perhaps he got it from informal discussions about philosophy with friends and
colleagues, which (of course) could apply to any of the other authors we have
discussed who are not represented in the Schoenberg library.
The four ways in which Hegel anticipates Schoenbergs musikaliche Gedanke are
(1) his assertions that truth or reality is an organic Idea in the sense that it contains
the blueprint for its further development within its initial stage; (2) his
characterization of the Idea developing over time by means of a dialectical process,
positing an element within itself that opposes the initial element, then taking back
the opposition into a synthesis with the initial element, again and again; (3) his
claim that any work of art must represent the Idea, or the process of the Spirit
(Geist) coming to know itself, with a sensuous shape; and (4) his insistence that the
32
Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Early Philosophical Writings, trans. and ed. Daniel Breazeale (Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, 1988), pp. 6065. See also Breazeales article Fichtes Aenesidemus Review and the
Transformation of German Idealism, Review of Metaphysics 34/3 (March 1981): 54568, which
describes how Fichte developed his rst principle from an earlier one suggested by Karl Leonhard
Reinhold (a contemporary interpreter of Kant), in response to a critique of Kant and Reinhold by
Gottlob Ernst Schulze.
33
www.schoenberg.at (accessed August 4, 2013).
34
John Covach, The Sources of Schoenbergs Aesthetic Theology, www.ibiblio.org/johncovach/
sources_of_schoenberg.htm (accessed February 23, 2011), n. 26.
Idea (the content) and its artistic representation (the form of the artwork) must not
be divisible: they must be fused into a single entity.
Hegel introduces Idee into his system as the outcome of a dialectical triad: it is
the synthesis of a Concept (Begriff ) with objectivity. That is, the Idea expresses its
Concept in real terms: two examples put forward by Hegel are the development of
humanity through its history, and the single living organism. Hegel claims that both
of these Ideas as well as others, like Wissenschaft, a term he borrowed from Fichte to
represent philosophy, reect their underlying Concept in the sense that they
contain all the necessary information for their further development within their
initial stage. (In this way, he appropriates qualities of the subject in rhetoric and
the Hauptsatz in musical studies based on rhetorical principles, as well as qualities
of Goethes Blatt and other initial elements like it in the work of German philoso-
phers before him. But at the same time, he adumbrates Schoenbergs Grundgestalt.)
The following quotation from the preface to the Phenomenology of Spirit describes
this quality of Idea:
Only this self-restoring sameness, or this reection of otherness within itself not an
original or immediate unity as such is the True. It [the True] is the process of its
own becoming, the circle that presupposes its end as its goal, having its end also as its
beginning; and only by being worked out to its end, is it actual.35
And another passage that comes a few pages before it gives an organic character to
this beginning that presupposes and is worked out to its end (this seems to be the
source of the acorn metaphor that resonates through numerous accounts of
organicism after Hegel):
When we wish to see an oak with its massive trunk and spreading branches and
foliage, we are not content to be shown an acorn instead. So too, Science [die
Wissenschaft], the crown of a world of Spirit, is not complete in its beginnings.36
The rst of these two quotations also gives us some hint as to the process that the
Idea goes through as it completes itself, with its allusion to self-restoring sameness
and reection of otherness within itself. A relatively clear description of the
dialectical process can be found in a quotation from later in the preface to the
Phenomenology of Spirit:
The movement of a being that immediately is, consists partly in becoming an other
than itself, and thus becoming its own immanent content; partly in taking back into
itself this unfolding of its content or this existence of it, i.e., in making itself into a
35
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, preface to Phenomenology of Spirit, trans. A. V. Miller, in Ernst
Behler (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences in Outline and Critical Writings (New York:
Continuum, 1990), p. 10.
36
Ibid., p. 7.
movement, and simplifying itself into something determinate. In the former move-
ment, negativity is the differentiating and positing of existence; in this return into self,
it is the becoming of the determinate simplicity.37
Now, Hegel does not use the terms thesis, antithesis, and synthesis in this
quotation: in fact, those terms are rarely found in his writing. But the constructs
that the terms commonly represent are described clearly here, particularly those
corresponding to antithesis (becoming an other than itself) and synthesis
(taking back into itself this unfolding of its content). In Hegels view, history, life,
or any Idea rst develops by recognizing parts or aspects of itself that contrast with
itself, and then by nding ways to make these oppositions serve as parts of a unied
whole. Hegels phrases could serve perfectly well as general descriptions of the
problem and solution stages of Schoenbergs conception if the other than
itself is a foreign pitch or key in a tonal piece, or seemingly unrelated intervals or
set classes in a twelve-tone piece. But we must also remember that Hegels descrip-
tions were preceded and anticipated by the refutatio and conrmatio in rhetorical
studies, and by a tradition of dialectic in philosophy that goes back through Fichte
to Kant, and beyond him to ancient philosophers (such as Heraclitus).38
The third and fourth components of Hegels conception of truth that look
forward to Schoenberg, in my opinion, pertain more specically to the role of ne
art within the world conceived as Idea. Hegel asserts repeatedly in the introduction
to his Aesthetics that the content of a work of art should be the Idea, and he
identies an aspect of the Idea that ne art can represent: that is, the synthesis of
Spirit with nature, or, more specically, the synthesis of universal principles of truth
with natural impulses of the individual. (It is crucial to remember here that, in
general, Hegel closely associates the progress of the Idea as human history with the
process of the Spirit or Geist completing itself or coming to know itself ; these
syntheses just mentioned are part of its growth.) In this way, he says something
quite similar to Schoenbergs assertion in Quotation No. 5 above that music reects
both human nature and the cosmos. A quotation from the introduction to Hegels
Aesthetics illustrates:
Taken quite abstractly, [this opposition] is the opposition of universal and particular,
when each is xed over against the other on its own account in the same way; more
concretely, it appears in nature as the opposition of the abstract law to the abundance
of individual phenomena, each explicitly with its own character; in the spirit it appears
37
Ibid., p. 31.
38
Severine Neff, in Reinventing the Organic Artwork: Schoenbergs Changing Images of Tonal
Form, in Charlotte Cross and Russell Berman (eds.), Schoenberg and Words: The Modernist Years
(New York: Garland, 2000), pp. 275308, also draws parallels between Hegels dialectical process,
Schoenbergs musical idea as it is represented by a conventional tonal form, and the dialectical
plots of numerous nineteenth-century German writers.
as the contrast between the sensuous and the spiritual in man, as the battle of spirit
against esh, of duty for dutys sake, of the cold command against particular interest,
warmth of heart, sensuous inclinations and impulses, against the individual dispos-
ition in general; as the harsh opposition between inner freedom and the necessity of
external nature, further as the contradiction between the dead inherently empty
concept, and the full concreteness of life, between theory or subjective thinking, and
objective existence and experience.
. . . Arts vocation is to unveil the truth in the form of sensuous artistic congur-
ation, to set forth the reconciled opposition just mentioned, and so to have its end and
aim in itself, in this very setting forth and unveiling.39
As a work of art sets forth the reconciled opposition of Spirit and nature; it
expresses and is motivated by the ongoing growth of the Spirit as it comes to know
itself. One way in which it can communicate such a synthesis is by the unity of form
and content within it. Hegel stresses, in the Aesthetics as well as his other works,
that the form of a work of art should not seem imposed on the content, but should
grow naturally out of it. In the following quotation from the preface to the
Phenomenology of Spirit, he complains about formalism in the philosophy of his
time, but the exhortation could just as well apply to musicians or other artists: It
is . . . unnecessary to clothe the content in an external formalism; the content is in
its very nature the transition to such formalism, but a formalism which ceases to be
external, since the form is the innate development of the concrete content itself.40
Schoenberg also insisted on an intimate relationship between form and content: as
he claimed in Problems in Teaching Art, in the real work of art, everything gives
the impression of having come rst, because everything was born at the same
moment. Feeling is already form, the idea is already the word (italics mine).41
Such thinking could have been inspired by Hegels statement above; it also could
have been based on claims of Eduard Hanslick that we shall examine later; but if
not, the viewpoints of all three on form and content harmonize in certain ways.
There is much more hard evidence that Arthur Schopenhauer (17881860) made
strong contributions to Schoenbergs conception of musikalische Gedanke: the
complete works of Schopenhauer can be found in Schoenbergs library, and the
composer referred to Schopenhauer frequently, sometimes to praise, sometimes to
criticize. But Schopenhauers World as Will and Representation (1819) has been
characterized by philosophy scholars as a reaction against the German Idealist
tradition; and as such, it does not develop the notion of Idea growing out of an
initial, predictive seed through the process of dialectic as Fichte and Hegel (and, in a
39
Hegel, Aesthetics: Lectures on Fine Art, 2 vols., trans. T. M. Knox (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975),
vol. I, pp. 53 and 55.
40
Hegel, preface to Phenomenology of Spirit, p. 33.
41
Schoenberg, Problems in Teaching Art (1911), in Style and Idea (1984), p. 369.
way, Goethe) do.42 As I suggested near the beginning of this chapter, Schoenbergs
main parallel with Schopenhauer, besides the general emphasis on art representing
an Idea that cannot be known directly, seems to be the realization (which he does
not discuss in his writings, but illustrates again and again in his music) that the
problem in a piece can consist of the conict between an ideal Grundgestalt
(usually a symmetrical pitch or interval shape that may or may not appear in the
piece) and actual shapes in the piece that approximate it either closely or distantly.
Schopenhauers understanding of the world in terms of underlying Will or thing in
itself, its Ideal objectications, and the imperfect ways in which those Ideals are
manifested in day-to-day experience, can be found in the quotation below:
In order to reach a deeper insight into the nature of the world, it is absolutely
necessary for us to learn to distinguish the will as thing-in-itself from its adequate
objectivity, and then to distinguish the different grades at which this objectivity
appears more distinctly and fully, i.e. the Ideas themselves, from the mere phenom-
enon of the Ideas in the forms of the principle of sufcient reason, the restricted
method of knowledge of individuals. We shall then agree with Plato, when he
attributes actual being to the Ideas alone, and only an apparent, dreamlike existence
to the things in space and time, to this world that is real for the individual. We shall
then see how one and the same Idea reveals itself in so many phenomena, and
presents its nature to knowing individuals only piecemeal, one side after another.43
Here, Idea is not the Idee of Hegel that grows through history from an initial seed
by means of dialectic, but rather a Platonic Idea or Form, an ideal abstracted from a
multitude of imperfect but real phenomena belonging to the same category. This
Idea (together with its many representations) stands between the underlying Will
and the perceiver. It is interesting to note that Schopenhauer claims that every other
art besides music has the sole function of presenting such Ideas. Even though the
parallel between Platonic and Schopenhauerian Ideas and Schoenbergs ideal,
symmetrical shapes seems clear, Schopenhauer himself thought that music
bypassed the Ideas and communicated the Will directly to the listener.44
42
The relation of Schopenhauers work to the Idealist tradition is clearly characterized by Robert
Wickss article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. See Wicks, Arthur Schopenhauer, in
Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition), http://plato.
stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/schopenhauer/ (accessed February 18, 2011).
43
Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation, 2 vols., trans. E. F. J. Payne
(New York: Dover, 1969), vol. I, p. 181.
44
Pamela C. White asserts that Schopenhauers conception of Will, Platonic Ideas, and representations
of the Ideas in the real world was the main inspiration for Schoenbergs notion of Idea and
representation. But she never answers the question of how Schoenberg could get his concept of
musical Idea from Schopenhauer, when Schopenhauer claimed that music does not have anything to
do with Ideas, but rather bypasses them. This would be a signicant misreading of the philosophical
source. See White, Schoenberg and Schopenhauer, pp. 4547. Carl Dahlhaus, on the other hand,
Before ending our survey of thinkers in elds outside music who may have
contributed to Schoenbergs concept, it is important to mention a few names who
fall outside the boundaries of the philosophical tradition, but who were signicant
in Schoenbergs immediate culture, and whom he acknowledged in several cases as
being inuential. Both Alexander Goehr and Julian Johnson discuss the contribu-
tion of Karl Kraus, a theorist and critic of language and editor of Die Fackel, a
periodical for which Schoenberg wrote and which he discussed regularly with his
students.45 Kraus considered his principal function to be protecting language
against the misuses that were rife in early twentieth-century Vienna. These
included the use of language to manipulate the average citizen, as in advertising
or the political propaganda that was common in the years leading up to the First
World War; or the decadent ornaments and subtle sexual symbolism of Stefan
Georges poetry. He insisted that writers, rather than participating in such excesses,
had an ethical imperative to express the Idea clearly and efciently in the form of
the written word. One of his aphorisms spells this out clearly: The written word is
the natural, essential embodiment of an idea, not the socially acceptable wrapping
of an opinion.46 Goehr presents a long quotation from Krauss In dieser grossen
Zeit which demonstrates a certain economy of verbiage, but also varies and
develops its key words effectively. This development includes appropriate contra-
dictions, and leads inexorably to Krauss concluding sentences: Those who now
have nothing to say, because actions have the last word, speak on. Let him who has
something to say, stand up and be silent.47 The inuences of Krauss theory, as well
as his writing style, on Schoenbergs notion of musical idea and its appropriate
representation seem manifold: the notions that everything in the piece should come
directly from the unitary Idea without musical padding, that the Idea needs to be
unfolded coherently and made comprehensible to the listener above all else, and
that the Idea should be communicated through an apt use of contradiction are only
some of them. In addition, Goehr suggests that Schoenbergs portrayal of Moses
with his mission to communicate the Idea of God through the word in Moses und
Aron probably owes something to Krauss ethical imperative.
focuses his claims about Schopenhauers inuence on Schoenberg on Schopenhauers metaphysics

of absolute music as I understand it, the unique ability of instrumental music to communicate Will
directly to the listener. This was adapted by Schoenberg by, among other things, replacing Will with
his own concept of Gedanke, and asserting repeatedly that the musical idea was not representative of
words or images, but sheerly musical. See Dahlhaus, Schoenbergs Aesthetic Theology (1984), in
Schoenberg and the New Music, trans. Derrick Puffett and Alfred Clayton (Cambridge University
Press, 1988), p. 87.
45
Alexander Goehr, Schoenberg and Karl Kraus: The Idea behind the Music, Music Analysis 4/12
(1985): 5971; Julian Johnson, Karl Kraus and the Schnberg School, Journal of the Arnold
Schnberg Center 2 (2000): 17989.
46
Goehr, Schoenberg and Karl Kraus, p. 65. 47
Ibid., 6768.
John Covach, in a pair of articles, argues for the importance of the occult in
Schoenbergs thinking, focusing on two gures, Emanuel Swedenborg and Rudolf
Steiner. Swedenborg, with whose ideas Schoenberg came in contact through Hon-
or de Balzacs novels Sraphita and Louis Lambert, claimed that there is a heavenly
realm between the atoms of the physical world, populated by souls of the departed
who have become angels. Every object in the material world has a correspondent in
that realm beyond; this idea is generally referred to as the theory of correspond-
ences. Through a special spiritual insight, Swedenborg could converse with the
angels and gain spiritual knowledge over and above the doctrines of the Bible and
the church. Schoenberg mentions Swedenborg several times in his writings, at one
point admitting Swedenborgs concept of heaven as a model for his own concept of
the unity of musical space.48
As for Steiner, he started out as a Goethe scholar who produced two editions
of Goethes scientic writings, with commentary, as well as separate monographs
on those writings. His interpretation of Goethe moved in the direction of
asserting worlds other than the physical one, however: he believed that when
one views a plant (for instance), one perceives the physical object with the senses
(the bodily eye) and processes that information in a Kantian manner, but at
the same time ones inner consciousness (the spiritual eye) is imprinted with
the Idea of the plant the Urpanze. This inner consciousness is essentially
access to a single thought world that all human beings share. Through a
process that Steiner calls active thinking, the perceiver then unites physical
object and Idea, and views both of them as they really are, thus gaining access to
the thing in itself. (One thinks here of the parallels that Schoenberg draws
between human being and cosmos in Quotation No. 5 above.) As Steiners career
progressed from more conventional scholarship to Theosophy, he added other
worlds to the thought world, also claiming admission to the astral and causal
planes.
Covach argues that Schoenberg had an unusually strong interest in seeing into
other worlds because of his exposure to Swedenborg and Steiner, and wanted to
use his music to communicate the truth he learned there to others, so that the
musical idea would be understood as a vision from the beyond. In this view,
Schoenbergs debt to Schopenhauers philosophy takes on a different shape from
what I suggested above; it is Schopenhauers claim that music is a direct window
onto the Will that is crucial, not the perfection of the Platonic Ideas. Musics
direct access to the Will makes it possible for Schoenberg to use it as a medium to
communicate truth from higher spiritual planes. Covach claims that this role for
music may have motivated Schoenbergs turn to atonality, for it is not appropriate
48
Schoenberg, Composition with Twelve Tones (1941), in Style and Idea (1984), p. 223.
to express thoughts from other worlds in a language (tonality) so closely tied to

our own physical existence.49
It seems clear that the shift to an organic metaphor for music, motivated by
some of the philosophical gures just discussed, did have a strong inuence on
nineteenth-century aesthetics. As Mark Evan Bonds insists, it changed the aes-
thetic perspective on a piece of music from something dependent on the listeners
understanding for its value to something that exists for itself only. Eduard
Hanslick puts this succinctly: The beautiful is and remains beautiful though it
arouse no emotion whatever, and though there be no one to look at it.50
Nevertheless, some of the key terms and basic principles of Idealist philosophy
and its predecessors and offshoots seem similar in a general way to the terms and
principles of the rhetorical tradition. The terms Idee and Gedanke exist within
both eras, although Idee becomes more signicant and expands to take on the
meaning of a whole organism or thing. (It is interesting to note here that at least
one aesthetician from the era of music as rhetoric did use another term that can
be translated idea to signify the whole of an artwork. In the article Anordnung
(Disposition) from the Allgemeine Theorie der schnen Knste (1792), Johann
Georg Sulzer talks about the artist being led through his contemplation of
individual parts to der Vorstellung des Ganzen, which Thomas Christensen
translates as the idea of the whole.)51 And the basic principles that a speech
or organism (or piece of music) needs to begin with some kind of initial unit that
predicts and motivates all that comes after it, and then must realize that begin-
nings implications through a process that involves opposition and either conrm-
ation or reconciliation, also reoccur in different guises. The subject of an oration,
the Hauptsatz, Goethes Blatt, Hegels acorn, and Schoenbergs Grundgestalt all
have important features in common, as do refutatio and conrmatio, centrifugal
and centripetal motion, opposition and synthesis, Karl Krauss use of contradic-
tion, and Schoenbergs problem and solution. The similarities between all these
49
John Covach, The Sources of Schoenbergs Aesthetic Theology,; Covach, Schoenberg and the
Occult: Some Reections on the Musical Idea, www.ibiblio.org/johncovach/asoccult.htm (accessed
February 23, 2011).
50
Eduard Hanslick, The Beautiful in Music, trans. Gustav Cohen (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1957),
p. 10. Bonds discusses the change of perspective on a musical work from dependence on its listener
to independence in Wordless Rhetoric, pp. 4 and 13249.
51
See Johann Georg Sulzer, Allgemeine Theorie, 5 vols. (Leipzig: Weidmann, 1792), vol. I, p. 151; trans.
Christensen in Aesthetics and the Art of Musical Composition in the German Enlightenment, p. 74.
Sulzer, in his article Erndung (Invention) in the same source, claims that the artist needs to
begin by forming a clear concept (Begriff) of the whole, in order to evaluate whether the ideas
(Vorstellungen) that offer themselves to him can contribute to it. See Sulzer, Allgemeine Theorie,
vol. II, p. 90; Christensen, Aesthetics and the Art of Musical Composition in the German Enlighten-
ment, p. 59. Christensen, unfortunately, translates Begriff as idea in this passage.
concepts are general, indeed; but Schoenbergs adaptation of them is also general
enough that it is not rendered meaningless by the differences.
At the same time, there are music theorists and music scholars closer to
Schoenbergs own era who use rhetorical or philosophical notions or, like Schoen-
berg, a blend of both. They worked close enough to his time to inuence his Idea
more directly, and in a number of cases he acknowledges their inuence. Chief
among them is Adolph Bernhard Marx, whose works in the mid-nineteenth
century on musical form and Beethovens music offer a conception of musical
idea that adumbrates many, but not all, of the features of Schoenbergs. (Schoen-
berg, for his part, did admit that he learned much from Marxs work.)52 Marx
seems to have been the rst among musicians to assert that a whole musical work
could be (and needed to be) the embodiment of one transcendent Idea, which he
called Idee and associated explicitly with Hegels notion of Spirit coming to
know itself (it is important to point out here that Marx taught together with Hegel
at the University of Berlin from 1827 until the philosophers death). He also
insisted that the smaller portions of a work, particularly the phrase and period,
had spiritual content, and referred to them using Gedanke. (In these ways, the
notion that music represents some sort of cosmic truth is important to Marxs
thinking.) The way in which the Idea of the work, as well as its smaller thoughts,
manifests its spiritual content is by presenting a dramatic narrative that
progresses from rest to motion to rest, in a strikingly similar way to what
Schoenberg describes in Quotation No. 2 above. But Marxs Idea of the whole,
his dramatic narrative, often also had a pronounced extra-musical component,
unlike Schoenbergs.53
For an example of Marxs conception of Gedanke, his introduction to two-voice
composition in Die Lehre von der musikalische Komposition, praktisch-theoretisch
(7th edition, 1868) contains a series of musical examples, eight-measure periods
whose antecedents end on V and whose consequents end on I, and which
gradually become more complex and sophisticated. In his summary to the section,
he claims:
We have formed a series of musical pieces, each of which boasts its own distinctly
separate content. Whether or not we nd it to be deep and signicant, this content can
be deemed the idea [Gedanke] (the spiritual import) of the piece. Since our compos-
itional efforts remain ever faithful to the motive, each of our pieces contains but one
understood idea [again Gedanke], even if it undergoes constant elaboration and
development.54
52
Schoenberg, The Musical Idea, ed. and trans. Carpenter and Neff, p. 17.
53
Scott Burnham, introduction to A. B. Marx, Musical Form in the Age of Beethoven: Selected Writings
on Theory and Method, ed. and trans. Scott Burnham (Cambridge University Press, 1997), p. 12.
54
Marx, Musical Form in the Age of Beethoven, pp. 4652.
Marxs conception of Idee, Idea as spiritual content and motivation for the whole
work, can be found throughout his writings, but is particularly well represented by
the following quotation from his Beethoven biography. In it, he discusses ideal
music as the culminating stage in the development of music history:
That which happened only experimentally, peripherally, and by leaning on extramu-
sical props, now needed to be brought to fulllment in real, autonomous, and free-
standing artworks. Only then did music become objective and ideal, the latter in the
sense that it portrayed, with its own means, life itself, namely, entire states of life in
accordance with the Idea, in accordance with the spiritually transgured image
begotten in the artist.55
This portrayal of life in accordance with the Idee can sometimes be accomplished
through sheerly musical means, like the tonal and formal contrast between rst and
second theme groups in sonata form, which is mediated in a clearly Hegelian
manner, according to Marxs detailed account in his Lehre von der musikalische
Komposition:
In general, we know the following about the subsidiary Satz: First. It must form a
whole with the main Satz, internally through mood and externally through its key area
and use of the same meter (these latter not without exceptions); consequently it must
preserve a certain unity and concord. Second. At the same time, however, it must
disengage itself decisively from the main Satz through its content, namely through its
harmonic progression and also through its form, establishing itself as something
other, as an antithesis; main Satz and subsidiary Satz face each other as antitheses
that are intimately joined within a comprehensive whole, forming a higher unity.56
Most commonly, however, the content of the whole work motivated by the Idea in
Marxs thinking is extra-musical, consisting of an idealized account of some state of
life, for instance the portrayal of an ideal battle in the rst movement of Beethovens
Eroica Symphony:
For Beethoven, Napoleon was the hero, who . . . embraces the world with his Idea and
his will and marches across it, as a victor at the head of an army of heroes, in order to
fashion it anew . . . What grew within Beethoven was an ideal image in the genuine
Greek sense. Moreover, it was not even an iconic image of the hero but rather a
complete drama of the Napoleonic life; it found its germinal seed in the campaigns
against the north and south, east and west, in the hundred victorious battles, to use
Napoleons own designation. And since the poets job is not to grasp the breadth of
life but rather the acme, the Idea, of it, the battle was thus the necessary rst event in
Beethovens program. The battle not this or that specic battle (as Beethoven later
wrote the battle of Vittoria and others, e.g. Jadin, wrote the battles of Austerlitz and
55 56
Ibid., p. 177. Ibid., pp. 13233.
Jena) but the battle as ideal image. And this only in the sense that the battle is the
decisive moment, the acme, of the heros life.57
This notion that the musical idea of a work must have an extra-musical component
is exactly the same proposition that Eduard Hanslick disputed in his well-known
treatise The Beautiful in Music (1854). In fact, he ridicules Marx by name for an
extra-musical interpretation of Beethovens Op. 81 Piano Sonata in one footnote,
and more generally for similar ights of fancy in Marxs Beethoven biography in a
second footnote.58 If Schoenbergs musikalische Gedanke borrows numerous fea-
tures from Marxs Idee of the whole, as I suggested above, then the major difference
between Marx and Schoenberg, Schoenbergs insistence that the Idea be sheerly
musical, can be understood as parallel to Hanslicks position in some ways.
(Remember, though, that as we saw in the discussions of Swedenborg and Steiner
above, Schoenberg did admit that this sheerly musical idea, untranslatable into
words, could afford a glimpse into a higher plane of existence. Hanslick would not
have granted music that privilege.) In effect, Hanslick argues that because music
does not tell everyone the same story or produce in everyone the same feeling, it is
fallacious to assert that emotions (or other extra-musical elements such as narra-
tives) are the content of music. Stories or feelings are produced subjectively, in the
listener. What music itself can produce are sensations of changing motion, strength
or ratio which then can be applied to one feeling or another as the listener sees t.
Hanslicks assertions of his stance are often presented in language that sounds
remarkably like Schoenberg (with the important exception that Hanslick generally
applies idea to the main theme of a piece, not to the whole). But at the same time
Hanslick reaches back into the concept worlds of earlier theory and philosophy that
we have just discussed. Here is a particularly striking example:
The object of every art is to clothe in some material form an idea which has originated in
the artists imagination. In music this idea is an acoustic one: it cannot be expressed in
words and subsequently translated into sounds. The initial force of a composition is the
invention of some denite theme, and not the desire to describe a given emotion by musical
means [italics mine]. Thanks to that primitive and mysterious power whose mode of
action will forever be hidden from us, a theme, a melody, ashes on the composers
mind. The origin of this rst germ cannot be explained, but must simply be accepted as a
fact. When once it has taken root in the composers imagination, it forthwith begins to
grow and develop, the principal theme being the center round which the branches
group themselves in all conceivable ways, though always unmistakably related to it.59
Hanslicks reference to the denite theme as initial force of the composition looks
back to the rhetorical theorists obsession with elaborating the Hauptsatz, but also
forward to Schoenbergs notion of Grundgestalt. Then he essentially takes us
57 58 59
Ibid., pp. 15859. Hanslick, The Beautiful in Music, p. 61, n 2; p. 73, n 4. Ibid., p. 52.
through the rst three steps of creating a composition according to the rhetoricians,
Inventio, Dispositio, and Elaboratio. The theme ashing on the composers mind,
corresponding to Inventio, adumbrates what Schoenberg would call Einfall (sudden
inspiration). Hanslick then goes on to describe the processes of Dispositio and
Elaboratio in terms that echo the Idealists (Hegels wissenschaftliche oak comes to
mind): the theme is a germ that takes root, and then branches group them-
selves round the theme as center. But his description seems uncannily similar to
Schoenbergs depiction of the creative process, ninety years later:
Alas, human creators, if they be granted a vision, must travel the long path between
vision and accomplishment; a hard road where, driven out of Paradise, even geniuses
must reap their harvest in the sweat of their brows.
Alas, it is one thing to envision in a creative instant of inspiration and it is another
thing to materialize ones vision by painstakingly connecting details until they fuse
into a kind of organism.
Alas, suppose it becomes an organism, a homunculus or a robot, and possesses some
of the spontaneity of a vision; it remains yet another thing to organize this form so
that it becomes a comprehensible message to whom it may concern.60
One could argue that each of Schoenbergs paragraphs takes up Inventio, Dispositio,
and Elaboratio in turn, with their references to vision (paragraph 1), connecting
details (paragraph 2), and organizing into a comprehensible message (paragraph 3).
But the parallels between Schoenbergs and Hanslicks descriptions of the creative
process as invention followed by an organic process of development should also
be clear.
Hanslicks nal chapter, The Subject of Music, was alluded to earlier in my
discussion, at the end of my section on Hegel. This is the place where Hanslick most
clearly spells out his conviction that the form and content of a piece of music are
inseparable: Now in music, substance and form, the subject and its working out,
the image and its realized conception, are mysteriously blended in one
undecomposable whole.61 In its context, however, this statement should be under-
stood as another way of asserting that music has no subject or Idea standing behind
it that can be expressed verbally: musical ideas and thoughts, from the motive and
theme up to the whole work, are sheerly musical. In contrast with Hegels view (as
Hanslick argues later in the same chapter), musics content does not consist of
freely-manifested subjective states which because of their innate qualities develop
organically and naturally into forms.62 And Hanslicks understanding of sheerly
musical seems to be even more exclusive than Schoenbergs: there is no suggestion
60
61 62
Hanslick, The Beautiful in Music, pp. 12122. Ibid., pp. 12627.
in The Beautiful in Music of music providing a window into the beyond with its
ineffable language. For Hanslick, music simply represents itself.
Musical idea since Schoenberg

There have been numerous writers since Schoenbergs time who have explored the
concept of musical idea, adapted it to the analysis of music, or both. As one might
imagine, his Austrian students were among the rst to engage in such investigations.
Murray Dineen has surveyed reections of his concept in the writings of four of
them, Erwin Stein, Josef Rufer, Eduard Steuermann, and Leopold Spinner.63 It is
interesting that in all four cases, a concept of musical idea as problem, elaboration,
and solution in a twelve-tone context is discussed or at least suggested; this conrms
my assertions above (see pp. 810) that a twelve-tone musical idea of this kind was
most likely part of Schoenbergs thought and teaching. Stein, particularly, discusses
ways of organizing twelve-tone music that parallel the quotation from Schoenbergs
1925 Gedanke manuscript concerning problem and solution from the standpoint of
the perceiver (here, basic shape refers to a twelve-tone row):
the various forms of the basic shape overlap both horizontally and vertically to such
an extent that completely free melodies and harmonies seem to arise whose relations to
the basic shape are not easily recognizable [italics mine]. Almost every note is a
constituent part at once of several forms of the basic shape, and is capable of more
than one interpretation.64
According to Stein, a good twelve-tone piece creates confusion about how some of
its pitches and intervals relate to the source row, confusion about proper context
similar to that of a tonal problem. Although this particular quotation does not
outline how such confusion might be alleviated, Dineen seems to believe (as I do)
that such solutions can exist in the twelve-tone context, and shows how the other
three writers at least suggest them.
Late twentieth- and early twenty-rst-century adaptations of musical idea, on
the other hand, focus almost exclusively on applying it to the analysis of tonal
music. They generally fall into one of two main categories, which I will term the
Grundgestalt approach and the Tonal Problem approach. (It is interesting to note
how these modern categories reect two of the main concerns of eighteenth-
century rhetorical theorists: not only connecting later musical material to the
Hauptsatz, but also nding musical parallels to refutation and conrmation. As
63
Murray Dineen, Schnbergs Viennese Tuition, Viennese Students, and the Musical Idea, Journal
of the Arnold Schnberg Center 2 (2000): 4859.
64
Erwin Stein, Neue Formprinzipien, Musikbltter des Anbruch 6/78 (AugustSeptember 1924):
286303; cited in Dineen, Schnbergs Viennese Tuition, p. 52.
I mentioned above, there are nineteenth-century precedents for both ways of

thinking as well.) In the Grundgestalt camp are Graham Phipps and David Epstein,
who deal mainly with the power of the Grundgestalt and/or its elements to unify a
piece through repetition in different contexts and at various structural levels. They
demonstrate how a piece can ow logically from its initial material, without giving
any special precedence to the dialectical model of problemelaborationsolution in
tracing the development of the basic shape. However, Phipps at times refers to
opposition(s) and their resolution, as in his discussion of mm. 2836 and 72 of
Chopins Revolutionary Etude.65
The Tonal Problem approach was rst described by one of Schoenbergs
students from his later teaching career in California, Patricia Carpenter, and has
been developed extensively by her and her students at Columbia University, among
them Severine Neff, Murray Dineen, and Charlotte Cross. Carpenter and Neff have
produced numerous surveys and interpretations of Schoenbergs published and
manuscript writings about musical idea (the largest of them being the exhaustive
commentary to their edition and translation of Schoenbergs most extensive manu-
script on the Gedanke, the one from 193436).66 As we have seen already in the
previous section, both authors are also concerned with illuminating the philosoph-
ical underpinnings of musical idea. But most importantly for my purposes, they
have produced a series of analyses of tonal pieces that have been exceptionally
useful as models for the kind of analysis I do in this book, because they focus on
tracing the dialectical process of problems, elaborations, and solutions that organ-
izes the repetition and variation of Grundgestalt elements through the piece.67
Dineen, in a pair of articles in Theory and Practice dedicated to his teachers
memory, provides perhaps the clearest introduction to analysis in terms of tonal
65
Graham Phipps, A Response to Schenkers Analysis of Chopins Etude, Op. 10, No. 12, Using
Schoenbergs Grundgestalt Concept, Musical Quarterly 69 (1983): 54369; Phipps, The Logic of
Tonality in Strausss Don Quixote: A Schoenbergian Evaluation, Nineteenth-Century Music 9/3
(Spring 1986):189205; David Epstein, Beyond Orpheus: Studies in Musical Structure (Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press, 1979).
66
Schoenberg, The Musical Idea, ed. and trans. Carpenter and Neff, pp. 174.
67
Some representative examples: Patricia Carpenter and Severine Neff, Schoenbergs Philosophy of
Composition: Thoughts on the Musical Idea and its Presentation, in Juliane Brand and Christo-
pher Hailey (eds.), Constructive Dissonance: Arnold Schoenberg and the Transformations of
Twentieth-Century Culture (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997), pp. 14655; Patricia
Carpenter, Grundgestalt as Tonal Function, Music Theory Spectrum 5 (1983): 1538; Carpenter,
Musical Form and Musical Idea: Reections on a Theme of Schoenberg, Hanslick, and Kant, in
Edmond Strainchamps, Maria Rika Maniates, and Christopher Hatch (eds.), Music and Civilization:
Essays in Honor of Paul Henry Lang (New York: Norton, 1984), pp. 394427; Carpenter,
A Problem in Organic Form: Schoenbergs Tonal Body, Theory and Practice 13 (1988): 3163;
Severine Neff, Aspects of Grundgestalt in Schoenbergs First String Quartet, Op. 7, Theory and
Practice 9 (1984): 756; Neff, Schoenberg and Goethe; Neff, Reinventing the Organic Artwork.
problems and solutions after Carpenter, and I recommend them highly to the
reader striving for a clear grasp of this approach.68 My single illustrative example
will not come from Dineens articles, however; instead, I will summarize the
argument made in one of Carpenters earliest articles using the approach, an
analysis of Beethovens Appassionata Sonata Op. 57, rst movement. This analy-
sis demonstrates quite well how Schoenbergs musical idea can account for the
organic growth of a tonal piece out of its initial material, through a process
involving problems and solutions.69 According to Carpenter, the essential feature
of Beethovens Grundgestalt is an interval and pitch-class repertory, spanning the
entire rst theme, comprising the major third AfC and Cs half-step upper
neighbor Df (see Example 1.1).70
The rst problem the piece takes up concerning this repertory of pitch classes has
to do with which tonal contexts it can belong to, and which is most signicant. Two
solutions are proposed initially: {Af, Df, C} may function as scale degrees 3, 6, and 5
in F minor or scale degrees 1, 4, and 3 in Af major. In the former case, the Df denes
the key of F minor by serving as a minor ninth of its dominant chord; in the latter, Df
denes Af major by serving as the seventh, part of the inward-resolving diminished
fth, in its V7 chord. F minor is used in the rst theme of the exposition and Af
major in the second theme. The next problem the piece puts forward regarding the
Grundgestalts pitch-class repertory is the converse of the rst: what other tonal
contexts may be attained by transposing that repertory and allowing it to retain one
of its functions? The rst solution transposes scale degrees 6 and 5 to Ff and Ef,
resulting in Af minor and reversing the function-key pairs established in his rst
solutions (the reversal consists of associating degrees 6 and 5 with the tonic Af rather
than F). Af minor is the key of the expositions closing theme (see Example 1.2).
A transposition of part of the basic repertory, the <C, Df> upper neighbor,
together with a change in its tonal context to 1f2, results in the <F, Gf> succession
being harmonized by the IfII in F minor that begins the rst theme (refer again to
Example 1.1, mm. 12 and 56). In this case, alternative solutions that the piece gives
for its original problem about tonal context give rise to another problem: in what way
can the sonority {Gf, Bf, Df} be used to point back to F minor? The solution to this
problem is not made explicit until the recapitulation (see Example 1.3), though it is
hinted at in the development (also during which other harmonic implications of the
Grundgestalt are explored that touch on other foreign keys such as Ff minor).
68
Murray Dineen, The Tonal Problem as a Method of Analysis, Theory and Practice 30 (2005):
6996; Dineen, Tonal Problem, Carpenter Narrative, and Carpenter Motive in Schuberts
Impromptu, Op. 90, No. 3, Theory and Practice 30 (2005): 97120.
69
Carpenter, Grundgestalt as Tonal Function.
70
The score for Examples 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 comes from Schenkers edition of the Beethoven piano
sonatas (Ludwig van Beethoven, Complete Piano Sonatas, 2 vols., ed. Heinrich Schenker (New York:
Dover, 1975), vol. II, pp. 41517, 424).
Example 1.1
Beethoven, Piano Sonata Op. 57, movement I, mm. 113 (exposition, beginning of rst
theme) and mm. 3540 (beginning of second theme)
Example 1.2
Beethoven, Piano Sonata Op. 57, movement I, mm. 5154 (exposition, beginning of closing
theme)
Example 1.3
Beethoven, Piano Sonata Op. 57, movement I, mm. 18086 (recapitulation, transition
between second and closing themes)
In the transition between second and closing themes in the recapitulation, <F,
Gf> becomes scale degrees 5 and 6 over Bf minor, the subdominant of F minor,
and this leads to the dominant and eventually to the tonic. This answers the
question about the role of Gf, and also contributes to the resolution of the initial
problem: F minor wins out over Af major. Similar solutions concerning the role
of Gf, including one where it is shown to function as scale degree 4 over the
dominant of the submediant chord Df (thus acquiring the same two functions as Df
had in the exposition of the movement), are provided in the coda.
This summary of Carpenters article is far from complete the reader needs to
consult her article to trace all the workings-out of harmonic implications of
components of the Grundgestalt but my few paragraphs begin to suggest how
she elucidates the musical idea in Op. 57, movement I. One feature of a Grundges-
talt, its pitch-class repertory, gives rise to problems concerning possible tonal
context that the piece solves in different ways. These solutions, as they are com-
bined with one another, give rise to new problems (creating tension and imbal-
ance), and at (or near) the end denitive solutions are chosen from among the
alternatives (restoring balance). In a similar way, a twelve-tone piece can give rise to
problems regarding the relationship of its opening gestures to a symmetrical ideal
or questions pertaining to intervals or congurations seemingly foreign to the
source row; these lead in turn to an intensication of the original problem or to
related problems, or both; and at or near the end, the non-symmetrical congur-
ations or foreign intervals or sets are shown denitively to have arisen from the
ideal or from the source row, or both.71
71
There are several other modern authors who explore the notion of musical idea but whom I have
left out of this survey for efciencys sake. The reader interested in researching the topic further
should also consult Carl Dahlhauss comments scattered across a variety of his writings. These
include Schoenbergs Musical Poetics (1976), Schoenbergs Aesthetic Theology (1984), Schoen-
berg and Programme Music (1974), Musical Prose (1964), Emancipation of the Dissonance
(1968), What is Developing Variation? (1984), The Obbligato Recitative (1975), Expressive
Principle and Orchestral Polyphony in Schoenbergs Erwartung (1974), Schoenbergs Late Works
(1983), and The Fugue as Prelude: Schoenbergs Genesis Composition, Op. 44 (1983). All are
translated into English in Schoenberg and the New Music, trans. Derrick Puffett and Alfred Clayton
(Cambridge University Press, 1987). When taken together, these articles present a multi-leveled
conception of Idea similar to that suggested by my ve quotations from Schoenberg.
John Covach responds to some of Dahlhauss ideas in Schoenbergs Poetics of Music, the
Twelve-Tone Method, and the Musical Idea, in Charlotte Cross and Russell Berman (eds.),
Schoenberg and Words: The Modernist Years (New York: Garland, 2000), pp. 30946. Covach
considers poetics to be principles of musical organization that reect the underlying Idea, and
that they can be expressed in turn by tonal, atonal, or twelve-tone musical objects. These principles
can involve problem, elaboration, and resolution, but that is not the only shape they can take.
Finally, Claire Boge in Idea and Analysis: Aspects of Unication in Musical Explanation, College
Music Symposium 30/1 (Spring 1990): 11530, adapts musical idea as a comprehensive explana-
tory context in some of the same ways that I will adopt in this book. Her denition of Idea, like
Covachs poetics, is broader and more general than mine, however, admitting shapes other than
problemelaborationsolution, including metaphorical ones that represent feelings or moods
distilled from a songs text (in a way reminiscent of Marxs Idee).
After having considered Schoenbergs conception of the musical idea, as well as

the many historical sources that inspired it and a few modern interpretations of it,
perhaps the reader would permit me to make a fanciful reinterpretation of Schoen-
bergs admonition to Kolisch with which we started our discussion. I call it
fanciful because it stems as much from my own admonitions to my post-tonal
analysis students as from any telepathic communication with the departed master.
Nevertheless, it does have the advantage of referring to the historical context to a
greater extent than Schoenbergs original quotation:
Dont just count the rows, Rudi!! That is only the rst step like doing a Roman
numeral analysis of a tonal piece. You know from sitting in my classes and lectures
that a piece of music, whether it is tonal or atonal or twelve-tone, has to ow out of
its initial material in such a way that it picks up conicts or problems inherent in that
Grundgestalt or between it and other elements, elaborates and intensies them, and
then solves them at or near the end, showing how what originally seemed foreign is
actually deeply connected to the initial material. For more than 200 years, German-
speaking musicians and thinkers have understood music, art, and life in general in
ways like this, from the eighteenth-century rhetoricians and the Idealist philosophers
to Marx and Hanslick, and I am certainly no exception. So keep on with your analysis,
Rudi, but tell me about how the musical idea is presented in this piece.
As I claimed at the beginning of this chapter, one of the most basic motivations for
the analyses of the following seven chapters is to do just that, thereby providing a
model for the Kolisches in my own life, among my other readers.
2 Suite for Piano Op. 25
Varieties of Idea in Schoenbergs earliest twelve-tone music
I will begin our exploration of the musical idea in the twelve-tone music of
Schoenberg with the Suite Op. 25 for a number of reasons. First, Schoenberg
himself identied it in several places as the earliest of his twelve-tone works. In
his well-known essay Composition with Twelve Tones he calls the Suite my rst
larger work in this style,1 and in an oft-cited 1937 letter to Nicolas Slonimsky he
reminisces concerning the early development of the twelve-tone approach thus:
The technique [referring to the Sonett Op. 24] is here relatively primitive, because it
was one of the rst works written strictly in harmony with this method, though it was
not the very rst there were some movements of the Suite for Piano which
I composed in the fall of 1921. Here I became suddenly conscious of the real meaning
of my aim: unity and regularity, which unconsciously had led me this way.2
Furthermore, although Schoenberg made a number of attempts prior to the Suites

emergence in 1921 to write pieces using the twelve-tone method in part, or using
other kinds of series, some of them mentioned elsewhere in his 1937 letter, this
pre-history of Schoenbergs twelve-tone music has been documented and dis-
cussed with great care by other authors, most notably Ethan Haimo in Schoenbergs
Serial Odyssey.3 Thus I will refrain from revisiting it here.
However, there has been doubt expressed in the literature about whether even the
Suite should be considered a thoroughgoing twelve-tone composition, or whether it
too belongs with the pre-twelve-tone works. Both Jan Maegaard and Ethan Haimo
claim that Schoenbergs rst awareness of the twelve-tone row (with respect to Op. 25)
as a unique linear ordering, divided into two hexachords, occurred as he composed the
Trio, the second-last movement to be completed, and the Gigue, which was begun just
before and completed after the Trio. As Haimo puts it, the earlier-composed move-
ments of the Suite, the Prelude, Intermezzo, Gavotte, Musette, and Menuett, are based
1
Arnold Schoenberg, Composition with Twelve Tones (1941), in Style and Idea (1984), p. 232.
2
A transcription of the letter, dated June 3, 1937 and originally written in English, may be viewed
through the correspondence database available at the website of the Arnold Schoenberg Center in
Vienna, www.schoenberg.at (accessed August 4, 2013); its le name is 2892_2.jpg.
3
Ethan Haimo, Schoenbergs Serial Odyssey: The Evolution of his Twelve-Tone Method, 19141928
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), pp. 4284. Haimo presents the pre-history of Schoenbergs twelve-
tone music in a manner more friendly to the novice in The Evolution of the Twelve-Tone Method,
in Walter B. Bailey (ed.), The Arnold Schoenberg Companion (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press,
1998), pp. 10128.
on a tritetrachordal polyphonic complex by which he means three tetrachords

that together complete the aggregate, most often ordered within themselves, but not
ordered between themselves, at least not to the extent that listeners can x their
attention on one ordering of the twelve tones as basic. As support for his claim,
Haimo points to two indisputable facts: that the ordering between tetrachords that
will eventually be used in the two last-composed movements is not seen all that
often in the earlier ones, and also that Schoenberg, both in his sketches and in the
rst ve movements, prefers retrograde forms of P4, I10, I4, and P10 (these two
primes and two inversions are the only ones used in the Suite) that retrograde the
pitch classes within the tetrachords but not between them.4
On the other hand, Reinhold Brinkmann describes the sketch pages leading up to
the Prelude and Intermezzo of the Suite in a way that leads one to believe Schoenberg
was indeed formulating a unique linear ordering of twelve notes in a step-by-step
fashion through his initial sketching process, before he wrote even the rst drafts for
the Prelude. Brinkmann writes an exhaustive chronological account of these sketches
in the critical report to the Schoenberg collected edition, as well as a more abbreviated
one in an article titled Zur Entstehung der Zwlftontechnik.5 Both accounts take us
through several stages by which Schoenberg (1) determined the content and ordering
of the rows rst tetrachord, combining it initially with a pentachord and a trichord that
exhaust the aggregate, (2) explored the possibility of combining the resulting complex
with its transposition by tritone, (3) decided that he wanted to split the remaining eight
notes of the aggregate into tetrachords, establishing the unordered content of the
second and third tetrachords, (4) decided on a registral order between the tetrachords
from top to bottom voices which corresponds to the eventual chronological order, and
(5) established the eventual chronological order between the three tetrachords. This
suggests, then, that the composer did have a unique linear ordering of all twelve tones
in mind when he began the rst-composed movements of the Suite, the Prelude and
Intermezzo, and such an assumption underlies Martha Hydes analyses of the Suite, in
that she accounts for various horizontal and vertical combinations of segments within
and between rows in the sketches and various nished movements as secondary
harmonies, other manifestations of the same set class as contiguous subsets of the
whole twelve-tone row.6
4
Haimo, Schoenbergs Serial Odyssey, pp. 8486 and 10103; Jan Maegaard, A Study in the Chron-
ology of Op. 2326 by Arnold Schoenberg, Dansk aarbog for musicforskning 2 (1962): 11013.
5
Arnold Schnberg: Smtliche Werke, section II: Klavier und Orgelmusik, series B, vol. IV: Werke fr Klavier
zu zwei Hnden, Kritische Bericht, Skizzen, Fragmente, ed. Reinhold Brinkmann (Mainz: B. Schott, and
Vienna: Universal, 1975), pp. 6780; Reinhold Brinkmann, Zur Entstehung der Zwlftontechnik, in Carl
Dahlhaus, Hans Joachim Marx, Magda Marx-Weber, and Gnther Massenkeil, eds., Bericht ber den
Internationalen Musikwissenschaftlichen Kongress Bonn 1970 (Kassel: Brenreiter, 1971), pp. 28488.
6
See, for example, her account of some of the same preliminary sketches for Op. 25 that Brinkmann
discusses, in Martha Hyde, The Format and Function of Schoenbergs Twelve-Tone Sketches,
Suite for Piano Op. 25 37
My position with respect to the aforementioned debate could be thought of as a

compromise. I believe that Schoenberg was indeed cognizant of the whole twelve-tone
row as a unique linear ordering from the very onset of his work on the Suite, but that he
saw that ordering as part of a spectrum of ways of presenting the row that ranged from an
unordered aggregate on one end of the spectrum to complete, perfect ordering on the
other end. All of the movements of the Suite can be analyzed as containing multiple
choices from that spectrum, as can many of the pieces coming later in his twelve-tone
output, where there is no question concerning Schoenbergs conception of a basic twelve-
tone ordering (the Piano Piece Op. 33a, which we will discuss in Chapter 5, comes to
mind). To give two examples: the Prelude does include two instances of row presentations
where the tetrachords are ordered between as well as within themselves mm. 13, right
hand, and mm. 78, bass voice in addition to numerous places where the tetrachords are
ordered within but not between themselves, or are ordered between but not within
themselves (see P4 and I10 in mm. 1516), or ordered neither within the tetrachord
(because of vertical dyads) nor between the tetrachords. And the Gigue, which does
indeed include a number of ordered row forms divided into hexachords (like mm. 34 and
36), also features row presentations that are completely de-ordered, such as those at mm.
16 or 19 (Haimo calls these instantiations of a different row, but I prefer to think of them
as extreme transformations of the Suites source rows, for reasons that will become clear in
my discussion of the Gigues overall processes). The Gigue also has row presentations that
are ordered within but not between the tetrachords (like the rst half of m. 14), and many
that are ordered between but not within them (the four P and I forms that begin the
movement in mm. 14 with their numerous vertical dyads could be heard this way).
The notion of a spectrum of approaches to row ordering ts quite well with the
assertions I made in Chapter 1 about musical idea as the framework for Schoenbergs
twelve-tone music. What I plan to show is that each of the three movements I analyze,
the Prelude, Menuett, and Gigue, takes a different approach to expressing the musical
idea: to setting up and elaborating some sort of problem and eventually resolving it.
The strict or loose row orderings, and especially the progressions from strict to loose or
vice versa, often play an important role in projecting the musical idea of a movement,
though there is no case in which the Idea is expressed by row ordering alone. The
Prelude, as was mentioned before, suggests, obscures, and then recaptures (twice) a
symmetrical pitch-class structure that arises from the tritetrachordal complex. The
Menuetts Idea ows out of a feature introduced initially in the Intermezzo (which was
composed before it), which I call collectional exchange. The Menuett begins by using
rhythm and register to project the content of hexachords and tetrachords of row forms
other than the one in effect, it then undergoes a rotational adjustment that prevents
Journal of the American Musicological Society 36/3 (1983): 47579, or her analyses of the Intermezzo
and excerpts from various other movements of the Suite in Musical Form and the Development of
Schoenbergs Twelve-Tone Method, Journal of Music Theory 29/1 (Spring 1985): 85143.
such exchanges, and, near the end, it starts to project exchanges again despite the
continuance of the adjustment. Finally, in the Gigue, the problem involves a foreign
interval succession that emerges from the interval structure of the row itself, and near
the end the relationship of the foreign element to the source row is highlighted. This
last way of projecting the Idea looks forward to the approach Schoenberg takes in his
next twelve-tone composition, the Woodwind Quintet Op. 26.
Prelude
According to Maegaard and Brinkmann, Schoenberg wrote preliminary sketches
and a set table for the Suite in late July of 1921 (not in the fall, as he indicated in his
letter to Slonimsky), as well as the Prelude and ten measures of the Intermezzo.7 He
then abandoned the work, not to pick it up again until February of 1923. Schoen-
bergs 1921 set table, reproduced in Example 2.1, lays out P4, I4, P10, I10, and their
retrogrades, the eight row forms that he uses exclusively in the Suite, in the form of
tritetrachordal polyphonic complexes.
Each row is placed side by side with its retrograde, so that the retrograde brings
back the discrete tetrachords in the same order between themselves from top to
bottom as in the original, not in reverse order as a linear retrograde would. As
I described above, Ethan Haimo concludes from the arrangement of this table, as
well as the layout of many of the rows in the Suite itself, that such complexes form
the basis for most of the movements of the Suite, as opposed to the conventional
notion of linear twelve-tone row.8 But others, Reinhold Brinkmann and Martha
Hyde among them, argue that Schoenberg was aware of the full linear ordering of
the twelve notes from the beginning of his work on the Suite.9
I will leave the question of the source material of the Prelude whether it should
be a linear twelve-tone row or a collection of three tetrachords ordered within but
not between themselves undecided. But I want to call the readers attention to the
set table of the Prelude for a different reason: it will help us to understand the large-
scale coherence of this piece if we think of the tritetrachordal dispositions of these
rows as basic shapes around which Schoenberg builds a musical idea. When
Schoenberg divides P4 into its discrete tetrachords, aligns them vertically, and then
follows them with the tetrachords of R4, reversed within but not between them, he
creates a structure that is symmetrical on two levels, as Example 2.2 illustrates.
The whole creates a palindrome, as does each voice, top, middle, and bottom. This
palindromic structure then plays the role of an ideal that is hinted at yet disguised in
7
Arnold Schnberg: Smtliche Werke, series B, vol. IV, p. 67. Jan Maegaard, Studien zur Entwicklung des
dodekaphonen Satzes bei Arnold Schnberg, 3 vols. (Copenhagen: Wilhelm Hansen, 1972), vol. I,
pp. 10710; Maegaard, A Study in the Chronology of Op. 2326 by Arnold Schoenberg, pp. 10405.
8
Haimo, Schoenbergs Serial Odyssey, pp. 8489.
9
Hyde, The Format and Function of Schoenbergs Twelve-Tone Sketches, pp. 47079.
Example 2.1
Schoenbergs set tables for the Suite Op. 25. Schoenberg PIANO SUITE OP. 25, Copyright
1925 by Universal Edition AG, Vienna, Copyright renewed. All rights reserved.
Used in the U.S. by permission of Belmont Music Publishers; used in the world excluding
the U.S. by permission of European American Music Distributors Company, agent for
Universal Edition AG, Vienna
the opening measures, striven toward in most of the piece up to a climactic point
(mm. 1719), realized (mm. 2021), and then departed from. The Prelude thus
anticipates some of Schoenbergs later pieces, like the third choral Satire Op. 28
(discussed in Chapter 4), where a similar palindromic shape created by a combinatorial
row pair is similarly hidden and then revealed, or the String Trio Op. 45 (Chapter 8),
where the linear shape of the row, hidden, striven toward, and then revealed, gives rise
to an Idea in much the same way.
Before taking up Schoenbergs realization of the musical idea in this Prelude,
I want to comment briey on the form, as I will for each piece discussed in this
book. See Example 2.3 for my form chart. Richard Kurth hints at hearing the
Prelude as a binary form when he calls the passage after the fermata in m. 16 a
varied recapitulation of the opening measures, and my chart places the largest
Example 2.2
Schoenberg, Prelude Op. 25: the palindromic basic form
Example 2.3
Schoenberg, Prelude Op. 25: form chart
division between A and A at that point.10 Other authors have pointed out subdiv-
isions in the form, which my chart incorporates as subsections. Ernst Flammer calls
our attention to the rest in m. 5 and the dynamic change in m. 9, and claims that the
three resulting subsections create a small bar form, a larger version of the aab
relations between the three tetrachords of the source row (the rst two tetrachords
have tritones between their third and fourth notes, the third does not).11 I have
indicated these same subsections as a, b, and c on my chart. In addition, a rest at the
end of m. 19 and extreme dynamic changes from to at m. 20 and to f at
m. 22 divide the large A0 section into three parts, a0 (mm. 16b19), d (mm. 2021),
and e (mm. 2224, which serve as a coda). The small d subsection could possibly be
heard as a parenthesis between a0 and e, since it interrupts an increase in dynamics,
texture, and complexity of row disposition through those subsections. At the same
time, mm. 20 and 21 are anything but parenthetical, because they provide the
10
Richard B. Kurth, Mosaic Polyphony: Formal Balance, Imbalance and Phrase Formation in the
Prelude of Schoenbergs Suite, Op. 25, Music Theory Spectrum 14/2 (Fall 1992): 196.
11
Ernst Helmuth Flammer, Zur Schnberg-Deutung in Adornos Philosophie der neuen Musik,
Beitrge zur Musikwissenschaft 32/1 (1990): 57.
Example 2.4
Schoenberg, Prelude Op. 25: the fteen row pairs that Schoenberg uses, together with the
order-number partitions (mosaics) that are applied to them to create collectional
invariance (palindromic dyads are indicated through shading)
solution for the whole movement clear statements of the palindromic structures
toward which the piece has been striving.
In general, the Prelude presents its row forms in pairs or triplets, taking its cue
from the prime-retrograde pairs of the set table. Since Schoenberg limits himself in
this movement (as well as the other movements of Op. 25) to eight row forms, P4, R4,
I10, RI10, P10, R10, I4, and RI4, there are twenty-eight possible pairings of row forms
available to him. He uses fteen of these in the Prelude, as shown in Example 2.4.
(Please note that the retrograde and retrograde-inverted forms in Example 2.4 follow
the pattern suggested by Schoenbergs set table: the tetrachords reverse within
themselves but keep the original order between themselves.)
Of these fteen row pairs, thirteen have the property of collectional invariance,
which obtains, according to Donald Martino, Andrew Mead, Richard Kurth, and
others, when identical order-number partitions of two rows produce identical
collections of pitch-class sets.12 In the Prelude, the collectional invariance involves
reproducing the six pitch-class dyads of one row in the other, and Example 2.4
12
See Donald Martino, The Source Set and its Aggregate Formations, Journal of Music Theory 5/2
(Winter 1961): 22473; Andrew Mead, Some Implications of the Pitch-Class/Order-Number
Isomorphism Inherent in the Twelve-Tone System: Part One, Perspectives of New Music 26/2
(Summer 1988): 96163; Kurth, Mosaic Polyphony, pp. 188208.
Example 2.4 (cont.)
shows that certain row pairs, namely those related by retrograde, produce all six of
these as palindromes, while other pairs produce only ve, four, three, or two
of them as palindromes (the palindromic dyads are shaded on Example 2.4). The
two row pairs at the bottom of Example 2.4, which are not collectionally invariant,
Example 2.4 (cont.)
theoretically could present several dyad palindromes in the same manner as the
rows higher on the chart (for example, in I10 and R10 the pitch classes 10 and 1
come back in reverse order). But not many of these palindromic dyads are close
enough to being contiguous to be useful in a texture that would highlight them as
Example 2.5
Schoenberg, Prelude Op. 25, mm. 13. Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and
European American Music Distributors
motives within an overall segmentation into tetrachords. (This same problem

occurs with the row pairs listed as having ve palindromic dyads in Example 2.4.
Note that Schoenberg uses each of these only once.)
The list in Example 2.4 provides Schoenberg with a repertory of collectionally
invariant row pairs that are graded with respect to the number of palindromic
dyads they produce. These pairs are the materials he uses to project his musical
idea, which involves striving toward and then realizing an ideal shape having six
dyad palindromes. The piece begins with a linear statement of P4 in the right hand
placed against one of P10 in which the second and third tetrachords are aligned
vertically, thus realizing row pair 9 in Example 2.4. P4 and P10 together produce
four dyad palindromes, pitch classes 71/17, 45/54, 82/28, and 1011/1110.
Two of these occur as adjacencies, 71/17 and 82/28, while the other two have
pitch classes intervening between the members of one dyad. In this way P4 and P10
hint at the ideal shape (six dyad palindromes that are all contiguous) without
realizing it completely. Example 2.5 is Schoenbergs realization of this row pair: it
shows that he uses slurring and metrical placement to highlight the two contiguous
dyad palindromes as motives: GDf at the end of m. 1 is answered by DfG on the
downbeat of m. 2; then AfD going into the second dotted quarter of m. 2 is

answered by DGs on the downbeat of m. 3. The non-contiguous dyad palin-
dromes, EF in m. 1 leading to F (Fs Ef) E in mm. 23, and BfCf in m. 1 leading
to B (C A) Bf in mm. 23, are also highlighted, through dynamics and articulation.
E and F in m. 1 share staccato and p markings with F and E in mm. 23, while Bf
and Cf in m. 1 share violent accents (^, s f , and ) with B and Bf in mm. 23.
From this opening passage that hints at the movements basic shape but does
not completely realize it, the piece immediately regresses toward a combination
of rows that further obscures the works ultimate goal. Measures 45 place I10
and R10, two rows that are not collectionally invariant, side by side (see pair No. 14
in Example 2.4). The rows do share two invariant dyads, one contiguous (71/71)
and the other holding order positions 4 and 7 in both rows (80/80), but neither
of them reverses from one row to the other, so the possibility of dyad palindromes is
limited to what one might pick up from non-contiguous, different order positions.
Schoenberg begins the small b subsection in mm. 5b7a by placing R4 and RI4
side by side. As pair No. 4 in Example 2.4 shows, this combination gives rise to ve
dyad palindromes, but only three of them occur within tetrachords and only one is
contiguous. Each of the three palindromes within tetrachords comes to the fore on
the musical surface in a different way: see Example 2.6 for an illustration. The
contiguous one, 17/71, is set as the beginnings of two identical rhythmic motives
( xxxq ) that are either f or accented. The other two dyad palindromes are
emphasized more subtly. 26/62 forms the endpoints of overlapping rhythmic
motives in mm. 6a and 6b 7a that are similar but not identical, while 911/119 is
highlighted as longer values in m. 6a and as notes on the beat in m. 6b. The general
effect is of returning to a situation similar to mm. 13, where certain dyad
palindromes are contiguous, and others are obscured by intervening notes but are
still audible as beginning and ending notes of recognizable segments.
The small b subsection continues and ends in mm. 7b9a with a passage in which
three rows are presented more or less simultaneously. As Example 2.7 illustrates, P4
appears in the bass line and is the only one of the three rows to unfold itself linearly
(follow the dashed line in the pitch-class map). P10 begins with it in the alto, and the
solid line shows that its third tetrachord begins (on F) halfway through the
performance of the second. I4 joins the mix at the end of m. 7 (see the dotted line),
and also begins its third tetrachord simultaneously with the halfway point of its
second (C and A in m. 9).
Considering the three rows as three potential pairings, P4 with P10, P10 with I4, and
P4 with I4, yields a rich crop of palindromic dyads many of which are highlighted
motivically. In general, we can hear this passage as a turn back in the direction of the
ideal shape, continuing the trend of the previous measures. Most notable is the
double palindrome, 17/71/17, created when moving from P10 through P4 to I4.
Note how Schoenberg emphasizes each of the second notes of these dyad motives
Example 2.6
Schoenberg, Prelude Op. 25, mm. 5b7a. Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers
and European American Music Distributors
with a downbeat, s f , or marking. The 82/28 palindrome between P4 and P10 in

m. 8 is less well marked, but with the accent marks on the second dyad it gives the
impression of the motive growing out of the texture. Two other dyads create
palindromes that span the passage, and thus are less immediately audible, but still
certain features bring their relationships to the listeners attention. 43/34 between
I4 and P10 gives rise to a pitch palindrome E4Ef4/Ef4Ff4 that begins and ends the
soprano phrase in mm. 7b9. 1011/1110 between P10 and I4 does not create a
pitch palindrome, but the rst dyad is highlighted through wedge accents at the very
beginning of the passage, and the second, coming at the end of the passage without
any accompanying voices, seems to answer it.
With the onset of the small c subsection in m. 9b come two passages that rst
back away from the ideal of six contiguous palindromic dyads, and then take a step
back in the direction of that ideal. Measures 9b11a again combine three row forms,
RI10 in mm. 9b10a followed by or overlapping with R4 and I4 in mm. 10b11a.
When these three rows are combined into pairs, as the reader can see from pairs 11,
13, and 15 in Example 2.4 (reproduced at the bottom of Example 2.8), not many
Example 2.7
dyad palindromes result. R4 and RI10 together give three; of these, only the 910/
109 is strongly emphasized in the music, by pitch identity and accent (the other
two palindromic dyads are hidden by octave displacement or intervening notes
from another tetrachord). But Schoenberg obscures the palindromic quality of
910/109 by turning the second of them into a vertical (the ABf vertical in the
right hand of m. 11). As for RI10 and I4, their two palindromic dyads, 25/52 and
118/811, are made less salient by distance and intervening notes from other
tetrachords (Example 2.8 illustrates how 52/25 within RI10 and I4 is so obscured).
And R4 and I4 have no palindromic dyads between them, as pair 15 shows.
The following passage, mm. 11b13a, represented in Example 2.9, presents, one
after another, the three row forms P4, I10, and I4. Each row overlaps in one note
with its neighbor(s). The row pairs P4 and I10, I10 and I4, and P4 and I4 signicantly
increase the numbers of dyad palindromes available to Schoenberg to bring out as
Example 2.8
motives (three, four, and ve respectively; see Example 2.4, pairs 8b, 10, and 5, or
the bottom of Example 2.9), and he does indeed highlight several of these. Espe-
cially notable is Schoenbergs treatment of the dyad {1,7}. Example 2.4, pair 8b,
shows that this dyad does not naturally form a palindrome between P4 and I10, but
at the end of m. 11, left hand, the row order of the two pitch classes is reversed, so
that 1 comes before 7. The I10 form answers this motive in the top voices of m. 12b
not with <7,1> as expected but with a vertical dyad containing these pitch classes.
Finally, I4 brings <1,7> back in the bass line of m. 13a. Schoenberg seems to be
forgoing the palindrome that could have been available to him between P4 and I10,
in favor of creating a larger, three-element palindrome spanning the whole passage:
<1,7>, {1,7} as a vertical, <1,7>. The registral motion of these motives from bass
Example 2.9
Schoenberg, Prelude Op. 25, mm. 11b13a. Used by permission of Belmont Music
Publishers and European American Music Distributors
to soprano to bass reinforces the pattern. Example 2.9 also illustrates three other
dyad palindromes that are made salient by the musical surface.
The gradual increase in palindromic motives of mm. 11b13a over the previous
measures leads toward a goal, which is reached in m. 13. For the rst time in the
Prelude, Schoenberg places two retrograde-related rows, I4 and RI4, side by side, with
their discrete tetrachords stacked vertically. It was pointed out above that this kind of
arrangement would be treated by the piece as an ultimate solution within the musical
idea that embraces the whole, because it produces six contiguous palindromic dyads.
But m. 13 is not near enough to the end of the work to provide a conclusive answer: that
will have to wait until m. 20. Therefore, Schoenberg uses a number of different methods
to obscure some of the palindromic dyads, as illustrated by Example 2.10. The example
Example 2.10
Schoenberg, Prelude Op. 25, m. 13. Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and
places the ideal shape of I4 and RI4, with the palindromes boxed and bracketed, and the
ones that are highlighted in the music shaded, in the lower right-hand part of the page.
From this comparison, the reader can see that, while certain palindromes are expressed
clearly, such as 43/34, 17/71, and 06/60, another one is obscured by a reversal of
order (25/52 changes to 25/25). The remaining palindromes, 98/89 and 1110/
1011, are hidden through a combination of registral transfer from soprano to bass and
changing the rst dyad of each pair into a vertical (these are not circled in the example).
What results from all these alterations is a musical shape closer to the ideal than
anything we have heard yet, but still not perfect.
The next passage to consider, mm. 1416a, has two functions. First, it
provides a cadence for the rst large A section in m. 16a, which Schoenberg
accomplishes by rhythmic means, including the three fermatas in mm. 15 and
16. Second, it takes one step backward from m. 13s situation in the pieces
overall quest to realize its basic shape as six dyad palindromes. This step
backward will lead to the Preludes dynamic and registral climax in mm. 1719,
Example 2.11
Schoenberg, Prelude Op. 25, mm. 1416a. Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers
in which a complex partitioning of four row forms gives rise to palindromic

structures different from the basic shape the height of striving for the ideal
without reaching it.
Example 2.11 illustrates the row forms that are used in mm. 1416a and, at the
bottom right corner of the example, some of the invariant dyads that are created
thereby. Measure 14 projects P10, followed by P4 and I10 together in mm. 15 and
16a. P4 and I10 can produce a collectional invariance that yields three palindromic
dyads, different from the one that was featured in mm. 11 and 12, as Example 2.4,
pair 8c, shows. They are 45/54, 68/86, and 109/910. But Schoenbergs main
strategy here does not seem to be highlighting these palindromes; instead he uses
both palindromic and ordered invariants to create a balanced relationship
between P4 and I10 that Richard Kurth has already described at length.13 To
13
Kurth, Mosaic Polyphony, pp. 19699.
Example 2.12
Schoenberg, Prelude Op. 25, mm. 16b17a. Used by permission of Belmont Music
summarize part of Kurths argument, the vertical dyads 45 and 32 of P4 in m. 15 are

answered by 54 and 32 from I10 as horizontals in m. 16.14 Likewise, the offbeat
dyads 109 and 110 of I10 in m. 15 are answered by the chord on the downbeat of m.
16 containing 910 and 110 from P4. The other invariant dyads between P4 and I10,
17/17 and 68/86, both overlap the two row forms in a single vertical. This
exchange of directions and metrical accent qualities in mm. 1516a overshadows the
three symmetrical invariant dyads of P4 and I10, mainly because all three of the
palindromes are set as verticals on at least one of the occasions when they appear.
The second main section of the piece, A0 , owes its label to its beginning, which is
portrayed in Example 2.12. Measures 16b17a vary the opening Grundgestalt
material. P10 begins in the right hand and P4 follows in the left, and neither row
is presented linearly (as P4 was in mm. 13). Still, the same four dyad palindromes
14
This observation necessitates understanding the En in the alto on the downbeat of m. 16 as a
misprint that takes the place of Ef, an interpretation that Kurth agrees with.
Example 2.13a
Schoenberg, Prelude Op. 25, mm. 17b19: ordering of row elements
reappear, though now not in the same order as in the Grundgestalt. We hear a
sequence consisting of the rst halves of 1011/1110, 17/71, 45/54, and 82/
28, a variation of mm. 12s sequence: 45, 17 together with 1011, 82. Another
way in which this passage is different is that the four dyad palindromes are not
marked in any signicant way, as they were with staccato marks, accents, and s f
and markings in the Grundgestalt. After the clear presentations of 1011, 17,
and 45 from m. 16b to the downbeat of m. 17, the rest of the elements of the
palindromic dyads seem to blur in m. 17, as the note values shorten from dotted
sixteenth to sixteenth, groups of notes begin to slur together, and the texture grows
to four voices. This blurring process, just as the obscuring of the dyad palindromes
in mm. 1516a did, sets the listener up for new kinds of palindromic shapes in the
measures to follow.
Measures 17b19 constitute a climax for the Prelude in terms of dynamic and
registral extremes, and also in terms of complexity of row-element ordering.
Richard Kurth has shown that the passage adopts an ordering that not only
obscures the rows as wholes, as most of the earlier passages did, but in addition
makes the individual tetrachords difcult to distinguish.15 This ordering is illus-
trated by Example 2.13a, a reproduction of Kurths Figure 5. Each number in the
example represents the corresponding order numbers of both rows, presented
together as a vertical dyad. Parentheses indicate two order numbers of the same
15
Kurth, Mosaic Polyphony, pp. 199206.
Example 2.13b
Schoenberg, Prelude Op. 25, mm. 17b19. Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers
row which create invariant pitch classes with the corresponding order numbers in
the other row, so that four order positions are presented together as a single (or
repeated) vertical dyad. In mm. 17b19, no tetrachord is completed before another
enters. Furthermore, each tetrachord itself is made more difcult to distinguish by
the way in which Schoenberg moves its successive members between right and left
hands and from top to bottom registrally, as Example 2.13b illustrates. For an
example, trace the path of the second tetrachord of P4 in mm. 17b and 18, indicated
with circled pitch-class numbers , , , and ` in Example 2.13b. This tetrachord
progresses from Gf in the right hands highest register at the pickup to m. 18, to Ef
in a middle register of the left hand on the second sixteenth note of eighth-note beat
Example 2.13c
Schoenberg, Prelude Op. 25, mm. 17b19: dyads created by partition of P4/I10 and I4/P10
2 in m. 18. (In between, order numbers 2 and 3 from the rst tetrachord have come
on the downbeat of m. 18.) Next comes Af, in the left hands lowest register on the
second sixteenth note of beat 3 (after order positions 8 and 9 from the third
tetrachord have intervened). Finally we hear D in the right hands middle register
on the fth beat (after order positions 10 and 11 have been heard on the two parts
of the fourth beat).
Schoenbergs practice of jumbling the order between the tetrachords and disconnect-
ing the individual pitches of the tetrachords from each other registrally has an import-
ant effect. It creates a partition of the row pairs P4/I10 and I4/P10 that forms a different
sort of palindrome from the Preludes basic shape, but nevertheless centered on the
dyad {1,7}, as the basic shapes top tetrachord has been. This partition divides each of
the row pairs into the same six vertical dyads, repeated once within the pair (portrayed
at the upper right in Example 2.13c). These dyads are arranged pitch-class-
symmetrically around 1 and 7, as the pitch-class clock on the upper left in Example
2.13c shows. Thus, in the climactic section, Schoenberg seems to be making an attempt
to bring back the Preludes basic shape, but instead creates a related kind of structure. It
is as if he is striving mightily to return to his Grundgestalt, but not yet nding success,
making this section a climax of imbalance as well as register and dynamics.
My interpretation of the dramatic function of mm. 17b19 within the whole is
strengthened by other palindromic shapes within the passage that seem more audible
than the underlying pitch-class symmetry around {1,7}. Kurth has highlighted
three such shapes; I will focus only on what he calls the gamma palindrome.16
Schoenberg seems to have recognized that a certain sequence of order numbers,
namely <5-and-8,9,6,10>, when applied to rst P4/I10 and then I4/P10, will create a
palindromic sequence of dyads (illustrated in the middle of Example 2.13c, and also
shaded in Example 2.13b). This is one of the few order-number sequences that will
produce such a result. The eight-dyad pitch-class palindrome that ensues is not
highlighted further through pitch symmetry. But, as Kurth argues, a number of
qualities draw the listeners attention to gamma its change in contour from
parallel motion between the hands in m. 18 to contrary motion in m. 19, and the
identical metrical position of its dyads within the two measures, not to mention the
various ways in which Schoenberg highlights its midpoint, the last sixteenth of m. 18
and the downbeat of m. 19 (see the bottom of Example 2.13c for an illustration of
some of gammas contour and rhythmic features). In this way, the role of mm. 17b
19 within the whole Prelude as a passage that noisily and furiously tries to get back
to the basic shape, but misses the mark, is made more obvious.
After all the sound and fury, the long-awaited solution to the Preludes problem
is introduced in m. 20, with a sudden drop in dynamics to , a shrinking of the
registral compass, and a leveling-out of the rhythm. This is a quiet, innocuous
setting for the pieces conclusive passage, almost as if the answer were coming as a
still, small voice after a great storm.17 (Schoenberg would set another pieces
conclusion in a similar way later on, that of the String Trio.) As Example 2.14
shows, m. 20 presents the basic shape for P4 and R4, which was the rst line of
Schoenbergs original row table. Notice how each tetrachord stays within a rela-
tively limited register, with only a minimum of overlapping between the top and
middle tetrachords (the top tetrachord, F4G5; the middle, D4Af4; the bottom,
A3C4). Measure 20 provides the solution in the sense that four of the six
possible dyad palindromes are clearly presented as pitch mirrors; 45/54 on top,
63/36 in the middle, and 110/011 and 910/109 on the bottom. The other
two dyad palindromes are represented by only one of their members, 71 on top
and 82 in the middle (having the effect of making the top and middle voices
16
Ibid., pp. 20103.
17
The still, small voice comes from 1 Kings 19:1113, of course. It was typical of Schoenberg to
borrow topics and images from Jewish Scripture for his compositions (Moses und Aron among
many others) as well as his writings (Composition with Twelve Tones). Perhaps the Prelude can
be thought of as a subtler example of such a borrowing.
Example 2.14
incomplete palindromes as wholes). The arrangement of the bottom voice not only
makes it a pitch palindrome, but also presents the third tetrachord of R4 in a shape
that it has not yet taken. Pitch classes <10,9,0,11>, when spelled with German
letter names, reveal a motto that has been hinted at in earlier passages BACH.
(That sequence was stated backward at mm. 23, 8, 12, and 17, partitioned
registrally into 3 1 notes in m. 6, and given vertically on the downbeat of m. 16.)
Here is another way in which m. 20 solves a problem posed by earlier measures.
Interestingly, the rhythms of the six tetrachords of P4/R4 in m. 20 are not
palindromic. Instead, Schoenberg seems to be setting each tetrachord apart from
its partners, by giving each a unique rhythmic pattern that repeats regularly within
an overriding 3/4 meter. (The 3/4 is itself a hemiola with respect to the main meter
of the piece, 6/8.) The top voice repeats x x three times, and the middle x x .
The bottom voice begins by repeating e. x, but because of the extra pitch
made necessary by its complete pitch palindrome, changes rhythm on the third
beat to x x x, a close relative of the former pattern.
Example 2.15
Measure 21 continues the trend of m. 20, except that now all three voices create
complete palindromes within the I10/RI10 pair with the result that all six palin-
dromic dyads are heard clearly as pitch or pitch-class mirrors (see Example 2.15 for
an illustration). The bottom voice, representing the rst tetrachord in an inversion of
m. 20s registral order of voices, is a pitch-class palindrome; the middle and top
voices create pitch palindromes from the second and third tetrachords respectively.
Dynamically, the passage grows steadily, paralleling the closer approximation to the
perfect Grundgestalt. Registrally, the three voices are again set apart from one
another within limited ranges: now the bottom voice overlaps with the middle, and
the top two voices are registrally distinct. Intervallically, the three voices present an
inversion of the ordered pitch-interval successions of m. 20 or, rather, what they
would have been if the top two voices in m. 20 had been complete palindromes.
(Consult the ordered pitch-interval strings in the bottom right-hand corners of
Examples 2.14 and 2.15.) And rhythmically, each voice again repeats its own unique
motto within the 3/4 framework, changing slightly on the third beat to accommodate
Example 2.16
the seventh note made necessary by each voices complete palindrome. The top voice
takes over e. x, which was on the bottom in m. 20. The middle voice adopts x x ,
which belonged to the top voice. And the bottom voice introduces a new rhythm,
, and then repeats it before opening up into steady sixteenths on the third beat.
xe
Measure 21 thus seems to fulll two functions within the whole Prelude: rst, it
provides a solution to the pieces overarching problem by presenting the clearest
statement yet heard of the basic shape, that shape illustrated in Schoenbergs set
table sketch.18 For the rst time in the piece, all six palindromic dyads are presented
18
It should be pointed out that not every row pair in Schoenbergs set table (Example 2.1) creates pitch
or ordered interval palindromes within individual voices. The lower two voices of P4/R4 create
ordered pitch-interval palindromes but not pitch palindromes (because Schoenberg transposed the
second tetrachord down an octave); the lowest voice in I10/RI10 creates an ordered pitch-interval
as pitch or pitch-class palindromes, and each of the six dyads is associated with a
pair of ordered pitch intervals that mirror one another. (For example, 109/910 in
the bass voice is projected by 11 and 11.) Second, m. 21 not only inverts, but
develops and completes the previous measure. It satises this role intervallically, by
transforming m. 20s incomplete palindromes in the top and middle voices into
complete ones in the middle and bottom voices, and also rhythmically, by moving
m. 20s bottom rhythm to the top, and its top rhythm to the middle.
The nal three measures in the Prelude are similar to ending passages in a number
of Schoenbergs other works of all three style periods, in that they return the pieces
solution to obscurity after it has just been revealed.19 Example 2.16s pitch-class map
shows that m. 22 combines P10 and I4, the same pair that held sway in mm. 18b19.
Like mm. 18b19, m. 22 combines its pair of rows in such a way that most of the
individual tetrachords are indistinguishable. However, the latter passage is different
from the earlier one in that it does not place as much emphasis on the vertical dyads
created by corresponding order numbers. In four places, corresponding order
numbers do sound as verticals (these are shaded on the pitch-class map): {0,2}
formed by order position 6 in both rows on the fth sixteenth note, {6,8} by order
position 7 on the seventh sixteenth note, and two dyads that are more obvious
because of their closer registral placement: {3,11} formed by order number 10 on
the sixth sixteenth, and {4,10} by order number 11 on the eighth sixteenth.
But while these familiar verticals from the climactic section return on the last
four sixteenths of m. 22, some of the horizontal palindromic dyads from earlier
parts of the piece also come to the fore at other places in the measure. Specically,
43/34 and 1011/1110, the dyad invariances created at order positions <0,1>
and <10,11> in P10/I4, are highlighted in similar ways. As the rightmost part of
Example 2.16 shows, the rst part of each palindrome receives a clear statement in
the left hand at the measures beginning, and a less clear statement (because of the
intervening {Af, Gf, Df} chord) in the right hand at the measures end. It seems at
least possible to hear the vertical dyads from mm. 18b19 as coming in at the end of
m. 22 and disrupting the horizontal palindromic dyads.
If m. 22 is heard as a summary of that part of the piece coming before the
solution disrupting the strivings toward the basic shape that were characteristic of
mm. 116 with the vertical dyads that were characteristic of mm. 1719 then m. 23
palindrome but not a pitch one (for the same reason); and the top voice of I4/RI4 creates only a pitch
class palindrome (because Schoenberg has displaced two notes of its second tetrachord, G and E, by
an octave). But the majority of voices do create both pitch and ordered pitch-interval mirrors, so
I believe it is safe to treat that shape as a norm.
19
Several examples of twelve-tone pieces that follow a similar plan will be given in this book. For an
example of an atonal piece that obscures its solution at the end, consider Seraphita Op. 22, No. 1,
as described in my dissertation, An Analogue to Developing Variation in a Late Atonal Song of
Arnold Schoenberg (Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, 1991), especially pp. 21931.
Example 2.17
Schoenberg, Prelude Op. 25, mm. 2324a. Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers
continues the same process. This measure dissipates the horizontal palindromes
even further, while the vertical dyads from the climax disappear as well. A row-
count of m. 23 can be found in Example 2.17. The two rows combined here are R4
and RI10, which together account for every pitch class in the measure save the last
four notes in the left hand (unattached in the example). These last four notes could
be heard as an echo of the repeated 17, 17 in the initial four sixteenths of the right
hand: in other words, as a motivic development (of a motive signicant throughout
the Prelude) that takes us beyond the inuence of the twelve-tone row for a
moment. Example 2.4, pair 11, shows that R4 and RI10 together create three dyad
palindromes, 910/109, 54/45, and 68/86. But Schoenbergs setting of these
two rows obscures all these dyad invariances, together with the majority of the row
forms adjacent dyads. As Example 2.17 shows, the six tetrachords from the two
rows are interlocked, so that adjacent pitch classes in a tetrachord most often have a
pitch class from the other row sounding in between. Where such interlocking does
not occur as in the rst two sixteenths, which present adjacencies from RI10;
sixteenths 34, which present adjacencies from R4; and sixteenths 56, which present
an adjacency from R4 registral shifts prevent us from hearing the dyad horizontally.
In addition, Schoenberg has stacked the three tetrachords of each row more or less
vertically (order positions 2, 6, and 10 are not aligned vertically in both rows). Hence,
instead of the vertical dyads characteristic of mm. 1719s climactic passage, we hear
trichords, none of which contain dyads from the earlier passage.
Thus we can hear m. 23 as dissipating the elements that were crucial in the
pieces earlier arguments. In their place, the most prominent element, at least at
m. 23s beginning, is a set class common to most of Schoenbergs atonal and serial
music: set class 3-3 (014). Instances of 3-3 are marked with shaded boxes in
Example 2.17. Although 3-3 has been heard several times earlier in the Prelude
(the second half of m. 1 without Df, the downbeat of m. 3, the third to fth
sixteenths of m. 9, the nal three notes of m. 9, among others), its appearances
were less common in the rst part of the piece, possibly because the only way it can
come about is by means of non-contiguous partitioning or combining different
rows. Therefore, after solving the pieces problem in mm. 2021, m. 23 seems
preoccupied to an extent not heard before with a different, though related, element.
The nal measure continues the Preludes journey away from the process that
dominated its development in the rst twenty-one measures, but at the same time
recalls elements of that process, in an attempt to round off the whole. A row-count
of m. 24 can be found in Example 2.18. This measure combines three rows, P4 and
I10 at the beginning, and R4 following P4 in the right hand and overlapping with I10
in the left hand. P4 and R4, appearing side by side, give the composer the oppor-
tunity for six dyad palindromes, as we have already seen in m. 20. But here in m. 24,
Schoenberg obscures the ideal shape by applying registral changes or changes in
ordering to the palindromic dyads, or placing other pitch classes between the
members of a dyad. Only 910/109 is presented in such a way that both dyads
seem contiguous and clearly reverse each other; but even in that case, the right side
of the palindrome, 109 (right hand, second and third sixteenths of the second half
of m. 24), occurs as an inner voice under a more prominent motion up to Gs. An
interesting case of a palindromic dyad obscured by an order change, which then
comes to the fore as a repeating motive, is the last measures treatment of 71/17
from P4/R4. The second part of the palindrome is reversed to 71 on the last two
sixteenths of m. 24, and hence the reversed dyad echoes 71 from P4 (projected as
eighth-note G and triplet sixteenth Cs on beat 3 of the 6/8). Since the 7-1 dyad of
the third row, I10, is also emphasized motivically (dotted quarter G to sixteenth Df
in the left hand in the measures second half), m. 24 reminds us of this motives
importance throughout the Prelude by multiplying occurrences of it.
Example 2.18
While recalling a few of the dyad palindromes and motives that characterized the
earlier parts of the piece, m. 24 also develops certain elements that came to the fore
in mm. 22 and 23. There is a saturation of trichords belonging to set class 3-3 that
accounts for many of the natural segments of the passage, as well as some not-so-
obvious segments. Each set class 3-3 is highlighted by a box in Example 2.18; there
are seven altogether. Although that trichord has occurred a number of times earlier
in the piece, and in a more concentrated manner in mm. 22 and 23, the last measure
packs more set classes 3-3 into a small space than we have heard before.
To summarize, then, the Prelude Op. 25 can be heard as growing out of a process
that closely resembles Schoenbergs concept of musical idea, if we pay attention to
the different ways in which it presents its Grundgestalt, or basic shape, from
beginning to end of the piece. This shape, with its six palindromic dyads, is
suggested and obscured several times in the opening measures. Then at the climax,
mm. 1719, the piece strives mightily to return to the basic shape, but succeeds only
in creating other palindromic shapes, some obvious, some more subtle, that are
substantially different from it. Immediately after this dynamic and registral high
point, the basic shape is presented in such a way that all six of its palindromic dyads
are unmistakable. But the solution is followed by a coda, mm. 2224, which
obscures the basic shape and multiplies a trichordal element signicantly different
from that shapes dyadic components.
Menuett
The Menuett and its accompanying Trio share the distinction of being the most-
analyzed pieces in the Suite Op. 25. A wide variety of perspectives have been
brought to bear on these two short pieces, and many of them will be represented,
discussed, and disputed in the paragraphs and footnotes to follow. At one point in
the history of the analytical literature, writers seemed to express a conventional
wisdom that placed a major dividing line between them: namely, the Menuett is to
be understood in terms of the same partitioning into interdependent tetrachords as
the earlier movements, while the Trio introduces for the rst time the notion of a
linear ordering of the twelve pitch classes, divided into two hexachords, the type of
partition more characteristic of Schoenbergs mature twelve-tone music. Examples
of the conventional wisdom include Ethan Haimos discussion of the two pieces
in Schoenbergs Serial Odyssey and Jan Maegaards earlier article on the chronology
of Schoenbergs early twelve-tone music.20
A recent analysis by Stephen Peles of excerpts of the Menuett challenges the
notion that logic and process in the piece can be understood only in terms of
tetrachordal elements.21 Specically, Peles uncovers (in the rst two measures of the
Menuett) a procedure, which I will call collectional exchange, operating on hexa-
chords, as well as tetrachords. Briey dened, collectional exchange projects the
pitch-class content of the discrete subsets of some other row than the one in effect,
through rhythmic and/or registral grouping. Examples of this technique appear for
the rst time in the Intermezzo, the Op. 25 piece that Schoenberg composed second,
as well as in the Gavotte. Example 2.19 shows the tetrachord exchange that begins
20
Haimo, Schoenbergs Serial Odyssey, pp. 10102; Maegaard, A Study in the Chronology of Op. 2326
by Arnold Schoenberg, p. 113. Maegaard also suggests that initial work Schoenberg did on the
Gigue Op. 25 before he began the Trio (during March 23, 1923) may have been where he rst
worked out the concept of dividing a linear statement of the row into hexachords. See my analysis of
the Gigue, below.
21
Stephen Peles, Continuity, Reference and Implication: Remarks on Schoenbergs Proverbial Dif-
culty, Theory and Practice 17 (1992): 3558.
Example 2.19
Schoenberg, Intermezzo Op. 25, mm. 03: phrase 1. Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European American
Music Distributors
Example 2.20a
Schoenberg, Menuett Op. 25, mm. 12, with three pitch-class maps illustrating hexachord and
tetrachord exchanges (adapted from Peles, Continuity, Reference and Implication, Figures 3ce).
Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European American Music Distributors
the Intermezzo: notice that within P4 in mm. 01, pitch classes 6 and 8 group
together registrally in the tenor, as do pitch classes 11 and 0 in the bass.
Now, these four pitch classes do not form a discrete tetrachord of P4, but they do
form the content of the second discrete tetrachord of I10, <8,11,6,0>. Not coinci-
dentally, the second discrete tetrachord of I10 appears immediately after, in the second
part of m. 2 as the repeated gure in the right hand. Meanwhile, within I10, pitch classes
4, 5, 7, and 1 appear together in the middle and upper registers of the left hand (mm.
2b3). This group of pitch classes cannot be found as a discrete tetrachord in I10, but
they do make up the content of P4s rst tetrachord, which was highlighted as a
repeated gure in the right hand of mm. 02a. In a sense, P4 gives its rst tetrachord
to I10, and I10 gives its second tetrachord to P4: a tetrachord exchange.
To return now to the opening of the Menuett, my Example 2.20a provides
adaptations of Peless Figures 3ce, surrounding the pertinent score excerpt. From
Example 2.20b
Schoenberg, Suite Op. 25: the four source rows, divided into hexachords
this example, one can see that the opening statement of P4 projects the hexachords of
P10 and I4 and the tetrachords of I10. (Example 2.20b shows the four source rows
divided into hexachords.) The partition forming the two hexachords of P10, in reverse
order, is a chronological division of P4: all the pitch classes attacked before the barline
are divided from those pitch classes attacked after the barline. If we adopt a registral
boundary instead (imagine a horizontal black line whose top edge touches F4 and
whose bottom edge reaches to E4), the partition yields the hexachords of I4, the
second hexachord above the rst. And nally, if we separate the top two notes from
the other four in each measure (thus creating a registral partition within a chrono-
logical one), the three tetrachords of I10 emerge. Thus, hexachordal exchange appears
together with tetrachord exchange in this little passage a situation that did not
occur in the movements of Op. 25 composed earlier.
The main point Peles seems to make is that the opening measures of the Menuett
imply all the row forms that the rest of the piece then makes use of (and, in that
way, they serve as a Grundgestalt for the piece). But here I want to emphasize the
fact that the procedures mm. 12 use to project forms P10, I4, and I10 are the same
as those the Intermezzo (and Gavotte) were based on, collectional exchanges
expanded to embrace the hexachord as an exchangeable unit for the rst time.
Later in the Menuett, certain pairs of hexachords that come about through
exchange, as well as certain contiguous hexachords of the original row, are pre-
sented in ways that make the division into hexachords just as obvious as those in
mm. 12 or more so. This leads to the Trio, where almost every row form is divided
into its contiguous hexachords in an obvious way. Thus the Trio, rather than
presenting a completely unheard-of way of dividing the series, should be under-
stood as an outgrowth of exchange procedures that involved tetrachords in the
Intermezzo and Gavotte and are applied to hexachords beginning with the Menuett.
(The Trio will not be analyzed here, but a quick perusal of the score will demon-
strate the consistency of its hexachordal partitioning.)
The basic method of my Menuett analysis, then, will be to examine the presence
or absence and effects of hexachord exchange in each segment of the piece. Not
surprisingly, this approach brings to light a problem on the rst page of the piece
that is solved later, and the musical idea that ows forth from mm. 12s
Grundgestalt occurs in stages that line up with the different sections of the
Menuetts form. My view of the form agrees with Ethan Haimos, John McKays,
and Martin Boykans, in that it identies three main sections: A at m. 1, B directly
after the double bar at m. 12, and A0 at m. 17.22 Haimo calls this a rounded
binary, no doubt because of the repeat sign ending the A section and the brief, ve-
measure length of B. I prefer to label it as ternary because mm. 1731 reprise,
extend, and develop all of the pitch and rhythmic material of mm. 111, rather than
a condensed version of A. Whatever label we give to it, the form is the same one
that was typically associated with the minuet in the common-practice period (and,
as my analysis progresses, I will point out a number of ways in which Schoenberg
simulates the key changes that traditionally go with this form). The musical idea
lines up with the form as follows: the opening measures of A demonstrate that one
row form, P4, can, through hexachord and tetrachord exchange, project the other
three forms (as described above). The rst two measures of B divide P10 into
hexachords by means of a registral and chronological partition, but these hexa-
chords are not the ones produced by order positions 05 and 611. Instead,
Schoenberg rotates P10 to begin on order number 2, and then divides it into
contiguous hexachords, so that the left hands hexachord constitutes order positions
27 (presented out of order) and the right hand has 81 (also out of order).
Throughout the B section, the same partition of the rotated row is used, and none
of the row forms divided this way (I4 in mm. 1415, I10 in m. 16) is able to project
other forms through hexachord exchange as the P4 in mm. 12 has done. A problem
is thereby created: namely, rotation by two order positions, division into contiguous
hexachords, and subsequent internal reordering seem to destroy the rows capability
for suggesting other rows through exchange, which was so crucial at the pieces
beginning. Near the beginning of A0 , however, at mm. 1920, Schoenberg intro-
duces a form of I10 rotated by two positions in which order positions 27 appear in
the right hand (presented out of order) and 81 (also out of order) in the left hand,
22
Haimo, Schoenbergs Serial Odyssey, pp. 10001; John MacKay, Series, Form and Function:
Comments on the Analytical Legacy of Ren Leibowitz and Aspects of Tonal Form in the
Twelve-Tone Music of Schoenberg and Webern, Ex Tempore 8/1 (1996): 12426; Martin Boykan,
Silence and Slow Time (Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2004), pp. 13036. Seymour Shifrin in his
review of Schoenbergs Style and Idea, Perspectives of New Music 1415 (SpringSummer 1976, Fall
Winter 1976): 17481, calls the Menuett a binary form, dividing it into mm. 111 and 1233.
in a rhythmic pattern reminiscent of the opening measures, and when one divides
this rotated row at the barline, the partition does in fact give rise to the two
contiguous hexachords of the unrotated version of I4! This shows that rotated
rows can in fact suggest other rows through hexachord exchange, solving the
problem. The remainder of the Menuett then produces hexachord exchanges from
both rotated and unrotated rows, and at the nal cadence, mm. 3233, it shows
that segments from two different row forms, both rotated by two order positions,
can also be combined to produce hexachord and tetrachord exchanges. The
following paragraphs will describe the process that denes the Menuetts Idea in
greater detail.
After mm. 12s multidimensional demonstration of hexachord and tetrachord
exchanges, the passage immediately following, mm. 38, seems to move away,
step by step, from that ideal, obscuring it gradually in much the same way that
the Prelude obscured its ideal after suggesting or presenting it. Example 2.21
depicts this, using a pitch-class map below the score. In each of the ve row
presentations in this passage, the hexachords of other row forms projected
through exchange are marked with heavy boxes. Notice how in mm. 34, only
one hexachord exchange is created (rather than the two of mm. 12), with I4.
Though Schoenberg has reduced the number of exchanges, the hexachords of I4
come through clearly to the listener because of the chronological distribution of
I10s pitch classes. However, this partition is a bit less clear than the one that gave
rise to P10 in mm. 12, because it does not line up with the barline, and because
the listener has to ignore the sustained Df in m. 3 and the sustained Bf and A in
m. 4 to make it work.23
The hexachord exchanges in the following measures recede yet further from the
musical surface. In mm. 56a, P10 occurs, and this could be partitioned registrally
into the hexachords of P4, were it not for the lone pitch class 11 in the tenor on the
downbeat of m. 6, which belongs to the second hexachord of P4 but groups
registrally with the notes of the rst hexachord. This tendency toward hexachord
exchange minus one is exacerbated in the next row, I4 in mm. 6b7a, which
produces the hexachords of I10 if the listener can somehow group the <2,5,0,6>
gure of m. 6b with <3,4> on the second eighth of m. 7, and the highest pitch
class, 1, on the third beat of m. 6 with the middle to low register {7,8,9,10,11} in
23
Richard Kurth, in Dis-Regarding Schoenbergs Twelve-Tone Rows: An Alternative Approach to
Listening and Analysis for Twelve-Tone Music, Theory and Practice 21 (1996): 98100, reveals
another way in which the rst four measures of the Menuett present and then obscure or complicate
a pattern. Kurth shows how the attack rhythms of t3 of P4 in m. 2 take the
eeee rhythm of t2
in the rst measure and displace it to the right by an eighth note. The same divergence between the
notated meter and its alternative (both of which can be heard) continues with the basic attack
rhythms of t2 of I10 in m. 3, and t3 of I10 in m. 4.
Example 2.21
Schoenberg, Menuett Op. 25, mm. 38. Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European American Music Distributors
mm. 6b7. Measure 7b, the projection of P10 using the pitch classes of P4, presents a
similar problem: the members of P10s rst hexachord are registrally proximate, but
to hear the second hexachord we have to hook up pitch class 5 in the soprano on
beat 2 with {2,3,4,6.8} occurring in the middle and lower register. Finally, the
cadential measure, m. 8, brings forth the two hexachords of P10 through exchange,
but ve notes of each hexachord are separated from the other pitch class registrally:
{0,1,7,9,10} in the right hand from pitch class 11 in the left hand, and {2,3,4,5,8} in
the left hand from pitch class 6 in the right. There seems to be a step-by-step
blurring of rst the registral, and then the chronological partitions that gave rise to
the multiple hexachord exchanges in mm. 12.
At the same time, another aspect of mm. 12s structure breaks down in mm.
58, creating a process that we can identify as motivic liquidation. This term
comes from Schoenbergs Fundamentals of Musical Composition, and it refers to the
procedure that he considers to be typical of opening sentence forms from
Beethoven piano sonatas. In this process, a complex of motives that is introduced
in the rst phrase (presentation or tonic form) and loosely sequenced in the
second phrase (repetition or dominant form) is then broken up increasingly into
its individual motivic components during the third or continuation phrase, until
all that remains is the residue: the motives with the least recognizable shape.24
According to John MacKay, mm. 18 in Schoenbergs Op. 25 Menuett clearly
organize themselves into a sentence form, with the rst two measures constituting
the presentation, mm. 34 the repetition, and mm. 58 the continuation and
cadence.25 And if we look for the elements of mm. 12 and 34 in the third phrase,
we nd indeed that the continuation presents fewer and fewer components of the
opening. In the lowest register of m. 5, we hear pitch class 5 progressing to pitch
class 4, while <6,3,8,2> sounds above them in the alto register, which varies the
pitch-class sequence of m. 1, but not so much as to be unrecognizable. However, if
we listen for the motivic material of m. 2 in mm. 5b6, the only component that
comes through is <7,1> on the rst quarter of m. 6. The right-hand sequence of
m. 2, <11,0,9,10>, is no longer heard as a group. In the following row presentation,
I4 in mm. 6b7, the pitch classes {0,6,8,11} can be heard as a group (see the dotted
enclosure on the pitch-class map), and this may enable the listener to recall m. 3s
right hand, but there is not as immediate a connection as that between mm. 1 and 5.
For one reason, the order of the pitch classes has changed from <8,0,11,6> in m. 3
to <0,6,8,11> in m. 6; for another, the <0,6> and <8,11> dyads are separated into
different registers so that if there is a motivic connection heard, it is experienced as
24
Schoenbergs denition and illustrations of sentence form, including information on the nature and
role of liquidation, may be found in Schoenberg, Fundamentals of Musical Composition, pp. 2024
and 5881.
25
MacKay, Series, Form and Function, pp. 12425.
a fragmentation. When we reach m. 7b, P4 is presented, so there would be the

potential of recapturing the motivic complexes of mm. 12. Instead, Schoenberg
brings back the components <6,3,8,2>, <11,0,9,10>, <4,5>, and <7,1> in differ-
ent positions relative to one another (for example, <11,0,9,10> above <6,3,8,2>
instead of after it); and the order of pitch classes within the components is changed,
except for <4,5> and <11,0,9,10>. One might argue that <11,0,9,10> is the only
component remaining from mm. 12 that is noticeable, so that the effect is again
one of breaking off small components of larger motivic complexes. Finally, by the
time we arrive at I10 in m. 8, all three tetrachords are presented in different
orderings from their appearances back at mm. 34, and the most noticeable four-
note unit is the vertical on beat 2, the second tetrachord of I4, a set that did not play
any role in the presentation or repetition phrases. (At the same time, Schoenberg
partitions I10 into dyads, {10,9}, {7,1}, {8,11}, {6,0}, {3,4}, {2,5}, in such a way that
they could be reassembled to form the dyads of I4, creating a dyad exchange with
a row given earlier, but not one of the two opening rows.) In mm. 58, the
motives of the opening measures are rst disassociated from the contexts they
originally appeared in, and then disappear altogether, resembling the liquidations
that Schoenberg described in the continuations of initial sentences in Beethoven.
The whole process is dramatized by a progressive shortening of the durations that
Schoenberg gives to each row statement in mm. 18: six beats for P4, six beats for
I10, four beats for P10, three beats for I4, and two beats for P4, then expanding to
three beats for I10 at the cadence.
A passage of three measures, mm. 911, a cadential extension, brings the
Menuetts A section to a close. See Example 2.22. This section brings the hexachord
exchanges characteristic of the pieces beginning, which were obscured in mm. 38,
back up to the surface of the music. In m. 9, a chronological partition that is further
divided registrally (registral boundary at C4 for the rst beat, at D3 for the last two
beats) produces the two hexachords of P10 within P4. In m. 10, within I4, the same
partition generates the rst hexachord of I10 below the registral boundaries, and
would create I10s second hexachord above them, were it not for the stray F3 at the
end of the rst beat in the right hand. (Visually, because the stray note is played by
the right hand, the partition seems to generate an exchange just as easily as did
m. 9.) And then m. 11, through a chronological partition of I10, brings forth the two
hexachords of I4, but in a less obvious way because of the overlap of pitch classes 9,
10, and 5 in the middle (9 and 10 sound too early, or 5 too late, for a perfect
partition). In a way, mm. 911 cover the same ground as the previous measures,
clearly establishing a hexachord exchange and then gradually obscuring it, and
making use of both registral and chronological partitions.
Measures 911 are notable from another viewpoint, in that they place the pitch-
class sequence <9,10> and pitch class 10 in prominent places. A number of writers
have commented on the tonal allusions of the Menuett, including Haimo, Kurth,
Example 2.22
Schoenberg, Menuett Op. 25, mm. 911. Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers
and MacKay.26 The latter two agree that there is an emphasis on Ef within the
twelve-tone texture in the rst four measures. Kurths account is the most detailed,
showing how exchanged and contiguous tetrachords trace a motion from
<3,2,4,5> to <11,0,9,10> in mm. 12, going up a perfect fth from I to V
in other words, and how <11,0,9,10> as V in m. 3 returns to <4,5,2,3> as I in
m. 4. This tonal motion, typical for the rst two phrases of a Beethovenian
sentence, is shown on the pitch-class map in the lower half of Example 2.23. As
part of this motion, it is easy to pick out a sequence of half steps, one in each
measure, that audibly suggests the same tonal chord progression: <Ef,D><A,
26
Haimo, Schoenbergs Serial Odyssey, pp. 10001; Kurth, Dis-Regarding Schoenbergs Twelve-Tone
Rows, pp. 102113; MacKay, Series, Form and Function, pp. 12426.
Example 2.23
Schoenberg, Menuett Op. 25, mm. 14: tonal allusions. Used by permission of Belmont
Music Publishers and European American Music Distributors
Bf><A,Bf><D,Ef>.27 These are shown on the score excerpt in Example 2.23.

When mm. 911 highlight pitch class 10 and <9,10> through rhythmic and metric
emphases, then, as is shown on the score excerpt in Example 2.22, it is at least
possible to hear the A section modulating to the dominant at its end from Ef to
Bf. One problem with such an account of the A section is that it says nothing about
the notes in between the tonal references (Kurths exhaustive description of mm.
14 is an exception, but he does not go beyond m. 4, nor does he limit himself to
tonal explanations of the patterns he describes in the opening four measures).
27
Kurth, Dis-Regarding Schoenbergs Twelve-Tone Rows, p. 105. Actually, this is the rst of two
tonal accounts that Kurth makes of the opening measures; the second groups individual notes and
invariant dyads differently to suggest an A minor tonality in mm. 14.
Example 2.24
Schoenberg, Menuett Op. 25, mm. 1216 (the B section). Used by permission of Belmont
A bigger problem is that it becomes harder to nd strong references to the key of Ef

in the nal measures of the Menuett, where one would expect that key to be most
prominent.28 Thus, in my account, the tonal hearing will have to serve as subsidiary
to the description involving hexachord exchange that I offered earlier.
Example 2.24 illustrates mm. 1216, which scholars have usually called the B
section. Stephen Peles uncovers a signicant intervallic relationship between the
28
Martin Boykans account of the Menuett in Silence and Slow Time shows how <9.10>, which would
suggest a dominant cadence in an Ef reading, continues to sound prominently at or near cadences
for the remainder of the piece: mm. 7, 11, 16, and 3133. Boykan does not interpret these references
tonally, however, but instead limits himself to suggesting that the recurring <A, Bf> motives form
part of a network of rhyming cadences which also includes <D, Ef> and variations of it. See Silence
and Slow Time, pp. 13336.
right hand of m. 12 and the opening measure: with <6,5,3,4>, t3 of P10, Schoenberg
is able to produce the same pitch intervals as those of the individual voices in m. 1,
which made use of t2 and half of t1 of P4. In m. 1, the ordered pitch intervals of the
individual voices read (from bottom to top): <13> from E to F, <1> from Ef to
D, and <2> from Gf to Af; in m. 12, these three pitch intervals come back in
succession, all moving in opposite directions: <13> from Gf to F, <2> from
F to Ef, and <1> from Ef to Ff.29 In this way, the incipit to section B repeats
important elements of the pieces beginning, but changes an aspect of those
elements (their direction), bringing to mind Bachs practice of starting the
B section of binary dance forms with the same motive that opened A, transposed
to the dominant. As John MacKay, Ethan Haimo, and others have already
remarked, the dominant transposition side of this equation is represented in
two ways: by the forms of the tone row used P10 and I4, a tritone higher than
the beginnings P4 and I10 and by the strong emphasis on Bf and associated pitch
classes (consult the boxes on the score level in Example 2.24).30
Hearing the right hand of m. 12 as a signicant motive could inspire the
listener to hook those four notes up with the <11,10> in the right hand of m. 13
to create a larger unit, a hexachord a strategy that seems to be validated by the
following measures, in which registral division of the aggregate into hexachords
increasingly becomes the norm. (In addition, many of the partitions that gave rise
to the hexachord exchanges of the A section were registral, so that a listener
sensitive to the exchanges that Peles points out in mm. 12 and that I describe in
mm. 311 will have been dividing aggregates up this way already.) But if we
partition the aggregate in mm. 1213 into six notes up and six down as indicated
on the pitch-class map in Example 2.24, the resulting division of the tone row
(shown at the bottom of the example) is one we have not encountered either in
the Menuett or in any of the preceding pieces a division into order positions
{2,3,4,5,6,7} and {8,9,10,11,0,1}. We could characterize this new move as rotat-
ing the row forward by two order positions (which I will also refer to as a T2
rotation), and then splitting it into its discrete hexachords. As the remainder of
Example 2.24 shows, I4 in mm. 1415 and I10 in m. 16 are also split registrally
in the same way, into order positions {2,3,4,5,6,7} below and {8,9,10,11,0,1}
above. The registral partition seems to become clearer as the music progresses
(mm. 1415 are split at the halfway point between Fs4 and G4, and m. 16 splits
29
Peles, Continuity, Reference and Implication, p. 56.
30
Haimo, Schoenbergs Serial Odyssey, pp. 10001; MacKay, Series, Form and Function, p. 126.
Haimo reminds the reader that Schoenbergs labels in his set table for P4 and I10 (T for Tonika
and U for Umkehrung) connote tonic function, and his labels for P10 and I4 (D for Dom-
inante and DU) connote dominant function. Refer back to my reproduction of the set table in
Example 2.1.
between Df4 and D4, unlike mm. 1213, which had different splitting points
for each measure).
As I mentioned earlier, the main by-product of this new rotational approach
suggested by mm. 1213 and corroborated in mm. 1416 is that registral or
chronological partitions cease to generate exchanges of hexachords with other
row forms. The situation becomes dramatically obvious if one considers the
pitch-class content of each of mm. 12, 13, 14, and 15. Schoenberg faithfully states
six new pitch classes, half of an aggregate, in each measure {0,3,4,5,6,9} in m. 12,
{1,2,7,8,10,11} in m. 13, {0,1,3,4,6,7} in m. 14, and {2,5,8,9,10,11} in m. 15. Such a
chronological partition of the aggregate is one of the devices that generated multiple
exchanges with other row forms in mm. 12. But in mm. 1215, not a single one of
these partitioned hexachords matches a discrete hexachord of any of the basic four
row forms P4, I10, I4, or P10, either unrotated or rotated by two order positions. In
fact, not even the set classes formed in mm. 1215 6-Z42, 6-Z13, 6-Z13, and
6-Z42 respectively match set classes formed by the discrete hexachords of the
original row forms (6-2 and 6-2) or of their T2-rotated versions (6-Z6 and 6-Z38).31
Through rotation and partition, it seems that the tone row has lost its power to
project other forms of itself in different dimensions, which made it seem such a
fertile Grundgestalt in mm. 12. This circumstance should be seen as the problem
which the whole B section elaborates and which the A0 section will solve.
However, A0 does not solve the problem right away, as Example 2.25 illustrates.
P4 returns in mm. 1718, but it is not until I10s entrance in mm. 1920 that we are
able to understand how a rotated and partitioned form of the row can generate a
hexachord exchange with another (unrotated) row form. In mm. 1718, there is
another almost- hexachord exchange of the type we discussed several times in the
A section. Within P4, four members of I4 cluster together through register and
slurring, <4,3,7,1>, and pitch class 5 appears in a close register immediately after,
but the remaining pitch class of the rst hexachord of I4, pitch class 2 in the bass on
the downbeat of m. 18, is registrally separate from the others. In a similar way, pitch
classes <6,8> are separated registrally and chronologically from the rest of the
second hexachord of I4, <11,10,0,9> in m. 18. Schoenbergs use of <6,8> with the
pitch interval 2 in the bass in m. 17 is denitely an attempt to recall the right
hands motive from m. 1. But the A0 sections recapitulation of m. 1 seems to break
down after that, precisely because mm. 1718 cannot create the hexachords of I4 (as
mm. 12 did) through a registral partition.
31
It should be pointed out that 6-Z13 and 6-Z42 do contain contiguous row segments: they arise
through dividing the row into order positions {5,6,7,8,9,10} and {11,0,1,2,3,4}, so the contents of
mm. 1215 could certainly be explained as secondary harmonies with respect to the tone row. But
the connection between the specic pitch-class instances of these set classes in these four measures
and the four original row forms P4, I10, I4, and P10 still seems to be a remote one.
Example 2.25
Schoenberg, Menuett Op. 25, mm. 1720 (beginning of the A0 section). Used by permission
of Belmont Music Publishers and European American Music Distributors
Measures 1920, as I have suggested several times, play a crucial synthesizing role
within the Menuett as a whole. Other writers have recognized the ability of these
two measures to draw together a variety of pitch-class, intervallic, and rhythmic
elements from the previous parts of the piece. Peles, for example, calls his readers
attention to the fact that not until mm. 1920 (nor at any point afterward) does
Schoenberg return to a repeat of the attack rhythms of mm. 12. In addition, m.
19s temporal ordering <8,11,6,10,0,9> can be derived from the temporal ordering
of pitch classes in m. 1, <6,3,8,4,2,5>, by inversion followed by transposition with
t 2 (mm. 20 and 2 have no such relationship). Finally, the sequence of pitch
classes in the left hand in mm. 1920, <10,9,4,5,2,3>, when split into discrete
dyads, <10,9>, <4,5>, <2,3>, generate three unordered pitch-class intervals 1, as
did the three discrete dyads in the right hand of mm. 1213, <6,5>, <3,4>,
<11,10>. The connection between mm. 1213, right hand, and mm. 1920, left
hand, is further strengthened by their two hexachords belonging to the same set
class, 6-Z38 (012378).32
If we accept mm. 19 and 20, left hand, as a recapitulation of mm. 1213, however,
it becomes necessary to understand that hexachord as derived in the same way as
the earlier hexachord namely, by rotating the row, now I10, two order positions
forward, and then dividing the rotated row into discrete hexachords. The process is
indicated at the bottom right corner of Example 2.25. (Hearing this aggregate as
divided into <10,9,4,5,2,3> on the bottom and <8,11,6,0,1,7> on top seems to
justify Schoenbergs attempts to sustain pitch classes 0 and 6 into m. 20: by
sustaining those two pitch classes, he glues the top hexachord together.) Thus,
the B sections technique of rotation followed by division into hexachords has made
a comeback but with an important difference. Schoenberg has chronologically
arranged the individual members of the two I10 hexachords, six before and six after
the barline, so that the rst six, {0,6,8,9,10,11}, form the second hexachord of the
unrotated version of I4, and the last six, {1,2,3,4,5,7}, form I4s rst hexachord! I10
undergoes the same rotation process introduced in the B section, which was
thought to have a destructive effect on the rows ability to produce other forms of
itself in different dimensions through exchange, and manages to project the hexa-
chords of I4 through chronological partitioning anyway. The problem which arose
within B is now solved near the beginning of A0 .
With the solution to the Menuetts problem coming fairly early in the movement,
the question naturally arises: with what should the rest of the piece occupy itself?
Schoenbergs agenda for the remainder of the composition seems to be to bring back
all of the material of the A section, with variations and extensions. He uses the same
row forms as in the corresponding sections of A at the beginning and end of A0 (mostly
P4 and I10, which he associated with tonic). In the middle of A0 , the rhythmic ideas
and contours of the corresponding measures of A are applied to different row forms.
Measures 2126, which reprise and extend mm. 58 of A, are given in score in
Example 2.26, with a pitch-class map below. Notice that, although the contours and
rhythms of mm. 57 come back, extended and varied, in mm. 2124, the row forms
are now different: I4 (mm. 2122a) takes the place of P10 (mm. 56a), P10 (mm. 22b
23a) takes the place of I4 (mm. 6b7a), and I10 and I4 (mm. 23b24) replace P4 (m.
7b). Measures 25 and 26 are a descending half-step sequence of m. 8s cadence, using
P10 in m. 25 and following it with I10, the original row from m. 8, in m. 26. (More will
be said later about the larger signicance of reordering this inversional relationship so
that it sounds like a half-step transposition.) With all the changes of row, Schoenberg
still manages to preserve the function of mm. 58 in mm. 2126: these measures are a
continuation from mm. 1718s presentation and 1920s repetition, and as such they
32
Peles, Continuity, Reference and Implication, pp. 5456.
Example 2.26
break down the hexachord exchange ideal that mm. 1920 so clearly presented, while
at the same time carrying out a gradual liquidation process that breaks material of the
preceding measures into ever-smaller fragments. Many but not all of the exchange
and liquidation techniques that characterized mm. 58 return in mm. 2126, and the
greater length of the latter passage enables Schoenberg to add a few more motivic
fragments to those of the former passage.
The projection of I4 in mm. 2122a departs from its model in mm. 56a, in that
there is no attempt to create a hexachord exchange. Instead, the two hexachord
groupings shown on Example 2.26s pitch-class map (which involve registral crossing,
grouping pitch class 4 in the higher register with <9,8,11,10,3> in the low register)
contain contiguous hexachords of the T2 rotation of I4, similarly to the hexachord pairs
of the B section. The next row form, P10 in mm. 22b23a, does present a hexachord
exchange with P4 which is dened registrally, if the listener is willing to group the low-
register pitch class 10 with the high-register <0,9,8,2,11> and the high pitch classes 1
and 4 with the low <5,3,6,7>. This use of almost-exchange calls to mind Schoen-
bergs practice throughout mm. 58. Measures 23b24a, which use I10, get a little closer
to the hexachord exchange ideal, especially the middle-register notes <0,10,9,8,11,6>,
which bring together the second hexachord of I4. And the presentation of I4 in m. 24
also groups together in one register <7,1,9,8,11,10>, the rst hexachord of I10. In mm.
23b24a and 24, the exchanged hexachords not previously mentioned, the rst
hexachord of I4 and second hexachord of I10, both group together one or two pitch
classes in the high register with a larger group in the low register, and hence also serve
as illustrations of almost-exchange. The last two, cadential, measures, mm. 25 and 26,
do away entirely with the notion of hexachord exchange, and instead project registrally
the two hexachords 6-Z13 and 6-Z42, which, the reader will remember, were laid
out chronologically in the B section. With respect to hexachord groupings, mm. 2126
move away from the registrally dened hexachord exchange ideal of mm. 1920, but as
they do, they remind the listener of segmentations that were encountered both in the
corresponding measures of the A section (mm. 58) and in the B section.
The liquidation process in mm. 2126 begins and ends by following the same path as
that of mm. 58. The ordered pitch succession <8,11,6,0> in m. 21, brought together
from t2 and t3 of I4, brings back a relatively large fragment, the second tetrachord, of I10
from m. 19 in its original order. (This technique parallels exactly the tetrachord
exchange involving <6,3,8,2> between m. 1 and m. 5 in the A section.) In the
tetrachords close vicinity are the other two pitch classes that were associated with
<8,11,6,0> in m. 19, pitch classes 9 and 10, although they no longer appear below the
tetrachord registrally. In mm. 22b23a, within P10, the fragment <8,2> in the right
hand appears, followed closely by <3,6> in the left hand. This recalls <6,3,8,2>, the
second tetrachord of P4 in m. 17, but is fragmented into dyads and with the order of
one of the dyads changed. (Again, there is an exact parallel involving {0,6,8,11} in mm.
3 and 6b7a of the A section.) In mm. 23b24a (I10), which corresponds roughly to m.
7b, the exchanges with the presentations and repetitions rows, P4 and I10, cease, and
we hear only a suggestion of the rst tetrachord of P10 in the top dyads of the three-note
chords on the eighth notes. Measure 24, which also corresponds to m. 7b (but this time
uses I4), contains three tetrachords that refer back to earlier rows, the rst two of which
come about through exchange: <5,4,7,1> from P4, <0,9,8,2> from P10, and <6,0,2,5>
from I4. Only in the <0,9,8,2> is the order of the earlier version preserved (t2 of P10 in
m. 22); in the other two tetrachords, the order is jumbled, sometimes leaving a dyad of
the original intact in the interest of motivic fragmentation (the transformation from
<4,7,1,5> in m. 17 to <5,4,7,1> in m. 24 is a good example). In m. 25, only one
tetrachord refers back to earlier rows through exchange; the second tetrachord of P4
arises as a vertical partition within P10, in much the same way as t2 of I4 arose from I10
back in m. 8. Also similarly to m. 8, m. 25 places elements of the dyads {10,11}, {1,7},
{2,8}, {0,9}, {3,6}, and {4,5} in chronological or registral proximity to each other,
suggesting the dyads of P4 within P10 (creating dyad exchanges). Finally, in m. 26,
some (but not all) of the dyads of I10 create dyad exchanges with I4.
I mentioned above that I would consider the larger signicance of Schoenberg
rearranging the elements of I10 in m. 26 so that they sound like P9, a half-step
transposition of P10 in m. 25. This half-step relationship between complete aggregates
at the cadence is a culmination of a trend that demonstrates itself occasionally in the
movements of the Suite composed earlier, in which one of the third tetrachords or
one pair of tetrachords of inversion-related rows is reordered to sound like a half-step
transposition of the corresponding tetrachord or pair in the other row. The reader
can refer to, for instance, mm. 3133a of the Intermezzo, where Schoenberg reverses
the order of t3 of P10 to <4,3,6,5> so that it sounds a half step in pitch higher than the
t3 of I10 that immediately precedes it (<3,2,5,4>). Both third tetrachords are given to
the bass voice so that the relationship is more audible. Schoenberg is developing a
potential relationship gradually as he progresses from piece to piece in the order in
which they were composed, just as he has continued to develop collectional exchange
and extend its reach as he progresses from the Intermezzo to the Menuett.
While that part of A0 shown in Example 2.26 used different row forms from the
corresponding measures of A, the remainder of A0 (shown in Example 2.27) locks
into the same row forms as the corresponding measures of A, after a parenthesis in
m. 27. In fact, over mm. 2831, we can hear a gradual coming into focus of the
original A material from mm. 911. Measures 28 and 29 rhythmically expand m. 9,
but use the same row form, P4, changing the order of appearance of pitch classes 2
and 3 and inverting the third tetrachord registrally; m. 30 uses I4, just like m. 10,
keeping all the pitch classes in the same order and rhythm but still inverting the third
tetrachord registrally; and m. 31 adopts the I10 of m. 11 and retains every pitch class
in the original order, rhythm, and register a carbon copy of the earlier measure.
At the end of A0 , then, any intended parallel with the typical use of tonic and
dominant in the tonal minuet breaks down; for if the emphases on Bf within P4, I4,
Example 2.27
and I10 in mm. 911 suggest a modulation to the dominant at the end of A, one
would think that Schoenberg would have brought in different row forms at the end
of A0 that would emphasize Ef as tonic, or at least position the members of the same
rows to emphasize Ef. But instead he brings back P4, I4, and I10 in the same order as
A, and although an argument can be made that he reorders and changes the register
of pitch classes in mm. 2830 from that of mm. 910 to soften the Bf-ness of the
passage, the changes do not seem to highlight Ef in any signicant way. Most
writers who want to make a case for tonality in the Menuett choose not to consider
the nal measures; the one who does, John MacKay, has to admit that the last
prominent Ef comes in m. 24, well before the nal cadence (he suggests a chromatic
linear ascent to Bf at the nal cadence: a modulation?)33
From the standpoint of hexachord exchange, the role of mm. 2831 is essentially
the same as that of their counterparts in the A section: to re-establish exchange after
the previous section obscured it. In mm. 2829, a registral partition, which changes
split point from Cs4 in m. 28 and the rst beat of m. 29 to the halfway point
between D3 and Ds3 on the second beat of m. 29, separates hexachord 2 of P10
above from hexachord 1 below. In m. 30, a registral partition with its split point at
B3 on the rst beat and D3 on the second two beats almost divides the aggregate
into the second hexachord of I10 above and the rst hexachord below. The one note
that prevents a perfect registrally dened hexachord exchange, F3 on the last
sixteenth of the rst beat, plays a parallel role to F3 in the same location in
m. 10. Measure 31, the carbon copy of m. 11, then replicates its chronological
almost-hexachord exchange (pitch class 9 comes too early, and 5 too late).
The Menuetts nal cadence, mm. 31b33, is displayed in Example 2.28. Two
pitch-class maps appear below the score in the example, to show two ways in which
these nal measures, in the manner of a summary, recall certain properties of the
row that contributed to the Menuetts musical idea. The leftmost of the two pitch-
class maps shows that each of the rows, P4 (rotated T2 and split into hexachords) in
the right hand and I10 (also rotated T2 and split) in the left, is partitioned in such a
way that the listener could recombine their dyads into a different row, through
tetrachord exchanges.34 In the right hand, the 7-above-1 vertical on the downbeat
of m. 32 could be grouped with the 10-above-11 vertical on the downbeat of m. 33
to form the rst tetrachord of P10, the 2-above-8 and 9-above-0 verticals that are
consecutive upper-register events could be grouped together to form P10s second
tetrachord, and the 6-above-3 in m. 31 and <4,5> in m. 32 (both associated with
pickup gestures) could be heard together to form the third tetrachord of P10. (The
reader should note that my assignment of P4 instead of P10 as the true row for this
33
MacKay, Series, Form and Function, p. 126.
34
My assertion that the two rows are rotated is based on the hexachords that result when we group
the rst three dyads together and separate them from the last three dyads, e.g. in the right hand,
<6-above-3, 7-above-1, 2-above-8> and <4, 5, 9-above-0, 10-above-11>.
Example 2.28
Schoenberg, Menuett Op. 25, mm. 31b33. Used by permission of Belmont Music
passage is based on the most chronologically proximate groupings.) In the left

hand, there is less of a case for repartitioning to form tetrachord exchanges. Possibly
the 0-above-6 dyad, associated with a x e rhythmic motive in m. 32, could be
heard together with the left hands nal two notes, <2,5>, also in the same rhythm,
to yield the second tetrachord of I4. And the 1-above-7 and <3,4> dyads in the
latter part of m. 32 also can both be heard as all or part of similar x e patterns
(very subtly suggesting the rst tetrachord of I4). The third tetrachord of I4,
however, {8,9,10,11}, gives us no excuse to hear its members as a group. The
signicance of these tetrachord exchanges in mm. 3133 is that all four row forms
are stated or suggested, at least in part, which is almost (but not quite) a complete
return to the condition at the pieces beginning, where hexachord and tetrachord
exchanges projected P10, I4, and I10 within P4.
The rightmost pitch-class map shows that the nal cadence brings the technique
of exchange up to another level: for the rst time in the Menuett, partitions bringing
together elements from different, simultaneous row forms create hexachords and
tetrachords which belong either to the rotated versions of the same two rows or to
their unrotated versions.35 The rst beat of m. 32, both hands, gives the rst
hexachord of rotated I10, and the pitches associated with the e \ e rhythm carrying
from m. 32 into m. 33 yield the second hexachord of the rotated form of P4. Finally,
the pitch classes <4,5,7,1>, appearing in order in the middle of m. 32, recall the rst
tetrachord of the unrotated P4. Since both rows in mm. 3233 are T2-rotated
versions, Schoenberg seems to be reminding us once more of the conclusion he
reached in mm. 1920: that rotated rows can also create hexachord exchanges. Thus
the nal cadence refers back not only to the Menuetts solution but also to its opening
measures: it reminds us from where the piece started and what goal it reached.
Gigue
The composition of the movement that appears last in the nal version of the Suite
was actually begun one day before the commencement of the Trio. According to
Maegaards chronology, based on Schoenbergs rather careful dating of his sketches,
Schoenberg started writing the Gigue on March 2, 1923, wrote the entire Trio on
March 3, 1923, and then completed the Gigue about a week after its inception
(March 8, 1923).36 Because of this chronology, Maegaard argues that the Gigue may
actually have been where Schoenberg hit on the notion of presenting the row as a
line and dividing it into hexachords.37 (As I have suggested, those ideas, especially
hexachordal division, were probably also present during his work on the Menuett
from February 23, 1923 to March 3, 1923.)
The nal piece in the Suite is forward-looking in another way that I think is more
important, however: it presents the conict, elaboration, and resolution of its musical
idea in a way not heard before in Schoenbergs twelve-tone music. That is, it takes a
rather insignicant element from the source tone row (located at order positions 24
or 57), a 3-5 (016) trichord whose unordered pitch intervals involve some combin-
ation of a perfect fourth and tritone or perfect fth and tritone, and repeats or
develops it to the point where it de-orders and obscures the tone row, as well as
destroying symmetrical patterns created from pairs of row presentations (the sym-
metrical patterns recall the palindromic ideal of the Prelude). Then, at three places
in the nal thirty measures, Schoenberg demonstrates ways in which clearly ordered
presentations of the row can be partitioned to yield the offending motive, absorbing it
back into the overall pitch structure. As we shall see in the following analysis, there
are two additional ways of creating and resolving problems in the Gigue, involving
35
There was an example earlier in the piece (mm. 2324) where dyads from consecutively appearing
row forms, <3,2> from I10 and and <5,4> from I4, grouped together by virtue of their low register
to form the third tetrachord of I10.
36
Maegaard, A Study in the Chronology of Op. 2326 by Arnold Schoenberg, p. 105.
37
Ibid., p. 113.
Example 2.29
Schoenberg, Gigue Op. 25: form chart
appearances of the octatonic collection, as well as a contrast between horizontal and

vertical symmetry that lines up with the major sections of the form.
The complete form of the Gigue is given in Example 2.29. As suggested above, it is
essentially ternary, a judgment based on the repeat sign at the end of m. 25 and the
return to a tempo, texture, and method of row presentation similar to those of the
original at m. 47. All three main parts are further subdivided into subsections (my
rationale for these subdivisions will be explained below), and elements of
B are incorporated into A0 at mm. 5455 and 6970, making the last section a
summary of all that has gone before.38 The rst three subsections of A, marked a,
a1, and a2 in the chart, all begin with ordered presentations of the row, which are
gradually supplanted by increasingly long lines alternating ordered pitch intervals 6
and 7 or 6 and 7. Examples 2.30a and 2.30b portray the rst of these, subsection a.
38
My tripartite division agrees with John Buccheris outline in its large sections (except that he calls
them parts I, II and III); but our viewpoints on how the large sections should be divided into
subsections differ substantially. For the most part, Buccheris subdivisions rely on tempo and texture
changes, while mine are inspired by the processes involving the development of the foreign motive
35 (016). See Buccheri, An Approach to Twelve-Tone Music: Articulation of Serial Pitch Units in
Piano Works of Schoenberg, Webern, Krenek, Dallapiccola, and Rochberg (Ph.D. dissertation,
Eastman School of Music, University of Rochester, 1975), pp. 9596.
Example 2.30a
Schoenberg, Gigue Op. 25, mm. 14 (subsection a). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European American Music
Distributors
Example 2.30b
Schoenberg, Gigue Op. 25, mm. 59 (subsection a, continued). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European American
Music Distributors
The pitch-class maps in the lower halves of Examples 2.30a and 2.30b depict a
gradual process, whereby lines alternating unordered pitch intervals 6 and 7 sup-
plant patterns established at the beginning of the Gigue, in three stages. In the rst
stage, pairs of rows in mm. 12 and 34 create partially symmetrical shapes.
Measures 12 balance pitch classes 109 with 910 and 45 with 54. In addition,
the pitch-class successions <7,6,3,2> and <1,8,11> are carried over in identical
order from m. 1 to m. 2. Measures 34 do not contain substantial ordered invariants,
but three dyad palindromes are noticeable in this pair of measures: 43/34, 29/
92, and 1110/1011. These shapes call to mind passages like m. 13 of the Prelude
Op. 25 (refer back to Example 2.10), where certain elements were preserved across
the half-measure as parts of dyad palindromes and others as ordered invariants. In
addition, Schoenberg uses dynamics to guide the listener toward hearing mm. 12
and 34 as symmetrical: the notes accented by f and s f markings (given in boldface
in the pitch-class map) also form symmetrical sequences from the beginning and
ending pitch classes of the four rows, <4,10,4> and <4,10,4>.
The element that will destroy these symmetries, as well as de-order the row, by the
end of subsection a is already suggested in mm. 14, though in a subtle way. Note that
the rst two dyad verticals in both m. 1 and m. 2 form a tritone, followed by a perfect
fth (namely, unordered pitch intervals 6 and 7). In m. 3, the rst two verticals yield a
tritone followed by a perfect fourth, and in m. 4, the rst and third dyad verticals are
both tritones. (The pitch classes participating in these dyads are shaded on the pitch-
class map.) As the pitch classes that formed symmetries such as 10 and 4 are highlighted
through dynamic accent, the tritone and perfect fth intervals just mentioned are
de-emphasized with respect to stress, by placing unaccented syllable or staccato marks
over almost all of them, and by putting many of them at the tail ends of slurs.39
In stage 2, from m. 5 to m. 8, the symmetrical patterns formed from pairs of rows
that characterized the beginning are still present, but now in the left hand of the
piano only. The left hand of mm. 56 contains two mirror dyads, 511/115 and
60/06; and mm. 78 reverse one of the previous mirrors, 115/511, and add a
new one, 82/28. The pitch classes 10 and 4 that guided the listener into hearing
symmetries in mm. 14 are still stressed in mm. 58, either by dynamic means or
by stating them alone and repeating them. The rhythm in the left hand, mm. 58, at
least that suggested by Schoenbergs beaming, is actually more perfect in its
39
Martha Hyde brings out a different feature of the opening two measures of the Gigue, pointing out
that the right hand of the piano projects 6-Z17 (012478) followed by 6-Z43 (012568) and the left
hand gives the same two set classes in the opposite order. These hexachords are important because
they can each be grouped together from three dyads shared by several of the four source rows (they
are invariant harmonies, in other words), and Schoenberg actually creates them in such a way at
the opening of the Gavotte. Thus a harmonic connection is established between openings of
different movements. See Hyde, Musical Form and the Development of Schoenbergs Twelve-
Tone Method, pp. 12023.
symmetry than that of the preceding measures: each pair of measures groups the
eighth-note attacks according to the pattern <1,3,3,2,3,3,1>.
The right hand of the piano in stage 2, however, introduces a conicting
element: successions of six pitches which project the pitch-interval succession
<6,7,6,7> and its inversion, <6,7,6,7>. This element certainly can
be heard as a development of the unaccented vertical dyads in mm. 14, but
Schoenberg is now putting it forward in such a way that it begins to intrude on
the listeners consciousness (the crescendos from p to f help here, as well as the
placement of the new material in the right hand) and to create conict with the
symmetries that are continuing in the left hand (the two-against-three rhythm helps
here). Another way in which the introduction of <6,7> successions disrupts the
previous music is with respect to row ordering: notice that order is jumbled or
reversed within most tetrachords, excepting the third tetrachords, while the order
between the tetrachords is preserved. Finally, the right hand in mm. 58 does carry
over one important technique from mm. 14 that is, tetrachord invariants
between rows in each pair but changes them from ordered invariants to unor-
dered: {1,2,7,8} in mm. 56, {0,1,6,7} in mm. 78.
Measure 9 constitutes stage 3 in the subsections overall process. Here, the lines
alternating 6 and 7 or 6 and 7 take over both hands of the piano (with some
ascending intervals of the same classes dividing the triplets in the right hand). The
steady eighth-note rhythm of the rst four measures is completely supplanted by
triplets in both hands. The row ordering is jumbled both within and between
tetrachords (to the point where my labeling of m. 9 as I4 is very tentative). And,
partly because of the reordering, but also because it is limited to one measure, stage
3 does not display any signicant pitch-class symmetries. Thus, the a subsection
supplants ordered rows, pitch-class symmetry, and eighth-note motion in mm. 14
with lines alternating pitch intervals 6 and 7, lack of pitch-class symmetry, and
triplet-eighth-note motion in m. 9, passing through a middle stage, mm. 58, where
both modes of organization intermix.
The three-stage model introduced in mm. 19 is imitated in mm. 1016, and the
second and third stages of mm. 1016 in turn serve as a model for mm. 1719
which accounts for my labeling the three subsections as a, a1, and a2. Examples 2.31a,
2.31b, and 2.32 portray the latter two subsections. In Example 2.31a, we can see that
the beginning stage, mm. 1013, returns to the symmetries of mm. 14, now using
retrograde versions of the four source rows. The symmetry seems less convincing
this time, however: the experience of mm. 59 has apparently weakened the original
pattern a little, making it necessary for Schoenberg to use tempo to distinguish mm.
1011 and 1213 as units. One lone mirror dyad, 109/910, marks the boundaries
of mm. 1011s palindrome, and a repeated vertical, 4-above-5, with some emphasis
put on the pitch class 4 by the upward arpeggio, locates its middle. But the pitch
classes 10 on either end of mm. 1011 are not distinguished in any particular way,
Example 2.31a
Schoenberg, Gigue Op. 25, mm. 1013 (subsection a1). Used by permission of Belmont
except maybe through repetition in the latter case (m. 11 going into the downbeat
of 12). The practice of carrying over larger invariant sets from one side of the
palindrome to the other comes back in mm. 1011; but unlike mm. 12, the larger
invariants, {3,7,8,9,11} and {0,1,2,6,10}, are not ordered, nor do they come back in
the same register; instead they take part in an exchange between upper and lower
registers. Finally, the vertical elements projecting pitch intervals 6 and 5, the
disruptive elements, are given more stress than they received in mm. 12 (pitch
classes 6-above-1 in m. 10 and 6-above-0 in m. 11 both get accented syllable marks).
The trend of imitating stage 1 of the opening subsection continues in mm. 1213,
as Schoenberg turns his attention from larger invariants to dyad palindromes (as he
did in mm. 34). But only two appear this time, 1011/1110 and 96/69 (in
addition, one could hear the 3-above-4 vertical in the middle of mm. 1213 as a
palindromic dyad, though the pitch classes are not ordered). Meanwhile, one
vertical tritone in m. 13, pitch classes 2-above-8, gets some stress through occurring
at the beginning of a group.
Example 2.31b
Schoenberg, Gigue Op. 25, mm. 1416 (subsection a1, continued). Used by permission of
Belmont Music Publishers and European American Music Distributors
Stage 2 of subsection a1 further disrupts the palindromic shapes of the rst

stage and brings lines alternating pitch intervals 6 and 7 to the fore, but in a way
different from that in the model in mm. 58. In mm. 1415, it is overlapping of
row forms in anywhere from 1 to 6 pitch classes that breaks down the rhythmic
correspondence of one row per measure (and one row pair per two measures) that
has characterized the Gigue up to this point. (This overlapping is more clearly
portrayed in Example 2.31b by using dotted lines to connect the pitch classes of
alternate row forms, and underlining the labels for tetrachords in alternate rows.
Pitch classes with two functions have black shading behind them.) Example 2.31b
shows that RI4 begins m. 14, and then on the fourth and sixth eighth notes of that
measure, two pitch classes of R10 overlap with members of RI4. This process
intensies in m. 15: the third eighth note features a pitch class 1 that serves both
RI10 and R10, and the fourth eighth note contains a vertical, 3-above-11, which
Example 2.32
Schoenberg, Gigue Op. 25, mm. 1719 (subsection a2). Used by permission of Belmont
belongs to both R4 and RI10. The fth eighth note introduces another vertical,
2-above-0, with both pitch classes functioning in R4 as well as RI10. Finally, pitch
classes 4 and 5 on the seventh eighth note of m. 15 function in either R4 or RI10.
Because of all the overlapping and Schoenbergs repetition of pitch classes in these
measures, the row-count I have just described would not be the only possibility.
But it does have the advantage of placing the row overlappings in just about all the
same metric locations as those where Schoenberg places accents in mm. 1415: at
either accented syllable marks, s f markings, or wedge accent marks. It is not
far-fetched to think that he may have marked his row overlappings in such a way,
especially when one considers that working out pitch overlappings between the
constituent tetrachords of adjacent row forms seems to have been an important
issue for him. Numerous sketches for the Suite show him experimenting with
various combinations of row pairs (some involving eventually rejected versions of
the source row) that enable such overlappings between tetrachords and other
subsets of the rows.40
In addition to disrupting row order, the overlappings just described in stage 2
also have the effect of minimizing and skewing the symmetries and ordered
invariants that were characteristic of stage 1. Only one dyad palindrome is brought
out through retaining the same register for the pitch classes on both sides: the 71/
17 at the beginning of m. 14 and end of m. 15. But this palindrome no longer
marks the beginning and end of a pair of rows, as the palindromes in mm. 1013
did. Instead it creates a boundary for four overlapped row forms, and the nal
<1,7> is obscure in its row source: it could conceivably belong to either RI10 or R4.
A trichord palindrome is suggested in the left hand by the sequence <2, 6-above-
3> on the rst two eighths of m. 15, followed immediately by <6,3,2> on the third,
fourth, and fth eighths. But again this mirror is obscure because of the vertical
dyad in its rst part; and, in addition, it comes a quarter note too late to anchor a
larger palindrome over mm. 1415, as the repeated verticals 4-above-5 and
3-above-4 did in mm. 1011 and 1213.
On the other hand, ordered pitch-interval sequences that alternate perfect
fourths and tritones become more prominent in mm. 1415, but not by much.
Actually, there is only one, in the bass at the beginning of m. 14: <6,5>. The
pitch classes of this sequence, <6,0,5>, create the succession that will begin the
right hand of stage 3, two measures later, and thus can be heard as predicting
the onset of stage 3. In addition, the right hand does feature the tritone prominently
at the beginning and end of mm. 1415 (formed by the same pitches that make up
the dyad palindrome described in the previous paragraph).
Even though alternations of pitch intervals 6 and 5 or 6 and 7 are not very
important to the second stage of subsection a1, they return with a vengeance in
stage 3, again taking place in a single measure, m. 16. The ordered pitch-interval
sequence in the right hand, <6,7,6,7,18>, almost exactly replicates the
rst ve intervals of m. 9s right hand, and the left hand corrects that sequence to
40
For an example, consider the sketch located on staves 10 and 11 of p. 27n of MS 25, located at the
Arnold Schoenberg Center in Vienna and accessible from its website at www.schoenberg.at
(accessed August 4, 2013). Brinkmann in his critical report for Arnold Schnberg: Smtliche Werke,
section II, series B, vol. IV, pp. 67 and 72, claims that this sketch (which he calls b6) is a precursor to
the beginning of the Prelude, and the registral placement of the pitch classes in its initial P4 supports
this attribution. But the sketch also divides each row registrally into tetrachords, and overlaps t3 of
the initial P4 with t1 of the second form, P10, in one pitch class, 10 (bass, third beat of m. 2). One
measure later, it overlaps t3 of P10 with t1 of P4 in pitch class 4 (alto, second beat of m. 3), and a
measure after that, it overlaps t3 of P4 with t1 of P10 in pitch class 10 again (soprano, third beat of
m. 4). This technique of chaining more than two consecutive row forms together through overlap-
ping members of their tetrachords is hardly used in the Prelude (mm. 1113 is an exception), but as
we have seen and will see, it plays a crucial role in the Gigue.
<6, 7,6,7,6> and then inverts it to <6,7,6,7,6>. Just as in m. 9, the

onset of the alternating tritones and perfect intervals destroys order within and
between the tetrachords of I4 (which is, again, a very tentative row attribution) and
erases the pitch-class symmetries of the preceding music. It should be noted,
however, that it does replace the said pitch class mirrors with both horizontal
interval symmetries (unordered pitch intervals <6,7,6,7,6> in both hands) and
vertical pitch- and pitch-class-interval symmetries (around Bf and A, which appear
at the end of the measure).
The last two stages repeat themselves again in mm. 1719, subsection a2, which
are portrayed as Example 2.32. I will not discuss these measures in too much detail,
but the reader should note that stage 2 (mm. 1718), like the corresponding
sections in a and a1, features row forms placed side by side and overlapping by
one or two notes. Also similar to previous stages 2 is the incomplete horizontal
symmetry in m. 18, marked by heavy boxes in the pitch-class map. A third
characteristic that recalls previous second stages is the prevalence of tritones,
perfect fourths, and perfect fths as melodic intervals in the bass line. These lead
to another stage 3 in m. 19, which yet again pushes aside the preceding music in
favor of alternating pitch intervals 6 and 7 that create their own horizontal and
vertical symmetries.
The following passage in the Gigue, mm. 2023, marked x in the form chart, in
one way takes a substantially different direction from the music that has preceded it.
Subsection x introduces a second foreign element by means of highlighting certain
pitches dynamically and with note values longer than eighth notes. This element has
not typically been associated with Schoenbergs twelve-tone music by analysts; it is set
class 8-28 (0134679T), the octatonic collection. Example 2.33 shows that this collec-
tion (pitch-class numbers in boldface) divides into four-note groups and these
tetrachords also belong to a set class characteristic of Stravinsky and Bartk, namely,
4-3 (0134). More typical of Schoenberg, however, are the ordered pitch-interval
successions that create these two 4-3s: <3,1,3> and an octave-compounded
version of it, <15,1,3>.41 The near-repetition of the same ordered pitch-interval
succession between the highlighted notes from mm. 2021 to 2223 recalls the
ordered pitch and pitch-class invariances across and between pairs of measures that
were so prevalent in mm. 119. Perhaps more salient and important, however, is that
the pitch-class succession of highlighted notes in mm. 2023, <0,9,8,11,6,3,2,5>,
returns in reverse as the highlighted pitches in a similar four-measure passage later in
the Gigue, mm. 2932. This creates a pitch-class palindrome larger in terms of
41
I have already shown the importance to Schoenbergs music of successions alternating unordered
pitch intervals 1 and 3, as well as octave compounding (among other transformations) on interval
successions, in Jack Boss, Schoenbergs Op. 22 Radio Talk and Developing Variation in Atonal
Music, Music Theory Spectrum 14/2 (Fall 1992): 184215.
Example 2.33
Schoenberg, Gigue Op. 25, mm. 2023 (subsection x). Used by permission of Belmont Music
number of measures than any we have heard, so that it is possible to speak of pitch-
class symmetries as not only supplanted or destroyed but also progressively
enlarged and diffused through the rst part of the Gigue.
The eighth-note stream that accompanies the new octatonic element in
mm. 2023, besides recalling the rhythmic groupings within similar streams in
the a subsections, creates pitch-class symmetries and invariances that remind the
listener of those earlier subsections. Symmetry and invariance happen on both the
two- and four-measure levels. Measures 2021 project an invariant trichord {1,7,11}
partly through similar contours and partly through similar metrical placements
(m. 20s trichord appears on the third and fourth eighths, that of m. 21 on the
fourth, fth, and sixth). Measures 2223 feature a dyad palindrome 67/76 that
strongly recalls the opening measures of the movement, especially because the Gf
(in the same register and stated alone both times) begins and ends the two-measure
unit, much as the Bfs and Es did at the beginning. In addition, an invariant dyad
{2,8} seems to anchor the pitch-class symmetry in mm. 2223, though the two
instances of these pitch classes do not straddle the barline as they did earlier in the
piece. At the four-measure level, a palindromic dyad 34/43 sits astride the barline
between mm. 21 and 22. The elements of this palindrome again do not create a
perfect rhythmic symmetry, but pitch classes 3 and 4 retain the same register on
both sides, making the mirror noticeable. As if to strengthen its impact, Schoenberg
also gives mm. 2122 a symmetrical dynamic shape (a half-measure crescendo
followed by a decrescendo of roughly the same length).
Measures 2023 also include the alterations between tritones and perfect fourths
and fths that destroyed pitch-class symmetry in each of the a subsections, in
almost exactly the same way as they were projected at the beginning of the piece.
One can hear a gradual increase in emphasis on rst vertical tritones and then
tritones leading to perfect intervals through mm. 2023 (consult the shaded circles
in the pitch-class map in Example 2.33). The tritones gradually move from
unaccented to accented positions, before appending to themselves unaccented
perfect intervals. Because of the increasing salience of the tritone, we can hear
subsection x as stage 1 of a fourth motion, a3, from pitch-class symmetry to lines
alternating pitch intervals 6 and 7. Measures 2425, the nal measures of the
A section, would then function as stages 2 and 3 in this larger motion.
In a number of ways, mm. 2425 do indeed have the quality of stages 2 and 3.
First, the passage introduces more prominent chords and lines alternating pitch
intervals 6 and 7 in mm. 24 and the rst two beats of 25: in the right hand, the
vertical 7-above-6 repeated three times gives way to the line <6,7>, and then
the same intervallic material appears again a tritone higher. Subsequently, on the
last three beats of m. 25, the horizontal alternations of 6 and 7 take over, now not in
contrary but in similar motion, both descending. By the time we reach the last part
of m. 25, the identity of the row is again obscure. Like previous second stages, mm.
2425s stage 2 contains several dyad palindromes and invariances (see the con-
nected boxes on Example 2.34). One of the palindromes, the more salient 28/82,
hooks up with stage 3 in an interesting way: immediately after <2,8> in m. 24
comes pitch class 3 (in a right-hand triplet), and after <8,2> in m. 25 comes pitch
class 9 (also part of a triplet gure in the right hand). Then the end of m. 25 sounds
<9,3,8,2> in the bass, a kind of summary and bringing-together of the two
prominent right-hand triplets that preceded it. Measure 9, stage 3 of subsection a,
did bring back several invariant subsets from the preceding measures consult the
dotted boxes on m. 9s pitch-class map in Example 2.30b but it did not have a
larger set that summarized the preceding measures in this way.
The one feature that sets mm. 2425 off from previous manifestations of stages 2
and 3 (besides the heavier texture created by the repeating 7-above-6 verticals) is the
way the stages line up with the meter. In subsection a, stage 2 fell into two neatly
Example 2.34
Schoenberg, Gigue Op. 25, mm. 23b25 (subsection a3, last part). Used by permission of
differentiated two-measure units, and stage 3 had its own measure. In subsection a1,
stage 2 was not so carefully parsed into segments (remember, that was the passage
where row overlapping was emphasized to a great degree) but stage 3 was still
separated from it by a barline. (Subsection a2 returned to a more balanced segmen-
tation of stage 2 and again separated it from stage 3.) Now, in the last two stages of
what we are calling a3, there is a 2/2 measure followed by 5/4. But the sequence and
rhythmic repetition between the rst three beats of m. 24 and the fourth beat of m. 24
followed by the rst two beats of m. 25 suggest a different meter than the notated one,
which is indicated on the example between the notation and the pitch-class map:
three measures of 3/4. If this alternative meter is adopted, stage 2 again contains one
row in each measure, and stage 3 is again set off by a barline from its predecessor.
The onset of the large B section at m. 26 (Example 2.35) is marked by the
introduction of new textures, most notably the heavily accented and closely spaced
Example 2.35
Schoenberg, Gigue Op. 25, mm. 2628 (subsection b). Used by permission of Belmont Music
four-note chords that make their rst appearance here. With new textures comes a
new way of organizing the material, though one still controlled by the notion of
symmetry. If the reader more closely inspects the two chords on the downbeat of m.
26 and the second eighth note of beat 4 in that same measure, he or she will
recognize that they are vertically pitch-symmetrical around the axis Cs5. In add-
ition, the left hand in m. 26, one of the few instances in the Suite of the third
tetrachord of P4 actually spelled as BACH (in German letter names), almost
creates a vertical pitch symmetry: had Schoenberg raised the initial Bf an octave, he
would have made the tetrachord symmetrical around Bf3/B3 (and by extension,
also symmetrical around the rst and last notes Bf2 and B4). The tendency
toward vertical pitch symmetry continues in the right hand of m. 28, where the
rst eighth-note group is pitch-symmetrical around E5/F5, and the second (with
the exception of Gf) is symmetrical around A4/Bf4.42 Schoenberg will continue to
develop the notion of symmetry in the vertical dimension later in the Gigue, in a
passage at mm. 3739 that seems to ip over many of the elements of mm. 2628.
The right hand of m. 27 is something of an anomaly in the context described
above. An initial glance at it, with its upper voice rising and lower voice falling,
seems to suggest vertical symmetry, but the pitches of the upper and lower voices do
not create the same pitch intervals from a central axis. (See the registrally ascending
version of m. 27s right hand directly above the notation.) The pitches of m. 27s
right hand form an almost-symmetrical collection, <Ef5, F5, Gf5, Af5, Cf6, C6, D6,
E6>. Perhaps one explanation for this vertical asymmetry is that the right hand of
m. 27 creates a palindromic dyad and an almost invariant tetrachord with the right
hand of the following measure, adding horizontal symmetries to the more prevalent
vertical ones. Whatever the role of m. 27s right hand, it seems clear that the bass of
the following measure, 28, has the familiar purpose (at section endings) of
destroying pitch symmetry: making use of an unsymmetrical presentation of pitch
intervals 6 and 7, <6,7>.
Measures 2932 are called x1 because they present the reverse of the octatonic
collection from mm. 2023, completing the largest pitch-class palindrome yet heard
(see the boldface pitch-class numbers on Example 2.36s map and compare them
with those in Example 2.33). This group of four measures also makes a contour
palindrome with the previous passage: despite individual leaps up and down, the
general shape is ascending, balancing out what was a generally descending shape in
mm. 2023. The voices that accompany this eight-note succession seem also to have
the function of returning the Gigue to order, after the disruptions caused by the
alternating <6,7> motives. I state this for three reasons: rst, starting in m. 29, we
begin to hear the three tetrachords of the row in sequence rather than simultan-
eously, though the sequence is reversed, t3, t2, t1. Each measure after m. 29 has one
stray pitch class that overlaps into the space occupied by an adjacent tetrachord.
Second, we hear two dyad palindromes and two dyad invariances that span the
entire four-measure unit, characterizing it as horizontally symmetrical around the
barline between mm. 30 and 31. These are 3-4/4-3 and 2-5/5-2 near the center of
the mirror, 10-9/9-above-10 a little further out from the center, and the invariance
10-11/10-11 at the boundaries of the mirror. Most of these palindromes and
42
Vertical pitch symmetry in Schoenbergs atonal and twelve-tone music is a topic that has received a
fair amount of attention in the literature, most notably David Lewins early article Inversional
Balance as an Organizing Force in Schoenbergs Music and Thought, Perspectives of New Music 6/2
(SpringSummer 1968): 121.
Example 2.36
Schoenberg, Gigue Op. 25, mm. 2932 (subsection x1). Used by permission of Belmont
invariances are highlighted by register or by being stated as a single line. The

corresponding passage, mm. 2023, had a few two-measure mirrors and invari-
ances (consult Example 2.33 again), but nothing spanning the entire passage.
The third reason why mm. 2932 sound more orderly is that even the vertical
tritones, of which there are seven altogether, form a regular pattern with some
registral symmetry (look at the shaded pitch classes and boxes on the score in
Example 2.36): 6-above-0, 7-above-1 (up a half step), 2-above-8, 0-above-6,
7-above-1, 8-above-2, 7-above-1 (down a half step). This is more carefully organized
(and repetitive) than the corresponding pattern of tritone verticals in mm. 2023.
This greater emphasis on order serves a function, as is always the case with any
phrase or section in Schoenbergs music; by means of x1 he is leading into the rst
of several subsections in the Gigue that resolves one of the works problems.
In Example 2.29s form chart, mm. 3336 (reproduced in Example 2.37) are
labeled as c, because something new happens: subsection c assimilates one of the
Example 2.37
Schoenberg, Gigue Op. 25, mm. 3336 (subsection c). Used by permission of Belmont Music
foreign elements into the larger structure of the tone row. It does this by presenting
successions of intervals alternating unordered pitch intervals 6 and 7 or 6 and 5 as
contiguous subsets of the row (and in one case, a non-contiguous one). Measures
3336 constitute the rst occasion since m. 13 on which we have heard a tone row
stated in order, the rst occasion in the movement on which rows are stated in
order without incorporating multiple vertical dyads (mm. 34 and 36), and the rst
since m. 10 on which groups of three notes are highlighted as subsets within an
ordered tone row. As has been the case with so many subsections in the Gigue, the
explanation of the works rst foreign element in mm. 3336 happens progressively:
Schoenberg rst presents <6,7>, order positions <2,3,4> in P4, as the rst part
of a ve-note group set off by accent and slurring in m. 33. In the following
measure, there are two instances of the foreign element created contiguously, but
both have features that make them less salient. In the case of <18,5>, order
positions <2,3,4> in I10, the octave complementation and compounding and the
motives placement at the beginning of a four-note group obscure it. With

<7,6>, order positions <5,6,7> of I10, the foreign motive overlaps the group-
ings created by slurring and accents, so that its rst note is separated from the other
two. In m. 35, for the rst time in the passage, we hear <6,7> set off by slurring
as a motive. But the order numbers that create this motive, <2,3,6> in I4, are not
contiguous. Finally in m. 36, two foreign motives appear, <6,7> and <5,6>,
that are created by contiguous order numbers and highlighted by slurring and
accent. The rst motive brings together order numbers <2,3,4> of P10, and the
latter one <5,6,7>. With this measure, Schoenberg has shown convincingly that
lines alternating pitch intervals 6 and 7 or 6 and 5 can indeed be heard as part of an
ordered tone row.
But of course, the movement is only half nished at this point, so Schoenbergs
initial solution to the problem of pitch intervals {6,7} is not a conclusive one. There
will be other elaborations of the same problem as well as other problems, and other
solutions, in the subsequent music. The rst direction he takes is to further develop
the notion of vertical symmetry he introduced for the rst time at m. 26. Measures
37 and 38, shown as the rst two measures of Example 2.38, seem at rst to be a
vertical mirror of mm. 2627, using the inversions around pitch class 4 of the rows
in the previous passage, I4 and P10. As mm. 26 and 27 themselves contained a
vertical mirror of their opening four-note chord, mm. 37 and 38 seem to expand the
idea of vertical symmetry to the entire two-measure unit. But when comparing the
notation in Example 2.38 with the strict pitch inversion of mm. 2627 around E4
(directly below it in the example), the reader quickly recognizes that Schoenberg has
made some adjustments to get to the version he uses. The two vertical tetrachords
on the downbeat of m. 37 and the last eighth of that measure are revoiced, in such a
way that the two chords are no longer pitch inversions of one another. The
members of t2 and t3 in I4 are redistributed so that the right hand can have two
voices and the left hand one, creating a similar texture to the middle of m. 26, not
an inverse one. And nally, the inversion of m. 27 is transposed up one octave in m.
38, perhaps to give the entire phrase a more arch-like contour.
Though mm. 3738 has undergone alterations, the eventual destiny of
the passage is identical to mm. 2628, which is the main reason why I call
mm. 3739 b1. The vertical symmetries that remain after the revoicing eventually
give way to a passage in m. 39 where lines alternating pitch intervals 6 and 7 take
over the bass line (just as they did in m. 28 of the original b subsection). The pitch
classes that result, <7,1,8,8,2,9>, can be heard as a further outgrowth of the bass
trichord of m. 28, <7,1,8>. This connection is strengthened by the retention
of some of m. 28s right-hand vertical dyads in m. 39s right hand, 10-above-11
and 3-above-6, not to mention the carrying-over of the cross-like contour from
each of m. 28s pitch-symmetrical tetrachords to the right and left hands over all of
m. 39 (right hand moves down, left hand moves up).
Example 2.38
Schoenberg, Gigue Op. 25, mm. 3739 (subsection b1). Used by permission of Belmont
Measures 4046 are called b2 because they have a similar function to the a2
subsection from mm. 1719, though now prolonged to six measures: namely, they
again bring forth the last two stages of a motion away from symmetry toward
alternating <6,7> motives. However, we will see that the third stage in this subsec-
tion, in a way different from any of the a or b subsections that precede it, begins to
combine some of the aspects of vertical symmetry introduced at the beginning of the
B section with the inevitable lines alternating pitch intervals 6 and 7, synthesizing the
diverse materials of the movement in a new way. Stage 2 of subsection b2 comprises
mm. 4042, and just like the a1 and a2 subsections that precede it, this passage uses
overlapping of elements of tetrachords to obscure row forms as well as hiding
Example 2.39a
Schoenberg, Gigue Op. 25, mm. 4042 (subsection b2, stage 2). Used by permission of
palindromes and invariants between rows. The row forms labeled on Example 2.39a,
P4, I4, P10, I10, P4, and P10, are in some cases no more than educated guesses.
At the same time, mm. 4042 begin, as did the second stages in the A section, to
introduce tritones and combinations of tritones and perfect fourths as prominent
elements. Two verticals stand out: on the fourth beat of m. 40 a tritone in the left
hand combines with a perfect fourth in the right, and the downbeat of m. 41 brings
the two intervals vertically adjacent to one another in the right hand. Meanwhile,
descending tritones involving pitch classes 7 and 1 sound in the bass at or near the
beginning of every measure.
Stage 3a of subsection b2, which starts in m. 43 and is illustrated in Example
2.39b, introduces longer lines that alternate pitch intervals 6 and 7, as has been
Example 2.39b
Schoenberg, Gigue Op. 25, mm. 4344 (subsection b2, stage 3, rst part). Used by permission
customary. But, as mentioned above, these lines are combined with one another in a
new way: as the connected ovals superimposed over the notation of mm. 43 and 44
show, the left-hand and right-hand lines in both measures are vertically pitch-
symmetrical with one another around the pitch axis E4 (Bf4 and Bf3 together as
always can serve as alternative axes here). This is the only occasion in the piece,
except for m. 19, on which the alternating <6,7> material has itself created a
vertical mirror, and in that earlier instance the pitch axis was different (E/Ef). In a
sense, vertical symmetry, placed around several different axes earlier in the Gigue, is
now coming home to E and Bf (home in the sense that they are the axes that the
source tone rows invert around). Schoenberg seems to draw our attention to the
two axes in another way as well: by ending the left-hand part in m. 43 with Bf4 and
the left-hand part in m. 44 with E4. Thus one of the Gigues two main foreign
Example 2.39c
Schoenberg, Gigue Op. 25, mm. 4546 (subsection b2, last part of stage 3). Used by
permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European American Music Distributors
elements (the <6,7> motive) is displayed according to a technique that was

prevalent in the contrasting B section (vertical symmetry), to emphasize the axis
pitch classes most crucial to the Suites four tone rows. Measures 4344 do not
explain how foreign elements derive from the tone rows, but they do bring together
disparate elements and procedures of the movement in an interesting way.
The latter part of stage 3, stage 3b (mm. 45 and 46), illustrated in Example 2.39c,
rst recaptures and then lets go of pitch-class symmetry in the other dimension, the
horizontal one, within a context of overlapped row forms creating intervallically
symmetrical alternations of pitch intervals 6 and 7 in the right hand. Measure 45
overlaps P4 and I10 in four notes, and the groups of eight notes on either side of the
overlap can be split into two palindromic dyads and two dyad invariances (as the
pitch-class map in m. 45 shows). The invariances 8-2/8-2 and 6-0/6-0 are perhaps
easiest for the ear to pick out, because their rst parts sound in outer voices. But the
palindrome 45/54, which migrates from an inner voice to the bass (and is octave-
complemented along the way), also has some salience. In contrast, m. 46, which
overlaps P10 and I4 in three notes, has only one invariance that is not obscured by
intervening pitches, 5-11/5-11.
To recap our comments on section B, then, there are three subsections, b, b1, and
b , the rst two of which proceed (in a similar way to their counterparts in A) from
2
symmetry this time vertical pitch symmetry to an emphasis on lines alternating

pitch intervals 6 and 7. The third of these subsections, b2, presents the <6,7>
materials themselves in a vertically symmetrical manner, and thus contributes to
the overall process of synthesis. Meanwhile, between b and b1 there is what might
be described as a parenthesis, containing rst the other half of the octatonic
palindrome begun in section A, and second, the rst of three subsections that show
how the foreign <6,7> or <6,5> elements can be derived from the tone row. With
m. 47 we reach the onset of the large A0 section, which emphasizes explanatory
material even more strongly, tying up the loose ends caused by <6,7> lines and
octatonic elements, and mediating the contrast between A and B sections.
Example 2.40 shows the beginning of A0 , labeled as subsection a4 because, like the
other three a subsections before it, it begins with passages emphasizing pitch-class
and pitch symmetry and ends with pitches related by pitch intervals 6 and 5 wrecking
that symmetry. Measures 47 and 48 combine R4 and R10 into a pair bounded by
accented Bf3s and anchored in the middle by accented E2s, recalling the measure
pairs at the movements beginning. Contributing to the symmetry are two dyad
palindromes (one consisting of verticals, 3-above-6/6-above-3) and a dyad invariance
(marked with connected boxes on Example 2.40). But probably the main feature
suggesting symmetrical organization here is the contour, which opens out from Bf3
to E2 and Gf5 straddling the barline between mm. 47 and 48, and then closes back to
Bf3 at the end of m. 48. This contour is closer to pitch-symmetrical than the one
opening the piece in mm. 12, which began on E5 and ended an octave lower.
Measure 49 starts as though it wants to build another symmetrical pattern,
following an accented Bf3 and rising to a repeated E4, but most of the pitch-class
dyads highlighted in m. 49 do not nd mirrors or invariant partners in m. 50. (There
are two exceptions, 3-4/4-3 and 5-2/2-above-5, marked on the pitch-class map.) The
cause of the broken symmetry is Schoenbergs projection in m. 50 of 6 and 5
ordered pitch intervals. These intervals no longer succeed one another as parts of
longer lines, but instead are placed above and below one another in separate voices.
Their effect of breaking the passages symmetrical pattern is still the same, however.
Example 2.41 portrays the second of three c subsections in the Gigue that
explains how the movements rst foreign element, the alternating <6,7> material,
Example 2.40
Schoenberg, Gigue Op. 25, mm. 4750 (subsection a4). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European American Music
Distributors
Example 2.41
Schoenberg, Gigue Op. 25, mm. 5153 (subsection c1). Used by permission of Belmont
is derivable from the row. In this case, the set class of many of the lines that
alternated pitch intervals 6 and 7, set class 6-7 (012678), is shown to include also
the initial pitch classes of each tetrachord in two ordered tone rows a tritone
apart.43 This explanation happens in mm. 5153a in the context of pitch-class
symmetry, as demonstrated by the highlighted pitch class 10s and 4s and the
mirrored and invariant dyads in the pitch-class map. Schoenberg highlights the
rst note of each tetrachord in P4 and P10 by accenting it and doubling it with a
43
Places where lines or chords alternating pitch intervals 6 and 7 create set class 6-7 are: m. 9, right
hand, rst two beats; m. 16, each hand; m. 19, each hand; m. 45, right hand; m. 46, right hand; m. 53,
second eighth note of beat 2 and rst quarter of the triplet, as well as the second two quarters of the
triplet; mm. 55b56a, the rst ascending six-note group; mm. 71 and 72, each of the descending six-
note groups.
longer note value; these six pitch classes, <4,6,11,10,0,5>, if placed in normal
order, {4,5,6,10,11,0}, are easily graspable as a member of set class 6-7. Though
most of the set class 6-7s created by <6,7> material in the Gigue are transpositions
of Schoenbergs accented notes in mm. 5152, there are three pitch-class succes-
sions created by alternating perfect fths and tritones in the preceding music that
duplicate the same six pitch classes. In reverse order, these are: (3) the right hand
of mm. 4546, reprised in the upper right-hand corner of Example 2.41, in the
order <6,0,5,11,4,10>, (2) the left hand of m. 19, in the order <0,6,11,5,10,4>, and
(1) the right hand of m. 16, presenting the ordering <6,0,5,11,4,10> again. We
could say that Schoenbergs accented pitch classes in mm. 5152 account for
previous <6,7> lines generally, and the soprano successions in mm. 4546, 19,
and 16 specically.
In any case, the explanation is short-lived. The last part of m. 53 gives up row
ordering and horizontal symmetry to focus on two verticals (each divided into
trichords) that alternate perfect fths and tritones and, subsequently, also belong to
set class 6-7. Each of these verticals is pitch-symmetrical, the rst around A5 and
the second around Fs5 (notice that Schoenberg has again left E and Bf as axes of
symmetry). But their relationship to the tone row is extremely obscure: my attribu-
tion of them to P10 is based more on that rows occurrence just prior in m. 52 than
on any inherent suggestion of P10 in m. 53.
In my introduction to the Gigue, I briey mentioned a process involving
subsections of the form that produces a kind of synthesis different from the others
we have been discussing. The A0 section brings material from A and B together,
rst allowing a b subsection to succeed an a subsection, and then combining the
two kinds of music together in a single subsection. Example 2.42 portrays the
juxtaposition of b material in mm. 5457a with the explanatory c1 material that
preceded it immediately (mm. 5153) and the a4 material that opened the A0
section (mm. 4750). The vertical symmetry around a single pitch axis that
characterized earlier b subsections is no longer present here (except in mm. 55
56, where the <6,7> lines take over). But there are enough textural and rhythmic
similarities with earlier b music to cause the listener to make the connection, and
in addition, there is an inversion in the registral placement of tetrachords between
mm. 54 and 55. Like the beginning of subsection b (and section B) in m. 26, m. 54
presents t1 as a four-note chord in the high register, t2 as two quarter-note dyads
following it in the right hand, and t3 as a single line working its way up from the
bass. Measure 55 then places the four-note chord and the two dyads (still associ-
ated with t1 and t2) below the single line (t3). The intervals of the two four-note
chords in mm. 5455, though they are not arranged symmetrically around a
center, do make a connection with previous music: they almost duplicate the
interval patterns of the four-note chords at the beginning of subsection b1 in
mm. 3738, with the second chords intervals inverted. Counting intervals up from
Example 2.42
Schoenberg, Gigue Op. 25, mm. 5457a (subsection b3). Used by permission of Belmont
the bottom note, <4,6,3>, <9,4,2> in mm. 3738 becomes

<4,6,3>, <3,3,10> in mm. 5455. Thus we can hear mm. 5455 as
themselves performing a kind of synthesis, bringing together material from two of
the previous b subsections.
As has happened so many times before, however, this process of synthesis is
rudely interrupted by the introduction of two six-note lines that both consist of 6
and 7 pitch intervals. The rst one, <7,1,8,2,9,3>, is a vertically symmetrical
(around B3) alternation of intervals 6 and 7 of the sort we have seen numerous
times before. The second one, <10,4,11,6,0,7>, however, breaks up the alternating
pattern by placing two perfect fths together: <6,7,7,6,7>.
I have called the music displayed in Example 2.43, mm. 5761a, c1 rather than c2.
The reason is that it most denitely has the quality of returning to the previous work
of mm. 5153 after a brief interruption. The previous work I am referring to is
Example 2.43
Schoenberg, Gigue Op. 25, mm. 5761a (subsection c1, continued). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European American
Music Distributors
explaining the specic pitch-class collections that resulted from foreign alternations
of intervals 6 and 7 earlier in the piece as derivable from the source twelve-tone rows.
Measures 5153 accounted for {4,5,6,10,11,0} as order positions {0,4,8} in P4
followed by P10. Now, in mm. 5758, we hear {1,2,3,7,8,9} created by order positions
{2,6,10} in P4 followed by P10. Then in mm. 5960 Schoenberg explains {5,6,7,11,0,1}
as order positions {2,6,10} in I10 followed by I4. The sequence of Schoenbergs
explanations is signicant, because it accounts for these collections in the reverse
order from which they appeared in the A section of the Gigue. As I mentioned above,
mm. 5153s {4,5,6,10,11,0} are the pitch classes of the left hand in m. 19 and the
right hand in m. 16. The collection {1,2,3,7,8,9} explained in mm. 5758 can be found
in the opposite hands at those same two places: right hand in m. 19, left hand in m.
16. Finally, the {5,6,7,11,0,1} that is accounted for in mm. 5960 comprised the rst
six pitch classes of the right hand of m. 9. The introduction of foreign intervallic
elements in the A section and the explanation of their resulting pitch classes as
partitions of the tone row in section A0 form yet another palindrome, the largest one
we have discussed, and one that corresponds to the ABA0 form of the Gigue.
With all the foreign interval successions of section A accounted for (through their
pitch-class collections), there are two loose ends yet to tie up in the remaining
sixteen measures of the movement: explaining the relation of the octatonic collec-
tion, through its subsets, to the source row in its ordered form, and bringing a and b
material together in a single subsection, to demonstrate features that those different
kinds of material have in common. Schoenberg takes up both tasks, in the order in
which I have just listed them. Measures 6168, shown in Examples 2.44a and 2.44b,
are designated x2 because their function is to account for the octatonic palindrome at
mm. 2023 and 2932 as derivable from the twelve-tone row. The reader will
remember that when the octatonic material was presented in those earlier passages,
it was in the context of re-orderings of the component rows. In mm. 2023, ordering
within each tetrachord was preserved for the most part (except for the frequent use
of vertical dyads), but the ordering between tetrachords was compromised greatly by
overlaps. In mm. 2932, both kinds of ordering, within and between, were altered
signicantly. Now, in subsection x2, Schoenberg shows that subsets of the octatonic,
including but not limited to the one most prominently emphasized in the earlier
passages, 4-3 (0134), can be derived through registral partitioning rst from unor-
dered presentations of the row (mm. 6163) and then from presentations that are
substantially more-ordered (mm. 6368).
Measure 61 partitions a reordered I4 into soprano, alto and bass parts. The
soprano gives a version of 4-3, <1,3,1>, that involves many of the same
intervals and the same general contour as 4-3s initial appearance in mm. 2021,
<3,1,3>. The alto yields 3-3 (014) as <1,3>, an inversion of the rst part
of the soprano motive, and the bass gives 3-2 (013), the other three-note subset of
4-3. Measures 61b62a partition a P4 reordered within but not between its
Example 2.44a
Schoenberg, Gigue Op. 25, mm. 61b64a (subsection x2, rst part). Used by permission of
tetrachords into an alto 4-3 (this partition owes more to register than notation) that
has the identical interval succession to its predecessor in m. 61, <1,3,1>.
Statements of set class 3-3 in the soprano and tenor surround it. In mm. 62b
63a, I10 is reordered within and between its tetrachords, and an alto voice yields
<1,4,1>, another succession belonging to 4-3.
On the second beat of m. 63, the tone rows begin to appear in order again, despite
the presence of a few vertical dyads. First we hear R10, which can easily be partitioned
(because of register, accent, and corresponding location in the three-note groups)
into soprano and tenor voices that project descending forms of 33 and a bass voice
that yields <3,1,3>: set class 4-10 (0235), the other contiguous tetrachord
subset of the octatonic scale. Following that in mm. 64b65a and 65b66a, P4 and
I4 appear, arranged so that the upper-staff half of the pitches of I4 sound like half-step
transpositions down from corresponding pitches in P4. If we focus for a moment on
those six notes that sound like half-step transpositions (the second eighth note of beat
Example 2.44b
Schoenberg, Gigue Op. 25, mm. 64b68 (subsection x2, last part). Used by permission of
2, second eighth note of beat 3, and following downbeat in each measure), we can
split them registrally into soprano and alto voices. In both measures, the soprano
gives <1,3> and the alto <1,3>, which are vertically symmetrical members of
set class 3-3. Meanwhile, the notes in the lowest register in both tone rows produce
the interval successions <1,3,13> and <1,3,11>, which are both members
of set class 4-3. And nally the vertical dyads that do not sound like half-step
transpositions in these measures (those located on the third and fourth beats
shaded on the pitch-class map) form two members of 4-9, a non-contiguous octa-
tonic tetrachord (these are {1,2,7,8} and {0,1,6,7}). In mm. 66b67a and 67b68,
which use P10 and I10 respectively, Schoenberg retains the same two 4-9 tetrachords
on third and fourth beats ({1,2,7,8} in m. 66, {0,1,6,7} in m. 67). And together with
the latter tetrachord, he projects no fewer than four set class 3-3s in the upper,
middle, and lower voices of mm. 66b68. Thus, even though the whole octatonic
collection does not seem to sound in mm. 6168, its most salient subset, 4-3, is heard
twice as a registral partition of an ordered row form, as are numerous other subsets of
8-28, most notably 3-3. (This trichord was, as we have discussed before, Schoenbergs
favorite chord during the atonal period.)
The other feature of mm. 6368 worth remarking upon is the strong emphasis on
Bf (repeated three times by itself in the lowest register in mm. 6466) and E (repeated
nine times by itself at the end of the passage). These could be references back to the
Prelude, as John Buccheri has suggested, but I prefer to think of them as reminders of
the axis pitch classes that the four source rows invert around, which are also the same
pitch classes that provided horizontal symmetry at the Gigues beginning.44
In mm. 6972 (Example 2.45), Schoenberg presents for the second time within
the A0 section material which sounds like the subsections of the contrasting
B section. I believe that his purpose in doing this is to bring out various common
elements that tie the a subsections (with their horizontal symmetry) and b subsec-
tions (with their vertical symmetry) together. This particular subsection, which
I call b4, does not begin with vertical symmetry, however. Instead of juxtaposing
inversion-related rows, Schoenberg follows P4 with P10, and the reader can see from
the pitch-class map of these measures that the pitch intervals do not form a
vertically symmetrical pattern in whole or in part. What makes mm. 6970 sound
like b music is the way in which he has presented the pitches of each tetrachord (t1:
four-voice chord; t2: pair of dyads; t3: single line with wide leaps). In addition, m.
70 inverts the relative position of the three tetrachords, and also inverts the
contours of t2 and t3, making the transpositional relationship between P4 and P10
sound at least something like an inversion.
As has been the case in previous b subsections, the opening material gives way
quickly (after two measures this time) to runs alternating pitch intervals 6 and 7,
which disturb the orderings of the rows. My attributions of I4 and I10 to these
measures is, as before, an educated guess based on two factors: Schoenbergs general
tendency to present the four basic row forms as a group in the Gigue, and the
tritone transposition between mm. 71 and 72. But there is something about these
particular cascades of tritones and perfect fths that marks them as unusual. Not
only do they possess vertical symmetry both within each group (the four axes are
given above the notation of mm. 7172) and as a whole around E4/F4 (the E, of
course, has recently been established as important by repetition of E3 in m. 68). But
they also possess a kind of horizontal symmetry: the dyads in corresponding
rhythmic positions between mm. 71 and 72 are all mirrors of each other. Thus
71 on the rst two sextuplet eighths of m. 71 is answered in the same places in m.
72 with 1-7, and 6-0 and 0-6 are in corresponding locations, as are 511 and 115,
44
Buccheri, An Approach to Twelve-Tone Music, p. 110.
Example 2.45
Schoenberg, Gigue Op. 25, mm. 6972 (subsection b4). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European American Music
Distributors
410 and 104, 39 and 93, 28 and 82. In this way, the symmetry characteristic
of the a subsections (dyad palindromes across a barline) and the vertical symmetry
characteristic of the b subsections are brought together by an element once con-
sidered to be foreign, the alternating pitch intervals 6 and 7.45
I labeled the nal subsection of the piece, mm. 7375, as a/b, because it presents
features that are characteristic of both kinds of material (and incorporates one idea
from the x subsections as well), but cannot in my opinion be denitively character-
ized as either a or b. Measure 73 splits into two halves, each ve eighth notes in
duration. Within each half the three tetrachords of rst I10 and then P10 are
distributed as they were at the beginning of each b subsection t1 as a chord, t2
as a pair of dyads, and t3 as a single line. But now, rather than inverting the
tetrachords relative to one another, Schoenberg gives them the same relative
positions in both halves of the measure t1 on the bottom, t2 and t3 intermingled
in the right hand. This new distribution has several consequences. First, it enables
the composer to treat the invariant trichord between the rst tetrachords of I10 and
P10, {1,7,10}, as a repeated diminished triad in the same register. This notion of
repeating material from one row to the next reminds the listener of the ordered and
unordered invariances in the a subsections. At the same time, the combinations of
t2 and t3 in the right hand produce four triads, <11,3,6>, <5,8,0>, <8,0,3>, and
<2,5,9> (or, if you will, B major, F minor, Af major, and D minor). The four divide
into two pairs of triads, and each pair is vertically symmetrical around notes present
in the triads, the rst two around Fs and F, the latter two around Ef and D. If we
consider the axes of symmetry themselves as a pitch-class and interval sequence,
they form <6,5,3,2> or, in ordered pitch intervals, <1,-2,-1>, that part of the
octatonic collection that was featured in the x subsections, set class 4-3.
The pieces nal ourish, mm. 7475, also merges features of subsections a and b.
The ordered presentation of the dyads of P4 calls to mind other relatively ordered
P4 presentations in subsections a, c, and c1. But the ourish, though it is not
vertically symmetrical as a whole, has numerous segments that are, all boxed on the
pitch-class map in Example 2.46. One of these vertical symmetries forms a boundary
45
If the reader looks back through the Gigue, he or she will nd that the palindromes between dyads in
corresponding locations of mm. 7172 were in fact foreshadowed by earlier instances of <6,7>
material, even those instances that were described as disruptive to horizontal symmetry. Measure
43 presents <1,7,2,8> in the bass followed by <7,1,6,0> in the soprano, and m. 44 answers this with
<7,1,8,2> in the bass followed by <1,7,0,6> in the soprano. And back in mm. 58, stage 2 of the
original a subsection, the eighth-note triplets in the right hand presented this sequence: <1,7,2,8> in
m. 5, <7,1,8,2> in m. 6, <1,7,0,6> in m. 7, and <7,1,6,0> in m. 8. The reasons why such
palindromes could be described as destructive to symmetry are twofold: (1) they contained
different pitch-class pairs from the palindromes featured at the beginnings of the a subsections,
mirrors like 910/109, 1110/1011, 43/34, and 45/54; and (2) the horizontal symmetries
created by <6,7> material were always between pitches in corresponding rhythmic locations, while
the symmetries earlier in the a subsections were placed in rhythmically symmetrical locations.
Example 2.46
Schoenberg, Gigue Op. 25, mm. 7375 (subsection a/b). Used by permission of Belmont
for the ourish, the F1-E2 vertical that begins it together with the Bf5-A6 vertical that
ends it. It seems that dyads arranged in vertical symmetry have nally supplanted the
horizontal palindromic dyads that were so prevalent at the pieces beginning.
The Gigue has long been recognized as extreme among the movements of
Schoenbergs Op. 25 Suite for its tempo, length, register, and rhythmic complexity.
It is also the most complex of the movements with regard to large-scale structure,
introducing not only successions of perfect fths alternating with tritones but also
an octatonic collection as foreign elements and re-assimilating them into the
ordered presentation of the tone row, and simultaneously making a compromise in
the A0 section between the horizontal pitch-class symmetries of A and the vertical
interval symmetries of B. As we shall see, it is a jumping-off spot for Schoenbergs
later experiments with the presentation of the musical idea but it is also an
interesting and satisfying piece in itself.
3 Woodwind Quintet Op. 26
The twelve-tone Idea reanimates a large musical form
Introduction
As I suggested at the beginning of Chapter 2, the Woodwind Quintet has been given
pride of place by two authors, Ethan Haimo and Jan Maegaard, as the rst work
written from beginning to end according to the most basic principles that would
become characteristic of Schoenbergs mature twelve-tone music (such as deriving
the remaining forms of a piece from a unique twelve-tone ordering).1 Though
I would rather put its predecessor, the Piano Suite, in that position, for reasons
discussed in the preceding chapter, the Quintet also constitutes a rst in a number
of ways. To its composer, apparently the most important way in which Op. 26
broke new ground was that it reanimated large tonal forms such as sonata and
rondo by means of the twelve-tone approach, while the Suite had brought to life
small forms such as binary and ternary. Schoenberg tells us in Composition with
Twelve Tones that his primary reason for developing the twelve-tone approach
was that he was not satised with his ability to create larger forms using a free
atonal pitch language:
The rst compositions in this new style [what we now call free atonality] were written
by me around 1908 and, soon afterwards, by my pupils, Anton von Webern and
Alban Berg. From the very beginning such compositions differed from all preceding
music, not only harmonically but also melodically, thematically, and motivally. But
the foremost characteristics of these pieces in statu nascendi were their extreme
expressiveness and their extraordinary brevity. At that time, neither I nor my pupils
were conscious of the reasons for these features. Later I discovered that our sense of
form was right when it forced us to counterbalance extreme emotionality with
extraordinary shortness. Thus, subconsciously, consequences were drawn from an
innovation which, like every innovation, destroys while it produces. New colourful
harmony was offered; but much was lost.
Formerly [in common-practice-period tonal music] the harmony had served not
only as a source of beauty, but, more important, as a means of distinguishing the
features of the form. For instance, only a consonance was considered suitable for an
ending. Establishing functions demanded different successions of harmonies than
roving functions; a bridge, a transition, demanded other successions than a codetta;
1
Haimos discussion of the Quintet spans pp. 10623 of Schoenbergs Serial Odyssey, while Maegaard
argues for the Quintets position as the rst completely dodecaphonic piece in A Study in the
Chronology of Op. 2326 by Arnold Schoenberg, especially pp. 10915.
Woodwind Quintet Op. 26 123
harmonic variation could be executed intelligently and logically only with due con-
sideration of the fundamental meaning of the harmonies. Fullment of all these
functions comparable to the effect of punctuation in the construction of sentences,
of subdivision into paragraphs, and of fusion into chapters could scarcely be assured
with chords whose constructive values had not as yet been explored. Hence, it seemed
at rst impossible to compose pieces of complicated organization or of great length . . .
. . . After many unsuccessful attempts during a period of approximately twelve
years, I laid the foundations for a new procedure in musical construction which
seemed tted to replace those structural differentiations provided formerly by tonal
harmonies. I called this procedure Method of Composing with Twelve Tones Which are
Related Only with One Another.2
A number of other writers have shown how the Quintet uses a wide variety of
transpositions, retrogrades, and rotations of the row and its inversion to recreate
differently the tonal functions that are associated with various parts and subsections
of a large form, be it sonata, scherzo and trio, song form, or rondo. (Ethan Haimo
has also shown convincingly how motivic variation within and between sections is
recreated through twelve-tone means.)3 I will take note of and discuss these writers
observations in the appropriate places. But what I would like to add to the discus-
sion (in accordance with the overriding theme of my book) is a demonstration of
how a recreation in twelve-tone language of a large tonal form such as the third
movement of the Woodwind Quintet (an extended three-part song form) can
coexist with and support large projections of a musical idea involving conict,
elaboration of that conict, and resolution. Indeed, as Schoenberg claimed himself
in Composition with Twelve Tones, the ultimate purpose of the form in this
Quintet movement can be seen as making the Idea comprehensible.4
Before we move on to a detailed consideration of the third movement, a shorter
description of the problem and solution of the opening movement is in order,
because movement III is an extension of principles introduced by movement I. (For
a more complete description of the rst movement, the reader can consult my
article The Musical Idea and Global Coherence in Schoenbergs Atonal and Serial
Music.)5 As I suggested in Chapter 2, the rst movement can be seen as a step
further (beyond the Gigue Op. 25) toward generating a movements musical idea
out of a conict inherent in the source row. In the Gigue, an element that conicted
with the rows order had been built out of <6,7> interval successions found
between adjacent pitch classes in the row, by repeating and chaining them. In the
2
Schoenberg, Composition with Twelve Tones (1941), in Style and Idea (1984), pp. 21718
(additions in brackets mine).
3
See Haimo, Schoenbergs Serial Odyssey, pp. 10913.
4
5
Boss, The Musical Idea and Global Coherence in Schoenbergs Atonal and Serial Music, pp. 22037.
Example 3.1
P3: 3 7 9 11 1 0 10 2 4 6 8 5
W (mosaic of order numbers):
{0,6} {5,11} {1,2,3,4} {7,8,9,10}
WP3 (pitch-class collections yielded by applying W to row form P3):
{3,10} {0,5} {7,9,11,1} {2,4,6,8}
Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement I, mm. 17a: Grundgestalt and underlying
twelve-tone row. Schoenberg WOODWIND QUINTET OP. 26, Copyright 1925 by
Universal Edition AG, Vienna, Copyright renewed. All rights reserved. Used in the U.S. by
permission of Belmont Music Publishers; used in the world excluding the U.S. by permission
of European American Music Distributors Company, agent for Universal Edition AG, Vienna
Quintets opening movement, there is a conict involving the intervals created

between non-adjacent as opposed to adjacent pitches and pitch classes of the row.
The Grundgestalt for the rst movement and the pitch-class succession underlying
it are given as Example 3.1.6
If we divide Example 3.1s row into partitions to create a mosaic (illustrated
on the example both as order position collections and with enclosures around the
partitioned pitch classes), the inner four pitch classes of each hexachord
<7,9,11,1> and <2,4,6,8> create segments of the whole-tone scale that have
boundary (ordered pitch-class) intervals of 6. Given a presentation of the row in
order, the even ordered pitch-class intervals 2 and 6 will usually be heard as more
salient, 2 because it occurs multiply between adjacent pitch classes and 6 because it
6
Here we are following the convention, presumably initiated by Schoenberg and documented by Josef
Rufer, of labeling the initial presentation in pitches and rhythms of the tone row the Grundgestalt,
rather than the more abstract pitch-class succession. See Rufer, Composition with Twelve Notes Related
Only to One Another, trans. Humphrey Searle (London: Rockliff, 1954), pp. viiviii and 9294.
serves as a boundary for a recognizable scale segment. But at the same time,
ordered pitch-class intervals that can be thought of as oppositions or antitheses
to the whole-tone fragments and their tritone boundaries (because they cannot be
contained within the whole-tone environment) appear between the framing pitch
classes of the two hexachords. Order numbers 0 and 6 produce pitch-class interval
7, and numbers 5 and 11 yield pitch-class interval 5. (This opposition between the
even, adjacent intervals and the odd, framing intervals in the Quintets source row
has been recognized already in the literature, in numerous places.)7 The oppos-
ing members of interval class 5 will not be as salient as the whole-tone segments
in an order-preserving presentation of the row for example, the utes
Grundgestalt though they can receive less convincing emphasis in ways other
than pitch-class adjacency, such as being placed at phrase beginnings and endings
in the Grundgestalt.
In addition to the members of interval class 5 formed by the hexachords framing
pitch classes, intervals in that class appear between other non-adjacent pitch classes
as well. In fact, the ordered pitch-class intervals between corresponding order
positions in the two hexachords are all members of interval class 5. The pitch classes
in order positions 04 are separated by the same interval, ordered pitch-class
interval 7, and the pitch classes in position 5 are separated by interval 5. Because of
this, a transposition by ordered pitch-class interval 7 of any prime form (and also by
7
One of them is Andrew Mead, Tonal Forms in Arnold Schoenbergs Twelve-Tone Music, Music
Theory Spectrum 9 (1987): 6792. Mead traces the inuence of the unordered pitch class set formed
by the two framing interval class 5s ({0,3,5,10}) through the rst movement. He shows how {0,3,5,10}
is emphasized within and between P3, P8, I0, and I7 at the end of the exposition through register,
contour, and accent (p. 76); how the same set is made adjacent in the development section through
instrumental partitioning of P3 (p. 79); and how {0,3,5,10} nally functions as an invariant tetrachord
at order positions 0, 5, 6, and 11 unifying P3 and I0, the two principal rows of the recapitulation
(p. 81). This tetrachord contributes signicantly to a dialectic of compositional strategies that Mead
suggests gives coherence to the piece.
Another author who highlights the distinction between the Quintets inner tetrachords and
framing dyads is Jan Maegaard, in Studien zur Entwicklung des dodekaphonen Satzes bei Arnold
Schoenberg, vol. II, pp. 52526, Notenbeilage, p. 86. Maegaard gives names to the tetrachord
formed by framing interval class 5s (Group I) and the two inner whole-tone segments (1. G4
and 2. G4, or rst and second whole-tone tetrachords), shows how other row forms besides P3 and
I3 keep these segments invariant, and briey discusses Schoenbergs compositional use of such
invariance in the development section. Rainer Butz, in Untersuchungen zur Reihentechnik in
Arnold Schoenbergs Blserquintett op. 26, Archiv fr Musikwissenschaft 45/4 (1988): 25185, takes
over Maegaards labels to discuss the same partitioning of the row, and gives a more exhaustive
catalog of examples of its use in the rst movement as well as the other movements (Butz also
considers a variety of other row partitions and their compositional outcomes). Finally, Langdon
Corson in Arnold Schoenbergs Woodwind Quintet, Op. 26: Background and Analysis (Nashville, TN:
Gasparo, 1984) distinguishes the hexachordal terminals of the row from the whole-tone inner
content, and goes on to make a connection between this partition and the symmetrical scheme that
Schoenberg uses in the third movement (discussed in the main part of this chapter).
Example 3.2
Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement I: ordered invariant pentachords between
prime forms related by ordered pitch-class interval 7 and inverted forms related by ordered
pitch-class interval 5
ordered pitch-class interval 5 of any inversion) will result in an invariant ordered

segment of ve pitch classes from the second hexachord of the original row to the
rst hexachord of the transposition. This is illustrated by the original form P3 and
its transposition P10 in Example 3.2, as well as I7 and I0. This invariance is one of
several that foster coherence in the third movement as well as the rst: Schoenberg
may have thought of it as an analogy to the major scale adding a sharp (or natural)
when transposed up a perfect fth and a at (or natural) when transposed down a
fth.8
As a result of the opposition in the Grundgestalt and row between even
intervals formed by adjacent pitch classes and members of interval class 5 formed
by non-adjacent ones, the rst movement as a compositional dialectic occupies
itself with two tasks. First, it makes the members of interval class 5 more salient
gradually, presenting them as a conicting element to the already-prominent
whole-tone fragments, and then it makes their relationship as frames to the
whole-tone segments within the row clearer. It carries these tasks out twice: once
in the exposition and development and again in the recapitulation and coda of its
sonata form. (Again, the reader interested in considering the details of how it does
this should study my Intgral article referenced above.)
8
Andrew Mead gives examples of this invariances use and contribution to large-scale coherence in his
1987 article on the Quintet. See Mead, Tonal Forms in Arnold Schoenbergs Twelve-Tone Music,
pp. 7476. And Ethan Haimo shows how the corresponding invariance between I7, h2 and I0, h1
gives rise to developing variation between phrases in the second-theme section of the movements
sonata form (Schoenbergs Serial Odyssey, pp. 11011).
Movement III: Etwas langsam

Like the movements of the Suite Op. 25, the four movements of the Woodwind Quintet
Op. 26 were composed more or less simultaneously. Maegaard tells us in A Study in
the Chronology of Op. 2326 that the rst movement was begun on April 24, 1923
(about a month after the completion of Op. 25s Gigue). Schoenberg wrote the rst
forty-seven measures of the rst movement in late April, but then turned to prelimin-
ary sketches for the other three movements on May 10, 1923. If we can assume that the
order of sketches in his Sketchbook No. 5 (the source for the majority of the Quintet
sketches) is chronological, he then continued with mm. 4893 of the rst movement,
but broke it off to sketch out the rst thirty-ve measures of the second movement.
Returning again to the rst movement, he composed mm. 94103, but on May 15,
1923, started a sketch for the beginning of the third movement, which lasted fourteen
measures. Then he returned yet again to the rst movement, composing mm. 10433,
but broke it off for a fourth time to begin the fourth movement. On May 30, 1923, he
completed the rst movement, mm. 134227, and then two days later went back to the
third movement and composed what would be the nal form of its rst thirty-three
measures. The rest of the composition of the Quintet progressed in a similar manner.9
Reviewing Schoenbergs apparent chronology of sketching the Quintet is important
because it strongly suggests the possibility that the later movements grew out of
principles that he discovered while composing the rst movement. The third move-
ment seems to work in this way: its hallmark is a three-stage partition of three
statements of the same row, which uses as its rst stage the rst movements partition
of the row into the perfect intervals created by hexachord boundaries and the whole-
tone fragments yielded by the inner tetrachords. Like its predecessor, the third
movement gives each element to a separate voice with the horn and bassoon at the
beginning, as shown in Example 3.3. The second and third stages then continue the
pattern inward in a symmetrical fashion within each hexachord: expressed as order
numbers, this gives <0,5,6,11>, <1,4,7,10>, <2,3,8,9>. What results in the horn
part is a new ordering of the twelve pitch classes, <3,0,10,5, 7,1,2,8, 9,11,4,6>.10 This
secondary row is not transformed as a whole through the course of the piece; instead,
9
Maegaard, A Study in the Chronology of Op. 2326 by Arnold Schoenberg, p. 106. The pertinent
sketches can be found at (and downloaded from) www.schoenberg.at (accessed August 7, 2013). See
particularly Sketches 50528 of MS 79, which contains Sketchbook No. 5.
10
Both Ethan Haimo and Rainer Butz give accounts of how Schoenberg gradually developed the
notion of the three-stage partition as he repeatedly sketched the beginning of the third movement.
His rst two tries (Sketches 508 and 514 of Sketchbook No. 5) did not create a secondary ordering of
the twelve tones, and in his second try he shows some dissatisfaction with this fact, crossing out an
Ef that occurs too early in the horn part. On the fourth try (Sketch 525 of Sketchbook No. 5),
however, he hit on the three-stage partition, and he shows his satisfaction in the sketch by drawing a
geometrical representation of the three stages as a whole and commenting next to it: Ich glaube
Goethe msste ganz zufrieden mit mir sein (I believe Goethe would be completely satised with
me). Haimos account, complete with (difcult-to-read) facsimilies, can be found in Schoenbergs
Example 3.3
Horn: 1 2 3
Bassoon:
4 5 6 7
P3 stage 1 P3 stage 2 P3 stage 3
3 7 9 11 1 0 10 2 4 6 8 5 3 7 9 11 1 0 10 2 4 6 8 5 3 7 9 11 1 0 10 2 4 6 8 5
Horn Bassoon
Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III, mm. 17 (Grundgestalt). Used by
orderings of the twelve pitch classes derivable from it arise through applying the same
three-stage partition and its retrograde to transformations of P3. But the three-stage
partition does play a large part in manifesting the musical idea that holds the whole
movement together. This Idea grows out of collectional invariances between P3 and P9
on the one hand, and P3 and I2 on the other, illustrated in Example 3.4. The rst
invariance occurs under the order-number mosaic created by the leading voice in all
three stages combined, and preserves the three unordered tetrachords produced by
that partition, {0,3,5,10}, {1,7,2,8}, and {4,6,9,11}. Interestingly, however, the move to
P9 results in two of these tetrachords changing places: {0,3,5,10}, the framing tetra-
chord in P3, becomes what we will hereafter call the inner tetrachord in P9 (actually
the inner dyads of the two discrete hexachords), and {4,6,9,11} moves from the inner to
the outer position. {1,7,2,8} remains in the middle position, though each of its
Serial Odyssey, pp. 11923, and Butzs more abbreviated account in Untersuchungen zur Reihen-
technik in Schnbergs Blserquintett op. 26, pp. 26669.
Example 3.4
Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III: collectional invariances underlying the Idea
component dyads undergoes a retrograde. The second invariance is the well-known

hexachordal invariance that gives rise to inversional combinatoriality. The majority of
commentators on the Quintet claim that Schoenberg was not yet aware of the
hexachordal-combinatorial principle when he wrote Op. 26, and they are correct to
the extent that he was not yet using combinatoriality in the same way he would later in
his career (consistently lining up combinatorial row forms to create aggregates verti-
cally and secondary sets horizontally, or using a row and its combinatorial counterpart
as a harmonic area).11 But here in the third movement, he does make use of the anti-
combinatorial relation (same six pitch classes, reordered) between the second hexa-
chord of P3 and the rst of I2, to create a pivot hexachord that enables a smooth
modulation from RI2 back to R3 at the beginning of the movements reprise.
The Idea that ows forth from these invariances has the following stages, which
line up with the three sections of the movements ABA form (so that the third
movement is indeed a textbook example of form making the Idea comprehen-
sible). First, in the A section, P3, I3, their retrogrades, and their rotations (and I8)
are stated in triplicate and partitioned according to the three-stage scheme shown in
11
For example, Haimos claim in Schoenbergs Serial Odyssey: Although the set of Op. 26 is
IH-combinatorial, Schoenberg does not exploit that property in this piece, either to create aggregates
or to determine hexachordal levels (p. 110). Or Langdon Corson in Arnold Schoenbergs Woodwind
Quintet: In the Wind Quintet, Schoenberg had not yet developed the principle of combinatoriality.
Despite the fact that its set is semi-combinatorial, no use whatever is made of this potential (p. 21).
Example 3.3 (bringing to the surface a number of perfect fourth sonorities and
motives). Then, in the B section, I2, I9, and P9 and their retrogrades and rotations
take over, and receive partitions that are different from the three-stage scheme
(there is a variety of partitions that I will describe in the following detailed analysis,
but division into contiguous trichords and tetrachords is common, as is division
into contiguous hexachords beginning on order positions 11 and 5 of the P and
I forms, or 10 and 4 of the R and RI forms, which partitions out the two whole-tone
hexachords from the rows). Therein lies the problem, similar to others we have
encountered in previous analyses: how do these new segments in B relate back to
the sequences of pitch classes that we heard in section A? The solution that they
relate through their rows, which have collectional invariance with P3 under certain
order-number partitions comes in two stages in the second half of the B section,
which at least one writer (Andrew Mead) has heard as a retransition to A.12 At mm.
5360, Schoenberg presents R9T6 three times, dividing it into discrete trichords that
are apportioned instrumentally to bring out the original three-stage partition in the
ute (look ahead to Example 3.13). The ute thus obtains the pitch-class succession
<6,9,11,4, 7,1,2,8, 5,3,0,10>, and as this succession is featured as a Hauptstimme, it
is easy for the listener to connect it with the horns original Hauptstimme in mm.
17, <3,0,10,5, 7,1,2,8, 9,11,4,6>. It is the same succession, but the outer and
inner tetrachords have changed places and both are rotated by one order position.
Thus the collectional invariance between P9 and P3 is highlighted, connecting one
of the foreign row transformations back to the home row. I2s relationship to P3 is
expressed even more dramatically, in mm. 7881 (look ahead to Example 3.14).
Schoenberg begins in m. 78 by partitioning the second hexachord of RI2T6 into two
non-discrete trichords, order numbers <0,2,3> (pitch classes <0,11,1> in the
clarinet) and <1,4,5> (<3,9,7> in three other voices, as a chord). When he applies
the same partition to the rst hexachord of RI2T6 in m. 79, he acquires the pitch-
class trichords <5,6,8>, which are given in order in the bassoon, and <4,10,2>,
which are presented as a chord in three upper voices. In m. 80, the three voices
playing 4, 10, and 2 sustain, but the bassoon changes the order of its trichord to
<5,8,6>, causing the hexachord to pivot to <5,8,6,4,2,10>, the rst hexachord of
R3. The second hexachord of R3, similarly divided into trichords between bassoon
and chord, follows in the last half of m. 80, and all of R3 returns in m. 81, to
establish the new key, as it were. This parallel to a pivot-chord modulation
between RI2 and R3 again has the effect of showing how something that was heard
as a foreign element at the beginning of B actually has a close relationship to the
home twelve-tone row.
I will now undertake a more detailed description of how this overall pattern eshes
itself out in the third movement (including comments on the functions of the reprise
12
See Andrew Mead, Large-Scale Strategy in Arnold Schoenbergs Twelve-Tone Music, Perspectives
of New Music 24/1 (FallWinter 1985): 131.
of A and the coda) but rst, as has been my habit, I will present a formal diagram
and row chart for the movement. This can be found in Example 3.5. As suggested
above, the movement breaks down into A, a B section in two parts (rst presenting
contrasting material, then a transition back to A), A0 , and a coda. Chronological
progression generally corresponds to motion from left to right on the chart, except
during the cadence subsections where chronological progression goes from top to
bottom. Rotated forms are indicated as order-number transpositions in boldface
after the pitch transposition. There are several abbreviations in the form chart that
need explaining: rst, Px 3 (or Ix 3, etc.) refers to a row stated three times
consecutively (these symbols are borrowed from John Maxwells row chart of the
same movement).13 If the row designation is given an asterisk, this means that the
three rows are partitioned according to the three-stage scheme described above; and
conversely, no asterisk means that they are partitioned either partially or wholly
according to some other scheme. The instrument listed rst below the row designa-
tion is the one that carries out the three-stage partition; the following instrument(s)
take(s) the remaining notes. Sometimes, single rows are partitioned according to one
stage of the three-part scheme: in that case, the chart indicates that the outer,
middle, or inner tetrachord is instrumentally highlighted. In some parts of the
chart, the designation Px tets is given: this signies that Schoenberg has applied all
three stages of the partition to a row simultaneously, producing a tetrachord mosaic
like that at the top of Example 3.4. The three tetrachords, outer, middle, and
inner, are then deployed horizontally as four- or two-note melodies, vertically as
chords, or in some combination of the two. Also, Schoenberg isolates one or two
tetrachords from a row form on occasion, without presenting the remainder; this is
noted in the chart.
After presenting the three-stage partition applied to P3 in mm. 17 as the
Grundgestalt for the third movement, Schoenberg launches into a1 (mm. 814),
where variations of that dividing principle are applied to two pairs of voices (please
consult the score, as I have not provided an example for mm. 814). The ute and
oboe partition three repetitions of I8 according to a uid scheme which sometimes
relates to the rst stage of the original partition, and other times uses new partitions
to bring out set classes that will play important roles later. The rst hexachord of
the third repetition of I8, in mm. 12 and 13, is a good example of the latter situation:
the oboe selects <8,0,11>, which belong to set class 3-3, an important component
of the movements nal cadence. (Andrew Mead gives a different rationale for the
ute and oboes division of these rows that will be considered later.) The clarinet
and horn in mm. 814 come closer to the original three-stage partition, matching it
in the second hexachord of each of the repetitions of I3, but the rst hexachords of
the rst two repetitions divide according to other schemes. One reason for the
13
John Maxwell, Symmetrical Partitioning of the Row in Schoenbergs Wind Quintet, Op. 26,
Indiana Theory Review 5/2 (1982): 89.
Example 3.5
Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III: form chart

Example 3.5 (cont.)
different partition of the rst hexachord of the rst I3 in m. 8 is that the bassoon
takes the rst pitch class, 3, and sustains it as a kind of pedal point. The tonal
implications of such a move will be revisited when we discuss the B section.
Example 3.6a portrays the next subsection, a2, according to the scheme introduced
above in Example 3.3: notation above, rows in pitch classes below, with the instru-
mental partitions symbolized as boxes of different kinds (solid and long-dash lines for
the leading instruments that create secondary orderings of the twelve tones, different
kinds of dotted and dashed lines for the others). What Schoenberg demonstrates in
subsection a2 is that there is another transformation of P3 besides tritone transposition
to P9 that keeps the outer, middle, and inner tetrachords invariant as unordered
tetrachords. This is rotation by three order positions to P3T3. The reader can see from
the mosaic in Example 3.6b that rotation by three order positions, just like transpos-
ition by six (but in a different way), maps the outer tetrachord into the inner and the
inner into the outer, and keeps the middle tetrachord the same.14 Thus the bassoon
14
Andrew Mead, in Large-Scale Strategy in Arnold Schoenbergs Twelve-Tone Music, pp. 13235, also
describes the collectional invariance between P3 and P3T3 as one of a family of order-number transform-
ations that preserve the outer, middle, and inner tetrachords at the same or different order numbers.
Example 3.6a
Flute Oboe Clarinet Horn Bassoon

3 7 9 ,
P3T3 stage 1 P3T3 stage 2 P3T3 stage 3
11 1 0 10 2 4 6 8 5 3 7 9 11 1 0 10 2 4 6 8 5 3 7 9 11 1 0 10 24 68 5 3 7 9
7 5 6 8 4 2 0 10 1 3 11 9 7 5 (6) 8 4 2 0 10 1 3 11 9 75 6 8 4 2 0 10 1
I3T3 stage 1 I3T3 stage 2 I3T3 stage 3
Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III, mm. 1519a (subsection a2). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European
American Music Distributors
Example 3.6b
Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III: collectional invariance between P3 and
P3T3 under the three-stage partition
Nebenstimme in mm. 1519a, <11,4,6,9, 1,2,8,7, 0,10,5,3>, can be heard as a variation

of the horns Hauptstimme at the pieces beginning (<3,0,10,5, 7,1,2,8, 9,11,4,6>), in
which rst and third tetrachords swap places and all three tetrachords are reordered
within.
The other voice pair in subsection a2, clarinet and horn, is notable for three
reasons: rst, it presents I3T3, partitioned according to the original partition
scheme. This marks the rst time in the movement when we have heard an I3
derivative divided this way: the reader will remember that the I3 in mm. 814
underwent an altered partition scheme. Second, the third statement of I3T3 is cut off
after the ninth order position, so that even if we did have a correctly partitioned I3
in mm. 814 to compare this I3T3 to, the same variation procedure that connects P3
and P3T3 would not appear completely. And nally, the notation in Example 3.6a
makes it obvious that the two rows are presented in a staggered fashion, so that the
clarinet and bassoon lines (and the oboe and horn lines to a lesser degree, since they
make less use of ordered pitch-interval inversion) can be heard as canonic with
respect to one another. Thus in mm. 1519a the bassoon varies the horns Haupt-
stimme of mm. 17, while the clarinet echoes (or, more often, anticipates) the
bassoon, often but not always in pitch inversion.
The clarinets echo is cut off in order to give way to a cadential subsection,
mm. 19b21, portrayed as Example 3.7. This is the rst of several such subsec-
tions in the movement, all using similar partition strategies. Schoenberg begins
the subsection in mm. 19b20a by partitioning both hexachords of P3 according
to the second of the three stages, which in previous measures have served to
highlight the middle tetrachord. Here, however, he turns the partition on its
head to create an imitation between the clarinet and oboe from the notes other
than the middle tetrachord (this reversal of function is symbolized by the solid
lines being given to the remaining notes). The clarinet begins with the ordered
pitch intervals <6,2,11>, and the oboe answers it with <6,2,13> (and
both could perhaps be heard as variations of the oboes pickups to m. 19,
Example 3.7
20
P3 P3 I3
outer middle
inner middle outer
Oboe:
<11, 5, 4, 10> {8, 3, 1, 6}
inner
fl 10 9 1
3 7 9 11 1 0 10 2 4 6 8 5 0
ob 5 6
cl 3 4 8 7 7
Clarinet: hn (3) 2 2
11
bsn 0 9
middle middle inner
inner outer outer

Or, I9 :
Or,
P3T3:
Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III, mm. 19b21 (cadence). Used by
<10,2,2>, which have come from different order positions in a different

row). What makes this imitative process between hexachords of P3 possible is
the same property that gave rise to the pentachord invariance between prime
forms seven half steps apart and inverted forms ve half steps apart in the rst
movement: the rst ve pitch classes of the second hexachord are located at a
distance of ordered pitch-class interval 7 from the rst ve pitch classes of the
rst hexachord.
The latter parts of the cadential subsection go on to divide rst P3, then I3, into
tetrachords according to the mosaic at the top of Example 3.4 (or Example 3.6b),
and to project each of these non-contiguous subsets as chords or as brief melodic
segments. In the case of P3, mm. 20b21a, all three tetrachords are laid out
vertically or almost vertically, so that this passage, in addition to the analysis given
in Example 3.7, could also be heard as the inner, outer, and middle tetrachords of
P3T3 (in that order). When I3 arrives in the second half of m. 21, its inner
tetrachord sustains as a chord while the other two are given above in the ute, rst
the middle tetrachord in the correct order for I3, then the outer tetrachord not in
the correct order for I3, nor for I3T3, nor for any of the rotations of I3. In fact, on the
basis of the ordering of the sustained tetrachord and the utes second tetrachord, we
could be hearing the three tetrachords produced by the three-stage partition of I9.
The function of the rst cadential subsection seems to be summarizing the invariant
relationships produced at mm. 1519a by rotated row forms, but at the same time, it
creates confusion about the row forms to which particular segments relate. Later on,
similar kinds of confusion will help reinforce the connections that the movement will
make between P3 and P9, as well as I3 and I9, helping to realize the works Idea.
After the cadence, Schoenberg creates, for the rst time in the third movement
of Op. 26, a structure familiar from the Suite Op. 25: a pitch-class palindrome, or,
more accurately, a palindrome within a palindrome. We will call this subsection
a3: it lasts from m. 22 to m. 30a, and is illustrated by Examples 3.8a and 3.8b. The
palindrome within a palindrome results when the ute and bassoon follow three
repetitions of R3, partitioned according to the original three-part scheme, with
three repetitions of P3, partitioned according to the reverse of that scheme. The
horn and clarinet do the same with I3 and RI3, so that the two voice pairs (ute
and bassoon, and horn and clarinet) create mirrors not only using their complete
pitch-class successions, but also with the successions partitioned out in the leading
voices, the ute and horn. The fth voice, the oboe, adds a non-palindromic
strand: three repetitions of RI3 followed by a single I3. Shaded circles at the end of
Example 3.8as pitch-class map and the beginning of Example 3.8bs pitch-class
map designate the centers of the mirror structures. The reader will notice that
none of the four palindromic voices actually creates a pitch palindrome: the horn
comes closest, mirroring pitches between the second eighth note of beat 4 of m. 24
and the fth beat of m. 28 (bracketed on the notation in both examples). What
seem to inuence the pitch content more strongly in mm. 2230 are the numer-
ous invariants between the three strands of the passage, which are symbolized
with dark ovals on the pitch-class map. These invariants fall into two categories:
ordered successions, which are always in reverse of one another, and unordered
pitch-class sets. Examples of the former would be <7,9,11> in the oboe in m. 23
forming a voice exchange with <11,9,7> in the bassoon, or <6,8> in the clarinet
occurring together with <8,6> in the oboe at the end of m. 24. An example of a
larger unordered invariant can be found at mm. 2728, where the succession
shared by the clarinet and horn <10,2,4,8,6,5> is echoed, differently, by the
bassoon and ute: <10,2,4,6,8,5>. (Schoenbergs apparent desire to make a
motivic connection in this place could be the reason why he leaves out the pitch
class 0 between the clarinets 10 and the horns 2 that would normally appear in a
statement of RI3.) Finally, before leaving mm. 2230a, it is necessary to mention
Example 3.8a
Flute Bassoon Horn Clarinet
R3 stage 1 R3 stage 2 R3 stage 3
5 8 6 4 2 10 0 1 11 9 7 3 5 8 6 4 2 10 0 1 11 9 7 3 5 8 6 4 2 10 0 1 11 9 7 3
3 11 9 7 5 6 8 4 2 0 10 1 3 11 9 7 5 6 8 4 2 0 10 1 3 11 9 7 5 6 8 4 2 0 10 1
I3 stage 1 I3 stage 2 I3 stage 3
1 10 0 2 4 8 6 5 7 9 11 3 1 10 0 2 4 8 6 5 7 9 11 3 1 10 0 2 4 8 6 5
Oboe: RI3 RI3 RI3
Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III, mm. 2226 (subsection a3, rst half). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and
Example 3.8b
Flute Bassoon Horn Clarinet Oboe (m. 29)

P3 stage 3 P3 stage 2 P3 stage 1
3 7 9 11 1 0 10 2 4 6 8 5
3 7 9 11 1 0 10 2 4 6 8 5
3 7 9 11 1 0 10 2 4 6 8 5
1 10 (0) 2 4 8 6 5 7 9 11 3 1 10 0 2 4 8 6 5 7 9 11 3 1 10 0 2 4 8 6 5 7 9 11 3
RI3 RI3 stage 1

stage 3 RI3 stage 2
Oboe:
5 7 9 11 3 11 9 7 5 6 8 4 2 0 10 1
RI3 I3
Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III, mm. 2730a (subsection a3, second half). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and
that Schoenberg does not limit himself to bringing out invariants that preserve the
same pitch-class numbers, but also highlights segments within strands that are
transpositions of one another; a good example would be m. 22, where the I3
tetrachord <8,6,4,2> in the bassoon and its R3 counterpart <11,9,7,5> in the
clarinet, both whole-tone segments, are given the same rather salient pitch-interval
succession: <10,14,10>.
We can think of the four principal subsections within A, namely a, a1, a2, and a3,
as restatements of the three-stage partition that gradually grow in complexity. First
a single row is treated this way at m. 1, two rows at m. 8, and then two rotated rows
at m. 15, and nally two rows undergo the partition and then mirror themselves
(under a backward version of the partition) at m. 22. This process (and with it the
entire A section) is brought to a close by a cadential subsection that can also be
heard as an extension and more complex version of the cadence at mm. 1921. This
occurs in mm. 3034a, illustrated as Example 3.9.
First, in mm. 3031, we have two rows back to back (rather than the single P3
that appeared in the corresponding place in m. 19): P3 and R3, which overlap in the
clarinets F5 and form a pitch-class palindrome.15 The rst of the two rows is
divided symmetrically between the clarinet and the oboe to produce an imitative
texture similar to that of m. 19, but less strict with regard to specic intervals (the
clarinets <8,2,8> is answered by <11,2,6> in the oboe, for instance).
Then the bassoon and horn divide up R3 according to a non-symmetrical pattern:
they take every other dyad, except for the horns single note Df. This enables an
imitative texture involving ascending and descending minor sevenths in m. 30, but
by the time we get to m. 31, the pattern breaks down: a minor seventh in the
bassoon is answered by a major sixth in the horn (Schoenbergs preference for the
major over the minor sixth here may be the reason why he chose to diverge from R3
to write Gf instead of Gn).
In mm. 3234, the second cadence ends with a passage that, like the end of the
rst cadence, abstracts the three tetrachords under Example 3.4s rst partition of
P3, treating them as chords or as reordered melodic fragments. P3s outer and inner
tetrachords are given one after the other vertically, and the middle tetrachord is
reordered and broken into its two half steps <7,8> and <1,2>, the rst given in the
oboe in m. 32, the latter in the ute in mm. 3334. As was the case with the ute
tetrachord at the end of m. 21, there is no rotation of P3 that states the middle
tetrachord in the order <7,8,1,2>, so Schoenbergs adoption of this ordering
in mm. 3234 again leads to confusion about what row form he is signifying. It
15
The fair copy, 1925 edition, and collected works edition all give the horn Gf as its second note in m.
31, where the row form R3 calls for a Gn (this is unexplainable, especially since the Gn would have
enhanced the palindromic quality of the passage by allowing the bassoon and horn in m. 31 to
reverse the clarinets rst three pitches in m. 30).
Example 3.9
P3
P3 outer middle
oboe
0 <1, 2>
3 7 9 11 1 0 10 2 4 6 8 5 <7, 8> 9
10 inner
horn 11
clarinet
5 8 6 4 2 10 0 1 11 9 7 3 4
clarinet
5 6
R3 middle
bassoon
inner
1925 edn., P9 outer
Or,
collected edn., and
copy all have
Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III, mm. 3034a (cadence). Used
Distributors
could just as well be the inner, middle, and outer tetrachords of P9, a row that is
about to play a major role in the B section.
As I mentioned at the beginning, the rst part of the B section has the
function within the whole movement of presenting new tone rows partitioned
in new ways, so that the relationship of the resulting segments to the elements of
A (which were based on the three-stage partition) is left in doubt. The opening
subsection of B, which we will call b, mm. 3439, performs this function quite
effectively. As illustrated in Examples 3.10a and 3.10b, subsection b includes two
strands of tone rows: the bassoon solo repeats I9T9 three times, but not parti-
tioned according to the three-stage pattern. Instead, groups of ve notes from
different parts of the row are created through slurring, durational proximity, and
Example 3.10a
RI2
flute/oboe/clarinet:
0 10 4 3 9 7
I2T9 9 8 5 1 0 3
11 2 6 7 11 1
I9T9 ,1 I9T9 ,2
6 4 7 9 5 3 1 11 0 2 10 8 6 4 7 9 5
bassoon:
5-9 (01246) 5-8 (02346) 5-2 (01235)
Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III, mm. 3436 (subsection b, rst half). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and
Example 3.10b
RI2 I2 RI2
4 10 10 4 3 9 3 4
6 2 2 5 1 0 7 6
5 8 8 6 7 11 1 5
3 1 11 0 2 10 8 6 4 7 9 5 3 1 11 0 2 10 8
I9T9 5-8 (02346) 5-9 (01246)
I9T9 ,3 This note given as D in fair copy and

1925 edn., F in collected edn.
Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III, mm. 3739 (subsection b, second half). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and
rhythmic parallelism (consult the brackets in the lower strand of the pitch-class
map). These pentachords form a set-class palindrome, a vestige of the a3
subsection: 5-9 (01246), 5-8 (02346), 5-2 (01235), 5-8, 5-9. Notice that the
specic pitch-class sets do not form a mirror.
The accompanying instruments, meanwhile, present a succession of four rows,
all forms of I2. First we hear I2T9, divided into its discrete trichords, which are then
distributed, in order between the trichords, among the clarinet, ute, and oboe
(the arrows in Examples 3.10a and 3.10b show how the row order within the
trichord is projected: from bottom to top in the rst trichord, chronologically in
the other three). On the downbeat of m. 36, RI2 begins; its rst trichord sounds like
trichord 1 of I2T9 ordered chronologically, but the remaining three discrete tri-
chords all follow the correct order for RI2 either registrally (the second one) or
chronologically (the third and fourth). On the downbeat of m. 38, I2 begins (this
could also be heard as overlapping with trichord 4 of RI2 at the end of m. 37). Its
rst and last trichords are reordered and presented vertically, but the second and
third trichords are in the proper chronological order. Finally, the vertical {0,9,11}
on the fourth beat of m. 39 ushers in an overlapping form of RI2, whose rst three
trichords are all presented vertically, and whose last trichord overlaps with the
bassoons <2,10,8>, the fourth trichord of I2T9.
Many of the discrete trichords in mm. 3439 are arranged registrally and
instrumentally in such a way that they form the same contour: the lowest note in
the clarinet leaps to the highest note in the ute, followed by a less pronounced
descent to the middle note in the oboe. The contour similarities interact in some
interesting ways with what I consider to be the principal motivic process in mm.
3439: in a few words, statements of <2,10,8> in the bassoon and accompaniment,
the rst discrete trichord of I2, grow closer in durational proximity, order, and
contour, and merge with one another at the end of the passage. In m. 34, third
through fth beats, the clarinet, ute, and oboe present <2,10,8> in the contour
<0,2,1>, and this is answered in the bassoon at the end of m. 35 going into m. 36
with <2,10,8> in the contour <0,1,2>. The measure-and-a-half distance is
shortened considerably in the next pair of appearances of this motive: <2,10,8>
in the bassoon on the third through fth beats of m. 37 (in the contour <0,2,1>) is
answered by the accompaniments <8,10,2> in the same contour on the sixth beat
of the same measure. Finally, in m. 39, the two <2,10,8>s come as close to one
another as possible, and they agree on both contour and order because they merge
into a single motive, which ends the measure in the bassoon.
This emphasis on the trichord <2,10,8> or its retrograde continues through the
next part of the B section, and it is only natural to ask whether the pitch classes Bf, D,
and Af have some sort of tonal signicance. Together they form most of a dominant
seventh chord in Ef, and if the reader will go back through the A section to look for
references to Ef in the role of tonic, he or she will nd numerous emphases of that
pitch class, together with its major third: Ef and G are the rst two pitch classes in m.
1; Ef returns in the bassoon at the end of m. 7, and is held in that same instrument in
the manner of a pedal point in mm. 89; and in mm. 1415, the ute replays the three
pitch classes Ef, G, and A with which it opened the rst movement (suggesting that
the tonal references may stretch between movements as well as within). The clarinet
begins the rst cadence in m. 19b with Ef (followed almost immediately by the oboes
G), and the second cadential subsection both begins with EfG in the clarinet (m. 30)
and ends with an Ef pedal in the horn (mm 3133). Given all of these tonal
references, I still cannot make the claim that they provide the main strand that gives
coherence to the movement.16 My skepticism has the same source that it had with the
Menuett Op. 25 (also attributable to Ef, by the way) that is, the notes in between
these tonal references cannot be explained easily from the tonal perspective. Again
(from such a perspective) we seem to be dealing with a texture that has a few isolated
tonal high points and a lot of dissonant ller in between. The details are much more
easily explained through the twelve-tone processes I have been describing, and
therefore I will consider whatever tonal logic exists in the third movement to be
adjunct to the conict that is beginning to take place between three-stage partitions of
P3 and I3 and contiguous partitions of I2, I9, and P9.
Subsection b1 stretches from m. 40 to m. 45. It is called b1 because, like many of
Schoenbergs continuations, it not only continues but also intensies some of the
same procedures that characterized the b subsection, as well as recalling proced-
ures from earlier in the piece. He continues to emphasize <8,10,2> as a pitch-
class motive, while using it and other pitch-class successions as invariant links
between voices, and later between pairs of voices. The b1 subsection multiplies the
imitation into three interrelated kinds that occur between all the voices in mm.
4045: imitation of ordered pitch-interval patterns (while changing the pitch
classes) between two forms of the same row related by rotation (giving rise to
canons with occasional adjustments, reminiscent of the a3 subsection at m. 22),
pitch-class invariance where the ordered pitch-interval patterns and even the
order of the pitch classes change (these invariances are found between forms of
I2 in the oboe and clarinet and R9 in the horn and bassoon, and they reverse or
rotate contiguous trichords and tetrachords of the rows), and nally, ordered
pitch-class successions that naturally occur as invariants between different rota-
tions of the same row. These three kinds of imitation are represented three
16
Langdon Corson in Arnold Schoenbergs Woodwind Quintet seems to make such a claim (that the
third movement, as well as the others, can be heard in Ef). See particularly pp. 3536, 5758, and
6061. Silvina Milstein makes a different claim of the same kind in her review of Haimos
Schoenbergs Serial Odyssey, in Music and Letters 73/1 (1992): 6566. Milstein highlights members
of the diminished seventh chord {Fs, A, C, Ef} in the rst thirty-four measures of the piece as part of
a pitch hierarchy.
different ways in Examples 3.11a and 3.11b. The rst kind is shown by ovals and
arrows between various ordered pitch-interval successions that are written in
smaller type above the pitch-class successions. Solid rectangles and arrows in
the pitch-class map indicate the second kind, and the third kind is highlighted
by dotted rectangles and arrows in the pitch-class map. (In parts of Example
3.11b, dotted ovals and arrows indicate ordered pitch-interval successions that
have been varied by changing a single pitch interval or by inversion.)
Examples 3.11c and 3.11d illustrate the row properties that give rise to the
rst two kinds of imitation: the canons stem from identical ordered pitch-
class interval successions in different parts of a row such as RI2 or R9, boxed in
Example 3.11c (these invariances in turn owe their existence to the property
discussed in my short synopsis of the rst movement, whereby the rst ve
notes of the second hexachord of P3 transpose the rst ve notes of the rst).
The second kind of imitation, involving unordered pitch-class sets, grows out
of two tetrachordal collectional invariances between RI2 and R9, shown in
Example 3.11d.
Examples 3.11a and 3.11b portray a veritable web of invariances of these three
kinds, and show how the same sets will often undergo rst one kind of invariance,
then another, further unifying the passage. The examples may not include all of the
invariances between the four voices of this passage, but I have tried to highlight
the main ones. I will describe in detail two parts of the examples; it will be left to
the reader to go through the remainder. In mm. 4041, the oboe and clarinet
present three ordered pitch-interval successions imitatively: rst <2,8,10>,
then <10,2,2,8>, and nally <2,2,10,16>. Schoenberg associates
ordered pitch intervals such as these that stay invariant between RI2T9 and RI2T3
by grouping their pitches together durationally, while pitches spaced more widely
project the ordered pitch intervals that differ between the two rows (in parentheses
in the examples). Meanwhile, the bassoon and horn, sharing R9T9 for the rst part
of the passage, anticipate the four pitch classes, {1,3,9,11}, that begin the second
point of imitation in the oboe. In this way, the oboes <9,11,1,3> in m. 40 creates a
pitch-class invariant with music that has gone before in the horn and bassoon, and
an ordered pitch-interval invariant with the clarinet passage at the end of the
measure, <10,2,2> (the rst part of the <10,2,2,8> invariance men-
tioned above). In addition, the clarinet and oboe in mm. 4041, as they group
together the pitches that preserve the ordered pitch-interval motives, produce
pitch-class pentachords that alternate with one another: in m. 40 <9,11,1,3,7> in
the oboe followed by <4,6,8,10,2> in the clarinet, in m. 41 <4,6,8,10,2> in the
oboe followed by <9,11,1,3,7> in the clarinet. These alternating pentachords
in clarinet and oboe take part in two larger procedures, starting with an alter-
nation between groups of odd and even pitch classes that has been going on
since the beginning of m. 40 with smaller groups, projecting subsets of both
Example 3.11a
oboe
RI2T9 RI2T9 ,2
+2 8 +10 ( 3) 10 +2 +2 8 (+10) ( 1) +2 +2 10 +16 ( 14) ( 3) +2 10 +14 8 2 (+11) ( 10)
8 10 2 0 9 11 1 3 7 5 4 6 8 10 2 0 9 11 1 3 7 5 4
RI2T3 +2 8 +10 ( 3) 10 +2 +2 8 (+22) ( 15) +2 +2 10 +16 ( 2) ( 1) +2 10 +14 8 2 (+9)
clarinet 1 3 7 5 4 6 8 10 2 0 9 11 1 3 7 5 4 6 8 10 2 0
RI2T3 ,2 horn
( 2)
3 1 9 11 2 0 10 8 4 6 5 7 R9T3 10
2 +8 10 (+3)
R9 T 9 horn and bassoon
bsn
R9 T 9 3 1 9 11
Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III, mm. 4042 (subsection b1, rst half). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and
Example 3.11b
RI2T9 ,3 RI2T9 ,4
10 +2 +14 ( 8) 2 3 +14 ( 10) ( 10) +4 2 1 +14 ( 10) +2 8 +10 3 +14
4 6 8 10 2 0 9 11 1 3 7 5 4 6 8 10 2 0 9 11
2 +9 10 +2 +14 ( 8) 2 1 +14 ( 10) ( 10) +4 2 3 +14 ( 10) (+2) 8 +10 1 +14
RI2T3 ,3
(2 0) 9 11 1 3 7 5 4 6 8 10 2 0 9 11 1 3 7 5 4 6
2 +8 10 +13 2 ( 2) 2 4 +14 9 +10 ( 14) 2 +8 10 +1 2
(10) 8 4 6 7 5 3 1 9 11 2 0 10 8 4 6 7 5
R9T3
2 +8 10 +3 2 ( 2) 2 4 +14 11 +10 ( 2) 14 +8 +2 +3 2
R9T9 ,2
(3 1 9) 11 2 0 10 8 4 6 7 5 3 1 9 11 2 0
R9T9 ,1
Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III, mm. 4345 (subsection b1, second half). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and
Example 3.11c
Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III: intervallic invariances within the row that
enable canonic textures using rows rotated by six order positions
Example 3.11d
Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III: pitch-class invariances between RI2 and
R9 that supplement the ordered pitch-interval canons
whole-tone scales.17 They also enable transference of <8,10,2> from oboe to

clarinet and back, which marks this music as a further development from the
17
These alternating whole-tone subsets could be thought of as extensions of the odd and even (or even
and odd) whole-tone tetrachords at order positions 14 and 710 of the various row
immediately preceding b subsection. Note that the <8,10,2> motives in m. 40 have

a different ordered interval sequence from the one in m. 41: <2,8> becomes
<10,16>.
The web of invariants grows ever denser as Schoenberg progresses through this
passage. By the time he gets to the end of m. 42, there are four separate voices rather
than three, as the horn and bassoon have split into two parts playing R9T3 and
R9T9. Within the last part of m. 44 and all of m. 45, we have a canon with a few
ordered pitch-interval adjustments connecting the oboe and clarinet, but not the
bassoon and horn (the lower two voices were also in canon back at mm. 4244a).
The oboe and clarinet again trade pentachords (see the dotted rectangles in the
pitch-class map), but this time they are <3,7,5,4,6> and <10,2,0,9,11>, chromatic
and almost-chromatic sets, not the whole-tone segments we saw earlier. Finally, the
last four pitch classes of these oboe and clarinet pentachords take part in two chains
of invariants that further thicken the web: <7,5,4,6> in the oboe is answered by
<4,6,7,5> in the horn, which in turn leads to <7,5,4,6> in the clarinet. Simultan-
eously, <2,0,9,11> in the clarinet nds its echo in <9,11,2,0> in the bassoon,
leading to <2,0,9,11> in the oboe.
The b1 passage just discussed, together with the b subsection that precedes it,
seem to break down a distinction Schoenberg himself made between contrapuntal
combination in polyphonic music and developing variation in homophonic
music. He explains this distinction in the essay Bach:
Music of the homophonic-melodic style of composition, that is, music with a main
theme, accompanied by and based on harmony, produces its material by, as
I call it, developing variation. This means that variation of the features of a
basic unit produces all the thematic formulations which provide for uency,
contrasts, variety, logic and unity, on the one hand, and character, mood, expres-
sion, and every needed differentiation, on the other hand thus elaborating the
idea of the piece.
In contrast, contrapuntal composition does not produce its material by develop-
ment, but by a procedure rather to be called unravelling. That is, a basic conguration
or combination taken asunder and reassembled in a different order contains every-
thing which will later produce a different sound than that of the original formulation.
Thus, a canon of two or more voices can be written in one single line, yet furnishes
various sounds. If multiple counterpoints are applied, a combination of three voices,
invertible in the octave, tenth and twelfth, offers so many combinations that even
longer pieces can be derived from it.
transformations, which play such important roles in both rst and third movements. John Maxwell
also comments on them in Symmetrical Partitioning of the Row in Schoenbergs Wind Quintet,
pp. 45, as well as mentioning the ordered pitch-interval invariants within each row that make
canonic presentation possible.
According to this theory, one should not expect that new themes occur in such
fugues, but that there is a basic combination which is the source of all combinations.18
Measures 3445 can indeed be sensibly characterized as placing the same rows,
different rotations of RI2 and R9, against one another repeatedly, and thus varying
a preset contrapuntal combination. But it is clear that these passages also include
successions of related motives that develop in a specic direction that is, toward
increasing density of relationships, and away from whole-tone segments toward
more chromatic ones. This development helps the b and b1 subsections play their
specic roles within the larger formal context (as opening segments for the
B section) as well as projecting the more basic, background progress of the
movements musical idea (b and b1 progressively intensify the differences with
the characteristic partitions and segments of the A section). Thus it seems right for
me to claim that Schoenberg is here giving life to a contrapuntal combination by
allowing the motivic variation to develop. Ethan Haimo makes a related claim
repeatedly in Schoenbergs Serial Odyssey: that Schoenberg was constantly looking
for ways to create developing variation in the twelve-tone context. Haimos
premise is absolutely correct, though it remains for me (and others) to show
how such twelve-tone developing variation ts into the larger contexts of form
and Idea.
The next subsection, mm. 4652, continues in the same way as b1, using
interval invariants to create canons between rows (unlike section b1, however,
the canonic treatment between Hauptstimmen and Nebenstimmen depends more
on identical interval successions between two transpositions of the same row type,
P or I, than between different parts of the same row). What we will call subsection
b2 also calls our attention motivically to invariant pitch-class successions between
different row transformations, most notably the pentachord invariance between I2
and I9, and also highlights identical groups of pitch classes in different statements
of the same row form. These three kinds of invariant are highlighted in the same
way in the pitch-class maps of Examples 3.12a and 3.12b as in the previous
example, Example 3.11: ovals and arrows connecting canonic ordered pitch-
interval successions, solid boxes for pitch-class invariants between different row
forms, dotted boxes for pitch-class invariants between different statements of the
same row form.
There are two aspects of subsection b2 which mark it as a further development
and intensication of the procedures used in b and b1. The rst is what I call a
two-dimensional canon between the ute and oboe, starting at m. 49, second beat,
where the oboe Nebenstimme imitates the interval succession of the ute Haupt-
stimme at the distance of one to three beats, but simultaneously imitates parts of the
18
Schoenberg, Bach (1950), in Style and Idea (1984), p. 397 (italics Schoenbergs).
Example 3.12a
+1 10 +8 +10
I9T4
11 0 2 10 8
2 +1 10 +8 2 ( 2) 2 +1 10 +8
I9T9 , last 6 plus first
I9T9 , first 7
1 11 0 2 10 8 6 I2T4 4 5 7 3
2 +3 10 +8 2 2 ( 13)
+2 3 +10 8 +2 +2 +2
P9T9
6 4 7 9 5 3 1 0 2 11 9 1 3 5 7
2 +3 10 +8 2 2 ( 2) +1 10 +8 2 ( 2) 2 +3 10 +8 2
I2T9
11 9 0 2 10 8 6 4 5 7 3 1 11 9 0 2 10 8
I2T9
11 9 0 2 10 8 6 4 5 7 3 1 11 9 0 9 11 1 3 7 5 4 6
RI2
Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III, mm. 4649 (subsection b2, rst half). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and
Example 3.12b
I9T4 first 8
I9
+1 10 +8 +10 2 2 9 +14 4 ( 14) +10 14 (+13) 10 +8 2 2 2 +15 ( 10) +8 2 2 2 +13 22 +8 2
I9
(11 0 2 10 8) 6 4 7 9 5 3 1 11 0 2 10 8 6 4 7 9 5 3 1 11 0 2 10 8
first 9
+1 10 +8 +10 ( 2) 2 9 +14 4 14 +10 14 (+13) 10 +8 2 2 2 +15 10 +8 2
(4 5 7 3) 1 11 9 0 2 10 8 6 4 5 7 3 1 11 9 0 2 10 8
I2T4 first 8 I2
I2 first 3
+2 +2 +2 1 +10 8 +2 +2 +2 +9 ( 11) +2 3 +10 8 +2 +2
P9T3
(1 3 5 7) 6 4 8 10 0 2 11 last 7 0 2 11 9 1 3 5 8 4 7 3 11 0
I9T7
P9T9 2 11 +14 4 2 8 +2 1 +10 8 +2 +2
, h2
I2T9
last 8 6 4 5 7 3 1 5 7 6 4 8 10 0 10 6 9 5 1 2
+14 8 cl
RI2 P9T3
last 3
8 10 2
first 7
( 10 8 6 4 7 9 5 3 1 11 0 2 )
hn
Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III, mm. 5052 (subsection b2, second half). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and
pitch-class succession of the ute at the distance of six to seven beats. Schoenberg
demonstrates the basic principle that underlies this two-dimensional canon (rows such
as I2 and I9 can have identical ordered pitch intervals because they are transpositions of
one another, but also have pitch-class identities in places different from the intervallic
ones) in the Hauptstimmen of mm. 4649a. The clarinet begins with the rst seven
pitch classes of I9T9, <6,4,7,9,5,3,1>. The horn answers with the rst seven pitch
classes of I2T9, <11,9,0,2,10,8,6>, duplicating exactly the clarinets ordered pitch-
interval sequence, <2,3,10,8,2,2>. The oboe then comes in with the last six
notes of I9T9, plus the rst: <1,11,0,2,10,8,6>. Its ordered pitch-interval succession is
different from the rst two (although similar in many places) but its pitch-class
succession is identical in its last pentachord, <0,2,10,8,6>, to the horns. Schoenberg
shows I9T9 to be intervallically identical to I2T9 between the corresponding order
positions, and pitch-class identical to I2T9 at different order positions (26 in I2T9, 80
in I9T9). The pitch-class invariance is shown more simply in Example 3.12c, a
catalog of invariant relationships basic to Examples 3.12a and 3.12b).
As mentioned above, ute and oboe then make use of the property just intro-
duced to create simultaneous imitation happening at different times in the pitch-
class and intervallic domains. The ute begins in m. 49 with I9T4, continues with I9
on the second beat of m. 50, and nishes with order positions 08 of I9 in m. 52.
The oboe states corresponding segments of I2, but stops short of the ute: I2T4 on
the fth beat of m. 49, I2 on the third beat of m. 50, and the rst trichord of I2 in
m. 52. This enables the oboe to imitate the utes ordered pitch intervals, and it
does so faithfully from m. 49 to the end of the excerpt, at a distance of one to three
beats. Up to m. 50, the oboes rhythms also match those of the ute, but the two
instruments diverge rhythmically at the end of the passage. But at the same time,
the oboes pitch classes also imitate the utes at a different, longer durational
interval. The ute begins with <11,0,2,10,8,6,4,7>, order positions 07 from I9T4,
stretching to the second beat of m. 50, and the oboe answers it at that point with
<11,9,0,2,10,8,6,4>, order positions 50 from I2T4. With the exceptions of pitch
class 9 in the oboe and 7 in the ute, these are identical pitch-class successions. The
ute returns again to <11,0,2,10,8,6,4,7> at the pickup to m. 51 and m. 51 itself,
now reckoned as order positions 411 of I9, and the oboe answers on the sixth beat
of m. 51 and all of m. 52 with <11,9,0,2,10,8>, order positions 92 of I2. Finally, the
ute nishes the passage with <11,0,2,10,8>. The effect is of two voices trading the
same melodic material back and forth, each adding their own characteristic embel-
lishments, and both presenting shorter and shorter motives as the passages end
nears. But the pitch-class exchange happens on a different time scale from the
intervallic variation, which is what makes this imitative passage two-dimensional.
The other aspect of subsection b2 that ties it back to the preceding two subsec-
tions is Schoenbergs strong emphasis on the pitch-class succession <2,10,8> and
its retrograde. The dominant trichord plays an important role as subset within
Example 3.12c
Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III: invariances that enable the connections in
Examples 3.12a and 3.12b
almost all of the longer pitch-class invariances we discussed above, and it would be
possible to hear the shortening technique that happens in the ute and oboe at m.
52 as motivated by Schoenbergs desire to end their successions with <2,10,8>. The
lower voices also produce this trichord as <8,10,2>, and a variant, <8,10,0,2>. All
the occurrences of the motive are shaded on the pitch-class map; it is easy to see
that the motive has grown and multiplied since subsection b. A number of other
invariants, mostly tetrachords and pentachords, strengthen the unity between main
and accompanying voices: I have indicated these with boxes on the pitch-class maps
in Examples 3.12a and 3.12b, and have shown the collectional invariances between
I9 and P9 and I2 and P9 that give rise to them in Example 3.12c. Finally, before
leaving subsection b2, it is important to discuss the partition of I9T7 in the clarinet
and horn at m. 52. As the lower right corner of Example 3.12b shows, this partition
is different from either the three-stage type that dominates the A section or the
division into contiguous trichords and larger sets that has been characteristic of B.
Its main purpose seems to be anticipatory: it generates particular trichord and
hexachord set classes that are favorites of Schoenbergs, and which will play a
crucial role in the movements coda. The clarinet part {0,3,4,7,8,11} and horn part
{1,2,5,6,9,10} are both members of set class 6-20 (014589), and the trichords formed
by dividing each voice in half temporally, {4,7,8}, {0,3,11}, {6,9,10}, and {1,2,5}, are
all members of set class 3-3 (014).
The B sections ever-thickening web of intervallic and pitch-class invariances
around <2,8,10>, interesting and beautiful as it is, has caused us as listeners (and
perhaps also my readers, because I have been discussing B in such detail!) to forget
completely about the elements and premises that began the movement: P3, I3, their
retrogrades, and the three-stage partition. It is almost as if we have wandered into a
completely different composition, at least from the standpoint of the techniques
used to partition the rows and the segments to which they give rise. To use
Schoenbergs language (inspired by Goethe), the centrifugal forces active in the
piece are at their peak. It is time, then, to show how the new materials relate back to
the Grundgestalt, and Schoenberg begins his transition back to A in mm. 5360
with a passage that does just that, in an ingenious way. These measures, which I will
call subsection c (the reader will remember that I also used c for explanatory
subsections in the analyses of the Suite Op. 25), are shown in Example 3.13.
Schoenberg takes one of the rows from the b1 subsection, R9, rotates it T6,
and then divides it among the three active instruments according to the rst
stage of the three-stage partition in mm. 5355: the ute Hauptstimme gets the
outside tetrachord, which was given to the Hauptstimmen in the A sections
statements of the rst stage, the clarinet takes the middle tetrachord, and the
horn gets the inside tetrachord. After m. 55, the ute follows the three-stage
partition faithfully, taking the middle tetrachord in the second statement of
R9T6 (mm. 5658a) and the inner tetrachord in the third statement (mm. 58b
60). The clarinet and horn, however, divide the remaining notes in new ways in
the second hexachords of the second and third repetitions of R9T6. But Schoen-
berg has indeed returned to the three-stage partition in the way he divides
between ute as principal voice and clarinet and horn as accompanying voices,
the rst time we have heard this partitioning scheme since the A section, and
thus a move back in the direction of the movements original strategies.
But this passage recalls original material in more ways than one. The reader will
recall from Example 3.4 that under the tetrachords from the three-stage partition, P3
Example 3.13
Flute _______________
R9T6 ,1 R9T6 ,2 R9T 6 ,3

hn hn
cl
hn hn
6 7 5 3 1 9 11 2 0 10 8 4 6 7 5 3 1 9 11 2 0 10 8 4 6 7 5 3 1 9 11 2 0 10 8 4
hn cl cl cl
cl
(hn)
Compare with:
6 8 5 3 7 9 11 1 0 10 2 4 6 8 5 3 7 9 11 1 0 10 2 4 6 8 5 3 7 9 11 1 0 10 2 4
P3T9 ,1 P3T9 ,2 P3T9 ,3

(cl)
Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III, mm. 5360 (subsection c). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European
and P9 are collectionally invariant, exchanging outer and inner tetrachords. The same
collectionally invariant relationship holds (but not always the exchange between inner
and outer tetrachords) when P9 is retrograded or when either of the rows P3 or R9 is
rotated by 3, 6, or 9. For example, if P3 is rotated by T9, and then partitioned according
to the three-stage scheme into inner, middle, and outer tetrachords, the contents of
the tetrachords are identical to those of the corresponding tetrachords of R9T6 (as are
the pitch-class orderings of the inner and outer tetrachords, but not of the middle
one). The bottom strand of the pitch-class map in Example 3.13 illustrates this
relationship: compare P3T9s three tetrachord subsets (also marked with solid lines)
under the three-stage partition with the three subsets of R9T6. What this means is that
as the ute progresses through the outer, middle, and inner tetrachords of R9T6 in
subsection c, he or she could just as easily be playing the outer, middle, and inner
tetrachords of P3T9 (if we are willing to think of the ute part in mm. 5658a as a
rotation of P3T9s middle tetrachord). Not only has Schoenberg recaptured the three-
stage partition here, but he has returned to his original row form, and in the process
has shown how the foreign P9 from the B section connects to the home row P3.19
The other part of the third movements solution, which connects the other
foreign element, I2, to P3 through their anti-combinatorial property, comes at the
end of the B section in mm. 7681. Between the two explanatory subsections lie
fteen measures of music, which I have designated in Example 3.5s form chart as
subsections c1 (mm. 6167) and the rst part of c2 (mm. 6875). To avoid
overwhelming the reader with too much detail, I will not give examples for these
subsections, but will briey describe them as having two functions: rst, they move
from R9 and its T6 rotation in c1 to RI2 and its T6 rotation in c2, modulating from
the key area of mm. 5360 to the one that will be featured after m. 76. In addition,
these subsections can be understood as an amalgamation of strategies from the
B and A sections, contributing to this musics transitional nature. Schoenberg
partitions both R9 and RI2 in the Hauptstimmen and accompanimental parts to
bring out alternating whole-tone hexachords and pentachords, extending a tech-
nique from earlier parts of B. For examples, consult the oboe and horn parts in mm.
6163, or the ute and oboe parts in mm. 6870. Meanwhile, the clarinet in mm.
6167, an accompanimental voice, repeats the inner tetrachord of R9T6 as part of
an ostinato, <5,3,0,10>, creating an echo of the utes explanatory music in mm.
5960. The meter, rhythm, articulation, and texture of both passages, c1 and c2,
support the notion that they echo subsection c.
Measures 7681 are illustrated in Example 3.14. I have called these measures the
cadence to subsection c2, but they should also be heard as a retransition. They are
19
This passage has also been discussed by Andrew Mead in Large-Scale Strategy in Arnold Schoen-
bergs Twelve-Tone Music, p. 137, with respect to the invariance under the tetrachords of the three-
stage partition between R9T6 and P3.
Example 3.14
bsn hn hn ob bsn R3 fl hn ob cl fl cl hn ob
5 4 6 8 10 2 0 9 11 1 3 7 5 8 6 4 2 10 0 1 11 9 7 3
cl cl
RI2T6 hn cl ob bsn hn ob cl bsn cl hn ob
5 4 6 8 10 2 5 8 6 4 2 10 0 1 11 9 7 3
,h2
R3 ,h1
bsn
Anti-combinatorial property that gives rise to the
RI2T6 ,h1
RI2T6: 5 4 6 8 10 2 0 9 11 1 3 7
R3: 5 8 6 4 2 10 0 1 11 9 7 3
Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III, mm. 7681 (cadence to subsection c2). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and
marked as preparatory by a long ritard, whose purpose (to return to the original
tempo) Schoenberg makes explicit in the tempo marking. As I have repeatedly
indicated, however, this subsection is preparatory in another way, creating a pivot
(hexa)chord modulation from RI2T6 back to R3. This modulation depends directly
on the anti-combinatorial relation between RI2T6 and R3, shown at the bottom right
of Example 3.14, and ultimately on the combinatorial relation between P3 and I2.
Thus it may not be completely accurate to claim that Schoenberg was totally unaware
of the combinatoriality of the Quintets source row, as scholars generally have done
up to this point: at the very least, he was aware of the opposite side of the property.
Schoenberg sets his modulation up and carries it out in several steps, just like a
good tonal modulation. In mm. 7678, he partitions RI2T6 (a row that was featured
in the rst part of c2) so that order positions 0, 2, 3, and 5 of the rst hexachord and
0, 2, and 3 of the second hexachord are given to the clarinet Hauptstimme. Then in
m. 79, he gives 0, 2, and 3 to the bassoon Hauptstimme, again forming pitch-class
succession <5,6,8> with pitch classes <4,10,2> as the sustaining chord. Measure
80a is where he exploits the pivot hexachord: the reordering of the bassoons motive
to <5,8,6> and sustaining {2,4,10} in the accompaniment cause us to rehear the six
pitch classes as <5,8,6,4,2,10> divided into discrete trichords, the rst hexachord of
R3. Finally, Schoenberg begins to establish the new key in the second half of m. 80
by partitioning the second hexachord of R3 in the same way: <0,1,11> in the
bassoon, f3,7,9g as accompanying chord.20 Measure 81 further establishes R3 by
repeating the same discrete trichord partitions in the ute Hauptstimme and three
accompanying voices. To summarize, the composer has created a procedural
parallel to tonal music using non-tonal elements (as we have seen, a typical modus
operandi for Schoenberg, from the largest formal level down to the motivic one),
but more importantly for this discussion, he has shown us a way in which the
foreign I2 and its retrograde and rotations can connect back to the home row, P3,
and its retrograde and rotations. All the foreign elements featured in section B have
now been explained in relation to the movements larger context.
Since the problem of the B sections foreign rows has been solved in the transition,
it would be appropriate to ask what the purposes of the A0 and coda sections might
be with respect to the movements grand strategy. Besides the most obvious answer,
that the reprise of A gives formal balance to the movement, there are some lingering
issues raised by the A and B sections that are dealt with in the nal two sections. The
reprise and coda conrm the connections already made between P3, P9, and I2; in
20
Andrew Mead also discusses m. 80 in ibid., pp. 13738, showing how the hexachords created by the
partition of R3 into Hauptstimme and accompaniment, {0,1,5,6,8,11} and {2,3,4,7,9,10}, were also
projected within R9 back at mm. 5360 by the utes registers: {2,3,4,7,9,10} are all on or above G5,
and {0,1,5,6,8,11} are all on or below F#5. Thus m. 80 actually has the function of relating both R9
and RI2 back to R3.
Example 3.15a
R3 ,1 oboe R3 ,2
5 8 6 4 2 10 0 1 11 9 7 3 5 8 6 4 2 10 (0 1)
bassoon
clarinet 3 11 9 7 5 6 8 4 2 0 10 1 10 0 2 4 8
I3
RI3
Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III, mm. 8284 (subsection a4, rst part).
Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European American Music
Distributors
addition, these sections remind us of invariances between row forms originally

introduced within A, principally P3 and I3. The coda recalls the palindromic shape
of subsection a3, while at the same time showing how one of Schoenbergs favorite
hexachords, 6-20 (014589), and his favorite trichord, 3-3 (014), which made brief
appearances in the A section, t into the movements large picture.
The reprise or A0 begins with seven measures that are surely meant to recall mm.
17 in their use of the three-stage partition of three statements of the row, dividing
the statements among two instruments, one of which is the bassoon. Measures
8288 are different from the beginning of A, though, in that Schoenberg uses R3
(the row to which he modulated in the previous section) instead of P3. Also, there is
an added voice, the clarinet, which plays I3, RI3, and then I3 again. Sometimes these
clarinet rows are divided into discrete or contiguous tetrachords through slurring
and durational proximity, as the notation in Examples 3.15a and b shows. In the
Example 3.15b
R3 ,3
0 1 11 9 7 3 5 8 6 4 2 10 0 1 11 9 7 3
6 5 7 9 11 3 11 9 7 5 6 8 4 2 0 10 1
I3
R3: 5 8 6 4 2 10 0 1 11 9 7 3
RI3: 1 10 0 2 4 8 6 5 7 9 11 3
Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III, mm. 8588 (subsection a4, second part).
Distributors
context of the whole movement, this opening subsection of A0 seems to have two
functions. The rst is to conrm the connection made at mm. 5360 between R9T6
and P3 under the three-stage partition. The oboe Hauptstimme performs the three-
stage partition of R3, and obtains the pitch-class succession <5,10,0,3, 8,2,1,7,
6,4,11,9>, which is recognizable as a variation on the utes succession of mm.
5360, <6,9,11,4, 7,1,2,8, 5,3,0,10> (the oboes line is a retrograde of the earlier ute
line, after the rst and third tetrachords have been rotated by one order position).
The second function of mm. 8288, performed by the clarinet together with the
oboe and bassoon, is to remind the listener of the collectional invariance between P3
and I3 that occurs when the two rows are divided into their discrete tetrachords.
The bottom right of Example 3.15b illustrates this invariant relationship (in reverse,
which is one of the ways in which subsection a4 presents it). This is a relation that
Schoenberg emphasized strongly back in the palindromic a3 subsection (consult

Examples 3.8a and 3.8b again, particularly the ovals on its pitch-class map), and it
played a role prior to mm. 2230 as well. Here in the reprise, this same discrete
tetrachord invariance gives rise to a loose pitch-class imitation between the oboe
and bassoon on the one hand and the clarinet on the other, where rst oboe and
bassoon lead (mm. 8283), then clarinet leads (mm. 8485), and then oboe and
bassoon lead again (mm. 8688). Please consult the ovals and arrows on the pitch-
class maps of Examples 3.15a and 3.15b: these are also duplicated in the notation
above to show to what extent the discrete tetrachord invariances are projected
motivically.
Measure 89, not shown in the musical examples, makes a different kind of
connection between P3 and I3 than the invariant discrete tetrachords that were
shown in mm. 8288. It partitions I3 instrumentally into three non-contiguous
tetrachords, <3,6,8,1> in the bassoon and ute, <11,9,4,2> in the oboe, and
<7,5,0,10> in the clarinet. All three are members of set class 4-23 (0257), the
perfect fourth chord, the set class of the outer and inner tetrachords in the three-
stage partition of P3 (and every other row form except for the rotations, for that
matter). After this come mm. 9096, a subsection I am calling a5 and which
I illustrate in Example 3.16. This part corresponds to mm. 814 in the A section,
for which I do not provide an example. It shares with mm. 814 the combination of
I3 and I8 repeated three times, one row split between two instruments and the other
between three. But now in mm. 9096, the two rows run in retrograde, and, more
importantly, the two or three instruments that share each row presentation split it
up faithfully according to the three-stage partition, while in mm. 814 neither row
was partitioned consistently according to that scheme. The more regular partition
means that the ute (the lead voice in the RI3 partition, accompanied by the horn)
and the bassoon (the lead voice in the RI8 partition, with the oboe and clarinet
taking the remaining notes) have at least the possibility of progressing canonically.
In fact, the two voices begin this way, ute as dux and bassoon as comes, both
projecting the ordered pitch-interval succession <7,2,9,5>. After m. 92,
however, the two lines ordered pitch intervals begin to diverge from one another.
Interestingly, the voices taking the remaining notes (horn in RI3, oboe and clarinet
in RI8) also imitate each other for two measures, and then stop; the horn plays the
intervals <10,14,10> in m. 90, and is followed at a distance of one quarter note
by the oboe and clarinet together playing the same ordered pitch intervals. In m. 91,
the horn again plays <10,14,10>, and is followed, this time an eighth note
later, by the oboe and clarinet playing the same interval succession. After m. 92,
however, the ordered pitch-interval pattern breaks down, in part because the oboe
and clarinet no longer split up remaining notes according to a consistent pattern.
Schoenberg also makes use of pitch-class invariance between RI3 and RI8 to
create pitch-class imitation, pitch imitation, and ordered-pitch-interval imitation
Example 3.16
+2
RI3 ,1 RI3 ,2 RI3 ,3

(fl hn )
+7 2 +9 5 +6 +1 18 +13 22 +17 10
1 10 0 2 4 8 6 5 7 9 11 3 1 10 0 2 4 8 6 5 7 9 11 3 1 10 0 2 4 8 6 5 7 9 11 3
10 +14 10 10 +14 10
10 +14 10 10 +14 10
6 3 5 7 9 1 11 10 0 2 4 8 6 3 5 7 9 1 11 10 0 2 4 8 6 3 5 7 9 1 11 10 0 2 4 8
+7 2 +9 5 6 +1 +6 11 +14 7 10
RI8 ,1 RI8 ,2 RI8 ,3
RI3: 1 10 0 2 4 8 | 6 5 7 9 11 3 RI8: 6 3 5 7 9 1 | 11 10 0 2 4 8
bsn ob cl
Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III, mm. 9096 (subsection a5). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European
between different locations in the leading and following lines than the ones that
carry the interval imitation described above, again creating imitation in two dimen-
sions, as he did in the B section. One could hear this as a synthesis of A and
B sections: using materials from A to create effects like those heard in B. The
invariance that underlies subsection a5 is illustrated at the bottom right of Example
3.16: the invariant pentachord <10,0,2,4,8> between rst and second hexachords,
similar to invariant pentachords that were part of the rst movements design and
that we have seen numerous times in the third movement. Schoenberg treats
subsets of this pentachord as imitative connections: he projects the invariant
tetrachord <10,0,2,4> from the horn in m. 90 to the clarinet and oboe in m. 91
as a transposition up one octave (see the ovals and arrows in the musical notation,
which pertain only to subsets of the invariant pentachord). In mm. 9293, he turns
the invariant dyad <10,4> into a three-octave transposition from ute down to
bassoon, and the dyad <2,8> into an identical pitch succession from horn to
clarinet. The same thing happens again in mm. 94b96 with different dyads: the
invariant <0,2> becomes another three-octave transposition from ute down to
bassoon (the utes A5 in the collected edition is a wrong note, and should read C6,
as in Schoenbergs fair copy), and the <4,8> an identical pitch succession moving
from horn to oboe and clarinet. In addition to this, there is an intervallic invariance
between order positions 14 and 710 of both rows RI3 and RI8, as with every row
in the matrix (both segments can form ascending whole-tone scales, as we have
noted before), and Schoenberg uses that in this passage to create a transposition up
one whole step between the clarinet and oboe playing 14 in RI8 (m. 90) and the
horn playing 710 in RI3 in m. 91. This last imitative relationship generates a kind
of exchange with the octave transposition from horn in m. 90 to clarinet and oboe
in m. 91.
Like subsection a5, the following subsection, a6, mm. 97101, shown in Example
3.17, changes the ordering of a corresponding passage from the A section. This time
it is mm. 1519a, subsection a2, which is adapted. It seems curious that Schoenberg
chooses not to follow the pattern he set up in a4 and a5 and to take the retrogrades
of P3T3 and I3T3, the rows of a2, for subsection a6. Instead, he rotates the two
subsection a2 rows T6 to obtain P3T9 and I3T9. A possible reason for this is that
P3T9, repeated three times under the three-stage partition, produces the pitch-class
succession <6,9,11,4, 8,7,1,2, 5,3,0,10> in one of the leading voices (horn) in
mm. 97101. This pitch-class succession is closely related to the one formed in
the ute by applying the three-stage partition to R9T6 in mm. 5360, <6,9,11,4,
7,1,2,8, 5,3,0,10>: the outer and inner tetrachords are identical, and the middle
tetrachords are related by rotation. (Compare the horn in Example 3.17 with the
ute in Example 3.13.) In this way, Schoenberg again conrms the connection
between P3 and P9 that he made back at mm. 5360. (The retrograde of P3T3 would
have given the succession <9,6,4,11, 7,8,2,1, 3,5,10,0>, which has a more complex
Example 3.17
I3 T 9 ,1 I3T9 ,2
I3T9 ,3
0 10 1 3 11 9 7 5 6 8 4 2 0 10 1 3 11 9 7 5 6 8 4 2 0 10 13 11 9 7 5 6 8 4 2
cl fl
6 8 5 3 7 9 11 1 0 10 2 4 6 8 5 3 7 9 11 1 0 10 2 4 6 8 5 3 7 9 11 1 0 10 2 4
P 3 T9 ,1
P3 T9 ,2 P3 T9 ,3
hn bsn
Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III, mm. 97101 (subsection a6). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European
relationship to the utes sequence at mm. 5360.) There is a parallel relationship

between the succession created in the clarinet in mm. 97101 out of I3T9, <0,9,7,2,
10,11,5,4, 1,3,6,8>, and what would have been created by the leading voice in a
three-stage partition of I9T6, <2,7,9,0, 10,4,5,11, 8,6,3,1>. But we have not heard
I9T6 at all in the third movement, so the potential for a further connection between
A and B material is not realized.
Schoenberg explores further connections between P3 and P9 and between I3 and
I9 in the following subsection, mm. 101b103, illustrated in Example 3.18a. This is a
cadential passage like those of mm. 19b21 and 3034, but much longer, owing to
Schoenbergs elongation of m. 103. Like the earlier passages, mm. 10203 take the
outer, middle, and inner tetrachords from the three-stage partitions of their rows
and state them (mostly) vertically, making it unclear whether the verticals signify a
row or its tritone transposition (which, as we have seen, exchanges the content of
outer and inner tetrachords while keeping the middle tetrachord invariant). The
difference in mm. 10203 is one of context: now that we have heard the B section,
we can recognize one of the two choices for row form in each group of verticals as a
row prominent within the A section, and the other choice as a row prominent
within B. For example, the ute, oboe, clarinet, and horn, as they cross the barline
from m. 102 to 103, play rst the vertical {0,2,7,9}, and then {1,3,6,8}. Since the
order of the pitch classes within the tetrachords is unclear, this could either signify
the inner and outer tetrachords of I3 (the interpretation given at the top of the
pitch-class map), or express the outer and inner tetrachords of I9 (the interpretation
at the bottom). The rst part of m. 103 presents further fragments of rows one or
two tetrachords that sometimes admit similar double interpretations. In one case,
the chord at the rst fermata in m. 103 and the four-note ute fragment above it,
the order of the ute tetrachord causes us to prefer one of the interpretations: the
ute plays the middle tetrachord of I8s partition in its proper order.
Beginning with the second fermata in m. 103, the whole quintet plays three
complete sets of tetrachords, only one of which seems certain regarding its row
attribution. First we have two chords in ute, oboe, clarinet, and bassoon together
with a four-note motive in the horn. The horns ordering, <1,7,2,8>, matches
neither the middle tetrachord of the three-stage partition of P9 nor of P3 (these
partitions are given in Example 3.18b, together with the other pertinent partitions).
The chord on the third fermata in m. 103 follows, with an eight-note segment above
it in the ute. This passages row form seems securely identiable as P3, because
both ute tetrachords, <7,1,2,8> and <9,11,4,6>, present the correct order for the
three-stage partition of P3. Finally, at the fourth fermata, the quintet presents a
passage having the same texture (sustained chord under eight-note segment in
ute) as the one at the third fermata. But this third passage is more unclear
regarding its row identity, owing to the rst of its two ute tetrachords, whose
ordering, <0,5,3,10>, is correct for neither the P3 nor the P9 partitions. Thus an
Example 3.18a
I3 P9
I8 P3 P3
P3T6 inner outer
inner outer
fl outer middle middle inner outer inner
P3
0 1 4 10 9 3 3 4 7 1 2 8 9 11 4 6 0 5 3 10 9 11 4 6
outer
10 2 4 6 8 5
ob
2 3 3 11 0 0 9 0 1
middle
ob
3 7 9 11 1 0 9 6 5 6 7 10 11 10 7
fl
7 8 0 1 2 1 7 2 8 3 2
10 8 9 5 6 5 8
outer inner middle
I9 I9 outer, outer inner outer inner outer

P9
inner P3 P9
inner I3
Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III, mm. 101b103 (cadence). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European
Example 3.18b
Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III, pitch-class successions resulting from the
three-stage partitions of rows used in Example 3.18a
uncertainty that groups P3 with P9 and I3 with I9 permeates the passage, in both
cases reinforcing the connection of a row from the A section with a row from the
B section.
After the cadence come two more subsections that I call a7 (mm. 10410a) and a8
(mm. 110b113), rounding out the reprise of A. To save space, neither a7 nor a8 is
shown in the examples, so the reader should consult the score in this part of the
description. Subsection a7 combines a three-stage partition of I3 in the ute and
clarinet with a three-stage partition of P3 in the horn and bassoon. The leading ute
part in the I3 form projects the pitch-class succession <3,6,8,1, 11,5,4,10, 9,7,2,0>,
which recalls the utes succession back at m. 90 (where it partitioned RI3 with the
outer tetrachord rst, middle tetrachord second, and inner tetrachord third) but
with all three tetrachords reversed within the tetrachord. The Hauptstimme horn
part in the P3 form, <3,0,10,5, 7,1,2,8, 9,11,4,6>, recalls the oboes succession in
subsection a4 (which began the reprise), an outermiddleinner partition of R3,
since it presents the same three tetrachords, reversed in order within the tetra-
chords. Of course it also recalls the horns outermiddleinner partition of P3 that
began the piece. The invariant discrete tetrachords that connect P3 to I3, remarked
on above in the commentary on Examples 3.15a and 3.15b, are not featured to the
same degree in subsection a7, because the three-stage partition breaks up the discrete
tetrachords, assigning parts of them to different instruments. But subsets of these
invariances sometimes do come to the fore: for example, the clarinets <11,9,7> in
m. 104, which creates a voice exchange with the <7,9,11> of the bassoon.
Subsection a8 also consists of two row forms, R3 and P3, each partitioned among
several instruments. For the rst time in the movement, the forms alternate with one
another rather than progressing simultaneously, perhaps an attempt at
fragmentation as the A0 section nears its end. R3 undergoes a three-stage partition in

ute and oboe, with the oboe providing the Hauptstimme: <5,10,0,3, 8,2,1,7,
6,4,11,9>, the same succession with which it began A0 in subsection a4 (mm. 82
88). P3 begins to undergo a three-stage partition in the horn, clarinet, and bassoon,
with the horn taking the leading voice, and the clarinet and bassoon splitting the
remaining notes. But on the second repetition of P3, the partition scheme begins to
break down, as the horn takes order positions <0,4,10> rather than the order
positions of a normal second stage, <1,4,7,10>. And on the third repetition of P3,
not only does the horn take the wrong order positions for the third stage, but there
seem to be two wrong notes in the horn part: pitch class 2 instead of the expected 3 on
the fourth beat of m. 113, and pitch class 9 rather than the expected 8 on the eighth
beat of m. 113 (both of these anomalies from the row-count perspective appear in the
collected edition score as well as Schoenbergs fair copy). Thus the P3 in mm. 110b
113 seems to contribute to the overall sense of fragmentation that characterizes the
end of the A0 section a harbinger, perhaps, of a turn away from the preceding
emphasis on connections between P3, I2, and I9 toward other compositional concerns.
There is some disagreement about where the coda of the third movement ought
to be placed: my form chart follows Felix Greissles outline that precedes the
Universal Edition miniature score in placing it at m. 114, while Andrew Mead puts
it back at m. 104.21 As I maintained at the beginning of my discussion of section A0
(pp. 1601), one of the compositional concerns that Schoenberg takes up in this last
main section of the movement is a return to palindromic structures, which were
featured briey at mm. 2229, and then abandoned in favor of the dialectic
involving P3, I3, I2, and I9. The coda splits into four subsections: x1, x2, a9, and
the nal cadence, three of which consist of or feature palindromes (subsection a9 is
different in that it presents the three-stage partition of P3 for the last time). Like the
whole work, the coda can also be heard as a synthesis: between the palindromic
structure briey presented in the A section at a3 and elements and strategies
featured in B.
Subsection x1, mm. 11421, is shown in Example 3.19. As has been the case
with many previous subsections, x1 presents two row forms simultaneously in
mm. 11417: P3 in the ute, clarinet, and bassoon, I3 in the ute, clarinet, and
(mostly) oboe. The remaining measures, 11821, then reverse both rows, which
creates the pitch-class palindrome: R3 in the bassoon, oboe, and horn, and RI3 in
ute, oboe, horn, and bassoon. As my attribution of row forms to instruments
suggests, there is a certain amount of overlapping between row forms in the
passage, particularly at the beginning and end: Schoenberg makes use of the
invariant discrete tetrachords between P3 and I3 to assign pitch class 3 in the ute
21
Ibid., p. 131.
Example 3.19
fl ob cl hn bsn
P3 R3
3 7 9 11 1 0 10 2 4 6 8 5 5 8 6 4 2 10 0 1 11 9 7 3
3 11 9 7 5 6 8 4 2 0 10 1 1 10 0 2 4 8 6 5 7 9 11 3
I3 RI3
Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III, mm. 11421 (subsection x1). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European
(m. 114) and pitch class 11 in the clarinet (m. 115) to the two rows simultaneously,
and likewise makes pitch class 5 in the bassoon, pitch classes 7 and 3 in the horn,
and pitch class 9 in the oboe in m. 121 play dual roles in R3 and RI3. (The arrows in
the pitch-class map point to pitch classes that do double duty.) But perhaps the
most salient features are the partitioning schemes used for the rows. P3 and R3
divide into contiguous trichords starting with order position 1, setting up an
alternation (for the most part) between even and odd whole-tone trichords: m.
114s <7,9,11> in the clarinet followed two measures later by <2,4,6> in the same
instrument, and then <8,6,4> in the oboe in m. 118, <2,10,0> in the horn in m.
119, and <1,11,9> in the oboe in m. 120. The other row strand uses an extended,
looser version of the same technique: the oboes and later the utes phrases break I3
and then RI3 up into a tetrachord, a hexachord, and nally a pentachord that are all
whole-tone plus 1 all odd or even with the exception of one pitch class. These
partitions, of course, call to mind certain parts of the B section such as mm. 4043,
6163, or 6870, but here are applied to rows characteristic of the A section, within
a palindromic context that also recalls A.
Examples 3.20a and 3.20b portray subsection x2, mm. 12234. The rst four row
forms here, I3, P3, R3, and RI3, form another pitch-class palindrome, but different
from that of subsection x1 in that the four row forms appear one after the other,
except for the last two; the rst hexachord of RI3 overlaps the second hexachord of
R3. In each form, the leading voice takes the rst stage of the three-stage partition (the
outer tetrachord), and there is an interesting progression in the instruments taking
the remaining notes: gradually they move from other partition schemes (mostly one
instrument taking order positions 1 and 3 within each hexachord and the other taking
2 and 4) toward the outermiddleinner pattern resulting from all three stages leading
voices being stated together (R3 in mm. 12729). Then in mm. 12830, RI3 returns to
the rst stage of the partition, with the boundary notes in the horn and remaining
tetrachords in the oboe. I consider this to be anticipatory of the next subsection, mm.
13537, where the three-stage partition appears for the nal time (subsection x2s
reduction to a single row form with some overlapping also anticipates a9).
Comparing the pitch-class maps below Examples 3.20a, 3.20b, and 3.19 shows
clearly that the partitions of the rows are completely different from subsection x1 to
x2: the former focuses, like the B section, on contiguous trichords, tetrachords,
pentachords and one hexachord that form whole-tone or almost whole-tone pitch-
class sets, while the latter returns to the partition scheme that began the A section.
Both x1 and x2 feature palindromes, so that together they can be heard as combining
ideas from A and B in new ways. The return to the three-stage partition in x2 has
another effect, though: it mostly obscures the invariant discrete tetrachords connect-
ing P3 to I3. But invariants between P3 and I3 come back into view in the last four
measures of subsection x2, mm. 13134. P3 and I3 appear in sequence, both parti-
tioned the same way: horn and oboe in both rows take order positions <0,5,6,11>,
Example 3.20a
The row-count calls for C # here, but collected edition

n
hn
fl bsn bsn
I3 cl P3 fl R3 fl
cl cl
3 11 9 7 5 6 8 4 2 0 10 1 3 7 9 11 1 0 10 2 4 6 8 5 5 8 6 4 2 10 0 1 11 9 7 3
1 10 0 2 4 8
RI3 hn
ob
Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III, mm. 12229 (subsection x2, rst part). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and
Example 3.20b
bsn
h2 fl
R3 cl
0 1 11 9 7 3
1 10 0 2 4 8 6 5 7 9 11 3 3 7 9 11 1 0 10 2 4 6 8 5 3 11 9 7 5 6 8 4 2 0 10 1
RI3 hn P3 I3
ob
fl
cl
Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III, mm. 12834 (subsection x2, second part). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers
Example 3.21
hn
(1) fl hn
P3 cl P3 (3)
ob
3 7 9 11 1 0 10 2 4 6 8 5
3 7 9 11 1 0 10 2 4 6 8 5
3 7 9 11 1 0 10 2 4 6 8 5
bsn
(2) fl
P3 cl
Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III, mm. 13538a (subsection a9). Used by
ute (P3) and clarinet (I3) take <1,3,7,9>, and clarinet (P3) and ute (I3) take
<2,4,8,10>. Because of this, certain dyad palindromes or invariants are permitted
to come to the fore: either transferring from instrument to instrument such as the 7
11/117 that moves from ute to clarinet (consult the circles in the notation of
Example 3.20b), or giving rise to identical verticals in both instruments such as the
{2,4} that results in {E3, D4} dyads on the downbeats of both m. 132 and 134.
The nal presentation of the three-stage partition of P3, subsection a9, is dis-
played in Example 3.21. Schoenberg returns to the initial tempo and meter of the
movement to emphasize this subsections connection with the beginning, but
condenses the three stages to half the length of mm. 17 by shortening note values
in stages 2 and 3 and stacking the remaining notes of stage 1 vertically in ute and
clarinet, in addition to overlapping the three stages with one another. Another
important difference, made necessary by the overlapping stages, is that both
instruments involved in mm. 17s opening partition are allowed to take turns at
being the leading voice: the horn in stage 1, the bassoon in stage 2, the horn again in
stage 3. Schoenbergs division of the remaining notes in stage 2 is worth discussing;
a quick look at the pitch-class map corresponding to m. 136 shows that while the
bassoon takes the usual middle tetrachord, order positions <1,4,7,10>, the ute
and clarinet do not conne themselves to the customary outer and inner tetra-
chords, but instead the ute takes order positions <2,5,8,11> and the clarinet
<0,3,6,9> (both order-position transpositions of the bassoons <1,4,7,10>).
A series of motivic connections within subsection a9 results from this, as well as a
pitch-class premonition of the principal materials of the nal cadence. The
motivic connections involve a variation of the horns <3,0,10,5> in mm. 13536
by the clarinet in m. 136 to <3,11,10,6> (where the second note moves down a half
step and the fourth note moves up a half step in pitch-class space). Simultaneously,
the utes inner dyad <4,6> in m. 135 undergoes the rst half of the same
transformation to <4,5> in m. 136. And nally, the utes entire tetrachord in
m. 136, <9,0,4,5>, leads to the subsequent <9,11,4,6> in the horn via the same
transformation (mm. 13638). The circles and arrows in the notation of Example
3.21 show all these connections (in pitch space). At the same time, the pitch-class
tetrachords of m. 136, {0,4,5,9} in the ute and {3,6,10,11} in the clarinet, are literal
pitch-class subsets of the two hexachords that will become the principal elements of
the nal cadence, {0,1,4,5,8,9} and {2,3,6,7,10,11}. Both of these cadential hexa-
chords belong to set class 6-20, a favorite harmony during Schoenbergs atonal
period, which also played an important role in Op. 25 and continued to play a role
in later twelve-tone works.
Example 3.22 is an illustration of the nal cadence, which begins by presenting
an R3 divided between ute on the one hand and oboe and clarinet on the other
hand to form the same two members of pitch-class set 6-20 that have just been
approximated by tetrachords in the a9 subsection. Then Schoenberg sets P3 and R3
back to back, forming one nal pitch-class palindrome, and partitions the two rows
so that each of the ve voices creates a pitch palindrome: the ute sustains Ef5 (the
simplest of all mirror structures, which here encloses the four others), the oboe
plays <B4,D4,D4,B4>, the clarinet <Cs4,E3,F3,E3,Cs4>, the horn <G3,Bf2,Gf3,
Gf3,Bf2,G3>, and the bassoon <A2,C2,Af2,C2,A2>. The pitch classes of each of
the lower three voices, and ute and oboe together, belong to set class 3-3 (014):
ute and oboe, {2,3,11}, clarinet {1,4,5}, horn {6,7,10}, and bassoon {0,8,9}. And when
these trichords are grouped together in one way (which admittedly contradicts the
rhythmic similarities of the voices), they form the two hexachords that Schoenberg
has been anticipating or working with for the past several measures: ute, oboe, and
horn together add up to {2,3,6,7,10,11}, and clarinet and bassoon together form
Example 3.22
R3
6-20
fl hn
ob bsn
cl
5 8 6 4 2 10 0 1 11 9 7 3 P3 R3
6-20
3 7 9 11 1 0 10 2 4 6 8 5 8 6 4 2 10 0 1 11 9 7 3
fl
ob
cl
Fl, ob and hn together = {2,3,6,7,10,11} = 6-20, cl and bsn together = {0,1,4,5,8,9} = 6-20
Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement III, mm. 138b141 (nal cadence). Used by
{0,1,4,5,8,9}.22 In this way, two of the last remaining elements in the movement (set
classes 3-3 and 6-20) that existed in a somewhat free state that is, created in ways
other than the main partition strategies in the piece (at least in their appearances at
mm. 52 and 138) are brought under the palindromic structure by becoming parts of
it. As this loose end is tied up, the movement comes to a close.
The description I have given of the third movements large-scale coherence
involves opposition and synthesis on several levels, and engages every section of
the piece. The A section begins with the Grundgestalt, the basic form P3 repeated
three times and divided instrumentally according to the three-stage partition that
22
If we group them together according to rhythmic similarity, the horn and bassoon together form
{0,6,7,8,9,10}, and the ute, clarinet and oboe {1,2,3,4,5,11}. Both are members of set class 6-2, the
same set class that contains the discrete hexachords of P3T3, {0,1,2,4,10,11} and {3,5,6,7,8,9}.
Schoenberg labored over in his sketchbook. Later in A, I3 and I8 receive the same
treatment, together with rotations of P3 and I3. Many of the resulting tetrachords
are members of set class 4-23, the perfect fourth or perfect fth chord. In the rst
part of the B section, different partition techniques (discrete and contiguous
segments) on different rows (I2, I9, P9, and their retrogrades and rotations) produce
elements different from those of the A section most notably, subsets of the whole-
tone scales (the even whole-tone subsets can also be understood as supersets of the
dominant trichord, {2,8,10}). The second half of the B section connects these
foreign elements back to P3 through two of their source rows, P9 and I2. First
Schoenberg demonstrates the collectional invariance between R9T6 and P3T9 in
mm. 5360, and then he uses the anti-combinatorial relation between RI2T6 and R3
to create a pivot-chord modulation from the former row to the latter in mm. 7681.
The A0 section reinforces the connections already made in the second half of B and
highlights invariant relationships between the two main row forms of the A section,
P3 and I3. Finally, the coda brings the partition strategies of both A and B sections
under the umbrella of the palindromic structure introduced in subsection a3, and
works two set classes, 3-3 and 6-20, that were previously associated with unusual
partition schemes, into the palindromes as well.
My description of coherence in the third movement is certainly not the only
possible one. Andrew Mead in Large-Scale Strategy in Arnold Schoenbergs
Twelve-Tone Music presents a scheme that is similar in its overall shape but that
works with different elements. Mead starts from the observation that the secondary
orderings derived through the three-stage partition from P3, its retrograde and its
T3 and T9 rotations, when divided into hexachords, provide four of the six possible
unordered hexachord pairs that include the {0,3,5,10} and {4,6,9,11} tetrachords as
wholes within one or the other hexachord, and that also split the {1,2,7,8} tetra-
chord evenly into dyads among the two hexachords. These are (1) P3 (under the
three-stage partition): <3,0,10,5, 7,1 | 2,8, 9,11,4,6>; (2) R3: <5,0,10,3, 8,2 | 1,7,
6,4,11,9>; (3) P3T3: <11,4,6,9, 1,2 | 8,7, 0,10,5,3>; (4) P3T9: <6,9,11,4, 8,7 | 1,2,
5,3,0,10>; (5) <10,0,3,5, 2,7 | 1,8, 4,6,9,11>; and (6) <10,0,3,5, 1,8 | 2,7, 4,6,9,11>.
According to Mead, the piece gains large-scale coherence by working with the rst
four of these hexachord pairs in the A and A0 sections, and then achieving the last
two at mm. 11421, what I call the beginning of the coda (consult Example 3.19
again). The reason why Mead views subsection x1 as a large synthesis is that it pulls
together rotational and partition strategies from different parts of the B section to
produce the hexachord pairs that were missing in A. The rotation involves starting
both P3 in m. 114 and R3 in m. 118 on the rst order position (not counting the
utes pedal Ef or the bassoons pedal F until the end of the rotation, in other
words). Mead sees in this an echo of the rst part of the B section, where a single
row was often subjected to T3 and T9 rotations (RI2T9 and RI2T3 or R9T9 and R9T3
in Examples 3.11a and 3.11b, for instance). But at the same time, the alternate
discrete trichord partitions of P3T1 by clarinet and bassoon and R3T1 by oboe and
horn in mm. 11421 recall the end of the second half of the B section, mm. 8081,
where R3 was divided into alternate trichords instrumentally. By means of these
strategies characteristic of different parts of the B section, Schoenberg divides P3
into {2,4,6,7,9,11}(clarinet, mm. 11417) and {0,1,3,5,8,10}(ute and bassoon, same
measures), the sixth of the hexachord pairs listed above, and then divides R3 into
{1,4,6,8,9,11}(oboe, mm. 11827) and {0,2,3,5,7,10}(horn and bassoon, same meas-
ures), the fth of these pairs. Thus, as Mead puts it, the rotational scheme of the
central section [my B1] is combined with the alternate trichordal partitioning
pattern of the transitional section [my B2] to yield the nal two hexachordal pitch-
class collection pairs suggested by the strategy of the outer sections [A and A0 ].
The disparate strategies used to characterize each section are combined to reveal a
global strategy.23 It has to be pointed out that pairs of rotations are not only
characteristic of the rst part of the B section (P3T3 and I3T3 do appear together in
A at mm. 1519a, as Mead himself acknowledges). Still, Meads account of coherence
in the piece is satisfying in that, like mine, it relies on the notion of introducing
disparate elements and strategies earlier in the movement, then combining them later
to complete an entity that was left incomplete.
On the other hand, a valuable aspect of my description of the third movement,
not found in Meads or others, is that it calls attention to Schoenbergs apparently
conscious use of the anti-combinatorial relationship between R3 and RI2T6 at the
end of the B section. As I argued above, it seems that Schoenberg was indeed
cognizant of the notion of hexachordal combinatoriality (or, at least, anti-
combinatoriality) as he wrote the Wind Quintet. But, as others have justiably
argued, the combining of hexachords from different row forms did not yet play an
important organizational role at this early point in his twelve-tone development. In
the music that almost immediately followed, however, Schoenberg began to make
more substantial use of the property he had just discovered. The following chapter
will consider the rst piece to make use of combinatoriality to a signicant extent:
the third of the Three Satires for chorus Op. 28, The New Classicism.
23
Mead, Large-Scale Strategy in Arnold Schoenbergs Twelve-Tone Music, p. 139.
4 Three Satires Op. 28, No. 3
The earliest example of the symmetrical ideal in a (more or less)
completely combinatorial context
In Ethan Haimos account of the development of Schoenbergs twelve-tone com-

positional style, the third of the Three Satires, Der neue Klassizismus, attains
the status of a landmark. According to Haimo, Op. 28, No. 3 is the rst piece to
demonstrate mature combinatorial harmony, by which he means that combina-
torial row pairs almost always occur with their corresponding hexachords lined up
rhythmically and with no competing material elsewhere in the texture (this enables
Schoenberg to make use of the contrasting prole between the interval vector within
the hexachords and the difference vector between corresponding hexachords).
Op. 28, No. 3 also shows its harmonic maturity by using the harmonic areas or
hexachordal levels generated by combinatorial row pairs to differentiate parts of the
musical form in the manner of key areas, another rst for this piece.1
Even if one does not see the harmony in Opp. 25, 26, 27, or 29 as immature,2 it is
hard to argue with Haimos underlying assertion that the ways in which Schoenberg
used combinatorial pairs of row forms changed during the period from the comple-
tion of the Wind Quintet to the composition of the third Satire. (During this period,
as was typical for him, Schoenberg did not compose its three works in the same
order as their opus numbers. Rather, he began by writing most of the Suite Op. 29 in
October 1924 and the rst eight months of 1925. Then he turned to the Pieces for
Mixed Chorus Op. 27 in SeptemberNovember 1925 and the Three Satires in
November and December of that year. Finally he completed Op. 29 in the spring
of 1926.3) A few examples from pieces written between the Quintet and the third
Satire will illustrate. The Overture to the Suite Op. 29 contains numerous passages
where hexachords of combinatorial rows are aligned with one another vertically
or horizontally to form aggregates, as Martha Hyde has shown in her study devoted
1
Ethan Haimo, Schoenbergs Serial Odyssey, pp. 12348.
2
The counter-argument to Haimo on this point has been provided by Martha Hyde, who understands
Schoenbergs harmonic organization in terms of the projection of set classes, secondary harmonies,
which come from the contiguous segments of the row. Hyde has shown that Schoenbergs use of
secondary harmonies to delineate measures and phrases, what she would probably consider to be
mature harmony, goes back to Op. 25. See Hyde, Musical Form and the Development of
Schoenbergs Twelve-Tone Method or Schoenbergs Twelve-Tone Harmony: The Suite Op. 29 and
the Compositional Sketches (Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, 1982).
3
This parenthesis summarizes two different accounts of the chronology of Opp. 2729 in Haimo,
Schoenbergs Serial Odyssey, pp. 12324, and Hyde, Schoenbergs Twelve-Tone Harmony, p. 26.
Three Satires Op. 28, No. 3 181
Example 4.1
6 4 3 7
11 1 6 11
3 8 10 3
6 4 3 7
11 1 6 11
2 9 2 4
11 9 2 11
2 0 11 4
7 5 7 8
7 0 2 8
h1 h1
10 5 7 0 h1
3 8 10 3
h1 5 6 8 1
(Horizontal aggregates are enclosed in heavy boxes.)
1 10 0 5
2
8 3 5 9
4 7 9
9 2 4 10
0 11 1 6
h2 h2 h2
h2
P3 I8 I10 I3
Schoenberg, Suite Op. 29, Overture, mm. 12. Schoenberg SUITE OP. 29, Copyright 1927
by Universal Edition AG, Vienna, Copyright renewed. All rights reserved. Used in the U.S.
by permission of Belmont Music Publishers; used in the world excluding the U.S. by
permission of European American Music Distributors Company, agent for Universal
Edition AG, Vienna
to that work.4 Example 4.1 depicts a horizontal alignment from the opening
measures of the Overture (which returns in varied forms as a motto throughout
the movement), and Example 4.2 shows vertically formed aggregates in mm. 57
of the same movement. These examples in one sense are forward-looking: their
4
Hyde, Schoenbergs Twelve-Tone Harmony, pp. 83100. It should be pointed out that one of Hydes
purposes is to show how combinatoriality in the Suite Op. 29 is not limited to just lining up hexachords
of inversionally combinatorial rows to form twelve-note aggregates, but embraces a much broader
variety of techniques. She shows evidence in the sketches and score of prime, retrograde, and retrograde-
Example 4.2
P3
3 7 6 10 2 11 0 9 8 4 5 1
I8 8 4 5 1 9 0 11 2 3 7 6 10
I10 10 6 7 3 11 2 1 4 5 9 8 0
Interval vector within each hexachord:
P3, h1 P3, h2 [3 0 3 6 3 0]
[6 12 6 0 6 6]
[(6) 6 0 6 12 6 0]
[6 12 6 0 6 6]
I8, h1 I8, h2
[(6) 6 0 6 12 6 0]
[6 12 6 0 6 6]
I10, h1 [6 12 6 0 6 6] I10, h2
Schoenberg, Suite Op. 29, Overture, mm. 57. Used by permission of Belmont Music
row pairs demonstrate both inversional combinatoriality (P3 and I8 or P3 and I10)
and prime combinatoriality (I8 and I10), foreshadowing Milton Babbitts concept
of all-combinatorial row forms (the source hexachord in this case is 6-20
(014589)).5 But what inspires Haimo to consider Example 4.2 an earlier
inversional combinatoriality, aggregates that contain three hexachords (and produce secondary har-
monies by virtue of the extra hexachord), combinatorial (or anti-combinatorial) rows appearing together
that do not create aggregates, trichordal and tetrachordal combinatoriality, and aggregates formed by
unequal-size row segments. All this could support her contention that Op. 29 ought not to be understood
as harmonically immature; on the other hand, perhaps we can think of the Suite as a place where
Schoenberg tried out new combinatorial techniques that he would put to use in his later music.
5
Babbitt introduces all-combinatoriality, the property by which a row can pair with one or more of its
inversions and the same number of its transpositions, retrogrades, and retrograde inversions to form
aggregates, in Some Aspects of Twelve-Tone Composition, The Score and IMA Magazine 12
(1955): 5361.
developmental stage of combinatorial harmony is the fact that two pairs of com-
binatorial rows are laid out simultaneously. As the bottom of Example 4.2 shows,
this obscures the inverse relationship between the proles of the interval vector
created within each hexachord and the difference vector created by tabulating
the thirty-six possible unordered pitch-class intervals between corresponding
hexachords. Were only one pair of rows presented, P3 and I8 for example, the
interval vector would be [3 0 3 6 3 0] and the difference vector [6 12 6 0 6 6]. Adding
I10 to the texture brings in an additional difference vector between its hexachords
and the corresponding hexachords of P3, [(6) 6 0 6 12 6 0], which has a similar
prole to [3 0 3 6 3 0] and hence clouds the intervallic picture considerably. As
for Example 4.1, what marks it as immature is Schoenbergs inclusion of I3 at the
end, which is not combinatorial with the other three row forms. This makes it
impossible for him to establish the harmonic area dened by the hexachord pair
{0,1,4,5,8,9} and {2,3,6,7,10,11} as a home key area, his typical procedure in later
works, because there are two hexachords present at the beginning which do not
belong to that level.
Similar limitations obtain in the Four Pieces for Mixed Chorus Op. 27, though
the rst three pieces seem to take the development of combinatorial harmony one
step further in that they line up combinatorial rows hexachord by hexachord more
consistently than does Op. 29. The rst six measures (the opening phrase) of
Op. 27, No. 3, Mond und Menschen, will serve to represent this collection
(Example 4.3a). Notice that the tenor and bass voices steadily line up corresponding
hexachords of P11 and I4 (and then R11 and RI4) to form aggregates. But, as in mm.
57 of Op. 29, the difference in intervallic proles within the hexachords [5 4 3 2
1 0] and between them [2 4 6 8 10 6] is obscured by the soprano and alto voices,
who present another group of combinatorial hexachords simultaneously. (When
bass and tenor are singing rst hexachords, soprano and alto do second hexachords,
and vice versa.) The effect the soprano and alto have on the intervallic proles of
mm. 12 is shown in Example 4.3b (they confuse the relationships between
hexachords by introducing the difference vector [(6) 10 8 6 4 2 0]). At the same
time, only P11 and I4 and their retrogrades are used in this thirty-two-measure
composition, so even though Op. 27, No. 3 clearly denes a harmonic area,
{2,3,4,5,6,7} and {0,1,8,9,10,11}, it never modulates from that area, and thus
cannot use changes in harmonic area to project the form.
In comparison to its predecessors, Op. 28, No. 3 emphasizes more strongly the
qualities Haimo associates with mature combinatorial harmony. Example 4.4 shows
that, from the beginning of the movement, the presentation of combinatorial row forms
(mm. 35) or hexachords (mm. 12) without interference from other voices is more
prevalent (and even tends to be viewed as an ideal, as we shall see later). Also, in the
opening measures, Schoenberg seems to go out of his way to isolate the corresponding
hexachords from preceding and following material rhythmically and from each other
instrumentally. What is left in question in mm. 15 is the order within each hexachord,
Example 4.3a
P11/h2 I4 /h1 R11/h2 RI4 /h1
Sop. 7 6 2 4 5 3 4 3 7 5 6 2 1 9 10 8 0 11 0 10 11 1 9 8
I4 /h2 P11/h1 RI4 /h2 R11/h1
Alto 8 9 1 11 10 0 11 0 8 10 9 1 2 6 5 7 3 4 35 4 2 6 7
P11/h1 P11/h2 RI4 /h1 RI4 /h2
Ten.
11 0 8 10 9 1 7 6 2 4 5 3 0 10 11 1 9 8 2 6 5 7 34
I4 /h1 I4 /h2 R11/h1 R11/h2
Bass
4 3 7 5 6 2 8 9 1 11 10 0 3 5 4 2 6 7 1 9 10 8 0 11
Schoenberg, Vier Stcke Op. 27, No. 3, Mond und Menschen, mm. 16. Schoenberg FOUR PIECES FOR MIXED CHORUS OP. 27, #3 (Mond
und Menschen), Copyright 1926 by Universal Edition AG, Vienna, Copyright renewed. All rights reserved. Used in the U.S. by permission
of Belmont Music Publishers; used in the world excluding the U.S. by permission of European American Music Distributors Company, agent for
Universal Edition AG, Vienna
Example 4.3b
Schoenberg, Vier Stcke Op. 27, No. 3, Mond und Menschen: interval and difference
vectors in mm. 12
because of the verticals in piano and strings and Schoenbergs departure from the row
orders of P0 and I5 in mm. 1b2. But correct order within the hexachord will be rmly
established during the course of the movement in accordance with Schoenbergs
musical idea. It must be mentioned that there are passages later in the piece,
particularly in the imitative subsections like the exposition and statement sections
of the fugue that begins at m. 87, where a pair of combinatorial rows is supplemented by
other hexachords and rows to ll out the four-voice texture. Despite this, one can speak
of a shift in the commonly used or typical texture: from the three or four simultaneous
row forms of Opp. 29 or 27 to only two simultaneous forms in the third Satire.
The other feature of mature combinatorial harmony, the use of harmonic areas to
dene sections of the form in the manner of key areas, also characterizes Op. 28, No. 3.
Haimo has pointed out that the rst fty-one measures (the rst major section of the
piece) rely on P0, I5, and their retrogrades, establishing harmonic area A0, which
consists of the hexachordal sets {0,1,3,7,9,11} and {2,4,5,6,8,10}, as the home key area.6
When in m. 52 Schoenberg begins to modulate (in an instrumental transition leading
up to the second main section of the movement) it is interesting to notice that the
harmonic areas to which he progresses have gradually fewer pitch classes in common
with the hexachords of A0. Measures 5257 suggest A7, which has ve pitch classes in
common in both of its hexachords with A0: {0,1,3,5,9,11} and {2,4,6,7,8,10}. Thus we
can experience the move from A0 to A7 as something akin to a tonal modulation up a
fth (which introduces one sharp while retaining the other notes of the home scale).
6
Haimo, Schoenbergs Serial Odyssey, p. 147. The use of the symbol A0 to represent the harmonic area
caused by P0, I5, and their retrogrades is borrowed from David Lewin, A Study of Hexachord Levels in
Schoenbergs Violin Fantasy, Perspectives of New Music 6/1 (FallWinter 1967): 1832.
Example 4.4
Introduction Section a
I5 /h1 or R0 /h1
^1 in C P0 ^4 in C R0 ^5 in C ^1 in C
5 4 2
6 8 10
P0 /h1 R0 /h1
0 11 1 9 3 7 10 8 2 6 4 5 5 4 6 2 8 10 7 3 9 1 11 0
11
0 11 9 7 5 4 2 11 9
1 3 6 8 10 1 11 3
0 1
7
2 7 9 7 0 RI5 /h2
8 7
10 11 1 0
2 7 9
4 9 3 I5 /h1
10 0
8 3 11 1 5
4 9
3 4 6 5 10 I5 /h2
5 6 0 1 3 10 8
5 6 P0 /h1 8 6 6
2
I5 /h2 P0 /h1 10 2 4
I5 /h1 RI5 /h1 I5 /h1 8 2
or R0 /h2 or RI5 /h1 5
4
Schoenberg, Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3, mm. 111 (introduction and subsection a). Schoenberg THREE SATIRES FOR
MIXED CHORUS OP. 28, #3 (Der neue Klassizismus), Copyright 1926 by Universal Edition AG, Vienna, Copyright renewed. All
rights reserved. Used in the U.S. by permission of Belmont Music Publishers; used in the world excluding the U.S. by permission
of European American Music Distributors Company, agent for Universal Edition AG, Vienna
Schoenberg then returns to A0 at m. 58 and progresses to A5 at the pickups to m. 61.

The new area also has ve notes in common with the home key in each hexachord,
{1,3,7,9,10,11} and {0,2,4,5,6,8}, and could be thought of as something like modulating
to the subdominant. After a brief return to A0 in mm. 6162, he then takes another step
away from home, modulating to A2 (supertonic?), in m. 62. Now the hexachord
sets characterizing the area are {1,2,3,5,9,11} and {0,4,6,7,8,10}, which have four pitch
classes in common with the hexachords of A0. And we will see that most of the new
harmonic areas that are introduced in the following passage (mm. 6276) also have
four pitch classes in common with the hexachords of A0. Finally, in mm. 7786, most
of which consist of an instrumental transition leading up to the third main section of
the movement, a fugue, he returns to A0. The fugue itself contains a similar mod-
ulatory subsection, mm. 10153 (corresponding to its rst episode, second statement,
second episode, third statement, and third episode), and Schoenberg returns at m. 153
(the fourth and nal statement) to A0 to nish the movement.
Before embarking on a description of how the third Satire not only reaches a new
level in the development of combinatorial harmony, but also projects its own musical
idea, I would like to consider the rst two Satires briey, and how they t into the
whole (together with the third). Schoenbergs foreword to Op. 28 explains that the
three pieces were written as a rejoinder to younger contemporaries of Schoenberg
who wrote in what he calls a quasi-tonal style, arbitrarily limit the amount and
kinds of dissonance in their music, rely too heavily on folk elements, and try to
resurrect older musical forms without actually understanding them. Seeing the
musical activity of the rst quarter of the twentieth century from Schoenbergs
perspective, one could understand almost all non-Second Viennese School com-
posers as tting this description in at least some way, but Schoenberg only makes a
veiled reference to one: Stravinsky, to whom he refers as kleine Modernsky in the
second Satire. However, while most scholars have recognized the polemical intent of
Op. 28, No. 2, very few seem to realize that the entire collection uses text and music
together to describe in detail Schoenbergs understanding of his place relative to
composers such as Stravinsky in early twentieth-century music history.7 The rst
7
Leonard Stein does claim that the three Satires have the effect of lampooning Stravinskys attempts at
neoclassicism and showing how a true master writes a classical piece, in Schoenberg and kleine
Modernsky, in Jann Pasler (ed.), Confronting Stravinsky: Man, Musician and Modernist (Berkeley
and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1986), p. 312. Robert John Specht, on the other hand,
in Relationships between Text and Music in the Choral Works of Arnold Schoenberg (Ph.D.
dissertation, Case Western Reserve University, 1976), understands all three of them as parodies,
characterizing the second Satire accurately (in my opinion) as how this inept [Stravinsky] would
compose if he were to try the twelve-tone method (p. 219). His interpretation of the third Satire as a
mocking portrayal of little Modernsky who has decided, as of the next day, to compose only in
classic style (pp. 22324) seems off the mark to me, given that Op. 28, No. 3 is a complex and subtle
piece that clearly grows out of its opening premises.
Example 4.5
Schoenberg, Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3: invariant properties of the basic row
Satire portrays Schoenbergs at-rst reluctant journey from tonality to an atonality

that preserves all of tonalitys features except for its characteristic harmonic element
(the triad). The second Satire demonstrates the wrong way, what Schoenberg under-
stands as Stravinskys way, to do neoclassicism (more accurately, neobaroquism). It
builds on a visual conceit found in certain canons of Bachs Musical Offering, which
read the same way right side up and upside down; but unlike Bach, the third Satire
creates a thoroughly un-unied piece, one of a handful of compositions of all those
I will mention in this book that does not project a musical idea. In fact, it cannot even
be traced back to a single tone row. And the third Satire demonstrates Schoenbergs
way (the right way in his opinion) to do neobaroquism: generating the parts of
typical Baroque forms such as concerto and fugue directly from the properties of the
source twelve-tone row, and making these forms project an underlying Idea (that
also has its source in the row), thus unifying the movement.
The basic tone row, P0, of Der neue Klassizismus is <0,11,1,9,3,7, 10,8,2,6,4,5>.
This row has three properties, all involving invariants of different sizes, which
determine the continuation of the movement. These invariant properties are repre-
sented in pitch-class form in Example 4.5. The rst, as we have already seen, is
hexachordal inversional combinatoriality at the lower fth, for example P0 with I5.
It was asserted at the beginning of this chapter (following Haimo) that Op. 28, No. 3
is the rst piece in Schoenbergs oeuvre to use combinatorial row pairs, with their
hexachords divided rhythmically and without conicting material in other voices,
to such a large extent. But it is even more important to the continuation of the piece
to understand that Schoenberg treats the home combinatorial pair, P0 and I5, as an
ideal shape comparable to the ideal in the Prelude Op. 25. This ideal can be
presented in a pure manner, meaning that the corresponding hexachords line up
rhythmically, both row forms are complete, and the order of pitch classes within the
hexachords is correct (the pure form is associated with the texts appeals to
classical perfection later in the movement). Alternatively, the ideal can be
obscured partially or wholly by changing one or more of these conditions (which
is the case more often in the beginning and middle of the movement). Over the
entire movement, a process parallel to that of the Prelude Op. 25 expresses the
musical idea in the third Satire: the ideal is presented imperfectly, obscured
further, hinted at briey, obscured again, and then realized near the end. The nal
realization of the ideal shape, in mm. 16366, brings the combination of P0 and I5
together with another kind of shape that Schoenberg has emphasized through the
movement (and in many others of his works): a palindrome. This nal integration
makes the ideal shape perfect (vollendet).
The two other kinds of invariance shown in Example 4.5 determine two of the
principal ways in which the ideal shape is obscured. Section b of Example 4.5
illustrates a collectional dyad invariance between P0 and RI5 that keeps the outside
dyad of each hexachord intact, and reverses the order within each of the two inner
dyads. If the two inner dyads in each hexachord are given as verticals, as the
hypothetical pitch-class map to the right of section b of Example 4.5 shows, it
becomes impossible to identify the row denitively as P0 or RI5. As we will see, this
is a technique Schoenberg uses often throughout the movement to obscure the ideal
shape; but the same technique also plays a role in integrating the ideal shape with a
palindrome at the movements end. Section c of Example 4.5 demonstrates penta-
chord invariances between RI5 and I0. These invariances call to mind similar ones
between P3 and P10, I7 and I0, and R3 and RI2 in the Op. 26 Wind Quintet; and just as
in the earlier piece, Schoenberg here uses the invariant ordered pentachord between
RI5 and I0 (and the pairs transpositions and inversions) to leave the listener in doubt
about the expected continuation of certain successions of ve pitch classes. This
ordered pentachord <0,1,11,3,9> also serves as a pivot chord (like the one in the
third movement of the Quintet) to accomplish the pieces rst modulation away
from the ideal shapes harmonic area (A0) toward the area containing I0 and P7 (A7).
As has been my habit thus far, I want to outline the form of Der neue
Klassizismus before showing in detail how row transformations and partitions
manifest its musical idea and represent its text. Example 4.6 provides a form chart
similar to the others I have drawn, with the exception that an extra line is added to
the top of the chart for the text associated with each subsection. An English
Example 4.6
Schoenberg, Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3: form chart

Example 4.6 (cont.)

translation of this text is provided either to the right of the German or directly
below it. Also, in the place of the row names of the chart for Op. 26, I have indicated
harmonic area names in the Op. 28, No. 3 chart, since it is more common for
Schoenberg to use combinatorial rows together in pairs in the latter piece. (The
reader should remember that each area includes the prime form having the same
transposition number and the (combinatorial) inversion having a transposition
number ve half steps larger (modulo 12).)
From the chart, it quickly becomes obvious that the third Satire is an amalgam-
ation of characteristic forms from the Baroque period and earlier. Perhaps these
could be thought of as separate movements in the small cantata, as Schoenberg
labels this Satire (on the score), tied together by short instrumental interludes. Its
rst main section, A, resembles in some ways a Baroque concerto form with the
soloists and chorus providing ripieni and the instrumental interludes serving as the
concertino passages. The ripieni are not identical melodically, but their texture
(single male voice or section with instrumental accompaniment, followed by
soprano and alto parentheses) and their way of aligning combinatorial rows
horizontally are identical, providing a contrast with the more loosely organized
instrumental concertino subsections. The second main section, B, beginning at m.
58, calls to mind the point of imitation technique characteristic of Renaissance
motets by Josquin des Prez among others (but a model closer to Schoenbergs time
would be certain rst movements of Bach cantatas where the four voices organize
themselves as points of imitation around individual chorale phrases; BWV 78, Jesu,
der du meine Seele, is an example). The third and largest section, C, beginning
at m. 87, is a double-exposition fugue (labeled as such by Schoenberg himself ), with
modulation to other harmonic areas after the expositions, statements of the subject
in stretto later in the fugue, and an extended cadence that both establishes the home
harmonic area and presents the ideal shape integrated with a palindrome.
I will now depict the development of the third Satires musical idea in greater
detail, accounting for row and hexachord combinations in many of the passages
from the movement. I mentioned above that the third Satire begins by suggesting,
then almost immediately obscuring, an ideal shape. The pure shape consists of a
combination of P0 and I5 having three characteristic features: both rows are
complete, the hexachords are lined up vertically to form aggregates of twelve notes,
and there is correct pitch-class order within each hexachord. Schoenberg then
obscures the shape by changing one or more of these characteristics. The process is
already at work in the rst subsections of the movement, the introduction and
opening ripieno (marked as subsection a in the form chart). Example 4.4 provides
score and pitch-class map for these subsections; the reader should notice that
combinations of two rows (and in some cases, more than four hexachords) are
surrounded with large dotted boxes. Each of these boxes contains an approximation
of the pieces ideal shape. The introduction presents it with its hexachords aligned to
form vertical aggregates, but the other two characteristics of the pure shape are
lacking. Instead of complete rows, both halves of the texture (strings and piano)
present the rst hexachord of P0 or I5 followed by the rst hexachord of the
retrograde; in addition, the order within the I5 and RI5 hexachords in the piano is
as yet unclear because most of the pitch classes are presented vertically. With the rst
half of subsection a (mm. 35), we hear something closer to the ideal shape: now the
tenor solo sings all of P0 in the correct order, but it is not divided into hexachords!
(Instead, the division into seven plus ve pitch classes follows the syllable counts of
the rst two lines of text.) The piano presents all of I5, divided clearly into hexa-
chords, but uncertain with respect to ordering within the hexachord (as the pitch-
class map indicates, the pianos second hexachord cannot be denitively identied
because of the mostly vertical presentation. It could be either I5/h2 or R0/h2.)
The second half of Example 4.4 shows a gradual moving-away from the ideal that
has almost just been portrayed (two out of three characteristics). The row-count
after m. 7 becomes more complex. Measures 710 present R0, as before divided into
seven plus ve pitch classes to match the syllable counts of the third and fourth
lines of text. But now the accompaniment, instead of simply offering the two
hexachords of RI5, puts the rst hexachord of P0 underneath R0s rst hexachord
in m. 7, and places two different hexachords below the second hexachord of R0 in
mm. 810: RI5/h2 (repeated), then I5/h1. All three of the accompanimental hexa-
chords present a substantial number of their pitch classes vertically, and in one case
this makes the identity of the hexachord uncertain: the rst of the three, the one in
m. 7, could be RI5/h1 as well as P0/h1. In the parenthesis following the second half
of subsection a, m. 11, this uncertainty about hexachord identity transfers over to
the soprano and alto voices their hexachord appears with order positions 1,2 and
3,4 given as verticals meaning that the hexachord could be I5/h1 or R0/h1.
Another feature of the a subsection is worth mentioning. Notice how the last two
pitch classes of P0, <4,5>, in the tenor in m. 5 are doubled by the cello, as are two
of the hexachord boundary notes in R0, <10,7> (beginning of m. 8). Because P0
starts on pitch class 0 or C, the F ending the rst dyad and the G ending the second,
emphasized as they are by doubling, could be heard as a motion from scale degree
4 to 5 in C major (or minor). The tenor in m. 10, though not doubled, sings the last
two notes of R0, <11,0>, as BC half notes rising by half step, sounding very much
like a cadence on scale degrees 7 and 1. This suggestion of tonality should be
understood in the same way as middleground tonal motions in Opp. 25 and 26, as
a means of organization adjunct to the manipulations of the movements tone row,
not the main bearer of coherence. Yet Schoenberg will indeed develop the notion of
resolution to C through the rest of the movement, and this development, together
with the obscuring and recapturing of the ideal shape, plays a part in manifesting
the works Idea and in portraying the textual image of reaching classical
perfection.
Example 4.7
P0 /h2 or
P0 /h1 or RI5 /h2
I5 /h2 secondary set hexachords RI5 /h1
0 11
9 10
R0 /h2 7 8
R0 /h1 6 5
7 9 3 11 1 0 complete row
4 3
2 1
7 10
5 10 11 0 8 11 0
4 10 3 8 9 5 6 7 9
6 5 7
6 11
0
hexachords P0 /h2 I5 /h2 3 4
3 1 2
1
11
4 4
9 8 P0 /h1 or 2 2 3
R0 /h2 or 1
RI5 /h1
7 9 I5 /h2
2 I5 /h1 or I5 /h2 or
4
2 3 3 0 R0 /h1 R0 /h2
1
I5 /h2 0
1 10 0
8 11 1 10 8 Approximate
6 9 9 11 6 ideal shape
R0 /h1 5 7 7 RI5 /h2 5
Schoenberg, Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3, mm. 1219 (beginning of subsection b).
The rst instrumental interlude or concertino subsection, what I call subsection b,

stretches from m. 12 to m. 32. Example 4.7 illustrates its opening measures, mm.
1219, which move further away from the ideal shape that was almost established in
subsection a (the furthest yet up to this point in the piece) and then step back
toward it. First, Schoenberg completes the I5 that was begun in m. 11 by the
sopranos, altos, viola, and cello, with I5/h2 in the viola and piano in m. 12. Directly
after, in mm. 12b13, come the rst and second hexachords of R0 in cello and piano;
they are not completely linear in either case because of the pianos vertical dyads and
reordering in the cello, but they are nevertheless ordered in such a way that their
identity is clear. In effect, we have moved from the ideal situation of aligning the
hexachords of combinatorial rows vertically to one where combinatorial rows follow
after one another, a rst step in obscuring the ideal (but one that still permits the
formation of a secondary set in Babbitts sense, as Example 4.7 shows).
Measures 14 and 15 take another step in defacing the ideal shape. No longer do
we have a complete row form with the hexachords ordered, but two trivially
combinatorial hexachords are placed one after the other, R0/h1 and P0/h1; and
the 1,2 and 3,4 order positions in P0/h1 are given as verticals to obscure the
hexachords identity. In mm. 16 and 17, we have two pairs of hexachords aligned
vertically, recapturing one aspect of the ideal, but again neither the strings nor the
piano project a complete row. The viola and cello present P0/h2 followed by I5/h2,
while the piano accompanies with two six-note collections, the rst of which is not
ordered properly for any of the hexachords of P0, R0, I5, or RI5. Hence, this
hexachord is labeled with two choices, the ones that come closest to the ordering
given in the piano: R0/h2 or I5/h2.
After the passages of the previous four measures, in which no more than a
single characteristic of the ideal shape is allowed to survive, mm. 18 and 19
constitute a step back in the direction of the source. P0 and I5 both appear as
complete rows divided into hexachords by the barline between mm. 18 and 19,
and the rows are aligned so that their hexachords create twelve-note aggregates.
But we have not returned all the way to the ideal yet, because the individual
hexachords are no longer distinct instrumentally (P0/h1 appears in the viola and
right hand of the piano, and I5/h1 in the cello and left hand, for example), and
because the ordering within the hexachord is made unclear by sounding notes out
of order (pitch class 10 before pitch class 2 in m. 18, for example). One charac-
teristic of mm. 1819s presentation of the ideal shape that is signicant for later
developments is that here Schoenberg presents P0 and I5 in a pitch-class-
palindromic form for the rst time. The cellos pitch classes in m. 19 reverse
those of the viola in m. 18, and vice versa. A similar relationship obtains between
the right and left hands of the piano.
While the ideal shape becomes fainter and then returns briey in the rst eight
measures of the b subsection, the other coherence-producing feature in this move-
ment, the suggestions of C major tonality, seems to grow even more prominent. In
Example 4.7s pitch-class map I have circled four places where the registral or
instrumental separation of order positions 0, 1, 3, and 5 from 2 and 4 within P0/h1
or I5/h2 results in the successions <0,11,9,7> or <7,9,11,0>, the descending and
ascending upper tetrachord of the C major scale. The C major segments not only
intensify the functional-tonal feeling produced by the tenor and its instrumental
doublings in subsection a, but also complete a tonal motion that was left incomplete
in the introduction: the violas descending C major scale in mm. 13 that only
reaches down to scale degree 2 (see Example 4.4 again). This is not the only time in
the movement when Schoenberg will attempt to portray the central textual concept
of completing what was left incomplete: more important and far-reaching
manifestations of this principle are coming later, involving purely twelve-tone
concepts like completing row forms and restoring the obscured ideal shape, as well
Example 4.8
4
P0 /h2 8
strings 5
P0 /h1
2
11
9 10
7
I5 /h2 3 6
1
0
piano 3 1
7 R0 /h2 7 10 9
3 1 (1)
2 0 R0 /h1 R0 /h1 2 2 (3)
10 11
8 9 (9)
10 0
8 8 8 11
6 6
5 5 6 5
4 2
2
5 4
(10) (9) (11)
6
10 P0 /h2
(2) (3) (1) 8
6
4 4 4
I5 /h1
R0 /h1
Schoenberg, Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3, mm. 2730 (latter part of subsection b).
as the tonal references. But the beginning of subsection b is the rst obvious
portrayal of completion.
The subsequent measures of the b subsection, mm. 2032, continue to alternate
between breaking down the ideal shape by subverting its characteristics (mm. 2430)
and giving the listener brief reminders of what the complete rows P0 and I5 actually
sound like (mm. 2023 and 3132). One passage that takes destruction of the ideal
shape further than anything we have heard to this point is mm. 2730, represented
by score and pitch-class map in Example 4.8. (This passage also continues to
preserve the C-major scale segments that proliferated in previous measures; a
motion through scale degrees 6, 7, and 8 in m. 27 is highlighted by a heavy oval,
as is the same motion with some registral displacement in m. 30, and a motion from
scale degree 7 to scale degree 5 in mm. 2829.) In the conguration highlighted by
the large, light dotted boxes and connecting dotted line, we have something that can
trace its origins back to the ideal shape. Yet none of the three dening characteris-
tics of that shape are realized completely here. The rows in the strings and piano are
P0 and R0 respectively (trivial combinatoriality) rather than P0 and I5, and although
it is possible to hear them both as complete rows, the rst and second hexachords of
both are interrupted by a palindrome in the piano in m. 29, created from the second
hexachord of P0 and rst hexachord of R0. One could say that the hexachords of
P0 and R0 within the boxed congurations line up vertically to form aggregates, but
the aggregate in m. 28 lines up two statements of R0/h1 in the piano against one of
P0/h1 in the strings, and the aggregate in mm. 2930 places two statements of R0/h2
in the piano against the single statement of P0/h2 in the strings (both statements of
R0/h2 start a half note too early on the second half of m. 29, and the second only
gets through its rst four notes). Finally only three of the hexachords in this distant
reminder of the works ideal are ordered correctly within the hexachord: the second
hexachord of P0 presents its rst four notes as a vertical.
Subsection a0 , the second ripieno, follows in mm. 3343, This is given to the bass
section of the chorus: they are commentators on the solo tenors assertion (in
subsection a) of his intent to be a neoclassic composer. Both phrases of the ripieno
are followed by soprano and alto parentheses like those of subsection a, but longer
(because the sopranos and altos themselves are beginning to offer comment, rather
than just singing Ah!). In effect, the basses assert that the changing times cannot
affect a composer who follows the rules of art to the letter; his work will continue to
be recognized as that of a master no matter how styles change. The rst parenthesis
in the sopranos and altos offers a rather sarcastic footnote: See Riemann! It
is clear that Schoenberg did not respect Riemann as an authority on matters such
as what constitutes timeless art: a quick scan of references to Riemann in Schoen-
bergs writings brings up complaints about Riemanns wrongheaded and outdated
notions of harmony, counterpoint, and phrasing.8 But, ironically, Schoenbergs
third Satire as a whole proves Riemanns point in a way that Riemann himself
probably would not have comprehended by showing that a modern master can
create timeless art by regenerating traditional forms that not only follow the rules
but transform them.9 The second soprano and alto parenthesis seems to be a
8
See Schoenberg, Theory of Harmony, trans. Roy E. Carter (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press, 1978), p. 409; Phrasing (1931), in Style and Idea (1984), p. 347; and Linear
Counterpoint/Linear Polyphony (1931), in Style and Idea (1984), pp. 29697.
9
It is difcult to pinpoint a specic passage in Riemanns works where he makes an assertion in the
form Works of art that follow the rules to the letter are timeless. At the same time, one could claim
that everything Riemann wrote had the ultimate purpose of proving this point, from the last
paragraph of the Geschichte der Musiktheorie, which claims a rock-solid historical foundation for
Riemanns laws of art, to his more polemical writings defending tonal tradition against composers like
Schoenberg and Reger and music theorists like Heinrich Vincent (who aimed to replace the major
and minor scales with the chromatic scale as the basis of his harmonic system). See William C.
complaint that it is difcult, after all, to comprehend the letters or elements of

music (or, alternatively, it may be a reference to the incomprehensibility
according to Schoenberg of Riemanns letter symbols representing the functions
of chords).10
For the rst phrase of the second ripieno (Example 4.9a), Schoenberg pulls back to
something very close to his ideal, almost but not yet perfect perhaps trying to
represent musically that ideal of classical perfection that the basses are calling
timeless. The basses rst phrase in mm. 3335 presents I5, divided by the sustained
Bf on the downbeat of m. 34 into two hexachords (this division does not reect any
pattern in the text, which reads as a single phrase). The piano accompanies with P0,
divided into hexachords in the same place (second and third beats of m. 34) by rests.
Thus two characteristics of the ideal are fullled here: two complete rows are aligned
so that their hexachords form aggregates. But there are vertical dyads in the piano
that make the order within each of its hexachords unclear, though not in a way that
confuses the identity of the hexachord. And the viola makes its own addition to the
conguration in m. 34, the rst hexachord of I5, obscuring the pure combinatorial
relationship a little. As Schoenberg progresses into the rst soprano and alto
parenthesis, the setting of See Riemann, the picture deteriorates drastically. There
are two complete P0 forms, the rst in the cello and the second in the sopranos and
altos, but only the cellos P0 is stated in a linear format, and the rst hexachord of the
soprano and alto version verticalizes order positions 1,2 and 3,4, again making the
hexachord identity unclear (and again projecting the top tetrachord of the C major
scale in the soprano part). The second hexachord of P0 in the sopranos and altos also
contains one vertical dyad, but it consists of order positions 3 and 4 and thus does
not confuse the hexachords identity. Finally, there is very little alignment of
combinatorial row forms here: RI5s rst hexachord appears prominently in the
viola and is answered by the second hexachord in the viola and piano, but instead of
both hexachords lining up with some version of R0, only the rst hexachord of RI5
lines up with the second of P0 in the sopranos and altos. Schoenberg has comprom-
ised all three characteristics of the ideal shape, perhaps to portray how far Riemann
is from comprehending true classical perfection.
The second phrase of the second ripieno, given in Example 4.9b, seems to be
affected slightly by all the deterioration going on in mm. 3637. Measures 3840
present something that approximates the ideal shape a little less closely than the
Mickelsen, Hugo Riemanns Theory of Harmony: A Study and History of Music Theory, Book III by
Hugo Riemann, trans. and ed. William C. Mickelsen (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1977),
p. 223. For an account of Riemanns polemics against Schoenberg, Reger, Vincent, and others, placed
in the context of the development of Riemanns thought, see Alexander Rehding, Hugo Riemann and
the Birth of Modern Musical Thought (Cambridge University Press, 2003).
10
I am indebted to Nicolas Mees (via email) for this second interpretation.
Example 4.9a
sopranos & altos & piano 5

4
basses, I5 /h1 I5 /h2 0 2
vcl. 11
9
P0 /h1 or 7 P0 /h2
RI5/h1 3
5 6 4 8 2 10 7 9 3 11 1 0 1 10
8
2 6
RI5 /h1 RI5 /h2
8 10 viola P0 /h1 P0 /h2 10
viola I5 /h1 5 6 0 1 11 3 9 7
4 vcl.
0 11 1 9 3 7 10 8 2 6 4 5
P0 /h1 4
P0 /h2 2
5
8
11 6
piano 9 8 piano 4
3 5
1 2
0
10
7 6
Schoenberg, Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3, mm. 3337 (subsection a0 , rst phrase). Used by permission of Belmont Music
Example 4.9b
RI5 /h1
RI5 /first 7 RI5 /last 5 6 5
basses, I5 /h1 5 4
vcl. 4
0 0 1
11 11
0 1 11 3 9 7 10 2 8 4 6 5 6
1
R0 /h1
10
0 9 8
viola P0 /h1 or 11 7 8 10 2
9 R0 /h2 3
RI5/h1 7 3 2 9
3 7
1
sops., altos & piano 10
piano 0 RI5 /h2 8 viola
7 ( 2 )
4 in piano and
2 3 4 RI5 /h1 1st alto
10 1 10
8 6 7
6 5
5 R0 /h2 vcl. 2 4
11 0
11 I5 /h1 8 9
R0 /h1 9 3 6 5
1
Schoenberg, Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3, mm. 3842a (subsection a0 , second phrase). Used by permission of Belmont Music
basses rst phrase did, mainly because the RI5 in the basses is divided into seven
plus ve notes rhythmically, following the texts division. Just like the rst phrase,
the second phrase has vertical dyads in the piano accompaniment and an extra
hexachord in the viola (m. 39), factors that make the presentation of the ideal a little
less perfect. When the sopranos and altos take over to sing their second parenthesis
in mm. 4142, a fragmentation process even more drastic than the rst parenthesis
(and more destructive of the ideal shape) begins to occur. The voices themselves
split R0, the rst hexachord of I5, and the rst hexachord of RI5 into trichords, and
present some of the trichords backward, making the larger source units obscure.
This seems to depict the musical elements (or Riemannian function symbols) that
are hard to understand that is, to place correctly into larger contexts. The rst
group of trichords in the sopranos and altos (setting the word Buchstaben) does
create an aggregate, as does the second group (setting the words wenn man die
kann). But the two aggregates overlap rhythmically, and the I5 fragment and pair
of RI5 hexachords in the cello and viola, none of which align rhythmically with the
soprano and alto hexachords, further compromise the harmonic clarity.
After the briefest of bridge subsections, one and a half measures, what I am
calling the third ripieno or subsection a00 enters in m. 43b. Of course, I could have
combined this section with the second ripieno to form a longer ripieno of the kind
often found in Baroque models. But I want to keep mm. 3342 and 43b 51 as
separate subsections to highlight their similarities and differences. The third ripieno
is illustrated in Examples 4.10a and 4.10b. In this subsection, the basses marvel at
how quickly the neoclassic composer is able to reach formal perfection (von
heute auf morgen should be understood here in its colloquial meaning of in such
a short time). The basses then ask if it is possible to borrow such perfection, to
which the sopranos and altos answer: Yes, but only borrow. This passage could
conceivably constitute a swipe at Stravinsky, as if Schoenberg were asking him, Is it
really possible for you to achieve classical perfection with your false imitations of
Bach and others in such a short time? But on the basis of the music of the whole
third Satire, I want to assert that Schoenberg is also speaking about his own quest
for formal perfection as the true neoclassic composer. The text may be uncertain
about whether Schoenberg is only able to borrow formal perfection, but the whole
movement shows clearly that he is achieving it for himself.
The music of the third ripieno expresses quite effectively the image of fragments
building up to a complete, perfect structure (representing formal completion the
basses complete I5 on the word Formvollendung), and then reverting to frag-
ments again (when the sopranos and altos assert that one can only borrow formal
perfection). The rst stage, mm. 43b45a, gives the second hexachord of R0 in the
basses (and imitates it at pitch an octave higher in the viola). As accompaniment,
the cello offers two hexachords, both of which create aggregates with R0/h2: I5/h1,
followed by P0/h2. The piano presents either the rst hexachord of P0 or the rst
Example 4.10a
Stage 1 Stage 2
R0 /h2 I5 /h1 I5 /h2
basses, piano RH
7 7 3 9 1 11 0 5 6 4 8 2 10 7 9 3 11 1 0
R0 /h2 I5 /h1 I5 /h2
viola
7 3 9 1 11 0 5 6 4 8 2 10 7 9 3 11 1
I5 /h1 P0 /h2 R0 /h2 R0 /h1

vcl.
(5) 6 4 8 2 10 10 8 2 6 4 5 7 3 9 1 11 0 5 4 6 2 8 10
6
11 RI5 /h2 0 P0 /h1 or RI5/h1
9 or 10 11
8
3 P0/h2
1 4 5 3
0 2 1
P0 /h1 or RI5/h1
piano 7 9 7
Schoenberg, Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3, mm. 43b47 (subsection a00 , rst part). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers
Example 4.10b
basses,
piano RH 4 5
Stage 3 R0 /h1 P0 /h2 2 3
sops., altos & piano 1
0
5 4 6 2 8 10 10 RI5 /h1 11
I5 /h2 8 9
6 7
3
9
1 1
3 Stage 4 11
9 11
viola P0 /h1
0 0 11 0 7
I5 /h2
11
1 3 9 0 7
7 3
P0 /h1 7 7
9
11 P0 /h2 1 P0 /h1 3
vcl. 9 0 8 1
R0 /h1 6 0
2 5
10 10 8
P0 /h2 or 8 2 I5/h2 or
6 10 10
RI5/h2 5 4 2 8 R0 /h2
4 4 4 6
8 2 10
piano 6 5 5 R0 /h1
4 6 2 5
Schoenberg, Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3, mm. 4851 (subsection a00 , last part). Used by permission of Belmont Music
hexachord of RI5 (depending on which of the repeating notes the analyst wants to
pick out), doubling the pitch-class content of R0s second hexachord. No complete
row forms are given, and only hexachords are aligned with one another (and in the
case of the cello part, aligned not very well); all this results in a fragmentary texture.
However, with the second beat of m. 45, something much closer to the ideal shape
(surrounded by a dotted box in Example 4.10as pitch-class map) comes to the fore.
The basses, singing In such a short time can one possess formal perfection?, seem
to answer their own question in the afrmative by completing I5, while the viola
again imitates an octave higher with its own complete I5 (one note in this imitation
is displaced by an octave: D5 instead of D4 on the last sixteenth of beat 2 in m. 46).
The cello accompanies with the two hexachords of R0 in reverse order, h2 followed
by h1, both hexachords of R0 creating vertical aggregates with the bass and viola I5
hexachords. But the cellos R0 is not, technically, a complete row, and this is the one
feature that makes the boxed conguration fall short of the pieces ideal shape. For
its part, the piano continues to present collections of six notes with internal
repetitions that could be assigned to either of two hexachords, doubling the basses
and viola.
The third stage of the third ripieno, mm. 4849a, reverts to the fragmentary
texture of the rst stage, appropriately for a passage that asks if one can borrow
formal perfection. Not one row form is presented as a linear whole, though there is
alignment of combinatorial hexachords. The basses sing their question on the rst
hexachord of R0. As the cello did back in stage 1, the viola and cello together in
stage 3 produce more than one combinatorial hexachord to accompany the basses.
In this case, there are three rather than two: rst P0/h1, then I5/h2, then P0/h1 again,
all three being given as a series of three vertical dyads. And the piano completes the
texture with three hexachords in various states of disorder. The rst two do not
present a correct order for any hexachord of the third Satires matrix, so the two
closest approximations are given for them. The third does present P0/h2, if reorder-
ing within verticals is allowed.
When the sopranos and altos answer the basses question in stage 4 (You can
only borrow it!), Schoenbergs fragmenting of the row continues and intensies.
The four female voice entries in mm. 4951 present the second hexachord of P0
followed by and overlapping with the rst hexachord of RI5. These two hexachords
together create a secondary set, and in that sense they are borrowing completion
of the aggregate from the basses more perfect I5 back in mm. 45b47 (as I have
suggested above, Vollendung can signify either perfection or completion). In add-
ition, the sopranos and altos partition these hexachords into trichords in such a way
that four fragments of the major scale result, <10,8,6>, <2,4,5>, <0,1,3>, and
<11,9,7>. We can understand this passage as a further step in the direction of
fragmentation from the ideal shape, but the reader should also notice that, of the
four little scales this fragmenting process produces, the last (in the alto, m. 51)
seems to point toward C, but does not get there. The tonal connotation, like the
fragmentation, portrays the notion of not quite being able to reach perfection
(Schoenberg will strongly associate reaching C via a scale with the achievement of
perfection at the nal cadence).
The accompanimental voices beneath the sopranos and altos in stage 4 present
nothing more complete than hexachords, just as the voices have done. The piano
begins with two repetitions of the rst hexachord of R0 in mm. 49b50, no longer
creating an aggregate with the material in the voices, but repeating the same six
pitch classes. Likewise, the viola and cello in mm. 50b51 project rst P0/h1 and
then a conguration that could be either I5/h2 or R0/h2, depending on which way
the pitch-class nodes are connected (my pitch-class map in Example 4.10b shows
the connections for I5/h2). Some of the partitions and order changes in the
accompaniment of stage 4 can be justied by Schoenbergs attempts to create
three-note major scale fragments to echo or predict the four already produced by
the voices (these are marked by dotted ovals in Example 4.10b). The general effect
seems to be one of shattering the formal completeness of mm. 45b47 into small
pieces, some of which reach for pitch class C but do not quite get there.
Example 4.11 portrays subsection b0 , the last concertino subsection in the Baroque
concerto portion of the movement. This subsection performs two functions, serving
as a bridge to the next major section, B, and at the same time breaking down the
movements ideal shape even further than the previous subsection did. The change
of harmonic area, to I0 (which will later be paired with its combinatorial partner P7
to form the full area A7), is the rst such modulation in the piece, and other
scholars have recognized its similarity in function to initial modulations in tonal
pieces. There are two reasons to make the tonal parallel. First, the area A7 can be
heard as seven half steps (a perfect fth) higher than the opening harmonic area, A0.
It thus makes use of the same intervallic distance and direction that a standard
modulation to the dominant would. Second, although area A0 begins the B section in
m. 58, it gives way to other areas (including A7) soon after, so that mm. 5257 seem
to carry out the standard transitional function in tonal pieces: setting up a new key.
At the same time, the modulation to I0 adds a new wrinkle to the movements
process of obscuring its ideal shape. Like the deployment of hexachords that makes
verticals of order positions 1,2 and 3,4, discussed numerous times above, the use of
I0 leads to questions and doubts about the identity of the row, making it uncertain
at times to what row Schoenberg is referring, and thus obscuring one of the ideal
shapes characteristics. Refer back to Example 4.5, which laid out the three invari-
ances that underlie the third Satires development. The third of these invariances
involves I0 and RI5, and includes an ordered pentachord invariant as the rst ve
notes of the rst hexachords, and an unordered pentachord invariant as the rst
ve notes of the second hexachords. Since P0 has its own invariant properties with
RI5 that retain the rst ve pitch classes of both hexachords in the rst ve order
Example 4.11
P0 /h1 I0 /h2
Stage 1 or I0 /h1 or P0 /h2(?)
viola I0 /h1 I0 /h2
0
I0 /h1 11
Stage 2 9
6 6
0 1 11 3 9 5 2 4 10 6 8 7 4 3 4
2 1 2
0
RI0 /h2 RI0 /h1 10 11 10
8 9 8
vcl. 7
5
3
5 9 3 11 1 0 7 8 6 10 (4) 2 1
RI0 /h1
6
5 4
10 10 3 2 0
8 8 1 10 11
5 5 8 9
3 1 3 1 7
0 0 0
piano 11 10
6 7 9 8
4 7 6
2 4
2
11 11
6 7 9 9 I0 /h1 I0 /h2 or 5
4 3
2 I0 /h2 or R7 /h2 1
RI0 /h2 or P7 /h2 RI0 /h1 palindrome
R7 /h2
I0 /h2 or P7 /h1 RI0 /h2
Schoenberg, Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3, mm. 5257 (subsection b0 ). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and
positions (consult the second part of Example 4.5), P0 and I0 also have unordered
pentachord invariants at the rst ve order positions of both hexachords.
Schoenberg exploits the potential of this invariance for row identity confusion
most clearly in m. 57 (the last measure of Example 4.11), in the viola and cello. The
pitch-class map indicates that he starts with the rst ve pitch classes of P0,
<0,11,1,9,3>, which could just as well be the rst ve pitch classes of I0 with a little
reordering. He then skips over the sixth note, moving ahead to the ve pitch classes
<2,10,4,8,6> (in order of appearance). These could be the rst ve notes from the
second hexachord of P0, the second hexachord of RI5, or the second hexachord of I0
(or the last ve notes from a number of rst hexachords), but the order is correct for
none of these possibilities! Again, the sixth note of the second hexachord, which
would have narrowed the choices for identity down to two, is absent.
The passage in m. 57 comes at the end of a two-stage process that increasingly
obscures the ideal shape. The viola begins by stating a complete version of I0,
divided into hexachords, but the cello, rather than accompanying it with an ideal
complete P7, takes the two hexachords of RI0 and reverses them, stating h2 before
h1, so that the corresponding hexachords of viola and cello duplicate one another
instead of forming aggregates. Below each one of these corresponding hexachord
pairs, the piano provides the remaining six pitch classes, but the pianos hexachords
do not combine with one another to create any complete row forms. Instead, as the
piano progresses through mm. 5254, the identity of its hexachords becomes more
and more obscure.
The second stage of the process begins in m. 55. Finally, the piano has a complete
I0 (though the identity of the second hexachord is unclear because of verticals on
order numbers 1,2 and 3,4). But now there are no other voices to align their
hexachords and form vertical aggregates with the piano. When the viola and cello
do come in, in m. 56, they present not a complete row, but two hexachords, I0/h1
and RI0/h1, to go with the pianos complete RI0. In this way, the b0 subsection falls
short of the ideal rst in one way (lacking complete row forms), and then in another
way (lacking alignment of combinatorial hexachords). When the identity of the
passages principal row is called into question in m. 57, by means of the pentachord
invariances described above, this can be heard as the culmination of an obscuring
process in mm. 5256. At the same time, it is important to note that the pianos
presentation of I0 and RI0 in mm. 5556 is pitch-class palindromic: the right hand
in m. 55 and left hand in m. 56 are the reverse of one another, and vice versa. In that
way, mm. 5556 obscure the ideal shape but also look forward to the integration
of ideal shape and palindrome that will come at the end of the movement.
The second major section of the third Satire, B, was characterized on my form
chart as similar to a Renaissance motet or Bach cantata, in the sense that it uses four
points of imitation. Schoenbergs text speaks of how certain composers resolve to
write classically, which is an easy decision to make, and how these composers hate
and ultimately ignore technique because it is too difcult, but nd, nevertheless,
that technique can produce an inspiration (Einfall), if only on paper. I believe he
may be alluding to Stravinsky when he describes the neoclassic composer who sets
technique aside because it is an annoyance, but the line about technique leading to
an inspiration seems to have more to do with Schoenbergs own circumstances. The
main reason why I believe Schoenberg is writing about himself in the last line of
section B is that he sets the words Sie zeitigt den Einfall beizeiten (It [technique]
will lead to an inspiration in a timely fashion) with a nearly perfect presentation of
the ideal shape. The entire B section can be heard as building up to the almost-ideal
shape in mm. 72 and then obscuring that shape. The music itself indicates that
Schoenberg believes he is able to use older formal and contrapuntal techniques to
realize a serial inspiration (i.e., project a musical idea serially), and that is why he is
not satised with other composers attempts to imitate Classical (or Baroque
or Renaissance) music in less thorough ways.
To portray the progress of the B section rst toward and then away from the
near-approximation of the ideal shape, I will provide detailed descriptions of the
rst and fourth points of imitation, with examples, and less detailed descriptions
of the second and third (without examples). The rst point of imitation,
mm. 5864, is reproduced in Examples 4.12a and 4.12b (we will refer to this
passage as subsection d). Together with the pitch-class map, the example includes
the succession of harmonic areas that Schoenberg passes through in mm. 5864.
From the bottom of the example, one can tell that Schoenberg modulates
frequently in the rst part of the B section, but limits himself to areas A0, A7 (the
key area that was set up by the preceding instrumental transition), A5, and A2.
These are closely related keys in the sense that their hexachords have at least four
notes in common with the two hexachords of P0 and I5.
As was the case in previous measures of the third Satire, subsection ds under-
lying process is best described in terms of the ways rows and hexachords are
partitioned and how those subsets are presented. First come two complete row
forms, P0 in mm. 57b58 and I0 in m. 59, in which order positions 2 and 4 in each
hexachord are given in a different instrument or voice. These partitions create
diatonic scale fragments (most notably <C, B, A, G> to begin the soprano in mm.
5758), but do not disrupt ordering within the hexachord. However, neither
complete row is aligned with some other row or even a hexachord to create vertical
aggregates. That problem is rectied in the next passage, mm. 5961. Schoenberg
rst presents a complete I5 in the altos, basses, and piano in mm. 59b60, divided
into hexachords and aligned with two individual hexachords, R0/h2 and R0/h1, in
the sopranos and violas. This conguration, surrounded by a dotted box in the
pitch-class map, falls only one characteristic short of the ideal: the soprano and
viola part does not project a complete row form (even though both hexachords
come from R0, the second hexachord is given rst). The same kind of conguration
Example 4.12a
Schoenberg, Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3, mm. 5861 (subsection d, rst part)
occurs again in mm. 60b61: in the second dotted box we see a complete P5 (tenors,
cello, basses, piano left hand), divided into hexachords and aligned with a pair of
individual hexachords, RI10/h2 and RI10/h1, in the sopranos and altos.
Having nearly approached the ideal shape, Schoenberg, as he has done several
times before, now backs away from it again: in mm. 61b63a (Example 4.12b) there
is a succession of individual hexachord pairs combined vertically (separated by
vertical dotted lines in the pitch-class map). Each vertical pair forms an aggregate,
but none of the hexachords combine horizontally with one another to make
complete row forms. In m. 63b, the hexachords begin to combine horizontally to
create secondary sets: the sopranos, viola, basses, and piano left hand produce RI10/
h2 followed by RI10/h1, and the altos, cello, tenors, and piano right hand sound
RI10/h1 followed by I10/h1. Unlike the approximations of the ideal shape in mm.
5960 and 60b61, however, the hexachords in m. 63b (the third dotted box) do not
align horizontally in either group of voices to form a complete row, making the
third attempt at recapturing the ideal the weakest.
To end the d subsection in mm. 63c64, Schoenberg goes back to mm. 5859s
texture, which consists of a single form (rather than two simultaneous ones) split
between two voices. Now, however, to emphasize the fragmenting quality of the
passage, he presents hexachords in this way rather than as complete row forms: in
Example 4.12b
Schoenberg, Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3, mm. 6264 (subsection d, second part)
the order R7/h2, RI0/h1, I0/h1, RI0/h2. Unlike the hexachords in m. 63b, these do
not combine horizontally to form secondary sets, except for the middle two
hexachords. In summary, Schoenberg has portrayed how easy it is to make the
decision to write classically in an ironic way. The passage strives toward an ideal
shape (mm. 5859b), but cannot quite get there (mm. 59b61a), and then breaks up
into hexachord fragments aligned vertically to form aggregates but not horizontally
to form rows (mm. 61b63a). After this, it tries for a third time to produce an ideal
shape (m. 63b) but falls even further short, and nally we hear nothing but isolated
hexachords, one after the other (mm. 63c64). The composers easy decision has
turned into a losing battle, if we associate the ideal P0/I5 combinatorial relationship
with classical perfection, as I think Schoenberg does.
The next two subsections of the large section B, called d0 and d00 on the form
chart in Example 4.6, portray the composers growing frustration as he continues to
attempt to write the classically perfect shape, and gets further away from it. I have
not illustrated these subsections with their own examples but will briey describe
them here. Subsection d0 , mm. 6468, begins with a passage (m. 64) in which all
three characteristics of the ideal are lost: two hexachords in one pair of voices are
vertically aligned with one hexachord in the other pair, there are no complete row
forms, and the order within some hexachords makes their identity unclear.
Schoenberg progresses from there in m. 65 to attain a complete P5 (in the sopranos

and altos), which however is aligned with individual hexachords in the tenors and
basses (I10/h1, RI10/h1, RI10/h1). In m. 66, the altos and basses present another
complete row (R10, but this time the other voices cannot even keep the hexachord
together: in the second half of the measure, the sopranos sing the trichord <3,4,2>,
which could be either the rst trichord of I3 or RI8, and the basses answer with
<5,4,6>, which likewise could be the rst trichord of R0 or P5. Measure 67a
continues the fragmenting process: all four voices present trichords or other
fragments of row forms. Finally, mm. 67b68 attain a complete row form again,
I4, divided between the sopranos and cello. The harmonic areas that Schoenberg
passes through in subsection d0 are listed in Example 4.6s form chart: as you can
see, the subsection continues to explore new key areas as it progresses, while
nevertheless touching on some of the old ones.
Simultaneously with the recapturing of the complete row form I4 in the sopranos
and cello in mm. 67b68, the third point of imitation, which I call subsection d00 ,
begins in the basses and the right hand of the piano. Subsection d00 starts with the
rst hexachord of I4, but leads immediately to a hexachord that is ordered more like
R11/h2 (which contains an identical pitch-class content to I4/h2). The second half of
m. 68 does reach a complete row form, however: P9 in the altos and basses. This
attainment is repeated by the sopranos and basses in m. 69 (a complete P3).
Meanwhile, the altos and tenors are beginning to present complete row forms in
order in a single voice during mm. 69, 70, and 71. The altos sing all of P0 in order
(starting on the second eighth note of beat 1 in m. 69), and the tenors imitate with
all of P3 in order (starting on the second eighth note of beat 3 in the same measure).
The sopranos follow with I6 mostly in order, starting on the second eighth note of
beat 2 in m. 70 (this linear presentation reverses order positions 2 and 3 of the
second hexachord), and the basses bring up the rear with the rst hexachord of I3 in
perfect linear order, starting at the second eighth note of beat 4 in m. 70. This turn
toward complete row forms presented as lines in single voices is signicant for two
reasons. By presenting complete, correctly ordered statements of the row, subsec-
tion d00 looks forward to a close approximation of the ideal shape at the beginning
of the fourth point of imitation. But it also has a text-painting function: the
complete row form in each voice sets the words Vollendung ist doch das Panier
(Perfection [or completion] is nevertheless their slogan)! The idea of simply
leaving technique to the side in the rst part of the d00 subsection seems to motivate
the incomplete rows divided between voices and instruments, but Schoenberg
portrays classical perfection in the last part of the subsection by stating complete
row forms. As we have seen and will see, the association of Vollendung with row
and ideal shape completion continues throughout the third Satire.
The fourth point of imitation, subsection d000 , mm. 7279, is shown in Examples
4.13a and 4.13b. As I have suggested above numerous times, this subsection begins
Example 4.13a
m. 71b 72 73 74
P8 /h2 I9 /h2
0 P0 /h2 8 4
sop. 2 3
11 10 P8 /h1 0 11 10 11 1
9 8 6 10 9 9
7
P0 /h1 5 0
I9 /h1 7 8 7
8 6 6 6 5
7 4 5
alt. 3 4 3 2
1 2 9 1
P4 /h2
5 4
ten. 4 0 0 3 2
10 11 11 1 0
9 10 11 10
6 P4 /h1 9
5 7
8 8
6 7 4
I5 /h1 3 4 5 3
bass 2 I5 /h2 2 3 2
1 1 10 1
8 9 11
I9 /h1
10 I1 /h1 I1 /h2
7 9 viola & 7
5 I3 /h2 or I9 /h2 5
R10 /h2 piano 0
1 cello 6
11
Area: A10 A0 A8 A4
Schoenberg, Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3, mm. 71b74 (subsection d000 , rst part). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers
Example 4.13b
sop.
0
11 m. 77 78 79
9
7 R0 /h1 5
P0 /h1 4
2
10
3 8 P0 /h2 or
alt. 1 6
RI5 /h2
7
5
RI5 /h1 3 10 va. 4
ten. 2 8 2
6 3
10 9 5 1 vcl. 10
piano 8
11 4 6
I5 /h1 4 1 2 0
0 11 RH 3
8 R0 /h1 or 9 1
m. 75 6 m. 76 7
bass 5 I5 /h1 P0 /h1 or LH 7
RI5 /h1
Area: A0 R0 /h2 0
11
9
Schoenberg, Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3, mm. 7579a (subsection d000 , second part). Used by permission of Belmont Music
with a conguration that is the closest approximation of the ideal shape we have
heard yet but still not perfect. It sets the words Sie zeitigt den Einfall beizeiten
(It [technique] will lead to an inspiration in a timely fashion). By presenting the
closest approximation yet of the ideal shape at the beginning of mm. 7279,
Schoenberg is associating the concept of inspiration in the passages text with
the third Satires ideal of classical perfection, which has not been attained up to this
point in the piece. (We dened that idea musically earlier as complete, ordered
presentations of P0 and I5, with their corresponding hexachords aligned vertically.)
As the passage progresses, however, the arrangement of the rows and hexachords
gradually grows further from the ideal shape, in some cases losing one characteristic
with each new repetition of a pair of rows or quartet of hexachords. The process is
represented graphically on the pitch-class maps of Examples 4.13a and 4.13b by
four dotted boxes that continually grow fainter.
The darkest dotted box in mm. 71b72 surrounds P0 in the sopranos and altos
and I5 in the tenors and basses (the instrumental parts double the voices here, as
they did for the most part in the preceding measures). Not only does Schoenberg
recapture the tonic harmonic area, but also both row forms are complete (neither
consists of a pair of hexachords in the wrong order, h2 before h1, as happened a
number of times in the preceding measures). Also, the corresponding hexachords
align vertically to create aggregates (though the rst hexachord of I5 starts earlier
than that of P0). The one characteristic of the ideal that is not quite there in these
measures is correct ordering within the hexachords: specically, the second hexa-
chord of P0 in the sopranos and altos takes the now-familiar form with order
positions 1,2 and 3,4 stated vertically, so that these six notes could also project h2 of
RI5. But this passage about attaining an inspiration through technique leads us as
close as we have been thus far to the ideal.
The rest of subsection d000 moves step by step away from this ideal, representing
Schoenbergs admission that the inspiration attained through technique is perhaps
only a visual one, not creating an inspired sound (nur auf dem Papier). However,
the rst few stages of the process are still sung to the words Sie zeitigt den Einfall
beizeiten. The second dotted box, mm. 72b73, obscures the near-ideal shape of
mm. 71b72 in two ways. First, it transposes the row pair to P8 and I1, a harmonic
area (A8) which we have not heard before, but which will begin a chain of descents
by four half steps (in pitch-class space) that spans the subsection. Second, the
hexachords of P8 are sung by alto and tenor and those of I1 by soprano and bass,
so that register and vocal timbre no longer distinguish the row forms from one
another. Still, all the other characteristics of the ideal shape that characterized
mm. 7172 are also present in mm. 7273: complete row forms, vertical alignment
of corresponding hexachords, almost-perfect ordering within the hexachords.
(The reader should also notice that the voice pairs in mm. 7273 present pitch-
interval inversions of those in mm. 7172: the soprano and bass in the second
dotted box invert the soprano and alto of the rst box, and the alto and tenor in the
second box invert the tenor and bass of the rst box.)
With the third dotted box, one more circumstance intrudes to blur the ideal
shapes outlines: now the row pair P4 and I9 is projected by the top three voices
alone, the altos alternating dyads from both rows. The basses join with the piano to
present a second statement of I9. In this way, the timbral blending of the combina-
torial row forms that was introduced in mm. 72b73 becomes more thoroughgoing
in mm. 73b75a. Although the hexachords of I9 and P4 in the top three voices still
align with one another to form vertical aggregates, the distinction that Haimo
considers so important, involving intervals within the hexachords as opposed to
intervals between the hexachords, is compromised by the extra I9 in the basses and
piano. Finally, the ordering within both presentations of I9/h2 is not correct: in the
sopranos and altos this does not affect the identity of the hexachord, but in the
basses and piano the ordering could cause us to hear an alternative (R4/h2).
The fourth and faintest dotted box, mm. 75b76 (Example 4.13b), drops one
characteristic of the ideal shape, complete row forms, while continuing to reorder
elements within some of the individual hexachords as the previous boxes did. Now
the sopranos and altos sing P0/h1 followed by R0/h1, while the tenors and basses split
the womens hexachords with mostly vertical presentations of I5/h1 and RI5/h1 (the
placement of the mens secondary set between the two hexachords of that sung by the
women dramatizes the fragmenting effect). Still, Schoenberg creates secondary sets
horizontally and aggregates vertically, as the brackets in the pitch-class map show,
retaining a single characteristic of the ideal shape for the words if only on paper.
That characteristic also is lost in the following music, mm. 7778 (which is not
surrounded by any dotted box for that reason): four hexachords are presented one
after another, two in the tenors and basses (doubled by piano), one in the piano alone,
one in the viola and cello. The rst two hexachords and last two form secondary sets,
but there is no longer another strand of the texture for them to form aggregates with
vertically. Moreover, three of the four hexachords give order numbers 1, 2, and 3, 4 as
verticals, so that their identity is unclear, exacerbating the problems with ordering
inside the hexachords that have been existent from the beginning of the d000 subsection.
It will help the coherence of my discussion to step back at this point and quickly
survey the ground we have just covered, paying special attention to the patterns
created by approaches to and departures from the ideal shape. Essentially, in the
rst seventy-nine measures the piece approaches closely to the ideal shape three
times, in mm. 3334, 3839, and 7172, backing away from the ideal each time
before readying itself for another approach. If the reader will survey the dotted
boxes in previous examples from this chapter, he or she will be able to grasp the
outlines of this process. The three boxes in Example 4.4 (mm. 110) used forms of
P0 and I5, rst gaining (in the second box) and then losing characteristics of the
ideal shape such as complete rows and hexachord alignment. All three contained
accompanimental hexachords where elements were reordered by being presented

vertically. The dotted box at the end of Example 4.7 (m. 19), the culmination of the
previous seven measures, contained a complete P0 and a complete I5 with their
corresponding hexachords aligned to form aggregates, but the corresponding hexa-
chords were not separate enough instrumentally to be distinguished, and several of
the hexachords were disordered internally. Measures 2830 (Example 4.8) featured
a P0 and an R0 whose approach to the ideal shape was obscured by extra hexachords
within and between the parts of the box. Examples 4.9a and 4.9b (mm. 3342)
contained two approximations of the ideal shape that used rst P0 and I5, and then
R0 and RI5. These congurations, though closer to perfection than all the others
that had come before, were nevertheless marred by extra hexachords in the viola
and verticals in the pianos accompanying row. In Example 4.10a, the almost-ideal
shape that set the words can one possess formal perfection in such a short time?
presented I5 and R0 as linear entities divided into hexachords, and aligned
the hexachords to form aggregates, but did not state R0 as a complete row form
(h2 came before h1). The three dotted boxes in Examples 4.12a and 4.12b, combin-
ing I5 with R0, P5 with RI10, and RI10 with I10, all suffered from the same aw that
characterized Example 4.10as conguration: one or both strands were incomplete
because h2 of the row came before h1 or because two rst hexachords were
combined together horizontally. Finally, the rst dotted box in Example 4.13a,
mm. 7172, produced a shape even more ideal than the ones given at mm. 3334
and 3839; its only aw was uncertain ordering within one of its four hexachords.
Given what has come before, the main purpose of the third and nal large
section, designated C, thus becomes an attainment of the ideal that the piece has
been striving toward. This the C section does in a way, in mm. 16366 on the words
Klassische Vollendung (classical perfection [or completion]), though, as we will
see, even this nal, culminating presentation of the ideal is imperfect in another
way. This imperfection enables mm. 16366 to integrate the ideal shape with a
palindrome. Section C is cast as a fugue, and Schoenbergs other concern here
(besides realizing the ideal) is to properly recreate the genre: he takes great, almost
obsessive care to imitate the formal and tonal characteristics of Bach fugues in this
section by means of ordered pitch-interval imitation and his choice of harmonic
areas. A detailed description of several subsections of the fugue will follow: the
reader should periodically refer back to Example 4.6 to understand how these
subsections t into their larger context.
Examples 4.14a and 4.14b constitute the two expositions of this double-
exposition fugue, which use a specic twelve-pitch succession representing P0 as
the subject of the rst exposition, and a specic twelve-pitch succession represent-
ing RI5 as the subject of the second. Both times, the subject is answered at the fourth
above or fth below, repeated in a different octave, and then answered at the same
pitch class as before to create a four-voice exposition: the four entries progress from
Example 4.14a
Fugue subject < 6, +4, 2, +1> Countersubject

Answer
< 1, 10, +8, 6>
Fugue subject
< 1, 10, +8, 6> < 6, +4, 2, +1>

Countersubject Answer
P0 /h1 P0 /h2 R0 /h1
soprano & viola: 0 11 1 9 3 7 10 8 2 6 4 5 (5 4 6 2 8 10 73
Subj.
R0 /h1 R0 /h2
alto & vcl.: 5 4 6 2 8 10 7 3 91 11 0
P0 /h1 Ans. P0 /h2 R0 /h1 R0 /h2 P0 /h1 P0 /h2
tenor
& piano:
0 11 1 9 3 7 10 8 2 6 4 5 (5 4 6 2 8 10 7 3 9 1 11 0 11 1 9 37 10 8 2 6 4 5 )
Subj. R0 /h1 R0 /h2
bass & piano: 5 4 6 2 8 10 7 3 9 1 11 0
R0 /h1 R0 /h2 R0 /h1

Ans. R0 /h2
piano:
( 546 2 )
viola: 8 10 7 3 9 1 11 0 546 2 8 10 73 9 1 11 0
Schoenberg, Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3, mm. 8794 (rst exposition). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and
Example 4.14b
Countersubject (inverted, beginning) Countersubject

2nd (inv.) subject Answer (inv., almost)
<+6, 4, +2, 1>
+6
<+1, +10, 8, +6> Answer <+1, +10, 8, +6> 2nd subject

<+6, 4, +2, 1>
RI5 /h1 RI5 /h2 I5 /h1 I5 /h2

Ans.
soprano &
va. ( 0 1 11 3 9 7 10 2 8 4 6 5 ) 5 6 4 8 2 10 7 9 3 11 1 0
RI5 /h1 RI5 /h2 I5 /h1 I5 /h2
alto
& piano: 0 1 11 3 9 7 10 2 8 4 6 5
( 5 6 4 8 2 10 7 9 3 11 1 0
)
I5 /h1 I5 /h2 RI5 /h1 RI5 /h2
Subj.
tenor &
piano: 5 6 4 8 2 10 7 9 3 11 1 0 (0 1 11 3 9 7 10 2 8 4 6 5 )
Ans. RI5 /h1 RI5 /h2
bass &
vcl.: 0 1 11 3 9 7 10 2 8 4 6 5
I5 /h1 R0 /h2 Subj. I5 /h1 I5 /h2
vcl.:( 56 4 8 2 10 7 3 9 1 11 0 piano: 564 8 2 10 7 9 3 11 1 0 )

Schoenberg, Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3, mm. 94b101a (second exposition). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers
Example 4.15
Schoenberg, Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3: ordered pitch-interval invariances
between retrograde-related rows that enable the fugues answers to imitate its subjects
tenor to alto to soprano to bass in the rst exposition, and from alto to tenor to bass
to soprano in the second exposition. (The entries are marked with boxes in the
notation of Examples 4.14a and 4.14b, as well as in the pitch-class maps with
Subj. and Ans.) The answering voices in both expositions do not sing a
transposition of the subject, as one might expect from experience with tonal fugues;
instead, they sing the retrograde of the subject: P0 is answered by R0 in the rst
exposition, and RI5 by I5 in the second. What enables these retrograde answers to
play an imitative role is a property of the third Satires row not yet discussed: the
last four interval classes of the row, <6,4,2,1>, mirror the rst four interval classes,
<1,2,4,6>. This enables Schoenberg to create ordered pitch-interval invariances
between the beginnings and endings of retrograde-related tone rows (shown with
boxes and solid arrows on Example 4.15). Moreover, since the RI5 that constitutes
the second expositions subject is an exact ordered pitch-interval inversion of the R0

answer in the rst exposition, the beginnings and endings of the two subjects are
ordered pitch-interval inversions of the corresponding passage in the other subject
(shown with boxes and dotted arrows). What results is a relationship between
subject and answer within each exposition that recreates the notion of tonal
answer in tonal fugues: the answer adjusts certain intervals of the subject. (The
adjusted intervals invariably come on the words streng in jeder Wendung (strict
at every turn), perhaps providing a bit of musical irony by diverging from strict
imitation.) An additional result is that the four voices in the second exposition are
ordered-pitch-interval inversions of the four voices in the rst.
In both of the expositions, there is material that does not belong to subject or
answer entries, some of it coming as continuation in the same voice after a subject
or answer is complete (in the same manner as countersubjects in tonal fugue), and
some of it given to the accompanying instruments, which mainly double the voices
but do diverge from time to time, for reasons that will be explained below. This
material is enclosed in parentheses in the pitch-class maps of Examples 4.14a and
4.14b. The two types of extra material have two separate functions: the rst is to
provide a countersubject that, like the subject, will retain an identiable intervallic
shape through the fugue. The countersubject appears for the rst time in the tenor
voice at m. 90b, tacked on to the end of the rst subject entry. Its ordered pitch-
interval succession is <1,2,-4,6,2,-3,4,6,4,2,1>. It reappears at
m. 93b in the soprano voice, again tacked on to the end of the subject, with a pitch
succession an octave higher than the tenors. In the second exposition, where subject
and answer appear as ordered pitch-interval inversions of answer and subject of
the rst exposition, the countersubject appears in the same sort of inversion as
well but neither appearance is complete. In the soprano at m. 96, the inverted
countersubject is cut short after eight intervals, <1,2,4,6,2,3,4,6>. And
in the tenor starting at m. 99b, the whole inverted countersubject appears with one
interval changed: <1,2,4,6,2,3,4,16,4,2,1>. It is interesting to
notice that the last three instances of countersubject do not preserve the exact
rhythmic prole of the original, but undergo different kinds and amounts of
rhythmic variation, unlike the entries of subject and answer in the expositions.
The second purpose for what I call extra material in the two expositions
ultimately derives from the larger motion toward the ideal shape in the whole
C section. Because of the fugal texture, Schoenberg cannot satisfy all three charac-
teristics of his ideal. Complete row forms and correct ordering within the
hexachords are certainly the norm here, but it is impossible to line up P0 with R0
or RI5 with I5 in two of the four choral parts so that their corresponding hexachords
form aggregates, given the fact that no two row forms enter together. Thus
Schoenberg uses the instrumental lines that diverge from doubling the voices to
accompany subject-and-answer entries and form vertical aggregates with them.
Unfortunately, these instrumental hexachords hardly ever line up perfectly with

those in the voices, so we cannot speak of recapturing the ideal shape quite yet (and,
of course, the appearance of third, fourth, and fth voices in the texture makes it
impossible to produce Haimos desired distinction between inter- and intra-
hexachordal interval classes). Even if there were perfect alignment of hexachords,
the vertical combining of P0 and RI5 with their retrogrades instead of their
inversional-combinatorial partners (trivial combinatoriality) would still leave
Schoenberg one step shy of his ideal. In the rst exposition, the viola R0 in mm.
8789 creates vertical aggregates with the P0 subject in the tenor, and the piano R0
in mm. 9093 creates aggregates with the P0 subject in the soprano. In the second
exposition, the cello in mm. 94b97 plays two unafliated hexachords, I5/h1 and
R0/h2, which form aggregates with the RI5 subject in the alto. The piano then
corrects the cello in mm. 97b99 with a complete I5, which would form aggre-
gates with the RI5 subject in the bass if it were lined up better.
The following subsection of Schoenbergs fugue, mm. 10107, has many of the
characteristics of a Bach fugal episode, and is displayed in Examples 4.16a and
4.16b. Measures 10103 especially seem episode-like, because Schoenberg begins to
use fragments of row forms in the individual voices and piano, rather than complete
rows. These fragments consist of rst hexachords of RI2, P2, R2, and I2, and the alto
in mm. 10203 adds a single second hexachord of R2. Not only the pitch-class
successions, but also the specic ordered pitch-interval successions of these frag-
ments can be heard as shortened and varied versions of exposition material. For
example, the rst four ordered pitch intervals of the soprano in mm. 101b102,
<1,2,4,6> (from RI2/h1), octave-complement the two middle intervals of
the beginning of the second expositions subject, <1,10,8,6> (from RI5).
And the rst four pitch intervals of the bass in m. 101, <1,2,4,6> (from R2/
h1), octave-complement the two middle intervals of the beginning of the rst
expositions subject <1,10,8,6> (from P0). The tenor and alto also sing
interval sequences that can be traced back to beginnings of the subjects in the
two expositions.
After m. 103, while fragmenting of rows into hexachords and even smaller
segments continues to a large degree in the instruments and voices, the focus of
the passage seems to shift toward creating structures that (yet again) approximate
the movements ideal shape and then fade away from it. As part of this process,
symbolized, like before, by gradually fainter dotted boxes in the pitch-class maps of
Examples 4.16a and 4.16b, several complete row forms do occur, which then give
way to fragments again at the passages end. The dotted box around mm. 103 and
104 contains the conguration most like the ideal shape: P4 in the sopranos and
altos divides into hexachords, and these line up to form aggregates with two
hexachords in the tenor, bass, viola, and cello, I9/h1 and RI9/h1. (In the rst of these
hexachords, the tenors sing the rst four notes and the hexachord is completed by the
Example 4.16a
RI2 /h1 4
sop., piano: 3 2
soprano P4 /h1 1 0
& viola: 9 10 8 0 6 4 or 11 10
P4 /h2 9
RI9 /h1 or
P2 /h1 R2 /h2 8
7 RI9 /h2 6
alto alto, piano: 5
& piano: 2 1 3 11 5 9 9 5 11 3 1 2 8
0
I2 /h1 ten., vcl.: 9 10
tenor
& piano: 2 3 1 5 11 7 3
bass, va.: 7
I9 /h1 5
R2 /h1 R2 /h1 4
bass 2
7 6 8 4 viola: 11
& vcl.: 7 6 8 4 10 0 6 RI9 /h1
6 vcl.: 1
4
3 7 3
piano: 2 5 2
11 P4 /h1 8 0
P2 /h1 9 7 8 6
1 5 4 1 R4 /h1
R2 /h1 10 11 10
0 9
Schoenberg, Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3, mm. 10104a (rst episode, rst part). Used by permission of Belmont Music
Example 4.16b
P9 /h1 6
2 5 R6 /h1
sop., va.: 1 11 3
1 11
3 P6 /h1 10
alto, vcl.: 9 8
8 R9 /h1 10
6 8
5
10 RI11 /h1 3 1
7
I4 /h2 4
ten., pf.: or 9 0 2
3
I4 /h1 1 R11 /h2 2 I11 /h1
or 0 9
11 6 7
R11 /h1 9 10 4
7 8 2
5 6 0
bass, pf.: 4 11
7
5 5 6
6 3 (10) I11 /h2 5
4 7 7
piano: 8 1
0 P6 /h2
10 0 11 2 3
P9 /h2 1 11
4 4 9
2 0
Schoenberg, Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3, mm. 104b107a (rst episode, second part). Used by permission of Belmont
viola as a vertical dyad. Subsequently, the basses and cello divide the second hexa-
chord in the same way.) But three features make the rst dotted box fall short of the
ideal: the lack of a complete row in the tenors and basses, the partition of P4 among
sopranos and altos so that order positions 1,2 and 3,4 sound as verticals (which
confuses the identity of the hexachords with those of RI9), and nally, the existence of
the two hexachords of P4 at another place in the texture, the piano accompaniment.
The image is only slightly less clear in mm. 104b106a, the second dotted box
(Example 4.16b). The basses and tenors now sing a complete row, I4, treating order
positions 1,2 and 3,4 as verticals, as the sopranos and altos did with P4 in the
previous box. The altos and sopranos share P9/h1 and R9/h1 with the left and right
hands of the piano, in much the same way as the tenors, basses and strings
partitioned rows in the previous box. In short, the female and male voices exchange
functions, with one small difference there is more registral separation between the
rst four order positions and nal dyad of the P9/h1 and R9/h1 hexachords: from
the highest choral parts to the lowest register (in one case) of the piano making it
harder to hear P9/h1 and R9/h1 as discrete units than was the case with I9/h1 and
RI9/h1 in the previous passage. The remaining notes of the piano in mm. 104b
106a form a reordered version of P9/h1 and an ordered presentation of the discrete
vertical dyads of P9/h2, adding a third strand to the ideal texture of two simul-
taneous rows, as before.
The last and faintest dotted box in Examples 4.16a and 4.16b, showing mm.
106b107, from a quick glance at its texture, seems to fulll the function of a typical
cadence at the end of a Bach fugue episode. All the voices move together rhythmic-
ally and wedge in from the standpoint of contour, to signal the close of the
episode. However, in another way these measures do the opposite of a typical Bach
episode cadence: rather than establishing a new key (harmonic area) that the
composer will adhere to in the following statement, Schoenberg gives us a scattering
of hexachords. All six hexachords do belong to the same harmonic area, it must be
admitted: however, A6 is not the area that he takes up at the beginning of the next
statement. Instead of establishing key, Schoenberg seems to be trying to use the
cadence to move still further from his ideal. The four hexachords in the chorus are
no longer assigned exclusively to male or female voices: the sopranos and tenors
share P6/h1 followed by R6/h1, and the altos and basses split up I11/h1 followed by
RI11/h1. The only characteristic of the ideal shape left in this passage is vertical
alignment of hexachords to form aggregates. The piano, as it did in the previous
two boxes, plays hexachords, out of order, that are combinatorial with one of the
hexachords in the voices above it and anti-combinatorial with the other.
For the rest of the fugue, Schoenberg alternates statements with episodes (I will
number the statements starting with 2: in a sense the two expositions are the rst
statement). In the statements, his subject is given in full in one voice and imitated in
some or all of the others, and there is harmonic stability in the sense that the
statement stays with one harmonic area throughout (sometimes two). In the
episodes, the subject is fragmented and harmonic areas change frequently. To save
space, I will not provide an example of the second statement (mm. 10716), but will
briey characterize it below.
The second statement has two parts: mm. 107b112 and mm. 11216. Its
beginning is set off by a change in meter to 9/8 and a new text: Sie komm woher
sie mag, danach ist nicht die Frag (It [perfection] comes from wherever it wants
to, that is not the point). The sopranos begin by stating the subject on P3. It has the
same ordered pitch intervals as the tenors original subject at m. 87, so that this
soprano line can be heard as a minor-third transposition up from the original, in a
new rhythm. The tenors enter at m. 109 with an interval-by-interval ordered pitch-
interval inversion of the sopranos subject starting on Af, thus answering the
sopranos with a form of I8, the combinatorial counterpart of P3. Finally, Schoenberg
pairs both the sopranos and tenors with another voice part that sings ordered pitch
intervals reminiscent of the second expositions countersubject. Those intervals are
<1,2,4,6,4,3,2,6,4,2,1> in the altos, accompanying the soprano
subject, and the inversion of that same succession in the basses with the fourth
interval reversed, accompanying the tenor answer. The alto countersubject forms I8
against the sopranos P3 subject, and the bass countersubject forms P3 against the I8
in the tenors answer, so that there is at least the potential to form vertical
aggregates between the two female parts and between the two male parts. But the
corresponding hexachords in the two voice pairs do not align well enough to take
advantage of the combinatorial relationship.
The second half of the second statement, m. 11217, except for a few octave
displacements in the bass voice and the transposing of bass material up to the
soprano, could be heard as a transposition down seven half steps of the rst half.
The major difference between the two halves is that Schoenberg rotates the different
strands of his contrapuntal texture down one voice part, so that now, the altos
introduce the subject with the tenors accompanying them, and the basses bring in
the answer with the sopranos accompanying them. This seems to be a perfect
illustration of his oft-cited assertion that contrapuntal pieces extend themselves not
by developing within individual strands but by changing the ways in which those
strands are combined.11
11
Schoenberg, Bach (1950), in Style and Idea (1984), p. 397: Contrapuntal composition does not
produce its material by development, but by a procedure rather to be called unravelling. That is, a
basic conguration or combination taken asunder and reassembled in a different order contains
everything which will later produce a different sound than that of the original formulation (italics
Schoenbergs). Of course, I have already shown that this assertion does not always accurately
describe Schoenbergs contrapuntal practice, in the previous chapters discussion of the B section
of the Woodwind Quintet, movement III (pp. 1501).
However, the following second episode, mm. 11726, begins to show evidence of
a developmental process again, a process that takes us back in the direction of the
ideal shape. The second episode is portrayed in Examples 4.17a and 4.17b. The text
to this episode continues to read Perfection comes from wherever it wants to, that
is not the point until m. 123, where the chorus begins to sing about klassische
Vollendung again. As the text indicates, the music of the second episode gradually
builds structures that sound more and more like the ideal shape, out of rows and
hexachord fragments that seem to come from wherever they want to at the
beginning of the episode. Measures 11718 contain entries of tenor, bass, and
soprano one dotted quarter note apart. Each part sings a complete tone row to
the words Sie komm woher sie mag, danach ist nicht die Frag, whose middle
comma naturally divides each row into hexachords. The tenors and basses sing R8;
the sopranos answer with RI1. The two rows together would realize the ideal shape,
were it not for the fact that their corresponding hexachords do not align to form
vertical aggregates. Instead, the only two hexachords that do align are the second
hexachord of R8 in the tenor and rst of RI1 in the soprano (m. 117, third dotted
quarter, to m. 118, rst dotted quarter), forming an anti-combinatorial relation by
duplicating the collection {3,5,7,8,9,11}.
When the altos enter on the second beat of m. 118 with RI8/h1, they start a series
of overlapping hexachord fragments that continues through m. 122, broken up by a
single complete row in the tenors (P10) starting on the third dotted quarter of m. 120.
Some of the isolated hexachords group together into combinatorial pairs, but for the
most part it is hard to gure out why they are there or how one should relate them to
one another they come from wherever they want to, indeed. Of these hexachords,
we can group R3/h1 and RI8/h1 to form harmonic area A3 in mm. 11819, but after
that, no harmonic areas are represented by members of both component rows.
The ideal shape comes into focus a bit more in the latter two-thirds of m. 122
and rst dotted quarter of m. 123, as the altos sing <0,1,11,3,9,7>, the rst
hexachord of RI5, and the tenors answer with <0,11,1,9,3,7>, the rst hexachord
of P0 (see Example 4.17b).
This returns us momentarily to the home harmonic area, A0, after we have been
away from it for more than twenty measures. And the two home row forms do
complete themselves: in each case, the second hexachord of the row follows
immediately after the rst. But the sense of row completion is obscured by dividing
the second hexachords between two voices: RI5/h2 is split between the altos and
basses in the rst part of m. 123, while P0/h2 is divided between the tenors and
sopranos in the last two-thirds of m. 123. The partitions into two voices do have the
advantage of highlighting the common (ordered) subsets in RI5/h2 and P0/h2,
<10,8,6,5> and <2,4>. But they make it difcult to understand the passage in
terms of corresponding hexachords joining to form vertical aggregates which
would have been impossible anyway, since P0 and RI5 (not I5) are combined here.
Example 4.17a
anti- RI1 /h1 RI1 /h2 RI8 /h1 I8 /h1 I10 /h1 RI10 /h1
combinatorial
sop. 8 9 7 11 5 3 6 10 4 0 2 1 3 4 2 6 0 10 8 9 7 11 5 1 10 11 9 1 7 3 5 6 4 8 2 0
RI8 /h1 I1 /h2 R10 /h1 P10 /h1 RI5 /h1
3 4 2 6 0 10 3 5 11 7 9 8 3 2 4 0 6 8 10 9 11 7 1 5 0 1 11 3 9 7
alto
R8 /h1 R8 /h2 R3 /h1 P3 /h1 P10 /h1 P10 /h2
ten. 1 0 2 10 4 6 3 11 5 9 7 8 8 7 9 5 11 1 3 2 4 0 6 10 10 9 11 7 1 5 8 6 0 4 2 3
R8 /h1 R8 /h2 R3 /h1 P3 /h1 I10 /h1 RI10 /h1
bass 1 0 2 10 4 6 3 11 5 9 7 8 8 7 9 5 11 1 3 2 4 0 6 10 10 11 9 1 7 3 5 6 4 8 2 0
harmonic area A3
Schoenberg, Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3, mm. 11722 (second episode, rst part). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers
Example 4.17b
I5 /h1 I5 /h2
P0 /h1 P0 /h2
5 5 pitch
sop. 3 4 4 3 palindrome
P0 /h1 1 2 2 1
RI5 /h2 4 0 0
2
P0 /h2
11 10 10 11
alto 10 9 8 8 9
8 7 6 6 7
6 5
5 P0 /h1 P0 /h2 5 P0 /h1
3 5 4 3 3 4
1 2 1 1 2 P0 /h2
0 I5 /h2 0 0 piano
11 9 10
7 8 6 0
ten. 10 11 11 10 9
I5 /h1 8 9 9 8 10
4 6 7 7 6 1
2 11 7 6
bass 3
8
P0 /h1 I5 /h1 2 5
5 R0 /h2 7 8 4
P5 /h1 4 4 0 9 11
11 11 3 10 2 9 7
9 11 5 6 1 8 3 0
9 P0 /h2 1
piano 8 7 7 11 4 10
6 1 P0 /h1 0
0 3 3 4 2
1 6 3 8 6 I5 /h2
2 0 2 1 9 5 5
P0 /h1 P0 /h2 10
Schoenberg, Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3, mm. 12226 (second episode, second part). Used by permission of Belmont Music
At mm. 12425, the music takes quite a few more steps in the direction of the
classically perfect combinatorial shape, as the chorus sings Classical perfection,
strict at every turn. Measure 124 presents a complete P0 in the womens voices and
a complete I5 in the mens voices, and the hexachords of the two rows do align to
form aggregates vertically. The one ideal characteristic missing here is order within
the hexachords: Schoenberg presents both second hexachords in the now-familiar
partition where order positions 1,2 and 3,4 are lined up vertically. Though the
partition obscures the ideal a little, it also creates a palindromic pitch-class shape
involving invariant trichords within m. 124. The tenor and bass in the second half
of the measure, <3,1,0> and <7,9,11>, reverse the pitch classes of the soprano and
alto in the rst half, <0,1,3> and <11,9,7>, and the identical relation obtains
between the soprano and alto in m. 124b and the tenor and bass in m. 124a.
Measure 125 takes the palindromic idea up onto another level, because in the
chorus it is a strict pitch mirror of the previous measure (the extra chords in the
piano accompaniment break up the pitch palindrome). Interestingly enough, we
can designate the rows in m. 125 as I5 in the sopranos and altos and P0 in the tenors
and basses, rather than calling them retrogrades of m. 124s rows, R0 and RI5.
Schoenbergs partitions, though not all of them treat order positions 1,2 and 3,4 as
verticals, all take advantage of the collectional invariance between P0 and RI5 to
bring out the same subsets from both rows. Therefore, like mm. 1819, but in a
more obvious way, mm. 12425 associate the ideal shape with a palindrome. This
trend will be continued and completed in mm. 16366, the movements nal
solution.
The second episode ends with a fortissimo outburst in the piano at m. 126. This
serves to mark off the end of the episode, but from the viewpoint of ideal shape it
represents a step backward (something which the listener should probably expect
by this point in the movement). The piano again juxtaposes P0 (in the right hand)
with I5 (in the left hand), and the hexachords are more or less aligned, but the order
within the hexachords is compromised by verticals, and the end of the rst
hexachord overlaps with the beginning of the second in both rows (moreover, these
overlaps happen in different places in the two hands).
After a fermata, Schoenberg begins the fugues third statement, which I do not
represent by an example (please consult the score). The text changes again here, to
Sie geh wohin sie will, das ist der neue Stil (It [perfection] goes where it wants to,
that is the new style). The third statement seems to be his attempt to recreate the
stretto that typically makes up one of the later statements in a Bach fugue. It stays
with P0 and I5, the home key, for mm. 12629: the altos begin on the second
eighth note of beat 2 in m. 126 with a P0 that replicates exactly the ordered pitch
intervals of the rst expositions subject (mm. 87ff.), and the tenors answer with I5,
two quarter notes later, as an exact ordered pitch-interval inversion of the alto part
(which would also correspond to the answer in the second exposition). The basses
enter three quarters after the tenors with another P0 that duplicates the pitch
intervals of the original subject, and the sopranos three quarters after the basses
with an I5 that duplicates the tenors intervals. The main advantage of the shorter
durations between imitations afforded by this stretto passage is that now P0 and I5
can be presented as simultaneous, complete, and ordered row forms, with their
hexachords almost, but not quite, perfectly aligned (the alto and tenor voices in
mm. 12629 are especially notable in this regard). In the earlier statements, the
demands of imitation made it impossible for Schoenberg to present his ideal shape;
here, however, the shorter (durational) intervals between entries enable him to
come closer to that shape, in preparation for the climax of mm. 16366.
On the last eighth note of m. 129, Schoenberg begins the second half of the third
statement another stretto, this time based on the subject of the second exposition,
which moves the harmonic area level to A7 (the dominant?). The tenors begin
with RI0 as a close approximation of the second expositions subject of mm. 94ff.
The altos answer on the second eighth note of beat 2 in m. 130 with R7 as an exact
pitch-interval inversion of the tenor, followed by the sopranos on the second eighth
note of beat 5 with a repetition of the tenor entrys intervals, and the basses on the
second eighth note of beat 2 in m. 131 with a repetition of the alto answer.
The third episode, the longest of the episodes, stretches from m. 134 to m. 152.
This episode continues and intensies characteristics introduced in the two preced-
ing sections. It intensies (especially in mm. 13536) the stretto that was introduced
in the third statement, and it exhibits much the same prole as the second episode,
starting with what seem to be fragments of the tone row and working its way
toward a realization of the ideal shape, before obscuring that shape yet again.
The third episode divides into four stages, of which I will illustrate only the third
stage with examples (that place where the episode comes closest to the ideal).
Please consult the score for the remaining stages. The rst stage is mm. 13436a,
which sets the second half of the text from the previous statement: Das ist der neue
Stil (That is the new style). In mm. 13435, the imitation of the ordered interval
pattern <4,3,2> a perfect fth higher in the basses and tenors, followed by
imitation of <3,4,6> at the distance of a perfect fth in the sopranos and altos,
comes about through borrowing tetrachords at the same order positions from pairs
of rows: order positions 47 from P0 and P7 for the basses and tenors, then order
positions 58 from RI3 and RI10 for the altos and sopranos. These tetrachords seem
to be isolated fragments, but in fact they connect to other segments played by
the instruments to create complete rows. For example, <5,8,0,6> in the altos
follows the beginning of RI3, <10,11,9,1,7> in the right hand of the piano in
mm. 133b134, which completes itself with <6,2,4,3> in the right hand of the
piano in mm. 134b135.
Measures 135b136 in the voices intensify the stretto that was introduced in the
previous statement, as all four parts from bottom to top sing alternating major and
minor triads, at the durational distance of a quarter note and the intervallic distance
of an ascending perfect fourth. As before, Schoenberg accomplishes the imitation by
taking the same order positions from rows that are transpositions of one another
(and the remaining notes of these rows are again taken by the instruments). The
basses sing order numbers 4,5,6 from I3 (creating a minor triad), the tenors 5,6,7
from R7 (major), the altos 4,5,6 from I1 (minor), and the sopranos 5,6,7 from R5
(minor). The reader will notice that the F minor, Bf major, Ef minor, and Af major
triads are formed between the voices (vertically) as well as within each voice
(horizontally). Perhaps the outbreak of consonant triads in a passage that claims
to herald the new style is an attempt at irony (imitating Stravinskys use of
polychords and suggesting there is nothing new about that). However, I would
prefer to emphasize the fact that these triads are included together with more
dissonant materials within an all-embracing, unifying twelve-tone technique by
Schoenberg, pointing the way, I believe, to a true neoclassical style.
The second half of m. 136 and all of m. 137 constitute a second stage in the third
episode, where the vocal imitation relaxes a little durationally, causing the texture to
open up. Schoenberg continues to have each pair of voices (now bass and soprano,
alto and tenor) produce exactly the same ordered pitch-interval succession by
giving the voices the same order positions in rows that are transpositions of one
another. Now all four rows, P0 starting in the basses, I0 in the altos, I5 in the tenors,
and P5 in the sopranos, undergo the same partition: order positions 0,1,2,3,7 in the
voice part (doubled by one of the string parts); 4,5,6 in the left hand of the piano,
and 8,9,10,11 as dyads in the right hand of the piano. This early instance of
isomorphic partitioning results in <1,10,8,1> interval successions in the
basses and sopranos and the pitch-interval inversion of that succession,
<1,10,8,1>, in the altos and tenors.12 At the same time, pitch-class invari-
ances between prime and inverted forms at the same transposition level relate
basses to altos (by means of the {0,1,11} trichord that begins both P0 and I0) and
tenors to sopranos (the {4,5,6} trichord that begins both I5 and P5).
At mm. 13839, the beginning of the third stage of the third episode, the chorus
starts to sing about classical perfection again, and as the listener might expect, it
sets that phrase to something close to an ideal shape: RI5 in the sopranos and altos,
divided at the barline into hexachords and aligned perfectly with the two hexa-
chords of I5 in the tenors and basses. See Example 4.18a. One of two aws in this
picture is the use of forward and backward versions of I5 to create trivial
12
See Haimo, Schoenbergs Serial Odyssey, pp. 2226, for a description of isomorphic partitioning.
Isomorphic partitioning did not appear for the rst time in Op. 28; in fact, Haimo shows that it was
one of the rst of Schoenbergs mature techniques to appear, though it was not as pervasive in his
earlier works as it would be in later ones. The rst instance of it, according to Haimo, came in the
Variations from the Serenade Op. 24 (ibid., p. 83).
Example 4.18a
sop., pf.
RI5 /h2 5 5
3 2 4 4 3 1
0 1 2 11
0 10
alto, P5 /h1 P5 /h2
10
RI5 /h1 vcl. 11 8 9
9 7 7
8 I10 /h2
6 6
ten.,
3 R5 /h1 4
I5 /h1 va. 4 2 I5 /h2 1 3 2
11 1 0
11 0
10 9 10 9 8 6 5
8 7 7
5 6
bass, pf. R1 /r1 5
11 10 2 1 1
8 9 9 6 8
3 6 7 6
2 4 5 3 0 7
10 1 1 0 5 4
piano 0 9 3 4 3 2
7 5 7 6 11 10
I5 /r2 RI5 /r1 2 7 R5 /r2 P5 /r3
8 9 11 I5 /r3 P5 /r1 0
RI5 /r4 8 10 11
RI5 /r2 I5 /r4 I5 /r2 P5 /r2
P5 /r2 P5 /r1 P5 /r4
Schoenberg,Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3, mm. 13841 (third episode, beginning of third stage). Used by permission of Belmont
retrograde combinatoriality, rather than the ideal combinatorial relationship

between P0 and I5 (which will occur again only at the nal episode). The other
aw is the existence of verticals in all four hexachords, though the verticals are not
the ones that promote confusion of hexachord identity. Like its predecessors at mm.
12425, this manifestation of the ideal includes a segment that suggests comple-
tion of the C major scale, <11,9,7> in the alto in m. 138. Measure 139 then
completes the C scale in the basses, <7,9,11,0>. These C-scale fragments can be
understood as continuations and completions of shorter motives around pitch class
C that occurred earlier in the episode.
At mm. 14041, the second half of Example 4.18a, we hear a weaker version of
the ideal shape (designated as such by a more faint dotted box). What makes it
weaker is the lack of a complete row in the tenors and basses: while the sopranos
and altos sing through P5, the tenors and basses follow R5/h1 with I10/h2.
In mm. 13841, the two approximations to the ideal shape just described
account for the majority of the texture: the four choral parts, the two string
instruments, and the long notes in the top and bottom of the piano. There is one
element that these shapes do not include, however: the running sixteenth notes in
the piano, which mostly come after the beat but do sometimes intrude onto the
beat. As my pitch-class map shows, these small notes consist of isolated trichords
from the same rows that sound above them in the voice parts (labeled as r1, r2,
etc., since t was used for tetrachords in my previous analyses). Quite often these
trichords combine with other trichords in the voices to form hexachords of the
prevailing row, thus exhibiting combinatoriality on more than one level. An
example is provided right at the beginning of m. 138 (highlighted by a solid box
on the pitch-class map): the pianos succession <8,2,10> combines with <5,6,4>
in the basses and tenors to form the rst hexachord of I5, the same hexachord that is
projected horizontally by tenors and basses in m. 138.
Examples 4.18b and 4.18c portray the continuation of the third episodes third
stage. In these examples, we nd three attempts to achieve the ideal shape, of which
the second, mm. 14445, comes closest, before the episode disintegrates into
individual hexachords that neither form aggregates nor line up vertically with one
another. The rst attempt, mm. 14243, places a complete P8 in the altos and tenors
against a pair of hexachords, R8/h1 followed by I1/h2, in the sopranos and basses.
We would be as close to the ideal as we were in mm. 14041, except for the fact that
the hexachords are no longer separate from one another registrally and timbrally.
The second attempt, mm. 14445, again combines a complete row, I8 in the
sopranos and altos, with a pair of hexachords, RI8/h1 and P3/h2, in the tenors
and basses. As in mm. 14041, the hexachords are again segregated registrally (for
the most part: there is some overlapping between alto and tenor) and timbrally.
Finally, in the third attempt, mm. 14647 (Example 4.18c), male and female voices
again share the same hexachord, and not according to a consistent pattern, either; it
Example 4.18b
P8 /h2
P8 /h1 7 I8 /h1 7 I8 /h2
2 4 6 3 5 5 6 4
11 1 0 2 3
11 0 9 10
9 10 8
8 7 P3 /h2
5 6 7 8
3 4 3 4 6 5
2 1
1
0 2 0 1 11
10 I1 /h2 11 10 9
9 8 RI8 /h1
R8 /h1
11 R8 /t1 P8 /r1 I8 /r1
10 0
7 9 8 I8 /r4 10
9 8
RI8 /r2 I8 /r1
R8 /r2 2 4 4
I8 /r2 I8 /r3
0
6 9 7 7 8 10 10 9
5 6 5 6 7 7 7
3 4 P8 /r1 3 6
1 2 1 1 0
P8 /r2 10 9 10 9
8 R8 /r4 6 8 8
P8 /r4 P8 /r3 11 0 2 0
Schoenberg,Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3, mm. 14245 (third episode, continuation of third stage). Used by permission of
Example 4.18c
R11 /h1
sop, va.
5 4
alto, pf. 3 1 3 1
LH
10 11 10
8 8
I11 /h1 6
7 9
P11 /h1 5
tenor, pf. 2 4
RH 11 0
I3 /h1 connects to following passage

7 9
bass, vcl. 6 4
2 3
RI11 /h1
0
Schoenberg, Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3, mm. 14648a (third episode, end of
third stage). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European American
Music Distributors
is soprano with bass and alto with tenor in m. 146, soprano with tenor and alto with
bass in m. 147. And no two of the four hexachords presented form a complete row:
m. 146 has I11/h1 and RI11/h1, and m. 147 has R11/h1 and P11/h1. Because of the
extent to which they use or do not use complete rows, and the extent to which the
hexachords are kept distinct timbrally and registrally, mm. 14247 trace a motion
toward and then away from the ideal shape.
The music moves further away from the ideal shape and toward fragmentation in
the fourth stage of episode III, mm. 14852. For spaces sake, we will skip over the
fourth stage and move directly to mm. 15362, the nal statement of the fugue
subject, which is portrayed in Example 4.19. At this point, Schoenberg has clearly
returned to his home harmonic area, A0, and he uses it to set one last utterance of
the text Das ist der neue Stil. Only one of the voice parts has a complete row form,
the alto part on P0, and we can think of the altos as presenters of the subject (the
altos pitches are exactly one octave above those of the tenors original subject
presentation in mm. 8790, but the rhythms are different). The other three voices
offer individual hexachords, many of which can be heard as variations of phrases of
the alto subject. For example, the tenors begin the statement with I5/h1 as an
ordered-pitch-interval inversion of the rst phrase of the alto part; this inversion
persists until the last two notes of the phrase in m. 155 (which are reversed). The
tenors third phrase in mm. 15861 corrects the mistake by presenting a complete
ordered-pitch-interval inversion of the altos opening phrase.
From the pitch-class standpoint (as opposed to one focusing on ordered pitch
intervals), the individual phrases in the sopranos, tenors, and basses serve as one
nal reminder of the invariant dyads at order positions 1,2 and 3,4 between certain
hexachords of P0 and I5 and their retrogrades. For example, the tenors initial
phrase, <5, 6,4, 8,10,2>, I5/h1 with the last two pitch classes reordered, is answered
by the sopranos initial phrase, <5, 4,6, 2,8,10>, R0/h1 in the correct order. An
example highlighting both dyad invariants is the tenors RI5/h1, <0, 1,11, 3,9, 7> in
mm. 15657, which is answered not long after (mm. 15859) by the sopranos P0/
h1, <0, 11,1, 9,3, 7>. Since all these hexachords are presented as lines, the dyad
invariants cannot cause uncertainty about hexachord identity, as they did so many
times earlier in the movement when they were given as verticals.
The independent line in the instruments, which starts in the viola (mm. 15356)
and works its way down through the right hand of the piano (mm. 15759) to the
bass register of the piano (mm. 15961), reinforces the voices solution regarding
which dyads belong to which hexachords of area A0. R0, I5, RI5, and P0 are given in
chronological order, the rst two by the viola, the second two by the piano, so that
the dyad invariants between the corresponding hexachords of R0 and I5, and
between the corresponding hexachords of RI5 and P0, are clearly heard in their
proper hexachordal contexts (these invariants are circled at the bottom of Example
4.19s pitch-class map).
The fourth episode and nal cadence, mm. 16381, appear as Examples 4.20a
and 4.21. The words Klassische Vollendung are sung here for the nal time,
bringing perfection and completion to Schoenbergs text. The two principal musical
processes that span the entire movement are perfected and completed as well,
rounding out the manifestation of this movements musical idea. First, there is
the perfection of the ideal shape in mm. 16366, which comes about in an
Example 4.19
Trans. of subject Var. of 2nd hex of subject
subject
Correct inv. of subject
Partial inv. of
subject R of 2nd half
of subject
Soprano: 5 4 6 2 8 10 0 11 1 93 7 5 4 6 2 8 10
(piano RH
R0 /h1 P0 /h1 R0 /h1
& va.)
Alto: 0 11 1 9 3 7 10 8 2 6 4 5 0 1 11 3 9 7
(vcl. & P0 /h1 P0 /h2 RI5 /h1
piano RH)
Tenor: 5 6 4 8 10 2 0 1 11 3 9 7 5 6 4 8 2 10
(piano LH RI5 /h1 I5 /h1
I5 /h1
& vcl.)
Bass: 7 9 3 11 1 0 5 4 6 2 8 10 0 1 11 3 9 7
(piano LH)
I5 /h2 R0 /h1 RI5 /h1
0 11
11 2 9 3 7
7 8 6 5 P0 /h1 1
pf., 3
0 1 9
RH pf., R0 /h1 8
5 4 4 5 4 6
4 I5 2 LH 2 10
2 11 RI5
va. 8 10 9 8 10 9 11
P0 3
6 7 5 6 7 1
9 7 10 8
R0 3 1 0
3 1 0 0 11 2 6 4 5
10
Schoenberg, Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3, mm. 15362 (fourth statement). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers
Example 4.20a
Palindrome:
I5 /h1 (R0 /h2) (RI5 /h1)

10 10 (R0 /h2)
or 6 8 8 6
5 (RI5 / h1) 5
R0 /h1 P0 /h2
or
0 0 0 11 9 RI5 /h2 0 0
P0 /h1 11 9 9 11 9 11 11 9 9 11
or 7 7 7 7 7
RI5 /h1
4 I5 /h2 4
2 2
or
3 3 1 3 R0 /h2 3 1 3 3
1 1 1 1
10 4 4 10
8 8
P0 /h2
R0 /h1
2 2
6 5 6 5
Schoenberg, Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3, mm. 16366 (fourth episode, stage 1). Used by permission of Belmont Music
Example 4.20b
Schoenberg, Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3: a simplied version of mm. 16366s
classical perfection
unexpected way (see Example 4.20a). Instead of presenting P0 and I5 together as

complete rows, divided into hexachords, with the hexachords aligned vertically to
form aggregates and ordered correctly within the hexachord, Schoenberg keeps the
rst two characteristics and abandons the third. Every hexachord is given in the
now-familiar form with order positions 1,2 and 3,4 vertical, so that it is unclear
which of two rows the hexachord comes from (for example, the soprano and tenor
in mm. 16364 could be I5, h1 or R0, h1). But in this particular instance, the double
identity of each of the four hexachords enables Schoenberg to place P0 and I5
against one another as combinatorial partners, while at the same time creating a
pitch palindrome. This culminates a trend that appeared at certain places earlier in
the movement, where manifestations of the ideal shape or other materials were
presented as rst pitch-class palindromes, later as pitch palindromes (mm. 1819,
29, 5556, and 12425). His merging of ideal shape and palindrome is made
Example 4.21
m. 171 172 173 174 175 177 179 180 181

(complete but nonlinear) Cadence:
Stage 3:
8 9
11 5
P0 /h2 9
7 2 3 0
10 I5 /h2
7 R0
3 6 7 0
(complete)
2 (complete) 0
10 11 0
7
4 0 R0 /h1
8 1
6 10 (incomplete)
5
8
4 4 3
3 11 1 2
9 8 7 9
8 8 4 6 3
3 2 0 11
11 1 2
6 6 9
1 9 7
4 P0 /h1 P0 /h2 10 1 10
2 6 5 1
or or I5 /h1 11
P0 /h1 5 I5 /h1 5 RI5 /h1 4 R0 /h2
0 0 RI5 /h1 10 RI5 /h2
Schoenberg, Der neue Klassizismus Op. 28, No. 3, mm. 17181 (fourth episode, stage 3 and nal cadence). Used by permission of
clearer in Example 4.20b, which reduces the texture of Example 4.20a to the rst of
the three alto-bass hexachords in mm. 16364, and the rst alto-bass hexachord in
mm. 16566. The bottom half of Example 4.20b indicates that the same music can
be read from left to right as R0 combining with RI5, if the reader connects the nodes
in a different way. Thus Schoenberg has presented all four members of his home
harmonic area, showing the ideal relationship between P0 and I5, as well as RI5
and R0, all in a pitch-palindromic format.
This epitome of complete classical perfection is, however, abandoned in m. 167.
The nal fteen measures of the third Satire seem to be preoccupied with replaying
the progression from incomplete to complete on another plane: that of row comple-
tion. (Consult the score for mm. 16770.) In m. 167, the piano plays the rst
hexachord of P0, followed by the cello and viola, which both fail to complete that
row: instead, the cello produces R0/h1 and the viola I5/h1. In m. 168, the piano tries
again with the rst hexachord of R0, and after the cello gives a false completion with
the second hexachord of I5, the viola provides the expected R0/h2. In mm. 16970,
none of the three strands of the texture, piano, strings, and chorus, is able to
complete a row form: all three contain a pair of rst hexachords. In mm. 171 and
172, illustrated by Example 4.21, P0 and I5 do complete themselves, but neither is
projected in a linear fashion (both contain verticals of three or four notes). In mm.
17374, we nally hear a complete row form in a more linear format but now there
is confusion about which one! Schoenberg has yet again made order positions 1, 2
and 3, 4 vertical, so that these measures could be identied as either P0 or RI5.
Finally, in the last seven measures, we hear R0 in the voices, doubled by the
instruments, in a completely linear presentation. The piano then uses the last three
and a quarter measures to summarize the process yet again, following an incomplete
pair of hexachords (I5/h1 and RI5/h1) with a complete R0.
The reader may wonder why Schoenberg chose to nish his small cantata with
the retrograde of the prime form, rather than placing P0 at the nal cadence. The
main advantage to ending with R0 is that it places the pitch classes <9,11,0> A, B,
and C in a prominent place at the end. Schoenbergs doubling of the last pitch
class of R0 with the full chorus and strings leaves no doubt that he intended to
imitate a tonal cadence on C at this point. What makes the cadence signicant is
that it, like the ideal shape in mm. 16366, serves as the culmination of a process
that spans the whole movement. Clear references to C major are highlighted near
the beginning (the violas <0,11,9,7> in m. 1, or the viola and cello parts at m. 19),
obscured in the middle (especially with the onset of the fugue in m. 87), and
brought to the fore again near the end (note particularly the alto and viola parts
in mm. 16366, in Example 4.20a). Even within the fourth episode, fragments that
depart from C in the soprano at mm. 169 and 173 are completed by the nal
cadence that arrives on C at m. 179. Thus the C-major scale, like the twelve-tone
ideal shape, also goes through a process of presentation, obscuring, and restoration
to its perfect state. This tonal strand contributes to projecting the musical idea,
but as I have argued before with other pieces, we must view it as adjunct to the
processes involving combinatorial twelve-tone rows (though it is certainly easier
to hear).
To summarize: section Cs fugue, like the Baroque concerto of section A and
section Bs motet before it, traces a long-range motion toward and then away from
perfection of the ideal shape, with the one signicant difference that the perfection in
section C involves integration of the ideal P0-I5 relation with a palindrome. It is
useful in grasping the coherence of the whole movement to think of each of the three
major sections as tracing a shape like a narrative curve that gradually approaches the
ideal, and then departs from it less gradually. In section A, the curve peaks at mm.
3334 and 3839 (Examples 4.9a and 4.9b), where (not coincidentally) the text
speaks of how the power of the times cannot touch the composer [Schoenberg,
I believe] who follows the rules. The narrative curve that is section B peaks at mm.
7172 (Example 4.13a), where the chorus tells us that It [technique] will lead to an
inspiration [Einfall] in time. And the fugue builds up gradually to mm. 16366
(Example 4.20a), the successful attainment of what the whole piece has been striving
toward: classical perfection. Of these three narrative curves, we should understand
the third as leading to the highest perfection, because its climax is able to enclose not
only P0 and I5 but also R0 and RI5 at the same time within a pitch palindrome,
integrating three relationships that existed separately (for the most part) earlier in
the movement. In this way, the problem posed by incomplete or deformed versions
of the ideal shape earlier in the piece is solved, by means of one of the techniques
that originally contributed to the deformity in the rst place (i.e., giving order
positions 1,2 and 3,4 of the hexachord as verticals in rows that are collectionally
invariant according to the pattern given in section b of Example 4.5). The third
Satire does not mock Stravinskys attempts to reach classical perfection so much as it
demonstrates Schoenbergs ability to attain it himself.
As I suggested at the beginning of this chapter, however, the association Schoen-
berg makes here between perfection (on the one hand) and an inversionally
combinatorial pair of rows divided into hexachords that are aligned vertically (on
the other) has consequences that go far beyond the third Satire of Op. 28. The
formal coherence of the next work we will consider, the Piano Piece Op. 33a,
depends in a different way on the notion that inversionally combinatorial rows
together form a harmonic area, which then progresses to other such pairings and
returns from them in ways parallel to tonal modulation. In that way, the Piano
Piece Op. 33a constitutes a further manifestation of a harmonic principle that
Op. 28, No. 3 introduced.
5 Piano Piece Op. 33a
The symmetrical ideal conicts with and is reconciled to row order
A brief yet suggestive comment from Humphrey Searles 1954 Groves Dictionary
article on Schoenberg and his works will provide the starting point for our consid-
eration of the rst of the two Op. 33 Piano Pieces: The pianoforte pieces Op. 33
are, as it were, a synthesis of the previous pianoforte works, especially Opp. 23 and 25,
in that Schoenbergs mastery of the twelve-tone technique now enabled him to solve
similar problems in a far simpler and more assured manner.1
To place Op. 33a (written between December 1928 and April 1929) into its
immediate historical context, some of the compositions immediately preceding and
overlapping with it were the Third String Quartet Op. 30 (JanuaryMarch 1927),
the Variations for Orchestra Op. 31 (Spring 1926September 1928), and the one-act
opera on Gertrud Schoenbergs libretto Von heute auf morgen Op. 32 (October
1928August 1929). Ethan Haimo has described the rst two works as heavily
dependent on characteristic techniques of Schoenbergs mature style such as
invariants, secondary harmonies, isomorphic partitioning, and multidimensional
set and aggregate presentations.2 And Stephen Davison has considered the role of
invariants and isomorphic partitioning in Von heute auf morgen, showing how
invariant collections and other pitch-class sets created by isomorphically partition-
ing different row forms often play a leitmotivic role, representing characters,
moods, and ideas that repeat and develop through the opera.3 Within such a
historical context, then, it seems quite strange that Op. 33a avoids the majority of
these techniques. The only characteristic technique it seems to apply consistently
is Schoenbergs common habit (after Op. 28, No. 3, that is) of using rows together
in inversionally combinatorial pairs to create harmonic areas.
1
Humphrey Searle, Schoenberg, Arnold, in Eric Blom (ed.), Groves Dictionary of Music and
Musicians, 5th edn. (New York: St. Martins Press, 1954), vol. VII, p. 519.
2
Haimo, Schoenbergs Serial Odyssey, pp. 14980. We have seen illustrations of most of these
techniques in previous analyses in this book: secondary harmonies in Chapter 2s analyses of
Op. 25, isomorphic partitioning in Chapter 4s discussion of the third Satire Op. 28, and multidimen-
sional aggregate presentation in the third movement of the Woodwind Quintet Op. 26 (Chapter 3).
The notion of multidimensional set presentation renes this last technique in such a way that
groups of notes partitioned out of a sequence of local set forms create an ordered presentation of the
original twelve-tone row or one of its transformations.
3
Stephen Davison, Of its Time, or Out of Step? Schoenbergs Zeitoper, Von heute auf morgen,
Journal of the Arnold Schoenberg Institute 14/2 (November 1991): 27198.
Instead of further developing a number of Schoenbergs characteristic tech-

niques, what the First Piano Piece does is exactly what Searles comment above
suggests: it solves a problem very much like that of the Prelude Op. 25, but now
within a more assured harmonic world consisting of nothing but inversionally
combinatorial row pairs. It presents a vertically and horizontally symmetrical
pitch-interval pattern (a palindromic ideal) and a merely set-class symmetrical
echo of that pattern in the rst ve measures. (I believe the listener is supposed to
understand the correct, linear row ordering in mm. 35 as a force that disrupts the
perfect intervallic symmetry of mm. 12.) It then repeats the pattern and its echo
twice (mm. 69 and 1013), in ways that further deform the interval symmetry as
well as the set-class symmetry. The following section, mm. 1424, attempts to
return to the palindromic ideal of the beginning (as did mm. 1719 of the Prelude
Op. 25), but can only imitate it with other kinds of palindromes that disrupt the
row ordering (and even cause incomplete presentations of the row in two
instances). Then comes a passage (mm. 2532a) where Schoenberg strives toward
the palindromic ideal of mm. 12, attaining a gradually increasing number of
fragments of it, but not the complete structure. After a fermata, a resolution takes
place at mm. 3236; the rst part of this section presents P10, the home row form, in
order (for the rst time in this piece), within a context that recreates much of the
ideal palindrome (but not all of it). The nal measures of the piece retreat from this
resolution, by again presenting fragments of the symmetrical shape of mm. 12 and
its variations.
Each section of the process described above lines up with a segment of the pieces
form. Commentators since George Perle have accounted for Op. 33a as a sonata
form with drastically condensed development and recapitulation sections (though
Carl Dahlhaus dissents from such an interpretation).4 My account of the form is
reproduced as Example 5.1, with the stages of the Idea I just described as the third
and seventh columns, and the harmonic areas projected by pairs of combinatorial
rows as the fourth and eighth columns. My form chart differs from Perles in a few
details: I place the development section two and a half measures earlier than he
does, and my division of the rst theme group looks different because of my
insistence on alternations between palindromic ideal and echo. Finally, I have
4
George Perle, Serial Composition and Atonality, 6th rev. edn. (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University
of California Press, 1991), p. 113. Dahlhauss ideas about the piece can be found in ber das
Analysieren neuer Musik: Zu Schnbergs Klavierstcken Opus 11/1 und Opus 33a, in Fortschritt
und Rckbildung in der deutschen Musikerziehung, ed. Egon Kraus (Mainz: B. Schotts Shne, 1965),
pp. 23436. His argument against calling it sonata form hinges on the fact that many of the rows are
presented as reordered discrete tetrachords or hexachords, and that thus it is impossible to speak of
themes which are stated and developed, as is the case in most sonata movements. My analysis will
point out some of the thematic characteristics that remain, despite Schoenbergs predilection for
reordering.
Piano Piece Op. 33a 245
Example 5.1
Schoenberg, Piano Piece Op. 33a: form chart
turned mm. 1922 into a closing section because of my strong sense that material
from mm. 12, part of the rst theme, is being fragmented and developed in mm.
19 and 20 (followed by similar treatment of second theme material in mm. 2122).
A more detailed description of the various formal sections and stages of the Idea
will now follow. The palindromic ideal that initiates the rst theme section can be
found in the rst two measures of Example 5.2, and is labeled there as subsection a.
This ideal shape, which George Perle called a microcosm of the essential shape of
the whole movement, exhibits both vertical and horizontal symmetry.5 The verti-
cal symmetry becomes obvious when one compares the unordered pitch intervals of
the three chords in m. 1 with the three chords in m. 2: <1,5,5> inverts to <5,5,1>
(counting intervals up from the bottom), <4,2,3> to <3,2,4>, and <6,2,3> to
5
Perle, Serial Composition and Atonality, p. 116. Perle sees mm. 12 as supplying both an arch-like
contour and the primary set material to the rest of the work. Joseph Straus also describes the vertical
and horizontal symmetry of the ideal in terms similar to my own. Consult Straus, Introduction to
Post-Tonal Theory, 3rd edn. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2005), pp. 25354.
Example 5.2
4-23
i a b 3
4-10 4-1
8
5
RI3 6 4
4-1 1
11
2 10
4-23 4-10
9
7 3
P10 6 3
3 6 7
4 4 5 5
3 2 t1 t3
2 4
1
2 2 1 2
0 2 RI3
6 1 11 0
10 4 11
10 5 10
5 9
8 3 9
8 t2
7 5 6
5 t2 t1
5 t3
t2 3
0 2 1
t3 0
1
11 7 t3
R10 6
t1
4 3
t1 t2 9
8
Schoenberg, Piano Piece Op. 33a, mm. 15 (rst theme; subsections a and b). Schoenberg PIANO PIECE OP. 33a, Copyright 1929 by Universal
Edition AG, Vienna, Copyright renewed. All rights reserved. Used in the U.S. by permission of Belmont Music Publishers; used in the world
excluding the U.S. by permission of European American Music Distributors Company, agent for Universal Edition AG, Vienna
<3,2,6>. But the temporal placement of these interval combinations and their
inversions creates horizontal symmetry at the same time: <1,5,5> and its inversion
come rst and sixth, <4,2,3> and its inversion come second and fth, and <6,2,3>
and its inversion come third and fourth. Thus the palindromic ideal of Op. 33a is even
more perfect than that of Op. 25, No. 1: it demonstrates symmetry in two dimensions.
This multidimensional symmetrical picture is somewhat blurred in mm. 35, the
echo of the palindromic ideal (labeled as subsection b). Now the two row forms
P10 and I3 (which were jumbled in order in mm. 12) are given in almost-linear
succession and in reverse RI3 in the right hand, R10 in the left. The ordered
presentation enables the combinatorial quality of this row pair to make itself
obvious by creating one aggregate up to the second beat of m. 4 and a second from
the second beat of m. 4 to the end of m. 5. The combinatorial property, as in Op. 28,
No. 3, establishes harmonic area A10 as a home key that Schoenberg modulates
away from and returns to in the course of the piece. But, at the same time, the
ordered presentation also makes it impossible for RI3 and R10 to create the same
kind of interval symmetries that they did in mm. 12. (Vertical symmetry would be
possible if RI3 and R10 had been written as pitch-interval inversions of one another,
but not horizontal symmetry.) Only a trace of horizontal symmetry in a more
abstract dimension is left: a palindrome of six set classes that Eric Graebner was the
rst to recognize, and which corresponds at most points to a vertical segmentation
of each measure into halves (the one exception is the second set class 4-10 of m. 4,
which extends back into the durational space of the rst 4-10 of that measure).6
The rst theme of Schoenbergs concatenated sonata form continues by present-
ing variations on the sequence just described: each variation operates on subsection
a, followed by subsection b. As we progress through the two variations in mm. 69
and 1013, the palindrome in both subsections becomes harder and harder to
perceive on account of the registral and rhythmic displacement of the notes of
the original patterns. It was established in mm. 35 that row order serves as an
opponent to vertical and horizontal symmetry by pushing the symmetry up onto
a more abstract level. In the remainder of the rst theme, Schoenberg elaborates this
opposition by means of an increasing number of registral and rhythmic displace-
ments. The rst variation is represented in Example 5.3. In subsection a1 (mm. 67),
the multidimensional symmetry of the ideal is destroyed progressively. In m. 6,
6
Eric Graebner, An Analysis of Schoenbergs Klavierstck, Op. 33a, Perspectives of New Music 12/12
(Fall 1973Summer 1974): 134. Joseph Straus also discusses the set-class symmetry of mm. 35 in
Introduction to Post-Tonal Theory, pp. 25458. And Milton Babbitt in his University of Wisconsin
lectures in 1983 claimed that the set-class symmetry of mm. 35 is a deep structural idea that is
reected on the surface of the music at mm. 12, asserting a relationship between the passages
analogous to the one I describe, but with mm. 12 and 35 exchanging roles as prior. See Babbitt,
Words about Music, ed. Stephen Dembski and Joseph N. Straus (Madison: University of Wisconsin
Press, 1987), pp. 7578.
Example 5.3
1 1
Subsection a Subsection b
horizontal
4-10
set-class symmetry (3-7)
4-1
4-1 4-10
3
horizontal & vertical t2 t3
interval symmetry 4-23 11
P10 7 4-23 9 8
5 4-23
2 2 4-1 6
6 P10 2
7 0
1
10 4
5 8 7 t1 10
6 7
3 5 3
5 t3 4 4 5 5 5
5 3 4
2 6
1 2
0 0 +4 0 0
+4 11 11 10
5
9
8 8 8 t1
t2 6 7
+14 5 6
13 4
+9 3 3 t3
2 t2
1 1
t1 t2/t3 I3 P10 11
11 10 t1 10
t1 9 +14
t1 3
I3
RI3 1
9
Schoenberg, Piano Piece Op. 33a, mm. 69 (rst theme; subsections a1 and b1). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European
beats 1 and 2, the bottom note of the rst two chords separates registrally
and durationally from the top three notes. The <1,5,5> of m. 1 morphs into
<5,5,13> (the last interval expressed as an ordered pitch interval because of the
late attack of the B2), and <4,2,3> becomes <4,2,3>. With the third tetrachord
in m. 6, beat 3, a further variation is applied. Schoenberg separates from the chord
pitch class 4, which was not the bottom note in m. 1, but the second from the top.
This results in a three-note sonority with a different intervallic prole from the top
three notes of the corresponding chord in m. 1: <6,2,3> becomes <6,5,4>.
The tetrachords of RI3 in m. 7 undergo even more drastic changes. Tetrachord 1
(rst beat) separates pitch class 9 from the chord, again resulting in a three-note
sonority with a different interval prole from the corresponding chord in m. 2:
<3,2,6> becomes <9,5,6>. The new interval prole is not the inversion of that of
the preceding tetrachord, t3, in m. 6, either, so the horizontal symmetry of the
ideal is breaking up in addition to its vertical symmetry. The next and last step in
subsection a1s gradual process makes both horizontal and vertical symmetry
impossible in mm. 67. In the last three beats of m. 7, the division into tetrachords,
the last remaining quality of mm. 12s ideal, is compromised. What were the
middle two notes of the second tetrachord in m. 2, pitch classes 10 and 0, are pulled
out to become part of the bass line, and the remaining two members of the chord,
pitch classes 7 and 4, combine together with pitch class 2 from the third tetrachord
to form a new interval prole, <3,7>. Then the remaining members of t3, 1,3, and 8,
combine in the lowest register to create the interval prole <14,5>.
Despite the forces that obscure symmetry in these measures, a few traces of the
ideal of the beginning measures remain. I have circled on Example 5.3 two
trichords at the end of m. 6 and beginning of m. 7, with unordered pitch intervals
<6,5> and <5,6>. These trichords are vertically symmetrical, and, since they are
the third and fourth trichords of the sequence, they at least hint at the horizontal
symmetry that included third and fourth tetrachords in mm. 12. Also circled in
mm. 67 are a pair of trichords that do not exhibit interval symmetry, but both
belong to the same set class, 3-7 (025), and so they preserve another vestige of the
beginnings horizontal mirror.
In the second part of the variation, subsection b 1 (mm. 89), the horizontal
mirror of set classes also fades from hearing, for two reasons. First, Schoenberg
repeats t1 of both P10 and I3, so that even if his segmentation of the row pair into
tetrachords formed from corresponding discrete dyads were as clear here as in
mm. 35, the resulting sequence of set classes would still not be palindromic:
4-23, 4-1, 4-23, 4-1, 4-10, 4-10, 4-1, 4-23. But the segmentation that gave rise to
mm. 35s palindrome is by no means clear in mm. 89, again because of
rhythmic displacement. A quick look at the boxes enclosing the pertinent tetra-
chords in Example 5.3 will show what I am talking about. The rst instance of t1
in both row forms could be heard as grouping together {3,8} with {5,10} to form
4-23 (both are vertical dyads), and {1,2} with {0,11} to form 4-1 (both are
horizontal and given as half steps). With the repetition of t1, however, the picture
is vastly different: {5,10} becomes a perfect fth, Bf3F4, that occurs durationally
together with and sits registrally between {1,2} in the left hand and {0,11} in the
top notes of the right hand. Thus to retain the discrete dyad groupings of mm. 35
would necessitate a rather convoluted segmentation, and the situation is much the
same with t2 and t3 in m. 9.
The second variation of subsections a and b, which continues to obscure their
palindromic shapes, occurs in mm. 1013, and is portrayed in Example 5.4. In one
sense, mm. 10 and 11, subsection a2, go back in the direction of the palindromic
ideal. The right hand during these measures replicates the pitches of mm. 12,
transposing chords 3 through 6 up an octave; thus the interval proles within the
chords revert to the horizontally and vertically symmetrical sequence I have associ-
ated with the ideal, <1,5,5>, <4,2,3>, <6,2,3>, <3,2,6>, <3,2,4>, <5,5,1>. At the
same time, however, the left hand adds a statement of I3 followed by R10 (also
divided into discrete tetrachords) to the rights P10RI3, each chord of the left hands
sequence played an eighth note later than the corresponding chord in the right hand.
This left-hand part has the potential to create vertical symmetry with the right hand,
horizontal symmetry within itself from m. 10 to m. 11, and horizontal symmetry
from right hand in m. 10 to left in m. 11 and left hand in m. 10 to right in m. 11. In
fact, it accomplishes none of these, though it comes close. The ies in the ointment
are the third tetrachords of both I3 and R10 (marked with exclamation points in
Example 5.4). The third tetrachord of I3 (last eighth note of m. 10) has its pitches
reordered from bottom to top so that it creates the interval prole <4,2,7> rather
than the <3,2,6> that would have created all the symmetries described above. And
the third tetrachord of R10 reverses the registral order of its pitch classes, so that what
should have been <1,5,5> becomes <11,7,7>. What we have in mm. 1011 is the
frustration of nearly approaching the ideal palindrome and just falling short.
The sense of frustration invoked by subsection a2 continues through mm. 12 and
13, the second variation of subsection b. Again, rhythmic displacement of certain
elements makes the palindrome of set classes harder to perceive in these measures.
Especially damaging is Schoenbergs strategy of writing the rst tetrachord of P10 in
reverse order: <11-above-0, 5, 10>. Because of this reversal, the second discrete
dyad of P10 <11-above-0> is the rst sonority heard in m. 12, followed by the
rst discrete dyad of I3 <3,8>, the rst discrete dyad of P10 <5,10>, and the second
discrete dyad of I3 <1,2>. Before this last dyad can complete itself, halfway between
the onsets of pitch classes 1 and 2, the third discrete dyad of P10 breaks in:
<9-above-6>. And so on. In addition to the rhythmic displacements, Schoenberg
again repeats one of the tetrachords, as he did in m. 8. This time it is t2 of P10 that
appears twice in succession in m. 12, with identical pitches both times. By looking at
the convoluted shapes of the tetrachords created from corresponding discrete dyads
Example 5.4
6 RH chords 4-1
2 make vertical &
Subsection a 5
horizontal 6 5
palindromes 4-10 0 11 4-23
2 11 Subsection b
2
RI3
9
t3
7 3 4-1 4-10 6
3 6 4-23
4 4
RH vs. LH: 2 4
almost a vertical 2 2 1 2
palindrome 0 t1 1
6 3 1 t2
8 10 5 10
9
I3 8
7 7 5 8 7
6 6 6 7
3 First 3 in RH vs. 4
last 3 in LH, and 7 4 3 3 2
3 3 3
2 vice versa, 2 2 3
P10 almost make
1 horizontal
1 2
6 4 11 11
10
4 palindromes 11
2 (!) 9 9 8
9 9 8 9
5 4 11 6 6
R10 t3
5 5
4 4
2
5
0 1
1
0
4
(!) 0 7
0
P10
1 1
1 5 2
11 10 6 LH chords make t2
8 3 neither a vertical nor a 5 7 t1 5
5 7 3 3
I3
horizontal palindrome t2 2
3 10 10
Schoenberg, Piano Piece Op. 33a, mm. 1013 (rst theme; subsections a2 and b2). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and
in Example 5.4, the reader can get an idea of how distant mm. 1213 are from the
original set-class palindrome of mm. 35.
In the rst theme of his abbreviated sonata movement, then, Schoenberg has
presented a palindromic ideal, opposed it to the correct ordering of the row (by
showing that row order pushes the palindrome up onto a more abstract level), and
then gradually and systematically obscured both the palindrome and its echo. The
exceedingly brief second theme section, mm. 1418, illustrated in Example 5.5,
occupies itself with several attempts to recapture the lost palindrome, which take
decidedly different forms from the perfect shape of mm. 12 and more abstract
version of mm. 35. Schoenberg layers P10 and I3 horizontally, the former (mostly) in
the right hand, the latter in the left. The rst hexachords of the pair stretch from m. 14
to m. 16a, and the second hexachords start in m. 16b and continue through m. 18. In
mm. 1415a, the right hand reorders h1 of P10 to create a complete small pitch
palindrome (in pitch classes <10, 5-above-0, 5-above-11, 6-above-9, 5-above-11,
5-above-0, 10>). This is followed by and overlaps with an incomplete version of the
same palindrome in the rest of m. 15, which misses the nal pitch class 10. Other
authors have commented on the nonlinearity of the right hands row presentation in
these measures, and Kathryn Bailey in particular recognizes that a note-group is
presented forward, then backward.7 But unfortunately, Bailey does not recognize
the function of these small palindromes in the piece as a whole, but instead sees them
(along with other irregularities of ordering) as a sign that Schoenberg may not have
understood the nature of the system he promulgated.8 Rather than regarding it as
evidence of Schoenbergs unfamiliarity with twelve-tone music, I prefer to under-
stand the right hand of mm. 1415 as an adjustment to row order that is made
necessary by the overall narrative spanning the piece, its musical idea.
While the right hand is trying to recreate the palindromic ideal using h1 of P10
(but coming up with a different kind of shape), the left hand in mm. 1416a plays
the corresponding hexachord of I3 in linear fashion, except for repetition of the rst
two pitch classes. Maybe we can think of this as another way of opposing row order
to the palindromic ideal, to portray both ways of organizing the material simultan-
eously. The latter half of Example 5.5 continues the process with the second
hexachords of P10 and I3: the right hand in mm. 16b18a alternates the dyads
1-above-3 and 7-above-8 from P10/h2 three times, which could possibly be seg-
mented into two pitch palindromes (as the brackets in Example 5.5 suggest). On the
second eighth of m. 18 an unambiguous palindromic shape involving alternation of
2-above-4 and 7-above-8 takes over. In the left hand during these measures, I3/h2 is
7
Kathryn Bailey, Row Anomalies in Opus 33: An Insight into Schoenbergs Understanding of the
Serial Procedure, Current Musicology 22 (1976): 46.
8
Ibid., p. 57.
Example 5.5
P10 /h2 pitch palindromes

complete pitch palindrome incomplete pitch palindrome
7 (7) (7) (7) (7)

1 2 (2) (2)
(1) (1)
10 10
(5 5) 6 (5 5 5) (5 5) 6 (6) (5 5 5) 8 (8) (8) (8) (8)
5 5 4 (4) (4)
P10 /h1 3 (3) (3)
0 (0) (11) (0 0) 0 (0)
11 11 (11) (0 0) pitch palindromes
9 9 (9)
1 (0)
0 (0)
I3 /h2 10 (10) (10) (10)
I3 /h1 6 (6)
3 (3)
2
11
8 (8) 7
5 (5)
4
9
Schoenberg, Piano Piece Op. 33a, mm. 1418 (second theme; section c). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European
given a more linear presentation, but it is not completely free from mirror inuence:
its rst two pitch classes, 0 and 10, form their own tiny palindrome.
I label the next section, mm. 1923a, as the closing theme of Op. 33as
shortened sonata form; this is one of the places where my formal diagram diverges
from Perles and those of others (Perle identies these measures as episode (mm.
1920) and return of the second theme (mm. 2123a)).9 These measures are
represented in Example 5.6. My main reason for the closing theme label is as
follows. For two measures, the section brings back textures reminiscent of the rst
theme section, such as vertical trichords and vertical dyads preceded and followed
by single notes, and then turns to a texture that recalls the second theme (with the
original material inverted registrally) for mm. 2123a. Closing theme sections in
the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century sonata often return to material from the
preceding themes, presenting that material in a fragmentary form, and it could be
argued that mm. 1923a fulll just such a function. But from the standpoint of the
pieces overarching Idea, they serve another function, one at least as important as
their place in the form. They continue the second themes attempt to create
palindromes, which are different in nature from the ones that opened the piece,
and do so in such a vehement way that they compromise not only the row ordering,
but also the rows ability to complete itself. As numerous writers have pointed out,
neither the R10 in the right hand of mm. 1920 nor the RI3 in the left hand of the
same measures is complete: both are missing two notes.10 R10 runs through its rst
ten pitch classes mostly in order (except for three vertical dyads); then at pitch class
0 on the third sixteenth of m. 20, the pitch motive created by pitch classes 9, 6, 11,
and 0 reverses itself to form a pitch palindrome that extends to the sixth sixteenth.
Then the shape repeats itself to complete m. 20. In effect, Schoenbergs attempt to
create palindromes is the very activity that prevents R10 from completing itself with
pitch classes 5 and 10. The pitch-class map attempts to dramatize the situation by
causing the line connecting the pitch classes of the row to trail off at just that point
where the palindromic shapes take over.
A similar condition pertains in the left hand of mm. 1920, where RI3 progresses
through its rst ten order positions, up to pitch class 1, and then breaks off without
reaching pitch classes 8 and 3. The last two pitch classes played, 2 and 1, both form
palindromes with the pitch classes that immediately precede them in the row,
9
Perle, Serial Composition and Atonality, p. 113.
10
One writer who discusses the incomplete nature of the rows in mm. 1920 is John Glofcheskie,
Wrong Notes in Schoenbergs Op. 33a, Studies in Music from the University of Western Ontario 1
(1976): 9697. Glofcheskie speculates that Schoenberg was holding back the last two notes of R10
and RI3 at the end of m. 20 so that he could present the same pitch classes prominently as the initial
dyads of P10 and I3 in m. 23. A similar connection between the end of m. 20 and m. 23 is drawn by
David S. Lefkowitz, Perspectives on Order, Disorder, Combinatoriality and Tonality in Schoen-
bergs Opus 33a and 33b Piano Pieces, Intgral 11 (1997): 75.
Example 5.6
1
pitch palindromes Subsection c : second theme
material dissolving into pitch
3 palindromes 2
Subsection a : first theme Schoenberg
material dissolving into pitch 9 (9)(9) (9) writes as
P10 /h2 pitch palindrome
palindromes (6)(6) (6) pc 9
6
4
1 1 (1) (1)
11 (11) (11)(11) (11) (11)(11) (11)(11)
7 (7) 8
3 3 (3) (3) (3)
0 (0) (0)(0)
7 7 (7) (7) (7) (7) (7) 6 (6)(6)(6) (6) (6) (6)(6) (6)(6)
4 (4) (4) (4) (4) (4)
2
0 (0)(0) (0) (0) (0)
10 (10) (10) (10) (10)
10 (10)
R10 8 (missing pcs 5 & 10)
I3 /h2
6 (6) 5 (5)(5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5)
4 2 (2) (2)
0 (0) (11) (11)
11 (11) 11
pitch palindromes (missing pcs 8 & 3)
(5) pitch palindromes
5
1 (missing pc 9)
RI3
9 (9)
Schoenberg, Piano Piece Op. 33a, mm. 1923a (closing theme; subsections a3 and c1). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and
Example 5.7a
Schoenbergs original sketch for the opening of Op. 33a. Used by permission of Belmont
Music Publishers
<7-above-4, 7-above-4, 2, 7-above-4, 7-above-4>, and <2,1,2>. Again it could be said

that the palindromic activity is the force that disrupts the rows ability to complete itself.
In this connection, it is interesting and valuable to compare the nal version of
mm. 1920 with Schoenbergs original conception of these measures, docu-
mented in a sketch page dated December 25, 1928 and referred to as MS 37,
No. 28 in the Arnold Schoenberg Center archive. I have reproduced the sketch
itself as Example 5.7a and a transcription of the pertinent measures with pitch-
class maps as Examples 5.7b and 5.7c.11 Measures 1921a of the sketch could be
11
A full-color scan of the sketch can be viewed at the Arnold Schoenberg Center website, by going to
www.schoenberg.at and searching the database of sketches under Klavierstck Op. 33a for
Skizzenblatt, MS37_28.jpg (Seite 1) (accessed August 13, 2013).
Example 5.7b
Transcription of Schoenbergs original version of the closing theme of Op. 33a, rst part
(original mm. 1921, which correspond to mm. 1920 in the nal version)
heard as corresponding to mm. 1920 in the nal version, but there are two
striking differences that I believe are related as cause and effect. First, in the
sketch both rows complete themselves with vertical dyads, R10 on the second beat
of m. 21 with 10-above-5, and RI3 with 8-above-3 on the downbeat of m. 21.
Second, there is less of an emphasis on palindromic structures in mm. 2021 of
the sketch than in m. 20 of the nal version. The left hand forms an imperfect
pitch palindrome (blurred by several repetitions of 7-above-4) in m. 20, while the
closest shape that the right hand has to a pitch palindrome is in the rst three
beats of m. 21. (Had the second statement of <6,9> on the second eighth note of
beat 2 in m. 21 been reversed, a pitch palindrome would have been formed.) It
may be dangerous to assert this, but I believe that since the idea of creating
palindromes in m. 20 apparently occurred to Schoenberg at the same time as the
Example 5.7c
Transcription of Schoenbergs original version of the closing theme of Op. 33a, second part
(original mm. 21b26a, which correspond to mm. 2123a in the nal version)
notion of leaving R10 and RI3 incomplete in that measure, one can argue (or at
least suggest) that he too thought of the palindromic activity as the reason for the
rows incomplete nature.
Measures 21b26a in the sketch (after which the sketch breaks off) seem to
correspond to mm. 2123a in the nal version of the piece for two reasons. One
reason is that both passages take their pitch material from a pair of combinatorial
hexachords. In the sketch, the second hexachord of R10 repeats eight times and the
rst hexachord of I3 enters against it on the second beat of m. 23; while in the nal
version these become the second hexachord of P10 in the right hand (with a wrong
note, pitch class 9, that I will consider momentarily) and the second hexachord of I3
in the left. A second reason to consider sketch mm. 21b26a a prototype for nal
mm. 2123a is that both passages make use of a repeated dyad from one of the
hexachords. In the sketch, it is the succession <6,9>, whose incessant repetition
(fourteen total appearances in Example 5.7c) contributes strongly to the sense that
mm. 2126a have a closing function (together with repetition of other parts of
R10, h2). In the nal version, <1,3> from P10, h2 repeats only twice in mm. 2122,
making the sense of closing less strong.
It seems that many of the changes evident from sketch to nal version of mm.
2123a can be explained by Schoenbergs apparent desire to make the closing
themes second part recall the second theme, to create the same kinds of palin-
dromic structures that were characteristic of the second theme, and to let those
palindromes cause incompletion in one of the hexachords. (As I mentioned above,
I3, h2 in the left hand, inundated with mirrors as it is, stops short of its nal pitch
class, 9.) In this way, mm. 2123a of the nal version could be thought of as an
abbreviated repetition of the strategy of nal version mm. 1920: in the rst
passage, palindromes make it impossible for both full row forms to complete
themselves, and in the second, palindromes make it impossible for one hexachord
to complete itself.
However, the working-out of such strategies in the closing theme provides no
explanation for the other row-counting anomaly in m. 22: the replacement of the
pitch class 8 that would have come at order position 3 in P10, h2 with a note a half
step higher, pitch class 9. This particular wrong note has been the subject of much
commentary in the literature. John Glofcheskie argues that the An is the right note in
the wrong place (the right hand): it is the pitch class that should have completed the
second hexachord of I3 in the left hand in mm. 2122.12 David Lefkowitz interprets
the An in a tonal context: as part of an attempt to avoid those pitches necessary for
the Af tonality after a substantial section that emphasizes that tonality strongly (the
second theme, mm. 1418). His interpretation is motivated by his hearing of mm.
1920 as an interruption, rather than the rst part of the closing theme: this
interruption turns the listeners attention away from Af as tonal center for a short
time before it returns (with Ef) on the second beat of m. 23. According to Lefkowitz,
Schoenbergs typo allows mm. 2123a to serve a similar tonal delaying function.13
Finally, Edward Cone recommends, somewhat difdently, that the pitch actually
be changed to Af to make the row-count correct and to avoid anticipating the An in
the forte chord on the downbeat of m. 25.14 My vote in this controversy (this time,
going against my usual procedure of preferring the correct note according to row
order) would be for An, but for a different reason than the ones Glofcheskie and
Lefkowitz give. The An enables Schoenberg to create the pitch-class set {2,4,9} in the
right hand at the end of m. 22 and beginning of m. 23, which is a member of set-
class 39, the perfect fourth or perfect fth chord. This chord makes a smooth
12
See Glofcheskie, Wrong Notes in Schoenbergs Op. 33a, pp. 9596.
13
Lefkowitz, Perspectives on Order, Disorder, Combinatoriality and Tonality, p. 78.
14
Cone, Editorial Responsibility and Schoenbergs Troublesome Misprints, Perspectives of New
Music 11/1 (FallWinter 1972): 74.
Example 5.8
+11 11
+7 6
P10 /h1
0 (0)
+7 9
5
vertical palindromic
symmetry +11
10 +7
+7
5
3 (3) first chord 5
7 1
8 (8) becomes
1 (1) 1
7 5
7
sixth chord 5
I3 /h1 2
11 7 7
11
4
Schoenberg, Piano Piece Op. 33a, mm. 23b25a (codetta; section a4). Used by permission
harmonic transition to the two perfect fth chords, one in the left hand, one in the
right, that begin the next section of the piece on the second beat of m. 23.
Following the usual sonata plan, the next section, mm. 23b24 (shown in
Example 5.8), would function as a codetta. One characteristic that helps it to do
so is its gradual ritard into an a tempo on the downbeat of m. 25. From the
standpoint of the pieces overarching narrative which obscures the ideal
through row ordering and disordering, tries to imitate it, and nally recovers it
the codetta constitutes a beginning rather than an ending, however. It begins the
process of moving back in the direction of the original ideal, the two-dimensional
palindrome, after so much of the previous music has irted with imitation
palindromes (which, as we saw, had unhealthy consequences for the row-count).
The rst hexachord of I3 starts the process in the left hand, following the unordered
pitch interval 7 between pitch classes 3 and 8 with an ordered pitch interval 7 from
pitch class 8 to 1 and an ordered pitch interval 11 from pitch class 1 to 2. If we can
think of the initial unordered pitch interval 7 as a rhythmic displacement of ordered
pitch-class interval 7, the right hand entering a beat later produces the pitch-
interval inversion <7,7,11> using pitch classes 10, 5, 0, and 11 from the rst
hexachord of P10. After the initial tetrachords, the interval symmetry breaks down,
but the codetta has already recaptured two aspects of the palindromic ideal not
just vertical symmetry, but symmetry involving the same interval classes as the
rst and sixth chords of the ideal, <1,5,5> and <5,5,1> (when spelled from
the bottom up). The diagram to the right of the pitch-class map in Example 5.8
shows how the codettas principal pitch materials could even be understood as an
intervallic transformation of the ideal shapes rst and last chords: moving the
half steps from the insides to the outsides of the vertical palindrome, and then
octave-complementing every interval, before presenting the notes within each
tetrachord in succession rather than simultaneously.
The subsequent section, mm. 25b32a, is shown in Examples 5.9a and 5.9b. This
section continues and intensies the codettas attempt to return to the perfect two-
dimensional palindrome that characterized mm. 12. As at least one scholar has
recognized, it also functions as a development section for Op. 33as sonata form.15
It fullls its developmental function in two ways. First, there are transient modu-
lations from harmonic area A10, the tonic area, through areas A0 (standing in for
supertonic, probably) and A5 (dominant), which return to A10 at the onset of the
recapitulation in m. 32, third beat.16 Second, Schoenberg presents rows in six-note
fragments for a brief part of the section (mm. 2728a), recalling the gradual
processes of thematic fragmentation that characterize Mozarts or Beethovens
development sections.
The development strives toward the two-dimensional palindrome of mm. 12,
the ideal, in four stages: the rst two move in the direction of realizing the ideal, and
the last two seem to frustrate that impulse. First, in mm. 25b26 tetrachords and
trichords begin to appear that recall segments of mm. 12, after certain intervals are
octave-complemented. None of these familiar elements pair with one another in
horizontal or vertical symmetry. At m. 27, we begin to hear trichords and
tetrachords that duplicate exactly the intervals of parts of mm. 12 (no octave
15
John Glofcheskie places the development at m. 25b, as I do, while George Perle and David Lefkowitz
prefer to wait until m. 27b, and Perle calls mm. 25b27b transitional. See Glofcheskie, Wrong
Notes in Schoenbergs Op. 33a, p. 97; Perle, Serial Composition and Atonality, p. 113; Lefkowitz,
Perspectives on Order, Disorder, Combinatoriality and Tonality, pp. 69, 75.
16
Straus in Introduction to Post-Tonal Theory, pp. 25859, interprets the developments harmonic
areas in this way.
Example 5.9a
These
relates to >6 relate to
relates to >4 relates to >4 >5 8
>3 6 >2 10 >6 Stage 2 comes from P0 /h1 >5 5 I10 /h1
Stage 1 >2 9 +4 >2 m. 6, 2nd >1 3
half note RI3 /h2 5 7
These +10 1 +6 10 R10 /h1 5
0
1 2 10 9
3
relate to 1 9 7 7
>5 3 5 1
0 2 2 2 1 2 1 2
>5 11 6 1 6 5 11 3
7 10 (10) 11
>1 8 7 8
These 8 7
5 1
8
>7
+7 5 10 4 4 4 4 4
relate to 4 3 3 relates to 3 >3
P10 2 >6 >2 comes
0 (0) relates to 1
7 >2 >3 from m. 7,
11 >1
10 10
6 7 2nd half
+10 9 >5 P5 /h1
I3 note
7 6 6 5 >5 6
3 5
10 8 4
4 (3) >7 3
7 5
3 (3) 5
7 >3 0 0 relates to
comes from 11 (11) 9 9 10 5 10 9 5 >5
8 (8) (8) 6
m. 7, 2nd 6 3 7 >5
7
5 (5)
6 6 5 5 5 6 3
>1
half note 7 5
1 (1) (1)
I3 /h2 11 0
I5 /h1
Intervals of mm. 1 2 : These four
chords are
>5 >3 >3 >6 >4 >1 relates to
A10 >5 >2 >2 >2 >2 >5 >6
horizontally
and A 0 A 5
>1 >4 >6 >3 >3 >5 >2 R10 /h2 vertically
symmetrical!
Schoenberg, Piano Piece Op. 33a, mm. 25b28a (development, rst part). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European
Example 5.9b
Palindromic contour that inverts mm. 1 2 & 10 11
Symmetrical
interval patterns
+6 Stage 3 Stage 4 based on
5< 5
4 10 5
5< Horizontally
10 I10 1< symmetrical after 0
P0 9 (9) 5
8 8 octave
6 5 5 7 complementation 7
+6 R5 6
3 3 Different kind of 3 4
5 5 2
pitch palindrome 1 +1
0 11 interrupts the
5 10 10 10 11 7
8 I10 9 9 8
7 7 6
5 1 5 1 5 +5
5 Almost-symmetrical 6
2 Based on 2 6 7 2 6 2
1 7 (1) pattern, based on 1st 1
1 Symmetrical >5 3 11 6 and 6th 0
interval patterns 11 >5 10 11 (11) 6 chords of 10 9 10
based on 3rd and 10 9 6 4 (4) (6) (4) 3 4 4
4
1 4th chords of
>1 5 2 6 +11 mm.1 2
3
1 1 0 (0) 84 0
Symmetrical mm. 1 2 6 +7 9
14 +2 +7 11 6 11
interval patterns 8
7 7 8 2 9 (9) 8 9 9
based on 1st and 7
4 6 5
6th chords of
2 3 1 Vertically 1 3
mm. 1 2 0 0 0 symmetrical
11 5
9 7 7
13
+1 8
6 6 7
5 5
4 4 RI10
3 P5
5 P5 2
10 I5 10
5 A0 A5
5
Schoenberg, Piano Piece Op. 33a, mm. 28b32a (development, second part). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European
complementation), and these units do pair with one another, and with other
interval collections, in horizontal and vertical symmetry. Measure 29b initiates a
measure-long passage that begins as if it will imitate the rst measure of the
ideal, but this is interrupted by a different kind of horizontal palindrome in the
right hand of m. 30, in the manner of those found in the second theme section.
Finally, mm. 30b32a recall mm. 1011 in that they present a pitch-class
palindrome involving I10 and R5 in the right hand and P5 and RI10 in the left
hand (so that the palindrome crosses hands). Each row divides into tetrachords
(as was the case in mm. 12 and 1011), and a few of these tetrachords either
resemble the interval patterns of the ideal or create symmetry with one another
(but not both, usually). In general, however, the pattern falls far short of mm.
12s perfect symmetry and does not even reach to the level of perfection of mm.
1011. A detailed consideration of each stage will follow.
Measures 25b26 constitute stage 1, the rst half of Example 5.9a. The left hand
begins with I3, and the right imitates with P10. As I suggested above, Schoenberg is
turning back in the direction of his opening measures ideal shape by presenting
trichords and tetrachords that recall parts of that shape, but all or some of the
intervals undergo octave complementation. For example, the initial sonority in the
left hand (m. 25, second eighth note of beat 1) projects the unordered pitch
intervals <7,7>, similar to the <5,5> presented in the top trichord of the rst
vertical in m. 1. Not long after, the right hand plays the sequence of unordered and
ordered pitch intervals <7, 7,1>, whose relationship to the last vertical of the
ideal (unordered pitch intervals <5,5,1>) seems clear. The right hands subsequent
interval sequence goes <10,9>, a reference, I think, to the unordered interval
stack <2,3> formed by the top trichords of the ideals second and third chords. In
all, there are seven references to parts of the ideal, all of them involving octave
complementation of intervals, in stage 1. The one interval stack that does not
participate also has an antecedent in earlier music: the left hand on the second
eighth note of beat 3 in m. 25b has the unordered pitch intervals <3,7>, a shape
that was prevalent in subsection a1 (see Example 5.3, m. 7, third beat), and contrib-
uted there to the breakdown of the ideal. (The reader will remember that that was
the same spot where Schoenberg ceased to divide RI3 into discrete tetrachords for
the rst time.) The interval stack <3,7> will play an important role in subsequent
measures, serving as a foil to segments from mm. 12.
Stage 2 of the development stretches from m. 27 to m. 29a, over both Examples
5.9a and 5.9b. Here, as mentioned above, Schoenberg starts a fragmenting process
that presents four pairs of hexachords in right and left hands (R10/h1 and I3/h2, RI3/
h2 and R10/h2, P0/h1 and I5/h1, I10/h1 and P5/h1). These fragments trace the same
succession of harmonic areas, A10A0A5, that will shape the remainder of the
development. With m. 28b (Example 5.9b), Schoenberg returns to complete row
forms, presenting P0 in the right hand and I5 in the left. As I suggested above, the
hexachord fragments of mm. 2728a and the complete rows of mm. 28b29a
embed a number of trichords and tetrachords that duplicate exactly the unordered
interval collections of mm. 12. Not only that, but in mm. 27b28a there are several
of these smaller elements that create horizontal and vertical interval symmetry with
one another, so that not only the individual elements but also some of the
relationships that made up the ideal are recaptured. We are coming closer to
the perfection of the pieces beginning. Some examples: the right hand plays two
chords on the two sixteenths beginning beat 4 of m. 27 that project the ordered
pitch interval 1 in the highest voice leading into a stack of two unordered pitch
intervals: <5,5>. Directly across the barline from this collection, the rst two
sixteenths of beat 1 of m. 28 produce unordered pitch intervals <5,5> followed
immediately by a pitch that makes 1 with the stacks lowest note. These two
tetrachords not only duplicate the intervals of the rst and sixth chords of mm. 12,
but project them in a way that suggests both vertical and horizontal symmetry.
While the right hand creates this small reminder of mm. 12, the left hand plays a
series of four trichord verticals with the unordered pitch intervals <7,3>, <5,5>,
<5,5>, <3,7>. The perfect fourth trichord that played such an important role as a
subset in mm. 12 is combined with the trichord <3,7> that created contrast in
stage 1, to form horizontal symmetry through the ordering of the trichords between
themselves, and vertical symmetry through the change of <7,3> to <3,7>.
The other pairs of trichords and tetrachords in mm. 27b29a that recall mm. 12
are indicated with arrows and text in the pitch-class maps of Examples 5.9a and
5.9b. One of them, in m. 28a, second beat, involves <3,7> and <7,3> again, and
one stretching from m. 28b into m. 29a incorporates octave complementation of
one of the intervals (<6,2> becomes <6,10>). Still, a close connection with the
symmetrical ideal of the pieces beginning seems to be maintained. All seems to be
in place for a return to the ideal at the beginning of the recapitulation.
But the remaining measures of the development, as I suggested above, interrupt
this relentless motion toward the palindromic ideal to explore other shapes. Stage 3
of the development, mm. 29b30a, begins with a gure in the right hand that goes
<5,5,1>, and against it the left hand presents <7,7,13>. The rst of these
tetrachords is directly from m. 1; the second can be related to it after octave
complementation of intervals. On the fourth beat of m. 29, however, the right hand
presents <3,5,6> and the left <9,9,14>, two tetrachords that cannot be derived
from the chords of mm. 12 through octave complementation. The reason for this
turn away from the ideal becomes clear in the right hand in m. 30: Schoenberg
supplants the pattern of mm. 12 with a different kind of horizontal symmetry, as he
has already done during the second theme section. The interval stack <6,7>
followed by 2 between Fs and E (highlighted by the slur) is mirrored to produce
2 followed by the interval stack <6,7>. The pitch-class map of Example 5.9b
marks all this with a bracket and the words Different kind of pitch palindrome.
Stage 4 of the development continues the turn away from the ideal. As
I remarked above, mm. 30b32a suggest a return to the conditions of mm. 1011
by the use of four row forms, I10 and R5 in the right hand and P5 and RI10 in the left,
which create a pitch-class palindrome with exchange from the right hand of mm.
3031 into the left hand of mm. 3132 and vice versa. (The reader will remember
that mm. 1011 formed a similar palindrome with P10 and RI3 in the right hand
and I3 and R10 in the left, as Example 5.4 shows.) Measures 3032 even duplicate in
the right hand the arch contour that characterized mm. 1011, though this latter
arch descends, and the rst one ascended. But several crucial qualities of the earlier
passage are missing here: in mm. 1011 all the vertical pairs of tetrachords except
the third and sixth pairs (the ones marked with ! in Example 5.4) participated in
vertical symmetry, and every tetrachord except for the third tetrachords of I3 and
R10 participated in horizontal symmetry. Here in mm. 30b32a, relatively few
tetrachords participate in symmetrical relationships of either dimension: only four
pairs do, and half of these pairs incorporate intervals that are foreign to mm. 12.
The rst tetrachord of I10 and third tetrachord of R5 duplicate the same unordered
pitch intervals, <1,5,5>, and reverse one another (at a 9 transposition). The rst
tetrachord of I10, <5,5,1>, and rst tetrachord of P5 below it, <7,7,11>, could
be reduced to a vertically symmetrical shape, after octave complementation, as
could the third tetrachord of I10, <6,7,8>, and rst tetrachord of RI10,
<4,6,5>. And, nally, the rst tetrachords of R5 and RI10 are vertically symmet-
rical with respect to one another, <4,6,5> and <4,6,5>. While the rst two
symmetries come directly from mm. 12, the latter two symmetries are based on
interval stacks that are foreign to the ideal: <4,6,5> and <5,6,4>. Though Schoen-
berg has tried in mm. 3032 to recapture an earlier stage of the piece (mm. 1011)
that points back to the palindromic ideal (mm. 12), this passage falls far short with
respect to horizontal and vertical symmetry, and with respect to duplicating the
intervals of the ideal.
The recapitulation begins with a passage that does a better job of recapturing the
intervals and symmetry of the original ideal, and at the same time reconciles
something like that ideal shape with the ordering of the home row form in
the right hand. The recapitulations variation of the rst theme is shown in
Example 5.10. Like mm. 1011 and 30b32a, this passage presents four row forms
that create a pitch-class palindrome with an exchange between right and left hands
in the middle. The right hand plays P10 followed by RI3, and the left hand has I3
followed by R10. The two features that make the recapitulations beginning sound
like a synthesis are the row ordering in the right hand, and improved (but still not
perfect) horizontal and vertical interval symmetry between the six tetrachords in
the right hand.
Row form P10 in the right hand of mm. 3233 is given in perfect linear order,
the rst time in the piece P10 has been so stated. In that sense, it resolves an issue
Example 5.10
6 Counteracts effects of combinatoriality

RI3
11 (11)
7 10
5 (5) 4 (3) (3) (3)
3 3 (2) (2)
2
2
0 0
9 9 (9) 9 8 (8) (8) (8)
8 7 7
6 6
P10 5
4 4
3
2 1 2
11 11 1 1 (1) (1) (1)
10 10 R10
8 8 11
7 5
More symmetrical,
Identical after but row order does 0
I3 1 0 9 octave not permit
complementation
6 5
4
3
10
7 6
5 4 5 1
6 6 3
7 6 6 4 6
3 8 6
6 4 5 5 7
5
1 symmetrical after octave complementation
3 3
6 2 3
7 3 6 6 2
7 11
8
10 7
8 3
7
Schoenberg, Piano Piece Op. 33a, mm. 32b34 (recapitulation, rst theme; section a5). Used by permission of Belmont Music
that has been brewing since the beginning: what is the principal row, and how
should it be ordered? Other versions of the row, like R10 and RI3, have been stated
in a linear fashion in an earlier part of the piece (mm. 35), indirectly pointing to
the ultimate basis for this compositions matrix, but a complete resolution of
questions about the movements row identity comes only at m. 32. RI3, which
follows the linear P10 in mm. 33b34, has a few vertical dyads and trichords that
compromise the linear presentation somewhat, but outside of the verticals, RI3
also adheres to row order.
At the same time, the right-hand arpeggios in mm. 3233 and chords in mm. 3334
can be understood in terms of six vertical stacks of intervals, since that texture has
been associated with similar palindromic patterns (especially variations of subsec-
tion a) in the exposition. The stacks that result are given below the pitch-class map
in Example 5.10. Of these six unordered pitch-interval collections, the rst and
sixth, <1,6,7> and <7,6,1>, display vertical symmetry. The second and fth,
<5,3,6> and <5,4,6>, would be identical if not for the middle interval. And the
third and fourth, <4,6,5> and <8,6,7>, are identical, except for octave comple-
mentation. Meanwhile, horizontal symmetry is produced by the identities and
similarities between rst and sixth, second and fth, and third and fourth chords.
In this way, Schoenberg shows that he can preserve row order and at the same time
still present a fair amount of vertical and horizontal intervallic symmetry, even
though he gave the impression at mm. 35 that row order necessarily pushes
symmetry up to a more abstract level. It seems that mm. 3234 create as much
symmetry in the right hand as they possibly can (the chords in brackets next to
tetrachord 4 and tetrachord 5 show what perfect intervallic symmetry would have
looked like; it would have been impossible for Schoenberg to use these perfectly
symmetrical interval stacks, preserve the ordering of RI3, and also create his arch-
like contour in the right hand). I believe this is enough to constitute a synthesis
between symmetry and row order.
The picture in the left hand in mm. 3234 is by no means as clear, unfortunately.
Schoenberg repeats the rhythm and texture of a sixteenth-note pickup followed by a
vertical trichord for the rst four tetrachords; this continues the rhythm and texture
of the right hand in the last three measures of the development by reversing the
order and relative duration of the trichord and single note. But the unordered pitch-
interval stacks that result from hearing the left hands tetrachords as verticals,
<10,7,6>, <8,7,3>, <3,8,6>, <6,2,3>, <2,3,3>, and <7,7,11>, yield much less
symmetry than their correspondents in the right hand. One might call attention to
the outside intervals, 6 and 3, in chords 3 and 4; these change places and thus form
partial vertical symmetry. There is also the pattern <7,6> at the top of chord 1,
which creates symmetry with <6,7> at the top of chord 1 in the right hand. But as a
whole, the left hand does little to support the synthetic function of the right hand,
from the standpoint of either interval symmetry or row order.
Example 5.11
What m. 35 would have looked like if

Schoenberg had chosen to develop the
palindrome to the same extent as in m. 14:
incomplete palindrome
2 (2) (2) (2)

R10 2 2 2 2
10 11
8 (8) (8) 8 8 8 8
6 5 (5)
4 4
(4) (4) (4)
4 9 3 1
1 0 7 7
9 10
(7) 3
7 10
3
incomplete palindrome
pc set symmetry
9
16
5
4 (4) (4) (4)
11 1 (1)
RI3 11
7 (7)
6
2 (2) (2) (2)
This note should be 10, Bf, for 0
a proper row-count; but 8
Schoenberg writes as Bn in the
fair copy 3
Schoenberg, Piano Piece Op. 33a, mm. 3536 (recapitulation, second theme; section c2). Used
by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European American Music Distributors
Example 5.11 illustrates the very brief presentation of the second theme in the
recapitulation. This passage does not have the synthetic force of its immediate
predecessor in Example 5.10. Still, if one compares mm. 3536 with the expositions
second theme (mm. 1418), one can nd a number of alterations that weaken the
effect of the different palindromes characteristic of the former section, and bring
the second theme material more into line with characteristics of the rst theme.
First, Schoenberg has attenuated the right-hand succession in m. 35 so that it does
not complete its mirror. If he had composed a complete mirror in the manner of
m. 14, the result would have appeared something like the music in the box to the
right of Example 5.11s score. Instead, m. 35s pattern goes for only ve eighth notes
before dipping into the lower register. The left hand of m. 36, second through
fourth beats, sounds like another attempt to start one of the second themes
characteristic small palindromes, but it is cut off after only four eighth notes. One
by-product of these attenuations is that the rows, R10 in the right hand and RI3 in
the left, are able to complete themselves relatively quickly in two measures, rather
than being spread out over four as they were in the exposition. So the effect that the
second theme had initially had of deforming row order and making it less perceiv-
able is tempered to a certain extent.
Meanwhile, changes to the interval patterns, and even the wrong note Bn that
Schoenberg writes on the second eighth note of beat 4 in m. 35, contribute to making
mm. 3536 sound a little more like the rst theme. The fourth eighth note in the
right hand of m. 35 yields the unordered pitch intervals <9,10> (the corresponding
intervals in m. 14 were <6,5>). <9,10> after octave complementation and interval
reversal transforms itself into <2,3>, the interval stack found within the fourth and
fth chords in mm. 12. The chord that interrupts Schoenbergs palindrome, above
the Bn that disagrees with row order (Bf would have been correct in that place),
yields the unordered pitch intervals <16,10,3>, which are an octave-complemented
and compounded version of <4,2,3>, the second chord in mm. 12.17 And there is
even some horizontal symmetry involving pitch classes (not intervals), whereby the
rst hexachord of R10 in the right hand and the second hexachord of RI3 in the left
both group together the pitch classes {2,4,7} as a chord. Unfortunately, the interval
stacks created by these two chords, <9,10> and <5,9>, do not mirror one another.
Measures 3740 serve as a coda for the movement, in which the fragmentation of
rst theme ideas characteristic of the expositions closing theme (mm. 1923a) is
referred to briey, but not carried out as thoroughly as in the exposition. There is
also a motivic connection to the recapitulation of the rst theme, which will be
discussed momentarily. The score and pitch-class map of the coda can be found as
Example 5.12. Measures 37 and 38 present yet another pitch-class palindrome, this
time with the rows laid out consecutively: P10 in m. 37a, RI3 in m. 37b, I3 in m. 38a,
and R10 in m. 38b. Perhaps the main feature of the presentation of the two rows in
m. 37 is that they undergo the same partition that they did in the recapitulation of
the rst theme, with the rst note of each tetrachord in P10 separated out through
register, as well as the last note of RI3s rst tetrachord and the rst notes of t2
and t3. What results here and in the long soprano notes of mm. 3234 is the
pitch-class succession <10,9,7,6,10,2> (shaded in Example 5.12). This cannot be a
17
My explanation for the Bn seems to make more sense than John Glofcheskies assertion that
Schoenberg is trying to de-emphasize Bf as he approaches the nal cadence, which includes Bn
but not Bf. See Glofcheskie, Wrong Notes in Schoenbergs Op. 33a, p. 94. There is another
possible justication for Bn which to my knowledge has not yet been suggested: it creates an
intervallic development in the left hand of mm. 35 and 36a whereby ordered pitch interval 10
(from pitch class 9 to pitch class 11) expands to 11, twice (pitch classes <5,6> and <11,0>). The
correct row pitch Bf would have produced a less unidirectional pattern, <10,11,10>.
Example 5.12
10
9 9 5
P10
RI3 6 5
5
1
11 11 0
10 10 P10
6 7
5 +1
2 3
0 0
9 9 10 10
8 9
7 6 5 3
5 5 6
4 5
1 0 2 2 5 1
11 11 0
11 9
7 7 8 7
6 5 R10 10
7 4 4 1 5
3 3 2
2 1 1 1
3 5 0
6 11
5 5
8 8 8 7 8
I3 3 6
I3
4 5 4 4 4
3 3 5 3
2
10
1 6
Pitch-class palindrome 5
Schoenberg, Piano Piece Op. 33a, mm. 3740 (coda; combining subsections a and b). Used
multidimensional set presentation because of the repeating pitch class 10; and the
sequence of pitch classes it forms is not motivically signicant elsewhere in the
movement. The series of ordered pitch intervals it yields, <13,14,19,8,8>,
does not have any obvious relationship to the intervals of the palindromic ideal of
mm. 12, and the set class it forms, 5-Z17 (01348), is not formed by consecutive
notes of the twelve-tone row, so we cannot speak of it as a secondary harmony.
Why this pitch-class succession should be highlighted is something of a mystery;
but, in any case, we can claim it as a feature that ties the coda to the beginning of
the recapitulation. Meanwhile, the remaining notes, after <10,9,7,6,10,2> is parti-
tioned out, group into trichords, and some of these form interval patterns that are
familiar: for example, pitch classes <6,1,3> from P10 create intervals <7,3>, a
combination important to the beginning of the development section (refer back to
Example 5.9a). And pitch classes <1,8,3> at the end of RI3 form <5, 5>, a version
of the perfect fourth sonority which plays such a prominent role in the rst and
sixth chords of mm. 12.
Measure 38 provides a similar partition, presenting the culled-out notes in the
bass voice rather than the soprano. This time, the rst note of each tetrachord of I3
and then the rst note of each tetrachord of R10 are so emphasized. The succession
that results is <3,4,6,4,3,11>, set class 4-14 (0237), which again is not a secondary
harmony with respect to the movements row, nor does it create a signicant
interval pattern. Like its predecessor in m. 37, <3,4,6,4,3,11> does make a connec-
tion with the beginning of the recapitulation, this time with the bass notes of mm.
3233a, <3,4,6>, and, as in m. 37, this seems like the best explanation for m. 38s
partition.
The last two measures and pickup, mm. 38b40, bring back a number of
fragments of the palindromic ideal and its rst-theme variations (subsections a1,
a2, b1, and b2), within a context of the two principal rows proceeding mostly in
order. These nal measures round off the movement, and remind the listener
once more of the recapitulations synthesis of symmetrical ideal and row order.
Right at the beginning, Schoenberg demonstrates that the rst tetrachords of both
P10 and I3 can create an unordered and ordered pitch-interval pattern, <5,5,1>,
that recalls the rst tetrachord of m. 1, the beginning of the ideal. In addition, the
second tetrachord of P10, <9,6,1,3>, yields exactly the same interval succession,
<5,3,10>, as it did on the fourth beat of m. 12 in subsection b2 (the pitches are
one octave higher). The third tetrachord of P10, <7,8,2,4>, creates the same interval
succession, <6,5,4>, as it did on the third beat of m. 6 in subsection a1 (here, the
pitch classes lie two octaves lower). And nally, the second tetrachord of I3,
<4,7,0,10>, gives the identical interval succession, <3,5,6>, to its prior appear-
ance in m. 9, left hand, rst beat (the pitches are an octave lower). The only
tetrachord from both rows that does not recall an earlier interval succession is
the last one heard, t3 of I3.
In summary, the Piano Piece Op. 33a solves the same problems as the Prelude
of the Suite Op. 25, just as Humphrey Searle claimed more than fty years ago.
It presents a palindromic ideal shape, then gradually deforms it, imitates it with a
different kind of palindrome, strives to return to the ideal, nally reaches it
(relatively speaking), and moves away from it again. In Op. 33a, however, this
narrative of conict and resolution involving a symmetrical ideal is accomplished
within the more assured context of combinatorial row pairs creating harmonic
areas that act like tonal key areas.
Searle and Ethan Haimo are quite correct in asserting that Schoenberg built on
his earlier successes as his compositional style evolved (though neither gives enough
credit to the notion of musical idea as a large framework for his music). With the
next chapter, we will explore the opening movement of the Fourth String Quartet
Op. 37, to see how he continues to develop and rene his technique. In the quartet
movement, he projects a musical idea through a sonata form more extensive than
that of Op. 33a, creating and resolving a conict between two motives that affects
not only the intervals but also the rhythms, meters, and tonal references of the
whole movement.
6 Fourth String Quartet Op. 37, movement I
Two motives give rise to contrasting row forms, meters, textures,
and tonalities (and are reconciled) within a large sonata form
The Fourth String Quartet was composed in 1936, the year in which Schoenberg
took up his post as Professor of Music at the University of California, Los Angeles,
and it was given its premiere by the Kolisch Quartet a year later in Los Angeles. Its
immediate chronological predecessors were the Three Songs Op. 48 (1933; written
just before Schoenberg left Berlin) and the Violin Concerto Op. 36 (193436;
composed during his rst years in the USA).1 The Op. 48 Songs are excellent
examples of Schoenbergs basic image text-painting technique, in which he
abstracts a simple or complex visual image as a crystallization of the texts meaning,
and then transforms that into pitch, interval, and rhythm or a combination of
them.2 As for the Violin Concerto, Andrew Mead describes its rst movement as
containing a . . . passage near the close that acts as a nexus of various relationships
unfolded in the course of the music, a way of understanding that in many
important respects parallels the musical ideas I have been describing.3 The
Quartet Op. 37 consists of four movements, which share the same source row
and are connected motivically in a myriad of ways. Rather than trace the inter-
movement connections here, however, my discussion will focus on the opening
Allegro, a particularly lucid example of Schoenbergs use of motivic relationships,
formal functions, and tonal references to project a musical idea.
At the end of my previous chapter, I referred to the Fourth String Quartets rst
movement, a well-known and frequently written-about piece, as a sonata form
movement. In truth, there has been some disagreement about whether it should
have such a label. Schoenberg himself, in program notes he wrote in 1949 or earlier
for performances and/or recordings of his four quartets, singles out the rst
movement of the Fourth Quartet as resembling catalogued forms in only a few
1
Hans Heinz Stuckenschmidt, Arnold Schoenberg: His Life, World and Work, trans. Humphrey Searle
(New York: Schirmer Books, 1978), pp. 366421; Marilyn McCoy, A Schoenberg Chronology, in
Walter Frisch (ed.), Schoenberg and His World (Princeton University Press, 1999), pp. 1011.
2
Stephen Peless analysis of Op. 48, No. 2, in Ist Alles Eins: Schoenberg and Symmetry, Music
Theory Spectrum 26/1 (Spring 2004): 5785, gives an exhaustive account of the multiple ways in
which Schoenberg presents two related images from the text on various levels of the music. The rst
derives from the meaning of the text, an image of mirror opposites balanced against one another
within a single entity (Der hat sein Glck, der seinen Wahn). The second is a structural quality of
the text, its division into six plus two lines, which emphasizes the mirror image just mentioned as the
center of the larger, six-line, mirror.
3
Andrew Mead, Large-Scale Strategy in Arnold Schoenbergs Twelve-Tone Music, p. 121.
Fourth String Quartet Op. 37, movement I 275
respects.4 His student Josef Rufer begins an extended discussion of the piece with
the statement the rst movement does not have the form of a classical sonata
movement (italics mine).5 Finally, Milton Babbitt in one of his Words about Music
lectures challenges the idea that m. 165, the location that most writers pinpoint as
the beginning of the recapitulation section, is a recapitulation at all, preferring to
call it a thematic recall at the tritone.6
Despite the uncertainty fostered by the composer and his disciples, most modern
accounts of the rst movement use sonata-form labels to describe its sections, and
I will follow that tradition, while nevertheless accounting for the ways in which the
movement diverges from the standard pattern.7 The rst movement does have
certain qualities that tie it to some of Schoenbergs earlier twelve-tone sonata pieces.
Like those of the rst movement of the Wind Quintet Op. 26, the relationships
between the harmonic areas of the themes in the Fourth Quartet movement recall
the modulations characteristic of tonal sonata forms (and some of these modulatory
patterns are backed up by eeting references to the tonal chords corresponding to
the harmonic area), and as in the Piano Piece Op. 33a, the recapitulation is
abbreviated. Yet this more mature piece adds a few wrinkles not seen in the earlier
ones: the most obvious and signicant wrinkle is Schoenbergs recall of pairs of
themes in counterpoint with each other in the recapitulation (the counterpoint
4
Arnold Schoenberg, Analysis, (in the Form of Program Notes) on the Four String Quartets,
manuscripts T 70.0103, Arnold Schoenberg Center, Vienna. The notes are printed as part of the
program book for La Salle Quartet, Neue Wiener Schule Schoenberg, Berg, Webern Streichquart-
ette, Deutsche Grammophon 419 994-2 (1971; p. 58 contains my quoted excerpts). Robert Pascall
also describes and quotes from the notes in Theory and Practice: Schoenbergs American Peda-
gogical Writings and the First Movement of the Fourth String Quartet, Op. 37, Journal of the Arnold
Schoenberg Center 4 (2002): 232.
5
Rufer, Composition wth Twelve Notes Related Only to One Another, p. 141.
6
Babbitt, Words about Music, p. 72. However, others make cogent arguments for the recapitulatory
function of mm. 165ff. See, for example, William Lake, Structural Functions of Segmental Interval-
Class 3 Dyads in Schoenbergs Fourth Quartet, First Movement, In Theory Only 8/2 (August 1984):
2425. Lakes argument will be considered in more detail when we discuss the recapitulations rst
theme later in this chapter (p. 316).
7
Some modern authors who characterize the piece as a sonata form: Lake, Structural Functions of
Segmental Interval-Class 3 Dyads; Eugene K. Wolf, Sonata Form, in Don Michael Randel (ed.),
Harvard Dictionary of Music, 4th edn. (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2003), p. 802; Peter
Gradenwitz, The Idiom and Development in Schoenbergs Quartets, Music and Letters 26
(1945): 13840; Oliver Neighbour, A Talk on Schoenberg for Composers Concourse, The Score
and IMA Magazine 16 (1955): 19; George Peter Tingley, A Brief Introduction to the Art of
Schoenberg, In Theory Only 1/5 (August 1975): 18; John Rex Cubbage, Directed Pitch Motion
and Coherence in the First Movement of Arnold Schoenbergs Fourth String Quartet (Ph.D.
dissertation, Washington University in St. Louis, 1979); Pascall, Theory and Practice, pp. 23842;
Christopher Wintle, An Island Formation in Schoenbergs Fourth String Quartet, in Alison Latham
(ed.), Sing, Ariel: Essays and Thoughts for Alexander Goehrs Seventieth Birthday (Aldershot: Ashgate,
2003), pp. 29198.
seems to me like a natural consequence of abbreviating the recapitulation). The rst

theme comes back at m. 165 together with a theme rst introduced in the transition
section (m. 42) by the second violin. And the second theme comes back at m. 188
together with a theme introduced not long after the beginning of the development
(m. 116). In the rst of these pairs to a small degree, and in the second pair
especially, Schoenberg ties up a number of loose ends to create a synthesis for the
entire movement. But to explain this synthesis in more detail, I must rst bring up
the problem of the two half-step motives, {2,1} and {8,7}, and their trichordal
extensions, in the expositions rst theme and transition.
Christopher Wintle begins a diary entry (describing a lecture that Alexander
Goehr gave on the Fourth String Quartet in 1994) by calling attention to a pair of
dyad motives that are strongly emphasized in the rst violins initial presentation of
the source row, P2, in mm. 16:
Schoenberg sets up this polar relation [between a tonic note and the note a tritone
away] in the rst four bars through a melodic articulation that is special to him and to
which he draws attention in the Gedanke manuscript: that is to say, in bar 1 there are
two successive strong accents on DCs, and these are answered in bars 3 and 4 by two
successive strong accents on AfG (though the second is qualied). A performance
that does not make this crystal clear is missing the way the theme poses a problem,
to use Adornos term, for the rest of the movement to solve.8
My analysis of the rst movement will focus on what sort of problem is posed by
these two descending half-step motives a tritone apart, how that problem is elabor-
ated and intensied through the course of the movement, and how Schoenberg rst
hints at its solution and then eventually solves it. Refer to Example 6.1 for a summary
of the row forms and partitions active in the main sections of the movement.
I will show how Schoenberg rst adds a third note to each dyad to form trichord
motives, {2,1,9} and {7,8,0}, and then how in the latter part of the rst theme section
he features both of these trichords, especially the second, as head motives of their
own row forms (P2 and I7). The sections in which these contrasting row forms
occur also differ in other ways, including texture, heard meter, and the tonal
references that they suggest, D minor and Bf major. In the transition, m. 27, he
demonstrates that the two motivic trichords exchange order-number locations in P2
and I7, but the question of whether both trichords could reside together in close
proximity within a single row form is still left open; this, in my reading, constitutes
the pieces main problem. In the second theme section, at m. 66, he partitions a new
row form, P9 (seven half steps higher, the equivalent of a fth, in pitch-class space),
in a new way, producing a descending chromatic scale of four notes in the cello, and
8
Wintle, An Island Formation in Schoenbergs Fourth Quartet, pp. 29192.
Example 6.1
Schoenberg, Fourth String Quartet Op. 37, movement I: row forms and partitions that
project the musical idea
Example 6.1 (cont.)
a set class 6-Z6 ({10,11,0,3,4,5} in normal form) in the viola Hauptstimme, which
predicts vaguely the solution to his problem, because it introduces the partition
and set class that will eventually solve the problem, but at a different transposition.
(Meanwhile, the use of P9 does afford several chords that evoke A minor and
A major, leading to an A minor-major seventh chord, enabling the passage to sound
something like a modulation to the dominant.) Near the end of the second theme
section, mm. 8593, 6-Z6 at the same transposition as the second theme,
{10,11,0,3,4,5}, and its complement 6-Z38 are created repeatedly by combining
the corresponding discrete trichords of P5/h1 and I10/h1; in this way Schoenberg
reinforces the importance of this set to his overall plan.
The development section introduces a new theme at m. 116 that partitions P4
and I9 into tetrachords in a way that seems foreign to the rst and second theme
partitions, but it will be shown later that this new partition can form the same
sets as the second themes partition. Near the end of the development section, mm.
15356, set class 6-Z6 comes to the fore again, as different partitions of P3 and RI8
in the Hauptstimme viola and rst violin lines yield the same pitch succession
transposed by an octave, <3,2,10,1,9,8> in pitch classes; this is not only a member

of the resolving set class but also a transposition one half step higher of the
succession <2,1,9,0,8,7>, which would unite the two trichord head motives from
the beginning of the movement and create a solution to the works problem.
My reading of the piece focuses on the second theme section of the recapitulation as
that region where Schoenberg actually does solve the movements problem and shows
how other partitions contribute to that solution. At mm. 188ff., the cello and rst
violin apply the partition from the expositions second theme to P6, forming the
familiar descending chromatic tetrachord in the cello and a member of 6-Z6 as the
rst six notes of the violin Hauptstimme. This time, however, the pitch-class succes-
sion that forms 6-Z6 is <1,2,9,7,8,0>: for the rst time, both head motives reside
within the same row form and partition of that form! In addition, the second violin
and viola divide up the combinatorial form I11 according to the development themes
partition. As it turns out, this formerly unexplainable partition yields the same
tetrachord, {3,4,5,6}, and complementary octachord, {7,8,9,10,11,0,1,2}, as the second
theme partition in the rst violin and cello. Thus the recapitulations second theme
not only solves the problem concerning whether the two trichord head motives can
exist in the same row form (which turns out to be P6), but also justies the
developmental themes partition as a way of generating the same pitch-class sets from
the combinatorial inversion of P6, I11. Finally, the coda section (mm. 239ff.) traces,
one last time (in accelerated motion), the path of the musical idea described above.
The nal measures of the rst movement, mm. 27484, then alternate hexa-
chords from P2 and I7, the rows originally associated with <2,1,9> and <7,8,0>, to
form a nal cadence that highlights the identical hexachord interval-class content of
the two rows. As Richard Kurth has pointed out, however, the nal measures also
alternate and even combine references to the keys of D minor and Bf major,
enabling those two keys each to mitigate or suspend the sensation of the other.9
After the resolution created by the two main motives from the beginning of the
piece residing in close proximity to one another, there remains an unresolved
conict between key areas at the pieces end. What Kurth does not discuss, since
his analysis covers only the last eleven measures, is how the key areas of D and Bf
have each been associated throughout the piece, but especially at the beginning,
with one of the two head motives, <2,1,9> with D and <7,8,0> with Bf. Thus the
simultaneous closure and lack of closure that Kurth posits at the nal cadence
actually culminate a conict and resolution of two families of elements: <2,1,9>,
P2, and D minor, opposed to <7,8,0>, I7, and Bf major.
As has been my habit, I will present a summary of the rst movements form before
progressing to detailed descriptions of individual sections. The chart in Example 6.2
9
Richard Kurth, Moments of Closure: Thoughts on the Suspension of Tonality in Schoenbergs
Fourth Quartet and Trio, in Reinhold Brinkmann and Christoph Wolff (eds.), Music of My Future:
The Schoenberg Quartets and Trio (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000), pp. 14952.
contains measure numbers, section labels, harmonic areas, and a comment about the
stage of the musical idea that each section represents. Most previous writers have
agreed on the usual sonata labels for parts of the movement, but I have already
mentioned notable exceptions (Schoenberg, Rufer, Babbitt), and there are further
disagreements in the literature concerning where sections begin and end, mostly with
regard to the beginning of the development. For example, George Peter Tingley
(without giving much of an explanation) puts the development where I and others
have placed the expositions second theme, m. 66. John Rex Cubbage, however, places
the development later than I do, at m. 111, preferring to call mm. 95111 a closing
section for the exposition. Since this closing section reviews material from the rst
and second themes, ending with a shortened version of the second themes cadence,
there is perhaps some justication for Cubbages labels. But this closing theme does
not come back as part of the recapitulation. Finally, Robert Pascall agrees with my
four main sections, but calls them First Division, Elaboration, Recapitulation,
and Coda, picking up on terms that Schoenberg used in teaching. Pascalls expos-
ition (or First Division) contains four themes, at mm. 1, 25 (the beginning of my
transition), 41 (what I call the transition theme), and 66.10
Now I will describe several passages from the quartet movement in detail, those
that most clearly represent the stages of its musical idea. Our tour begins with the
expositions rst theme, containing the presentation of the Grundgestalt (the
rst violin part in mm. 16) and also those places where its dyads are rst expanded
into trichords and associated with the two rows of the home area, P2 and I7.
Examples 6.3a, 6.3b, and 6.3c illustrate the three parts of the rst theme.
In Example 6.3a, the rst violin Hauptstimme highlights the initial dyad, <2,1>,
and a later dyad, <8,7>, through agogic and phenomenal accent; these are the
motivic seeds that will, when extended to trichords, create the movements princi-
pal problem (on Example 6.3as pitch-class map, they are shaded). Even in their
initial dyad forms, the two seminal motives stand across from one another, as
David Lewin and Stephen Peles have shown. In an arrangement of the pitches of the
Grundgestalt from lowest to highest (which can be found between the notation and
the pitch-class map on Example 6.3a), Cs4D4 stand in the middle of the lowest six
notes, and G4Af4 stand in the middle of the highest six.11
There are two features of the rst part of the rst theme that bring out the trichord
{1,2,9}, what I am calling the extension of <2,1>, so that it becomes a salient element
10
Tingley, A Brief Introduction, p. 20; Cubbage, Directed Pitch Motion and Coherence, p. 12;
Pascall, Theory and Practice, pp. 23842.
11
David Lewin, Inversional Balance as an Organizing Force in Schoenbergs Music and Thought,
pp. 1415; Stephen Peles, Schoenberg and the Tradition of Imitative Counterpoint: Remarks on the
Third and Fourth Quartets and the Trio, in Reinhold Brinkmann and Christoph Wolff (eds.),
Music of My Future: The Schoenberg Quartets and Trio (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
2000), pp. 12329.
Example 6.2
Schoenberg, Fourth String Quartet Op. 37, movement I: form chart

Example 6.2 (cont.)
Example 6.2 (cont.)
to the listener. First, as many others have already noticed, the three accompanying
voices present, as verticals, the three trichords of P2 that complement each discrete
trichord of the rst violin (a total of twelve discrete trichord verticals). Because of this
two-dimensional presentation of the row, the trichord extension of <2,1>, {1,2,9},
occurs once on the last beat of notated m. 2,12 once on the third beat of notated m. 3,
and once each on the third and fourth beats of notated m. 4 and the downbeat of
notated m. 5 (these appearances are circled and shaded on Example 6.3a). But these
{1,2,9} verticals are emphasized in other ways besides their mere repetition. David
Lewin and Richard Kurth have described how the accent pattern that emphasizes the
two seminal dyads also reshapes the heard meter of the Grundgestalt so that it
diverges from the notated 4/4: as the rhythmic notation in the topmost line of
Example 6.3a illustrates, the listener probably hears a 3/2 measure at the beginning
and another 3/2 measure starting with the Af4 in m. 3, with a 2/2 measure in
between.13 However, more important for our considerations is Kurths heard meter
for the accompaniment, a different pattern than the Grundgestalts heard meter,
which slows down to a 3/2 bar at notated m. 4, and then speeds up to 3/4. Within this
metrical pattern, the {1,2,9} that appears three times in notated mm. 45 can be heard
as that element which slows the accompaniment down, giving the trichord even more
salience, so that it seems to emerge through the rst part of the rst theme.
That same {1,2,9} trichord, since it sounds under a pair of Fss in the rst violin in
m. 4, can also be interpreted as a D-major seventh chord, giving a tonal avor to
Example 6.3as cadence. (See the gray enclosures and associated chord labels on the
example.) If we tune our ears to hear it as such, then it is supported by other
motives and sonorities before it that evoke D major or minor, including the other
{2,1,9} motives and some of their surrounding pitches. These alternate with motives
and chords that sound like Bf major or Bf11 with a at ninth, stemming from the
second discrete trichord of the row, <10,5,3>. Such alternation between D and Bf
chords will continue throughout the movement, and (as I mentioned above) they
become especially prominent at the nal cadence.
As Schoenberg progresses into the second part of the rst theme, another trichord
head motive becomes prominent. See Example 6.3b. This time it is {0,7,8}, the
extension of the second, antithetical seed dyad in the Grundgestalt <8,7>, and the
rst three pitch classes of the row form combinatorial with P2 that is, I7. This trichord
12
Godfrey Winham points out in Schoenbergs Fourth String Quartet: Vertical Order of the
Opening, Theory and Practice 17 (1992): 64, that this {1,2,9} vertical on the fourth beat of m. 2
duplicates the rst three pitch classes of the rst violin, <2,1,9>, while the second trichord of the
rst violin, <10,5,3>, has been foreshadowed by the initial {3,5,10} vertical in m.1. An exchange of
trichords between melody and accompaniment results, an idea that will be developed extensively
just before and in the transition section (starting at m. 25).
13
David Lewin, Vocal Meter in Schoenbergs Atonal Music, with a Note on a Serial Hauptstimme, In
Theory Only 6/4 (May 1982): 34; Richard Kurth, The Art of Cadence in Schnbergs Fourth String
Quartet, Journal of the Arnold Schnberg Center 4 (2002): 24659.
Example 6.3a
Schoenberg, Fourth String Quartet Op. 37, movement I, mm. 16a (exposition, rst theme, rst part). Schoenberg STRING QUARTET No. 4
Op. 37, Copyright 1939 by G. Schirmer, Inc. All rights reserved, International copyright secured. Used by permission of G. Schirmer, Inc.
Example 6.3b
Schoenberg, Fourth String Quartet Op. 37, movement I, mm. 6b9 (exposition, rst theme,
second part). Used by permission of G. Schirmer, Inc.
will continue to be prominent in the continuation subsection of the rst theme, mm.
1726, but even in mm. 67 it comes to the fore strongly. It occurs no fewer than three
times, as the pickups to the downbeat of m. 7 in the second violin Hauptstimme
<7,8,0>, and as verticals on the downbeat of m. 7 and that same measures fourth beat
(the rst of these verticals repeats twice in a dotted eighthsixteenth rhythm that looks
forward to the development section). If we adopt the heard meter that Kurth suggests
for mm. 69, 3/4 (see the top two lines of Example 6.3b), then the two {0,7,8} chords
land on consecutive downbeats, becoming even more prominent. The heard 3/4 also
sets off the middle subsection of the rst theme as something contrasting, underlining
the notion that {0,7,8} is something very different from {1,2,9}.
Another source of contrast for the middle subsection of the rst theme is the use
of the third and fourth discrete trichords of I7, <5,9,1> and <2,3,10>, as arpeggios
or sonorities in mm. 89. These trichords evoke tonal references, Bf:V and Iadd4
respectively. As Example 6.3b shows, their distribution suggests a VI progression

in the second violin Hauptstimme itself, and another in the chords on the fourth
beat of m. 8 and third beat of m. 9. In this way, we might hear an association of the
second head motive, <7,8,0>, with the key of Bf, enabling us to grasp retrospect-
ively the alternation of D and Bf in the rst six measures as a tonal parallel to the
battle for salience of the two head motives.
In the third part of the rst theme, illustrated in Example 6.3c, {1,2,9} becomes
prominent again for a little while, before {0,7,8} begins to dominate the texture
after m. 16. {1,2,9} occurs three times as a vertical in the accompaniment: on the
fourth beat of notated m. 10, again on the second eighth note of beat 3 and
beginning of beat 4 in notated m. 11, and on the fourth notated beat of m. 12.
Then the trichord moves up into the rst violin part and creates a pitch-class
palindrome with itself: <9,1,2,2,1,9>. As before, if we adopt Kurths heard meter
(see the second line of the rhythmic map at the top of the example), the salience of
the verticals in question is enhanced, and even becomes stronger as the passage
progresses: the rst vertical comes on the fourth beat of m. 10 as in the notation,
the second verticals are those that begin to break the overriding meter down in the
accompaniment (coming on the second eighth note of beat 3 and downbeat of 4),
and the third vertical comes on a downbeat of a heard measure. The last horizontal
<2,1,9> is also brought out by the heard meter: each of the three notes corres-
ponds to a beat in the heard 9/8 in the Hauptstimme (top line of the rhythmic map,
right side). With regard to tonal references in the third part of the rst theme, the
focus goes back to D major/minor, as all four instruments in the latter half of m. 13
sound a major V13 chord. This V13 makes a crescendo into a lone D, played f , in
the rst violin in m. 14. The strong shift back to D reinforces the connection of that
tonal reference with the rst head motive, <2,1,9>, which follows it immediately
in mm. 1516.
As I suggested above, the {0,7,8} trichord and the row of which it is the head
motive, I7, take over in the continuation subsection of the rst theme before the
transition enters at m. 27. Part of the continuation, mm. 2124, is illustrated in
Example 6.4. Each voice of the string quartet from top to bottom begins I7 a quarter
note later than the previous one, but only the rst violin and cello complete the row.
The result is a two-dimensional presentation of I7: the rst violin and cello state it
horizontally in order, while the rst and third quarters of m. 22 stack the four
discrete trichords of I7 vertically. The parallel with Schoenbergs treatment of P2 in
mm. 16 and R2 in mm. 916 seems signicant: in those passages, the row was
given horizontally in the rst violin as the theme that spanned the passage, while
each measure (or unit longer than a measure, as the passage progressed) presented
three-quarters of the same row as discrete trichord verticals. An important by-
product of the two-dimensional approach in mm. 2122 is that the head motive of
I7, <7,8,0>, the opposing trichord to <2,1,9>, is heard no fewer than ve times,
more frequently than any other trichord besides <11,4,6>, which also appears ve
Example 6.3c
Schoenberg, Fourth String Quartet Op. 37, movement I, mm. 9b16a (exposition, rst theme, third part). Used by permission of G. Schirmer, Inc.
Example 6.4
Schoenberg, Fourth String Quartet Op. 37, movement I, mm. 2124 (exposition, rst theme, continuation). Used by permission of G. Schirmer, Inc.
times directly following or together with <7,8,0> (as in previous examples, the
instances of <7,8,0> are circled in the notation of Example 6.4 and shaded in the
pitch-class map).
The remainder of the passage, mm. 2324, presents the four discrete trichords of
I7 twice, one in each voice, but overlaps them, starting each trichord after the one
that precedes it in the row, so that I7 is partly horizontal and partly vertical a
compromise between the two dimensions that were presented simultaneously in
mm. 2122. Here again, <7,8,0> appears repeatedly, now conned to the second
violin and in a single register. The last of the three occurrences of the head motive
is turned around (retrograded) to create a palindrome like the one that ended the
rst theme proper in mm. 1316: <7,8,0,0,8,7>.14 If we attempt to construct a heard
meter for mm. 2124 in the spirit of Kurths interpretations of the rst theme
proper, the dynamics in m. 23 (forte for 3 beats, decreasing to piano on the fourth
beat) and the fact that the second violin repeats its trichord in the same register on
the fourth beat of m. 23 suggest a momentary 3/4 measure. Within this measure, the
second violin would be heard as the leading voice starting a chain of discrete
trichords, and this would be followed by a 5/4 measure where the second violin,
sounding like an echo of m. 23s downbeat, again starts the chain of trichords.
Hearing the two <7,8,0> trichords in mm. 2324 as starting points gives them an
increased salience that seems consistent with the emphasis given to that trichord in
mm. 2122.
As was the case in the previous I7 passage, mm. 6b9, the division of that row
into discrete trichords in mm. 2124 yields three-note chords that strongly evoke
V and I in the key of Bf major. The heard meter emphasizes the sense that
dominant leads to tonic three times (see the gray brackets below and above the
pitch-class map on Example 6.4). In the rst two cases, V comes before the heard
barline, and the tonic in Bf comes one or two eighth notes after that barline. Thus
Schoenberg continues to associate <2,1,9> with the home key of D minor and
<7,8,0> with its submediant major; and the alternating tonal references are
perhaps the most easily audible manifestation of the opening measures deepening
conict.
The initial measures of the transition section between rst and second themes are
illustrated in Example 6.5. This passage contributes in two ways to the narrative of
the rst movement: it demonstrates that the opposing trichord head motives
change places in P2 and I7, suggesting a partial resolution of the conict between
14
Rufer in Composition with Twelve Notes Related Only to One Another (pp. 14748) singles out this
nal, retrograde occurrence of the head motive <0,8,7>, making reference to its appearances
(mostly in transposition) in the fourth movement of the quartet and giving it the status of motive
of the accompaniment. He also hears the two <7,8,0>s in the second violin at mm. 2324 as
leading motives (as I will do), as his label for them, a1, seems to suggest.
Example 6.5
Schoenberg, Fourth String Quartet Op. 37, movement I, mm. 2731 (exposition, transition, rst part). Used by permission of G. Schirmer, Inc.
them, and it expands the small pitch-class and pitch palindromes that ended the
rst theme proper and the continuation subsection into a larger ve-measure pitch-
class mirror which encompasses all four voices. (Since Schoenberg abandons
discrete trichord partitions at this point in the movement, I have chosen to project
the pitch-class map for Example 6.5 as mosaics induced by instrumentation on the
rows pitch classes, which are listed in a straight line.) David Lewin and Peter
Westergaard have already commented on the set-class and pitch-class-set
exchanges that characterize mm. 2728 (and are adumbrated in mm. 2526, a sort
of bridge from the rst theme to the transition). Westergaard shows how the rst
and second violins exchange set classes 3-1 (012) and 3-4 (015) from the rst half to
the second half of m. 27 (and also between the two halves of m. 28). In addition,
between mm. 27 and 28, the rst and second violins exchange not only set classes
but actual pitch-class sets: the pitch-class sets {1,2,3} and {0,4,11} that were played
by the rst violin in m. 27 move to the second violin in m. 28, and the pitch-class
sets {5,9,10} and {6,7,8} that the second violin took in m. 27 are played by the rst
violin in m. 28. (When <5,9,10> appears in the rst violin at m. 28, it evokes Bf
major tonality, as it did in previous passages: soltido. See the tonal references
placed above and below the score in Example 6.5.) The pitch-class map of the upper
two voices at the bottom edge of Example 6.5 illustrates these pitch-class-set and
set-class exchanges. Unfortunately, these same kinds of exchanges do not carry over
to the lower two instruments.15
David Lewin recognizes another kind of trichord exchange in mm. 2728 that
involves the cello, and in addition it plays an important part in the narrative we have
been building for the entire movement involving the opposition and reconciliation of
{1,2,9} and {0,7,8}. According to Lewin, the rst discrete trichord of P2 in m. 27,
played by both rst and second violins, <2, 1-above-9>, is answered in retrograde by
the cello, <9,1,2>, playing order positions 79 in I7 (and creating soltido in the
key of D minor, which precedes the one in Bf mentioned in the preceding paragraph
by one measure). Likewise in m. 28, the rst discrete trichord of I7, again shared by
rst and second violins, <7, 8-above-0>, is answered by the cello with order
positions 79 of P2, <0,8,7>.16 The two head motives, which to this point have
resided only in their own rows, <2,1,9> in P2 and <7,8,0> in I7, now migrate to
positions 79 in each others row, and this is facilitated by the new partitions that
characterize the beginning of the transition section, <0,1,5,6,7,11>, <2,3,4,8,9,10>
in the rst and second violins and its retrograde <0,4,5,6,10,11>, <1,2,3,7,8,9> in
the viola and cello. This seems to me like a preliminary step to showing how both
motives can reside in a single row (which will occur in the recapitulations second
15
Peter Westergaard, Toward a Twelve-Tone Polyphony, Perspectives of New Music 4/2 (Spring
Summer 1966): 10001.
16
David Lewin, A Theory of Segmental Association in Twelve-Tone Music, Perspectives of New
Music 1/1 (Fall 1962): 9293.
theme, as suggested above).17 At the same time, it enables the counterpoint to

alternate references to D and Bf tonalities with greater speed than before.
The remainder of Example 6.5 reveals that the set-class and pitch-class-set
exchanges that Westergaard and Lewin recognized, some of which create small
mirror forms, are actually the rst half of a larger mirror structure spanning mm.
2731, which no previous author has recognized, to my knowledge. Schoenbergs
choice of row forms for the top two and bottom two voices in this passage, P2I7
R2RI7 in the violins and I7P2RI7R2 in the viola and cello, creates two strings of
pitch classes that are retrogrades of one another. Moreover, he chooses a partition
for the viola and cello that retrogrades that of the violins, as noted above, so that the
partitioned trichords from end to beginning of the viola and cello parts match
exactly the partitioned trichords from beginning to end of the two violin parts.
I hear this passage as a natural outgrowth and development of the melodic
palindromes that ended the rst theme proper in mm. 1316 (rst violin), and
the rst themes continuation in mm. 2324 (second violin). Now the mirror has
grown to encompass the whole texture. An interesting by-product of this is that the
invariances Lewin remarked on in mm. 2728 are mirrored in mm. 2931 by
invariances from ordered <7,8,0> and <2,1,9> trichords in the second violin to
trichords that occur between cello and viola. Likewise, Westergaards set-class and
pitch-class-set exchanges involving the violins in mm. 2728 are duplicated in
retrograde in the viola and cello in mm. 2931 (these are not highlighted in the
pitch-class map, but the reader should be able to locate them nevertheless).
The remainder of the transition section carries out modulations to harmonic
areas A7, A4, A10, A6, and A9 (the key of the second theme, which does in fact
privilege sonorities built up from A, as we will discuss). Though all of the transition
is worthy of description, for spaces sake I have chosen to focus on two very brief
passages that play important roles in the movements narrative, mm. 3537 and
mm. 4247 (the latter passage constitutes what I call the theme of the transition).
They are illustrated in Examples 6.6 and 6.7.
17
A number of other authors focus on the beginning of the transition section (especially the partitions
created by the two violins in mm. 2728), and make interesting and valuable observations that connect
this section to music that comes before and after it, identifying long-range relationships that operate
alongside the movements musical idea as I am describing it. Stephen Peles comments on how the notes
assigned to the rst violin from P2 and I7 in mm. 2728 associate all of the same dyads temporally and
instrumentally that the rst violin Grundgestalt has associated registrally: <2,1>, <3,4>, <0,11>,
<7,8>, <6,5>, <9,10> (compare my pitch-class map of mm. 2728 in Example 6.5 with the registral
arrangement of the Grundgestalts pitches in Example 6.3a). See Peles, Schoenberg and the Tradition
of Imitative Counterpoint, pp. 13031. Ethan Haimo notices that the violin partitions in m. 27 (of P2)
create two hexachords in set class 6-1, {11,0,1,2,3,4} and {5,6,7,8,9,10}, that are almost invariant with the
hexachords (also 6-1s) caused by the same partition of I0 in mm. 4142: {10,11,0,1,2,3} and {4,5,6,7,8,9}.
In this way, Schoenberg makes a connection in mm. 4142 between the home harmonic area A2 and
A7, which seemed remote when it made its entrance at m. 31. See Haimo, Tonal Analogies in Arnold
Schnbergs Fourth String Quartet, Journal of the Arnold Schnberg Center 4 (2002): 22324.
Example 6.6
Schoenberg, Fourth String Quartet Op. 37, movement I, mm. 34b37 (exposition, transition, rst part). Used by permission of G. Schirmer, Inc.
Measures 3537 have a predictive or foreshadowing function: both the presenta-

tion of P7 in the two violins and the presentation of I0 in the viola and cello
introduce partitions that either match exactly or are similar to important partitions
later in the piece. The violins divide up P7 according to a mosaic that will become
characteristic of the development sections theme in mm. 116ff. There, Schoenberg
will generate secondary orderings of the twelve pitch classes by having the Haupt-
stimme play rst the outside tetrachords of one of these partitions and then the
middle tetrachord of a second one on the same row. But here in mm. 3537, only a
single row form gets the development themes partition, and so the multidimen-
sional capabilities of the partition are not yet realized.18 Meanwhile, the viola
and cello divide up I0 according to the following scheme: viola {0,1,7,8,9,10,11};
cello {2,3,4,5,6}. Previous writers on the quartet seem not to have recognized that
this partition adumbrates the one that will be adopted by the viola and cello at mm.
6668, the second themes beginning. There the cello has {0,1,7,11} (an order-number
subset of the violas partition at mm. 3537), and the viola {2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10} (an order-
number superset of the cellos partition in the earlier passage). For comparison, a
reproduction of the partition of P9 between viola and cello in mm. 6668 can be found
just below their partition of I0 in mm. 3537 in Example 6.6. The reason why it is
important to notice that an approximation of the second themes partition is also
present here is that this passage at mm. 3537 thereby becomes a foreshadowing of the
second theme section of the recapitulation, mm. 188ff., where the second and devel-
opmental themes are brought back in counterpoint and the problem of the movement
is solved. Even before the listener hears either of the second or developmental themes,
the relationship between them that is revealed in mm. 188ff. is already suggested in
mm. 3537! (That relationship, in this early manifestation of it, has to do with the rst
four pitch classes of the cello in mm. 3536, <5,4,9,11>, being duplicated as the rst
violins pitch classes in mm. 3637, <9,5,11,4>.)
Measures 4247 are illustrated in Example 6.7a. The theme given in the second
violin Hauptstimme here was not among those listed by Schoenberg in his analytic
notes on the quartet, but modern interpreters have given it a variety of labels, from
Seitensatz to subsidiary theme.19 Since in my form chart this theme occurs in the
18
Ethan Haimo and Oliver Neighbour have also recognized the predictive quality of the violin
partition in mm. 3537 for the developments theme, though they say nothing about the similarity
of the partition between viola and cello in the same measures to that of the expositions second
theme. See Haimo, Tonal Analogies in Arnold Schnbergs Fourth String Quartet, pp. 22728;
Neighbour, A Talk on Schoenberg, pp. 2122.
19
See Schoenberg, Analysis, (in the Form of Program Notes) on the Four String Quartets, pp. 6971. The
label Seitensatz was given to the theme by Christian Martin Schmidt in Arnold Schoenberg: Smtliche
Werke, section VI: Kammermusik, series B, vol. XXI, Streichquartette, Streichtrio, Kritischer Bericht,
Skizzen, Fragmente, ed. Christian Martin Schmidt (Mainz: B. Schotts Shne, Vienna: Universal-Edition,
1984), p. 73. Oliver Neighbour identies it as the most important subsidiary theme of the rst thematic
group in A Talk on Schoenberg, p. 21 (and discusses similarities between it and the rst theme).
Example 6.7a
Schoenberg, Fourth String Quartet Op. 37, movement I, mm. 4247 (exposition, transition, second part: transition theme). Used by permission
of G. Schirmer, Inc.
Example 6.7b
Schoenberg, sketch for Fourth String Quartet Op. 37, movement I, showing partition used in
mm. 4244, adapted from Martha Hyde, The Roots of Form, Example 2. Sketch used by
permission of Belmont Music Publishers
middle of a series of modulations from A2 (the key of the rst theme) to A9 (the key a
fth higher), I have chosen to call it the transition theme. As we shall see, there is
another reason to give it that label as well. Other scholars have discussed how Schoen-
berg uses an alternating discrete trichord partition, order positions <0,1,2,6,7,8> in
the second violin and <3,4,5,9,10,11> in the accompaniment, to produce two
members of set class 6-16 (014568), the same set class projected by the discrete
hexachords of the row. Martha Hyde brings up one of Schoenbergs sketches for the
quartet in The Roots of Form in Schoenbergs Sketches (her Example 2, somewhat
adapted as my Example 6.7b), which shows Schoenberg was searching in his sketching
process for a partition that produced other members of set class 6-16 as secondary
harmonies, and discovered it in the alternate discrete trichord partition (see the beams
below the example and transcription, which highlight alternate discrete trichords).
And as Ethan Haimo and Paul Johnson show, Schoenberg applied the same
partition twice in mm. 4244, once to I9 and once to RI9. What results is a
pitch-class palindrome where the two trichords of the second violin in mm. 4243
(which together form set class 6-16) are answered in reverse in mm. 4344 by the
viola and cello, and the two trichords of the viola and cello in mm. 4243 are
answered in reverse in mm. 4344 by the second violin (see the balloons on the
notation of mm. 4244 in Example 6.7a).20 The rst of these second violin trichords
makes yet another reference to Bf, tidomi, which is however not well supported by
the lower voices. The whole exchange pattern is a smaller version of the large
palindrome that we found at mm. 2731, limited to three voices and two measures
plus a downbeat. As such, it shares important qualities with the beginning of the
transition, and it is therefore marked as a transition theme.
The remainder of Example 6.7a, mm. 44b47, is not discussed by prior analysts of
the quartet. It is an interesting passage, though, in which Schoenberg gradually
morphs from the alternate discrete trichord partition back toward two features
characteristic of the beginning of the rst theme: the discrete trichord partition,
and his habit of giving one horizontal discrete trichord to the Hauptstimme
(the second violin here) and letting the other three serve as verticals in the
accompaniment. In the transition theme, however, there is no regular cycling
through the discrete trichords of the row as there was in the earlier passage. Instead,
the second violin begins (in the middle of m. 44) by playing the third trichord of P4
forward, followed by the fourth trichord backward (the accompaniment in the viola
and cello, meanwhile, continues with an alternate discrete trichord partition of P4
<9,10,11,3,4,5> and then adds order positions 20 to it). Then the Hauptstimme
continues with the second trichord of P4, again backward, following that with the rst
trichord of P4, also in reverse. What results is a secondary ordering of the twelve pitch
classes, but not an ordered transformation of the row, because of the second violins
variations in direction. (This secondary ordering is shaded and its pitch classes are
given in bold within the pitch-class map for mm. 4446.) The accompaniment,
meanwhile, plays the remaining trichords of the two P4s as verticals, progressing in
row order through them. On the second beat of m. 46, the rst violin begins RI9 with
a horizontal statement of the rst discrete trichord <0,5,4>, while the viola and cello
state the other trichords as verticals, but now it is the verticals that are given out of
order the third trichord rst, then the second, and lastly the rst. Finally, with mm.
4647 we reach a division of the row that resembles more clearly the procedure from
20
Ethan Haimo and Paul Johnson, Isomorphic Partitioning and Schoenbergs Fourth String Quartet,
Journal of Music Theory 28/1 (Spring 1984): 5758 (Haimo and Johnson also make the point that
the pitch-class content of the hexachords created by the alternate discrete trichord partition of I9,
{2,3,7,9,10,11} and {0,1,4,5,6,8}, is the same as that of the discrete hexachords of P5 and I10, a pair
that will take over the texture at m. 80); Martha Hyde, The Roots of Form in Schoenbergs
Sketches, Journal of Music Theory 24/1 (Spring 1980): 89. The sketch Hyde discusses is No.
1031 in the catalog of the Arnold Schnberg Center and is accessible from its website as MS41_1031.
jpg at www.schoenberg.at (accessed August 1, 2013).
the pieces beginning: the second violin takes the rst discrete trichord of I9,
<9,10,2>, and the viola and cello play the other three trichords in order as verticals.
Not only the procedure of the rst theme is recaptured here, though. Since the rst
and last discrete trichords of any row in Op. 37s matrix belong to set class 3-4 (015),
the set class of the two opposing head motives <2,1,9> and <7,8,0>, in a strong
sense these motives are being reasserted as well, after a passage in the second violin in
mm. 4445 that featured the second discrete trichord of the row, 3-9 (027). <0,5,4>
is a reordering and transposition of <2,1,9>, and <9,10,2> is a transposed inversion
of it that holds two pitch classes invariant.
We now skip over the transitions cadence, mm. 62b65, an interesting
passage because of its seeming lack of connection to the preceding or following
music,21 to the second theme section of the exposition, mm. 6672, which is
portrayed in Example 6.8. As I described above, the rst few measures of the
second theme (mm. 6668) introduce a rather unusual partition of the domin-
ant row form P9 in the lower instruments, <0,1,7,11> in the cello and
<2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10> in the viola Hauptstimme. This partition has not been heard
previously, but a close relative foreshadowed it in mm. 3536, as was discussed
earlier. What results from this partition is set class 4-1 (0123) in the cello, set as
a descending chromatic scale <A2, Gs2, Gn2, Fs2>, and the complement 8-1 in
the viola. Of the Hauptstimmes eight notes, however, the rst six are set off by a
slur (over the rst ve) and by the relatively long note values of the fth and
sixth notes (see the enclosure in the notation and shading in the pitch-class
map), and it is this hexachord, not the eight-note phrase, that Schoenberg will
continue to develop in the following measures of the second theme section. The
hexachord <4,5,0,10,11,3> is a member of set class 6-Z6 (012567). Why is this
signicant? The specic ordering given here can be broken down into <4,5,0>,
a transposed (by t 3) and reordered form of <2,1,9>; and <10,11,3>, a
transposition by t 3 of <7,8,0>. (At the bottom of Example 6.8, the steps by
which <2,1,9> can be transformed into <4,5,0> and <7,8,0> into <10,11,3>
are laid out.) Thus the viola Hauptstimme suggests (but only suggests) how the
two conicting head motives from the rst theme section could coexist within a
21
Christopher Wintle makes this cadence the central focus, the island, in An Island Formation in
Schoenbergs String Quartet, describing how these measures are formed from new sonorities,
rhythms, and textures (p. 293). Ethan Haimo, on the other hand, is able to connect the cadence to
an earlier part of the movement, mm. 3536. He understands mm. 62b65 as Schoenbergs
demonstration that I2 possesses collectional invariance with P7 under a discrete tetrachord partition.
To be sure, the rst violin in mm. 62b63 does clearly partition I2 into discrete tetrachords,
<2,3,7,6>, <11,1,0,4>, <8,9,10,5>, and if we return to mm. 3536, group the two violins together,
and progress through the passage chronologically (a different partition than the one I suggested in
Example 6.6), we get <7,6,2,3>, <10,8,9,5>, <1,0,11,4>. See Haimo, Tonal Analogies in Arnold
Schnbergs Fourth String Quartet, pp. 22526.
Example 6.8
Schoenberg, Fourth String Quartet Op. 37, movement I, mm. 6672 (exposition, second theme, beginning). Used by permission of G. Schirmer, Inc.
single row form and partition, providing a solution to the movements principal
problem. The composer would only have to transpose <4,5,0,10,11,3> by 9 in
pitch-class space (i.e., undo the t 3), and he would arrive at <1,2,9,7,8,0>.
That is exactly what he does in the recapitulation, but for now (for the entire
second theme section in the exposition, that is) he will focus on working with
the pitch classes {10,11,0,3,4,5} in different orderings.22
Before describing some of these variations of {10,11,0,3,4,5} later in the second
theme section, I want to consider a few interesting features of the last three and a
half measures of Example 6.8. Strangely enough, Schoenberg after m. 68 returns to a
discrete tetrachord partition in the viola on I2, <2,3,7,6>, <11,1,0,4>, <8,9,10,5>,
projected by repetitions and a variation of the second themes triplet-plus-downbeat
rhythmic motive. This makes the suggested solution I just described a eeting one
(it will be repeated in the recapitulation and coda), but it also draws a connection
with the transitions cadence in mm. 62b65. Maybe that cadence, which is rightly
described as an island formation by Alexander Goehr and Christopher Wintle for
its unusual partitions, rhythms, and textures with respect to the music preceding it
(see n. 21 above), can also be heard as a foreshadowing of the second themes second
phrase: not only the pitch classes but also most of the ordered pitch intervals are
carried over from the rst violin in mm. 62b64 to the viola in mm. 6871.
Meanwhile, the cello also creates contiguous partitions of I2, but not tetrachords.
The two violins in Example 6.8 set up a pattern loosely resembling the accom-
paniment during the rst theme; Schoenberg works his way around the row,
projecting rst segments of P9 and then I2 as verticals. These segments are not
always discrete trichords; indeed, several of them are not trichords and two of them
are not even contiguous. But they do create some interesting by-products with the
lower voices, with respect to tonal references, after m. 69. It was mentioned earlier
that the harmonic area in the second theme, A9, stands a perfect fth higher than
the A2 of the rst theme. This gives Schoenberg the opportunity to balance the rst
22
The literature on the rst movement of the Fourth Quartet has said very little about the unusual
partition of the rst three measures of the second theme, which is surprising, since it plays such a
crucial role in solving the main problem of the work. Ethan Haimo in Tonal Analogies in Arnold
Schnbergs Fourth String Quartet focuses on the fact that P9 and I2 are the equivalent (in pitch-
class space) of a perfect fth higher than P2 and I7, and thus in some sense, the second theme and
much of its continuation are set in the dominant key. As mentioned above, he also highlights the
collectional invariance of P7 and I2 under the discrete tetrachord partition, tying the second theme
to the transition preceding it. See his Tonal Analogies in Arnold Schnbergs Fourth String
Quartet, pp. 22526. William Lake points out that the viola Hauptstimme in mm. 6668 holds
only one of the rst themes ve contiguous half steps invariant. The original half steps were <2,1>,
<9,10>, <3,4>, <8,7>, and <7,6>, and the second theme returns only <2,1>, which is not even
projected as a half step in pitch space (all ve of the original ones were). So he hears the second
theme as something remote from the rst theme, not as the suggestion of a solution. See Lake,
Structural Functions of Segmental Interval-Class 1 Dyads, pp. 2627.
themes emphasis on D minor with one on A major/minor, and thus at least to hint
at the key relationships that tie rst and second themes together in tonal sonata
forms. And, in fact, he does make use of that opportunity to some degree, though
the tonal functions appear so eetingly that one might question their ability to help
the listener perceive the form. The opening cello motive in m. 66, with its pause on
Gs, could be heard as doti in A, there is a suggestion of IV in A major on the rst
three eighth notes of m. 69, and the violas E and Gs in m. 70 evoke V (though the
other voices obscure that function). A tonic minor-major seventh appears more
distinctly on the third beat of m. 70 in all voices, and a V9I cadence emerges briey
on the third and fourth beats of m. 71. Then, nally, another tonic minor-major
seventh occurs on the latter half of the second beat in m. 72.
We now jump ahead to the last four measures of the second themes continuation
subsection, mm. 8588, and the cadence to the second theme, mm. 8994. In these
measures, Schoenberg begins to emphasize more strongly the set he so eetingly
touched on in mm. 6668, {10,11,0,3,4,5}, the suggested solution, by creating it
repeatedly using other row forms and partitions and varying the way in which its
pitch classes are presented. See Example 6.9 for an illustration of mm. 8595a (in
these measures, the featured hexachord is circled in the musical notation and shaded
in the pitch-class map). The ending measures of the continuation present second
hexachords from RI10 and R5, which are retrogrades of the two row forms that have
been in effect since m. 79. The violins split RI10/h2 into its discrete trichords, {2,7,9}
and {3,10,11}, and the lower instruments split R5/h2 into its discrete trichords,
{1,6,8} and {0,4,5}. When we consider the verticals that are formed in these measures
by cross-partitioning the two second hexachords (as is shown underneath the pitch-
class map for mm. 8588), we hear {1,2,6,7,8,9}, a member of 6-Z38 (012378), and
the set in question, {10,11,0,3,4,5}, from 6-Z6. Thus Schoenberg shows us that the
suggested solution can be generated from different rows (R5 and RI10 as opposed
to P9) by means of a different partition (a cross-partition involving discrete trichords
rather than the unusual partition of mm. 6668). The bass line (bottom cello part) in
mm. 8588 also seems to project a f65 scale-degree motion in the key of Bf, a
momentary reference to the contrasting key of the movement, which Schoenberg
never follows up in the remaining measures of the exposition.
The following measures in Example 6.9, the cadence to the second theme,
essentially repeat mm. 8588s cross-partition, rst backward and then forward,
to form {10,11,0,3,4,5} and {1,2,6,7,8,9} twice more, though they are not always
projected as verticals. In mm. 8991, the violins play I10/h1 and the viola and cello
P5/h1, creating with mm. 8588 yet another pitch-class palindrome. Each pair of
instruments divides its hexachord into its discrete trichords, but now one instru-
ment plays its trichord as a vertical and the other instrument as a horizontal motive
(in natural or articial harmonics). The rst violin makes a chord of {3,10,11} while
the second violin plays <2,7,9> in harmonics against it. Likewise, the cello
Example 6.9
Schoenberg, Fourth String Quartet Op. 37, movement I, mm. 8595a (exposition, second theme, end of continuation and cadence). Used by
permission of G. Schirmer, Inc.
verticalizes {0,4,5} while the viola plays <1,8,6> in articial harmonics. This cross-
partition by means of performing technique (sul ponticello and tremolo as opposed
to harmonics) has the effect, I think, of emphasizing the featured set {10,11,0,3,4,5},
the sustained chord, especially when it begins fortissimo, as it does in m. 89.
However, Schoenberg then turns the tables in mm. 9194. The rst violin and
viola play R5/h2, and, this time, {1,6,8} is played as a chord by the rst violin while
the viola sounds <5,4,0>, the reverse of the second trichord of R5/h2, in harmonics.
And the cello and second violin have RI10/h2, splitting it up in the same way: the
cello plays {2,7,9} as a chord while the second violin gives us the reverse of the
second trichord, <10,11,3>, in harmonics. So the complement of our featured
chord, not the chord itself, is played as a vertical by the outer voices. Schoenberg
does use dynamics to bring <5,4,0,10,11,3> out of the texture in mm. 9293,
however: notice how the viola and second violin are playing forte while the outer
voices are at pianissimo. The suggested solution does manage to sound like the
featured hexachord all the way to the end of the passage, despite the exchanges in
instruments and performing techniques.
In my form chart, the rst movements development section begins at m. 95,
although Schoenberg waits until mm. 116ff. to introduce the theme of the devel-
opment. In this development theme, the Hauptstimmen create secondary order-
ings of the twelve pitch classes by applying the same three-tetrachord partition
(<0,1,4,5>, <2,3,8,9>, <6,7,10,11>) twice to a row form, taking the outside
tetrachords the rst time and the inner tetrachord the second time. This partition
seems unusual from the perspective we are taking, which has been focusing on the
creation of members of set classes 6-Z6 and 6-Z38 in different ways from different
row forms. But its relationship to the second themes partition will become clear in
the second theme section of the recapitulation. The developmental partition is
applied to P4 in the viola in mm. 11621, to I9 in the second violin in mm. 12227,
and to R4 in the cello in mm. 12833. The listener would therefore be justied in
expecting the rst violin to partition RI9 according to the same plan in the passage
after m. 134, completing the pattern, and it does indeed begin down that path, but it is
thwarted after the rst statement of RI9 by Schoenbergs return to R4 in the principal
voices at m. 137.23 The rst and last stages of the process are illustrated in Examples
6.10a and 6.10b.
23
Milton Babbitt points out that the harmonic area that contains P4 and I9, the key of the
developmental theme, can be predicted by a registral and instrumental partition of the opening
measure of the movement: namely, if one isolates the violin parts in m. 1, <2,1,9> and <10,8,6>,
one can attain the content of P4s second hexachord (or I9s rst), and the lower two voices in m. 1,
<3,4,7> and <5,0,11>, yield the content of P4s rst hexachord (or I9s second). In this way, the key
area of mm. 11640 can be heard as an outgrowth of the initial motive <2,1,9> and its original
accompaniment. See Babbitt, Words about Music, pp. 6468.
Example 6.10a
Schoenberg, Fourth String Quartet Op. 37, movement I, mm. 11621 (theme of the development, part I). Used by permission of G. Schirmer, Inc.
The viola introduces the theme of the development in mm. 11621. As shown by
the pitch-class map, it takes order numbers <0,1,4,5> and <6,7,10,11> from the
rst instance of P4 in mm. 11619, and the middle tetrachord, <2,3,8,9>, from the
repetition in mm. 12021. The rst violin Nebenstimme is given the remainder of
the two instances of P4. What results is a new ordering of the twelve pitch classes
in the viola, <4,3,7,5,6,2,8,1,11,0,10,9>, creating a multidimensional presentation
of the aggregate.24 The remainder notes in the rst violin create a rotated version
(T8) of the violas ordering, <11,0,10,9,4,3,7,5,6,2,8,1>. The phrasing and note
durations in the viola create two ve-note groups and a dyad (see the brackets
above the new ordering at the top of Example 6.10as pitch-class map): 5-1
(01234), 5-4 (01236), and 2-1 (01). The tendency toward chromatic set classes,
which the cello initiated in the second theme section, is certainly continued in the
development.
At the same time, the rst violin divides its T8 rotation of the viola sequence into
discrete tetrachords, <11,0,10,9>: 4-1 (0123), <4,3,7,5>, which belongs to set class
4-2 (0124), and <6,2,8,1>, belonging to set class 4-16 (0157) (see the brackets
below the new ordering, beginning at order position 8). Retrogrades of all three
of these tetrachords will return as invariant pitch-class successions in the new
ordering created by the same partition of R4 in the second violin in mm. 12833.
Since the potential tetrachord invariances between Hauptstimmen in the rst and
third subsections of the development are obscured by their pentachord and dyad
partitions, the actual discrete tetrachords in the Nebenstimmen are an important
source of continuity in the development.
Finally, the accompanying voices in Example 6.10a deserve some mention, from
both the pitch-class and metrical perspectives. The second violin and cello partition
P4s combinatorial partner, I9, into discrete trichords and present each trichord as a
vertical (normally using some variation of the e x e rhythmic motive). But there is
some signicance to the ways in which the two instruments divide up the individual
trichords: most often one plays a single note and the other takes the remaining dyad
24
Ethan Haimo also discusses how the viola and rst violin partition the two P4s according to the
developmental partition in mm. 11621, and he views this partitioning as completing what was left
incomplete back in mm. 3537. He makes the further point that the secondary ordering in the viola
generated by the complete partition will, when divided into the discrete hexachords <4,3,7,5,6,2>
and <8,1,11,0,10,9>, create two members of set class 6-1 (012345), the chromatic hexachord. These
6-1s, according to him, connect the developmental theme back to the expositions transition section,
where chromatic hexachords (different ones) were produced in mm. 27 and 28 by each of the violin
lines taken separately (refer back to my Example 6.5). The specic transpositions of the violas
chromatic hexachords in mm. 11621 also connect the developmental theme forward to the
recapitulations second theme section, where I11 is partitioned according to the developmental
partition in the viola and the same two pitch-class sets result (ordered differently):
<11,0,8,10,9,1> and <7,2,4,3,5,6>. See Haimo, Tonal Analogies in Arnold Schnbergs Fourth
String Quartet, pp. 22728.
as a double stop. If we combine the single notes in the cello over a single row form
into tetrachords or trichords, and the double stops in each hexachord in the second
violin into tetrachords (as the middle row of the pitch-class map in Example 6.10a
does), some unexpected and interesting set classes come to the fore. In the rst
presentation of I9 (mm. 11619) we hear 4-24 (0248), a whole-tone segment, twice,
and 4-17 (0347). In the repetition (mm. 12021), which leaves out the last discrete
trichord of I9, <4,5,0>, we hear 3-4 (015), the same set as the rst and last discrete
trichords of any row form in this piece, in the cello, and 6-7 (012678), a close
relative of 6-Z6 (012567), in the second violin. If the Haupt- and Nebenstimmen can
be heard as sources of continuity in the development, the accompanying voices
provide set-class variety.
Metrically, the accompanying voices also provide a contrast. The viola Haupt-
stimme, through its syncopations in mm. 117 and 119 leading to strong downbeats
in mm. 118 and 120, seems to conrm the notated 4/4. The Nebenstimme ts
perfectly into that same framework, with its pickups into the second and fourth
beats. But the accompanying voices, if the beginnings (or in some cases, the endings)
of the e x e motives can be heard to signify downbeats or strong beats, start off in
3/4 for two measures, change to 4/4 halfway through notated m. 117, and return to
3/4 midway through notated m. 120. Both the rhythm and the suggested meter recall
the middle part of the expositions rst theme, mm. 6b9.
In mm. 12227 (not illustrated; consult the score), the second violin takes over
the Hauptstimme and divides up I9 according to the same partition that the viola
used in the previous measures (<0,1,4,5>, <6,7,10,11>, <2,3,8,9>). The second-
dimensional presentation of the aggregate <9,10,6,8,7,11,5,0,2,1,3,4> results.
Schoenberg sets this pitch-class succession as an ordered-pitch-interval inversion
of the violas preceding music in some places (mm. 12627, for example), but the
rhythm of the viola is carried over as a whole by the second violin. The cello
Nebenstimme also copies its rst violin precedent by taking the remainder notes
from the two statements of I9, so that it plays a T8 rotation of the Hauptstimmes
line, <2,1,3,4,9,10,6,8,7,11,5,0>. This line is again divided into tetrachords, as the
preceding rst violin music was, and Schoenberg is much more careful than with
his Hauptstimmen to preserve the ordered-pitch-interval inversion from the prior
Nebenstimme, up until the third tetrachord. It seems obvious that Schoenberg
means his Hauptstimmen and Nebenstimmen to be a source of continuity between
the rst two parts of the developmental theme.
The third part of the developmental theme (again, not illustrated; consult mm.
12833 of the score) divides up R4 between the Hauptstimme cello and the Neben-
stimme second violin in exactly the same way as the previous two subsections, so
that the secondary orderings <1,8,2,6,5,7,3,4,9,10,0,11> (in the cello) and
<9,10,0,11,1,8,2,6,5,7,3,4> (in the second violin) result. But an increase in rhythmic
activity in the accompaniment in mm. 12527 has had a denite effect on both of
Example 6.10b
Schoenberg, Fourth String Quartet Op. 37, movement I, mm. 13440a (theme of the development, part IV). Used by permission of
G. Schirmer, Inc.
the principal lines in part III: the cello, after duplicating the rhythm of the rst
phrase of its predecessors exactly, alters and speeds up the rhythm of the second
phrase in m. 131 (q q e \ e h. becomes e e e e q ), and then, perhaps out of necessity,
lengthens the third phrase from what was an ascending or descending half step
to a ve-note segment involving two interval class 1s. The second violin abandons
the half-step, eighth-note pickups into the backbeats that characterized its
Nebenstimme predecessors, and generates a rhythmically more active line that
oscillates ABf and CBn half steps for the rst four measures, then explodes into
wider intervals in mm. 13233 (<7,16,14,13> between the slurred pitches).
This Nebenstimme, despite its growing rhythmic and pitch-intervallic intensity, still
divides its line into discrete tetrachords: <9,10,0,11> (the oscillation between 9 and
10 and between 0 and 11 yields BACH in dotted quarters and eighths in mm.
129 and 130), <1,8,2,6>, and <5,7,3,4>. Besides the surprising appearance of one of
Schoenbergs favorite four-note motives, his discrete tetrachord partition in the
Nebenstimme is signicant in that it preserves the pitch-class successions of the rst
violin from mm. 11621 in retrograde (these were <11,0,10,9>, <4,3,7,5>, and
<6,2,8,1>). As I suggested above, the pitch-class invariances between rst and
second violin Nebenstimmen in parts I and III, like the pitch-interval invariances
between rst violin and cello Nebenstimmen in parts I and II, provide continuity in
the midst of a texture where even the principal lines are subject to ever-increasing
variation.
Meanwhile, the accompanimental voices in the third part do more than their
share in making this subsection seem increasingly active, nervous, and prone to
y apart. The rhythmic setting has changed substantially, adding to the growing
excitement. Instead of depending mostly on e x e motives, Schoenberg begins to
add eighth-note triplets to them as sufxes, prexes, and sometimes free-standing
motives in themselves. Another feature that increases excitement in mm. 12831
are certain intervals in the viola part, minor sevenths, wider than anything we
heard in the accompaniment in parts I and II. Then, in mm. 13233, Schoenberg
turns it up another notch in the accompanying voices. A quick look at the
notation shows that the rst violin and viola are beginning to string the eighth-
note triplets and e x motives into longer lines, one of which ends on the downbeat
of m. 133 and the second of which leads into the downbeat of m. 134. To provide
the increased number of pitches for such a gesture, he repeats each hexachord of
RI9 twice after its original statement, and partitions the hexachords differently
each time.
By the time the rst violin takes up RI9 in mm. 13440 and begins to apply the
now-routine developmental partition to it (portrayed in Example 6.10b), the more
intense and complex rhythm, the longer accompanimental and Nebenstimme
gestures, and the general textural buildup of the previous subsections have worked
the quartet up to a fever pitch of excitement, which certainly continues and even
intensies during the fourth part of the development theme. As a result of all this,
the rst violin is too keyed up to complete its task; it partitions its rst RI9 correctly,
but then it drops RI9 and picks up R4 instead, taking the two outside tetrachords of
that row form (<0,1,4,5> and <6,7,10,11>) as well. Moreover, the Hauptstimme
repeats and reorders pitch classes of this new, more fragmentary partition in a
way that seems almost random, repeatedly working its way up to higher
dynamic, registral, and articulative peaks (Af6, Cs7, and E7).25 What results is
still a secondary ordering of the aggregate in the Hauptstimme: the rst violin plays
<0,5,11,7,8,6,10,9,1,8,2,6,5,7,3,4> (without the surface repetitions and reorderings).
The cello Nebenstimme, however, no longer has a rotation of the Hauptstimmes
ordering, but instead is given the middle tetrachords of rst RI9 and then R4,
resulting in <4,3,1,2,9,10,0,11>. In general, the fourth subsection of the develop-
mental theme gives the unmistakable impression of the carefully planned partition
structures of the previous subsections beginning to y apart, mostly because of the
rst violin, but also owing to the cellos continually shrinking note values and
repetitions of <0,11> at the end that go into a higher register.
The accompanimental voices in Example 6.10b also contribute, as one would
imagine, to the sense that the wheels are coming off. The bottom of the
examples pitch-class map makes it clear that the division into discrete trichords,
projected as verticals, that characterized the previous three subsections (and
which is illustrated for the rst section in Example 6.10a) is thrown aside at
m. 134. Instead, the second violin and viola begin by lopping off contiguous
segments of the rst hexachord of R4, <1,8,9,10,2,6>, in a seemingly random
manner. The second violin begins with order position 2, and then progresses
through the hexachord twice in mm. 13436a. The viola starts at order position 0,
and then moves forward and backward through the rst three order positions in a
way that foreshadows what the rst violin will do three measures later. It nishes
mm. 135 and 136a by reordering order positions <0,2,3,4,5> of the hexachord
to <4,5,3,2,0>.
On the third beat of notated m. 136, the second violin and viola change their
partitioning method, and they continue with the new approach through the
remainder of the passage. They go back to preserving discrete hexachords (not
crossing over their boundaries as the second violin did in mm. 13435), but they
25
The repetitions and reorderings of the rst violin in mm. 13439 are not completely random, in that
they gradually repeat smaller units, and this increasing fragmentation contributes to the growth of
excitement through the passage. First the violin reiterates the rst ve notes of its succession,
<0,5,11,7,8>, in m. 136. It then moves forward, backward, and then forward through <6,10,9>
before progressing to pitch class 1 at the end of m. 137. In m. 138 Schoenberg begins by cycling back
and forth through the next three notes, <8,2,6>, before moving forward and back through the next
two notes <5,7>, and on to the following pitch class 3. Finally, he repeats <5,7,3> and extends it to
the last note of the violins succession, pitch class 4.
now pull tetrachords (and some trichords) from them by overlapping partitions.
The technique of overlapping partition has been and will be seen elsewhere in the
quartet movement (for example, mm. 4445, shown in Example 6.7a, or mm. 7072,
shown in Example 6.8), but it is new to the developmental theme section. Interest-
ingly enough, the overlaps result mainly in tetrachords that have been heard before:
4-19 in the second violin in mm. 13738, 4-24 in the viola in mm. 13839, 4-17 in
the second violin in mm. 13839. The only part of mm. 13639 that does not involve
overlapping partitions is the rst three beats of m. 137, where Schoenberg creates
yet another small palindrome (this passage is rife with pitch and pitch-class palin-
dromes) by going forward and backward through the rst hexachord of P4 and
partitioning the two hexachords in a symmetrical way. The partition that he mirrors
is an alternate trichord partition, but different from the one he used in the transition;
here we have <0,3,4>, <1,2,5>.
I have just shown how the developmental theme section takes a partition that
seems unrelated to the main line of thought in the movement and develops it
progressively in four stages, even to the point of destroying it a wonderful
example of developing variation applied to a passage longer than a motive or
phrase. As I suggested several times above, the role of the developmental partition
in the overall narrative will be made clear in the recapitulations second theme. But
before that, Schoenberg uses the remaining measures of the development to take up
the issue he was dealing with before mm. 11640 rudely interrupted him: namely,
showing how the set-class and eventually the interval successions of the solution
hexachord, the set that contains <1,2,9> and <7,8,0> side by side, may be created
using a variety of set classes and partitions. Examples 6.11a and 6.11b show two
passages in which set class 6-Z6 is clearly highlighted.
In mm. 140b150a, illustrated by Example 6.11a, two different partitions bring
to the listeners attention three stages of a process that gradually approaches the
solution to the works problem. First we hear the set class 6-Z6 (spread over two
row forms) without any interval successions that recall the movements two
opposing trichords <2,1,9> and <7,8,0>, then a single two-interval succession
<1,4> as part of a 6-Z6 (contained within a single aggregate), and nally a
pair of two-interval successions, <4,1> and <1,4>, which together com-
prise a 6-Z6 (also as part of an aggregate). The rst stage comes about when
Schoenberg subjects rst P1 and then I6 to the same partition, <0,1,9,10>,
<2,3,8>, <4,5,6>, <7,11>. We have not heard this partition before, and the
set classes it yields in each instrument seem unremarkable (the rst violin, for
example, plays {1,0,6,5,8,9}, which creates a form of 6-Z19 (013478). This hexa-
chord is important in general to Schoenbergs music, but has not played a
signicant role in the quartet movement so far). But the isomorphic partition in
the rst stage (mm. 140b145) tempts this analyst to examine what set classes
result when the same order positions within both rows are combined into a group.
Example 6.11a
Schoenberg, Fourth String Quartet Op. 37, movement I, mm. 140b150a (continuation of the development section). Used by permission of
G. Schirmer, Inc.
Example 6.11b
Schoenberg, Fourth String Quartet Op. 37, movement I, mm. 153b156 (development
section, retransition to recapitulation). Used by permission of G. Schirmer, Inc.
The order tetrachord <0,1,9,10> is played by the rst violin in P1 and by the viola
in I6, and the two instruments together yield the pitch-class set {0,1,2,5,6,7}, the
prime form of 6-Z6. Since this hexachord happens between instruments, and
since the ordered interval successions of the rst violin and viola that comprise it
(<11,6,11> and <13,18,13>) are nothing like the original motivic
trichords, one might consider it an extraordinarily abstract reference to the
solution hexachord. But my point is that more direct references to the solution
follow not long after.
At the end of Example 6.11a, mm. 14850, Schoenberg puts the combinatorial
hexachords R10/h2 and RI3/h2 together to form aggregates, twice. He splits both
of the hexachords into discrete trichords: <11,1,6>, <5,9,10>, <2,0,7>, and
<8,4,3>. If he were to combine the trichords at corresponding order positions
<0,1,2> together, he would form 6-Z6s complement 6-Z38, and were he to combine
the trichords at corresponding positions <3,4,5>, he would form 6-Z6 itself. Inter-
estingly, he chooses not to. The registral and instrumental separation of the violins on
the one hand from the viola and cello on the other hand divides the aggregate in mm.
14849 into <11,1,6,5,9,10> and <2,0,7,3,4,8>: members of set class 6-16, the
discrete hexachord of the row. In mm. 14950, the registral and instrumental parti-
tion divides the aggregate into <8,4,3,11,1,6> and <10,9,5,2,0,7>, which are
members of set class 6-32 (024579). Therefore, to attain 6-Z6s in this passage, one
must combine alternate trichords in the texture rst those of the second violin and
cello together, then those of the rst violin and viola (these are circled in the notation
at mm. 14850). What makes these hexachords a little more salient than the one that
began Example 6.11a, however, is that increasing numbers of the trichords that make
them up take on the ordered pitch-interval successions of the original motivic
trichords. In the rst 6-Z6, the cellos <3,4,8> adopts the intervals <1,4>, which
make it a pitch transposition of <7,8,0>. And in the second 6-Z6, the rst violins
<8,4,3> projects <4,1>, causing a pitch transposition of <0,8,7>, while the
violas <10,9,5> creates the intervals <1,4>, making it a pitch transposition of
<2,1,9>. Whether the segmentations that create 6-Z6 in these three measures are
audible is not the issue. I believe strongly that the listener perceives these two
measures as transpositions of the original motivic trichords beginning to take over
the texture, and, more importantly, that the motive transpositions occur in closer
proximity as the larger passage progresses (none in a pair of row forms, then one in
an aggregate, then both in an aggregate).
At the same time, tonal references begin to suggest themselves again, as the
downbeat of m. 149 forms A-C-Cs, and the downbeat of m. 150 A-Cs-E. This
suggests the more conventional ending for a tonal development section, a pro-
longed dominant in D minor, and it is appropriate to notice that the return from
the developmental themes argument in mm. 11640 to an emphasis on the original
motivic trichords in mm. 14850 comes simultaneously with the return from Bf
references to the more conventional A major, dominant, references.
As the reader may imagine (having learned about numerous similar processes in
Schoenbergs twelve-tone music in my preceding chapters), Example 6.11b, mm.
153b156, constitutes a fourth, culminating stage in the process that gradually
approaches this movements solution. In these measures, Schoenberg places two
trichords that have the interval successions <1,4> and <4,1> one after
another within a single row form, not once but twice. Were these trichords
<2,1,9> and <0,8,7>, he would have reached the solution to the movements
problem. But they are not; as the example shows, they are one half step higher (in
pitch-class space) than the two motivic trichords: <3,2,10> and <1,9,8>. Schoen-
berg states these trichords twice, but pulls them from two different row forms, P3 and
RI8. To accomplish this he makes use of an invariance we have seen before, at the
beginning of the expositions transition section: that is, under an inversion
transposed up ve half steps (or to put it another way, between every combinatorial
pair of rows in the matrix), the partition <0,1,2>, <7,8,9> yields pitch-class
successions that reverse one another (in the transition section, mm. 2728, this
invariance enabled the composer to make the motivic trichords exchange places as
he moved from P2 to I7). In P3 and I8, these successions are <3,2,10,1,9,8> and
<8,9,1,10,2,3>, as is shown by the chart at the bottom of Example 6.11b. But when
retrograde-related partitions are applied to P3 and RI8, as in this example, the same
pitch-class succession repeats, and it brings the listener to the verge of the works
solution. (Measures 15456 also preserve the end of the development sections
emphasis on A through their repetition of <1,9,8>, midoti in A major. But the
harmonization of these motives, especially in m. 156, takes an unusual turn it
sounds unquestionably like a Cs dominant seventh chord.)
Example 6.12 illustrates the beginning of what certain others and I have called
the rst theme of the recapitulation, mm. 16572a. I mentioned already the dispute
in the literature about whether these measures really do constitute a recapitulation.
Babbitt in Words about Music focuses on the fact that the rst theme comes back a
tritone away in pitch-class space from the original harmonic area, on P8 (rather
than at the original area itself), and also alludes to the signicant changes in the
texture from the passage that began the exposition. In truth, the accompaniment of
discrete trichord verticals that characterized the expositions rst theme disappears
for the most part in the recapitulation; in its place we hear a counterpoint between
the rst theme in the rst violin and the transition theme from m. 42 in the second
violin. Only at m. 167, three measures into the section, do accented quarters on
beats 24 begin to show up in the viola and cello as an allusion to the original
texture, and they disappear after two measures, giving way to more counterpoint,
consisting of imitation of the rst themes rst part in mm. 16972.26
With regard to the tonal references in play during mm. 16572, we hear
everything but D minor, the expected recapitulatory key. An Af: Iadd2 chord
sounds clearly on the downbeat of m. 166, and this reinforces the sense that
<8,7> in rst violin followed by cello in mm. 16667 could be heard as doti
in Af major. Measure 168 further supports that key attribution with an enhar-
monically spelled V43 in Af. But, soon after, other key areas suggest themselves.
The second half of m. 169 sounds an enharmonically spelled Vn9 in A major
(with the ninth in the bass), and this is succeeded two measures later by a
correctly spelled Bf:V7 on the fourth eighth of m. 171, which progresses directly
to a Bf:Iadd2. If these constantly moving tonal references support the idea of
recapitulation in any way, it would have to be a recapitulation of the off-tonic
variety.
26
Babbitt, Words about Music, p. 72.
Example 6.12
Schoenberg, Fourth String Quartet Op. 37, movement I, mm. 16572a (recapitulation, rst theme). Used by permission of G. Schirmer, Inc.
On the other side of the argument about whether this section constitutes a
recapitulation, William Lake maintains that mm. 16568 do bring back prominent
elements of the expositions rst theme namely, four of the ve pitch-class dyads
that were projected as half steps in pitch space from that theme, which were <2,1>,
<9,10>, <3,4>, and <8,7> in their original order. The recapitulation brings these
elements back in reverse order between (not within) the dyads, however. (These
dyads, with the labels that Lake gives them, are circled in black on the notation of
Example 6.12, and bracketed in the examples pitch-class map.) In this way, the
recapitulations rst theme could be heard to balance or round off that of the
exposition: together the two rst themes create a palindrome of dyads.27
Measures 16572 also have an ambiguity of function within the movements
musical idea that parallels questions that other scholars have posed about what and
how they recapitulate. On the one hand, they bring together themes from two
different parts of the exposition the rst theme and the transition theme and
reveal or create set-class and pitch-class similarities between segments of those two
themes that were only latent in the exposition. At the beginning of the recapitu-
lations transition theme, mm. 16566, the second violin twice partitions out order
positions <0,1,3,4> in the rst hexachord of I1. This partition is new, replacing the
<0,1,2,6,7,8> partition of all of I9 that characterized the transition themes rst
appearance at mm. 4243. (The expositions partition is given at the bottom of
Example 6.12, to facilitate comparison.) Instead of the 4-14 (0237) that resulted
from the four pitch classes <9,10,2,7> in m. 42, we now hear <1,2,5,10>, a
member of set class 4-17 (0347). A measure later (m. 167), the rst violin (playing
the rst theme) breaks off the segment <10,6,2,1>, which is admittedly a different
set class 4-19 (0148) but easy to hear as a close relative of the second violins
<1,2,5,10>, a near-retrograde. In m. 168, the cello repeats <10,6,2,1> as a pitch
transposition two octaves lower of the rst violins motive, enhancing its salience.
Finally, when the second violin begins its variation of the transition theme in
m. 169, it partitions order positions <1,2,3,4> from the rst hexachord of P8,
forming pitch classes <7,3,4,11>, which are not closely related motivically to the
preceding <10,6,2,1>, but a member of the same set class, 4-19. (All these motivic
and harmonic connections between the rst theme and transition theme are
symbolized by arrows on the pitch-class map of Example 6.12.)
Despite bringing together the rst and transitional themes, mm. 16572 none-
theless constitute a step backward in the overall logic of the piece, which has been
moving relentlessly in the direction of placing <2,1,9> and <7,8,0> side by side
in a single row form and partition, the solution to the works main problem. In P8
as well as I1, pitch class 9 is separated from 1 and 2 within the ordered row, and 0
27
Lake, Structural Functions of Segmental Interval-Class 1 Dyads, pp. 2425.
is separated from 8 and 7, so that the recapitulation returns to the movements

initial state, where <2,1> and <8,7> dyads only suggest what the works problem
will be. As Lake discovered, the two motivic dyads do swap order positions from
exposition to recapitulation, as part of a reverse ordering of four dyads; maybe we
could think of this as a hint that the two dyad motives belong together in some way,
just as the swapping of <2,1,9> and <7,8,0> trichords in the expositions transi-
tion at mm. 2728 led to emphasis on set class 6-Z6 (and numerous hints about the
solution of the works problem) in the second theme and development sections.
As was suggested a number of times above, it remains for the recapitulations
second theme to solve the problem that has been suggested and elaborated from the
beginning. How it does so, and also how it incorporates the developmental theme
partition into the Idea of the whole piece, is shown by Example 6.13, mm. 18895a.
The partition that was introduced on P9 in the exposition, <0,1,7,11>,
<2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10>, is now applied to P6, and the rst six notes of the resulting rst
violin Hauptstimme project 6-Z6, the set class that has been associated with the
solution to the works problem from the beginning. Now, however, it actually realizes
that solution (rather than giving us a transposition of it), as the rst violin plays
<1,2,9> followed by <7,8,0>. The second theme partition of P6 has nally enabled
Schoenberg to place his two motivic trichords side by side within a single row form!
At the same time, mm. 18891 also answer the question that I posed in my
discussion of the developmental theme section, mm. 11640: that is, how does that
themes partition (<0,1,4,5>, <6,7,10,11>, <2,3,8,9>) relate to the overall logic of
the piece? As he did in the rst theme section of the recapitulation, Schoenberg
creates a counterpoint, this time between the second theme in the rst violin and
the developmental theme in the viola. The viola runs through the developmental
theme partition of I11 twice to create a new ordering of the aggregate: <11,0,8,10,
9,1,7,2, 4,3,5,6>. But now, since it is set directly against the second theme, we
discover that this new ordering creates (as discrete tetrachords) not only the same
set classes but the same pitch-class sets as the three tetrachords resulting from the
second theme partition of P6: the cellos 4-1, <6,5,4,3> returns in the second violin;
and the rst violins rst four notes, 4-16, <1,2,9,7>, and the remainder of the rst
violin line, <8,0,11,10>, are duplicated in the viola. The development themes
partition of I11 and the second themes partition of its combinatorial partner P6
yield the same three pitch-class tetrachords, an invariance that was latent while the
two themes were presented separately, but which now becomes quite obvious to the
listener (the exchange between the rst violin and viola involving {1,2,7,9} and
{0,8,10,11} is circled on the notation of Example 6.13).
Even in the realm of tonal references, the opening measures of the second theme
create a strong sense of relating new ideas from the middle parts of the movement
back to the original material. As the cello winds its way down from Fs through the
passage, it ends up on a D in m. 194, and the viola sustains an Fs above the last one
Example 6.13
Schoenberg, Fourth String Quartet Op. 37, movement I, mm. 18895a (recapitulation, second theme). Used by permission of G. Schirmer, Inc.
and a half measures of the cellos downward journey. Though the upper voices
suggest other functions from I in D major at this point, the lower parts do imply a
resolution in the pieces home key. If the rst theme in the recapitulation is off
tonic, then at least the second theme, the same passage that resolves multiple
questions motivically, also serves the typical function of bringing the piece back to
its home tonality.
Since Schoenberg has tied up many of the movements loose ends by m.195, one
is entitled to ask what might be the function of the remaining eighty-nine measures.
My answer to that question would be that he reviews and summarizes the motivic
ground he has just covered, in the manner of a good paper or oral presentation. The
coda section takes us through the same process as the recapitulation, returning to
the Ideas initial state in the rst theme and then solving the main problem in the
second theme, but it leaves out the recapitulations syntheses involving the transi-
tional and developmental themes.
Examples 6.14a and 6.14b show the rst eleven measures of the coda section,
which mainly have to do with fragmenting and developing the rst theme. I did not
characterize this section with complete accuracy when I described it as returning to
the Ideas initial state. Instead, rather than just bringing up the two motivic dyads
<2,1> and <8,7> again, Schoenberg fashions motives from the rst six pitch
classes of P2 and I7 in mm. 23942 that rst present the beginning of the rst
theme in the cello (an octave lower than the initial rst violin motive but inter-
vallically identical), and then do a pitch-interval inversion of that same six-note
idea in the rst violin. Thus, we hear more than <2,1> and <8,7> at the beginning
of the coda: instead we hear the two motivic trichords, <2,1,9> and <7,8,0>, at a
distance of two measures, closer than they have ever been (except in the transition
of the exposition and second theme of the recapitulation). The two motives are
labeled with brackets in the notation of Example 6.14a and given double borders in
the pitch-class map. They will come even closer to each other, while still serving as
head motives of their respective rows, in m. 256, and will ultimately reside next to
each other as part of P6 in the codas passage based on the second theme (mm. 258
59). While the cello presents the rst six notes of the rst theme in mm. 23940,
there is a return of tonal references that were latent in the rst theme when it was
presented at the pieces beginning. Specically, <2,1> seems to evoke doti of
D minor, and the <9,10> that immediately follows suggests tido of Bf major. At
the movements nal cadence, as we shall soon nd, these two key attributions
persist together and are locked in a battle for primacy, even though the motives they
have been associated with have come to a reconciliation.
Before the nal reunion of <2,1,9> and <7,8,0> arrives, however, the two motivic
trichords undergo a liquidation in the remainder of Example 6.14a and all of
Example 6.14b, mm. 24349. If the reader continues to follow the pitch successions
in angle brackets on the notation and the double-bordered boxes and circles on the
Example 6.14a
Schoenberg, Fourth String Quartet Op. 37, movement I, mm. 23945a (coda, section based on rst theme). Used by permission of
G. Schirmer, Inc.
Example 6.14b
Schoenberg Fourth String Quartet Op. 37, movement I, mm. 24549 (coda, section based on rst theme). Used by permission of G. Schirmer, Inc.
pitch-class map, he or she will nd that the motive is cut back to a dyad in m. 243,
<8,7>, and then transposed and inverted to two other pitch levels: <11,10> in mm.
24445, and <5,6> in m. 246. <8,7> returns in mm. 24748, but is followed almost
immediately by <9,10> in mm. 24849. Meanwhile, a reversed and partly trans-
posed version of <2,1,9> occurs in the second violin at m. 246. In this way, the
trichord motives undergo variation to the point that they are no longer recognizable
a clear example of developing variation. The tonal references in mm. 24549,
meanwhile, continue to alternate references to D minor with references to Bf major.
If the reader has been following the liquidation of <2,1,9> and <7,8,0> in the
pitch-class maps of Examples 6.14a and 6.14b rather than the notation, he or she will
have noticed another aspect of the process that is signicant, one affecting what
I would call the twelve-tone contexts of these motives and making those contexts
more obscure as the passage progresses. In mm. 23942, <2,1,9> and <10,5,3> in
the cello and <7,8,0> and <11,4,6> in the rst violin come about as discrete
trichords in the rows P2 and I7. The accompanying verticals in those measures also
come from discrete trichords of the two rows, just as in the rst theme of the
exposition (except for the rst part of m. 239s accompaniment, which begins with a
discrete trichord that spreads out over both vertical and horizontal dimensions,
<10,5,3>). However, after m. 243, only a portion of the motives I have outlined
come from discrete or even contiguous segments. <8,7> in m. 243 arises from a
partition we have seen only eetingly in this movement, though it could be thought
of as the second half of the development theme partition, <6,7,10,11>, <8,9> (the
underline connotes that part of the partition that yields the motive). Dyad <11,10>
in mm. 24445 comes from two different repetitions of RI7, and the partitions
that produce the 11 and the 10 (<0,1,3>, <2,4,5>, <6,8>, <7,9,10,11> for pitch
class 11, and <0,2,3>, <1,4,5>, <6,7,10>, <8,9,11> for pitch class 10) are again
relatively new to the movement. <5,6> in m. 246 arises from combining the rst
pitch classes of I7/h2 and RI7/h2. <9,1,2> in the second violin at the end of m. 246 is
again a discrete trichord of R2/h2, but the familiar dyad that follows it, <8,7> in
mm. 24748, is pulled together from different repetitions of RI7/h2 under partitions
that change with each repetition of the hexachord. Finally, <9,10> in mm. 24849 is
a contiguous dyad, brought together under the <0,1,4,5>, <2,3> partition, the rst
half of the familiar developmental theme partition. But most of the motives that
precede it have come into being by picking notes that are spread apart in the row or
hexachord, within partitions that seem strange in the context of the rst movement:
the twelve-tone context of the motives undergoes liquidation as well.
I will make one more point about Examples 6.14a and 6.14b before moving on to
that part of the coda that reinforces the works solution. Though <2,1,9> and
<7,8,0> mostly disappear after m. 243, the accompaniment is full of trichords that
belong to their set class, 3-4 (015), or to supersets or subsets of their set class, like
4-19 (0148) in the viola at m. 244, 5-21 (01458) in the viola at m. 246b, 4-7 (0145)
in the rst and second violins at m. 247, 2-1 (01) in the violins in the rst part of m.
248, and nally 2-4 (04) under the slurs in the cello at mm. 24849. These
repetitions of the motives set class and other set classes related to it add to the
sense of diffusion in the nal measures of the passage by presenting the correct
intervals for the main motives, but not the right pitches, and eventually splitting the
individual intervals of the motives off.
Examples 6.15a and 6.15b illustrate not only the onset of the second theme
portion of the coda at m. 258, but also the ve and a half measures that precede that
onset. The preliminary measures in Example 6.15a, mm. 252b257, are important
motivically, because in this short space Schoenberg quickly summarizes the process
that he used to approach the initial presentation of the solution in the recapitu-
lations second theme. There are four steps to this summary. First, <3,2,10>
appears twice in the rst violin at mm. 252b253, which reminds the listener of
the invariant <3,2,10,1,9,8> hexachords that approached the return of <2,1,9>
and <7,8,0> from a half step above in pitch-class space in mm. 153 and 155. (The
earlier passage was shown in Example 6.11b and discussed on p. 31314.) Without
<1,9,8> to follow them in mm. 25253, these repeated <3,2,10> motives seem to
suggest Bf:I more strongly. The row form that yields <3,2,10> in the later passage
is one of the same ones that was featured in the former passage, P3, but now it is
partitioned in a different way, into discrete trichords. As a result, the collectional
invariance that P3 possesses with I7 under discrete trichords becomes available for
use motivically, as is illustrated by the partition of I7 directly under P3 in the pitch-
class map. Surprisingly, the piece does not make use of this invariance, as it projects
I7 in m. 254 followed by R2 in m. 255, but these row forms are not divided into
discrete trichords (in fact, the partition in m. 254 seems vague, as it skips over pitch
class 4 and includes two non-contiguous segments).28 Instead, in mm. 25455, we
hear the second step of Schoenbergs summary in the rst violin, which is to show
the half-step relation between <3,2> and <2,1> in pitch space, or, if you will, to
make explicit the motion down a half step that was implied in Example 6.11b.
The third step, once the half-step modulation takes place, is to place <2,1,9> and
<0,8,7> in close proximity to one another, just as <3,2,10> and <1,9,8> resided
side by side in mm. 15356. Measure 256 accomplishes this (again in the rst violin,
which has been serving as the Hauptstimme from the beginning of the passage), but
28
Since the row count of the accompanying voices in mm. 25455 is vague, it could be helpful to
mention that Schoenbergs sketch for these measures (which are numbered 25556 in manuscript
page 1005, located at the Arnold Schnberg Center in Vienna) notates only the rst violin line, the
carrier of the motivic process I have been describing, and indicates the rhythm of the verticals in the
lower parts by straight lines. It seems that the rst violin part may have been the starting point in
Schoenbergs compositional process, rather than the tone row. See MS41_1005.jpg at www.schoen-
berg.at (accessed August 15, 2013).
Example 6.15a
Schoenberg, Fourth String Quartet Op. 37, movement I, mm. 252b257 (coda, preliminary measures to the second theme). Used by permission of
G. Schirmer, Inc.
Example 6.15b
Schoenberg, Fourth String Quartet Op. 37, movement I, mm. 25862a (coda, beginning of
second theme section). Used by permission of G. Schirmer, Inc.
the two trichord motives still do not grow out of a single row form: instead they act as
head motives for the remainders of P2 on the rst two beats of m. 256 and RI7 on
beats 3 and 4. These remainders can be found in the accompanying voices below the
rst violin, whose verticals project contiguous tetrachords and pentachords of P2
and I7. (In two cases, these accompanying voices also group together to form I and
V13 chords in D major; these are indicated by the notes in gray boxes on the score in
m. 256.) It is not until the fourth step of Schoenbergs summary, the onset of the
second theme itself in mm. 25859, that the two main motives of the piece again rest
side by side within the same partition of the same row form, P6.
Measures 25859 reproduce the second theme partitions of the exposition and
recapitulation with one small difference: the viola takes over order position 11 from
the cello, so that the cellos descending chromatic scale passes through three notes
rather than four. Nevertheless, the rst six notes of the viola again yield set class
6-Z6, spelled as <1,2,9>, <7,8,0>. Examples 6.15a and 6.15b have traversed in
seven measures the same motivic ground that the end of the development and two
themes of the recapitulation took thirty-eight measures to cover. In this way, this
movements coda admirably fullls the function of summarizing the motivic
processes that manifest the underlying Idea of the movement.
At the same time, Example 6.15b, the codas second theme statement, expresses
the key of D minor much more clearly than does its counterpart in the recapitu-
lation. The reader can see from the gray boxes in the score that i6, V64 , IV, and tido
appear in sequence, projected by either a pair of instruments or a single instrument.
Do these strong references to D resolve the ongoing conict between it and the
submediant Bf major in a way that parallels the synthesis of <2,1,9> and <7,8,0>?
Richard Kurth has produced an analysis of the last eleven measures of the quartet
that throws light on this very question, by arguing that there is no true resolution or
synthesis of the conict of these two tonal areas.29 This analysis is represented
through gray boxes on the musical scores in Examples 6.16a and 6.16b.
Kurth characterizes D and Bf as locked in a Heraclitan struggle at the nal
cadence that is, one that involves the two key areas each negating the inuence of
the other, as opposed to a situation where one key would prevail and subsume the
other. There are some references to D minor: a signicant statement of doti in the
rst violin in m. 274 and one way of dividing up the nal chord in m. 284
(illustrated by Kurths Example 3d, which is duplicated in dotted gray circles on
the score of my Example 6.16b). Nevertheless, the majority of the tonal references
project Bf, including the Hauptstimmen in mm. 27576, pairs of dyads in the lower
voices in mm. 27778, the downbeat of m. 280 and third beat of m. 282 (both of
which feature polychords combining I and V in Bf), and nally the alternate way of
dividing m. 284s nal chord, another I/V polychord (represented in Kurths
Example 3b and by the solid gray boxes on the score of my Example 6.16b).
What Kurths analysis does not tell us, however, limited as it is to the nal eleven
measures, is how Schoenberg set up the opposition of D minor to Bf major in the
opening sections of the movement. As I showed earlier, Schoenberg associates
D minor references with <2,1,9> and P2, and Bf major with <7,8,0> and I7 in
the exposition. In the middle and later parts of the exposition and the development
section, he allows the two key areas to alternate with one another and with A major,
which fullls its usual dominant role in the second theme and near the end of the
development. In the rst theme of the recapitulation, he touches on other keys,
notably Af and A major, before settling briey on Bf again. Then, the second theme
of the recapitulation returns to D minor again as <2,1,9> and <7,8,0> come
together for the rst time.
29
Kurth, Moments of Closure, pp. 14952.
Example 6.16a
Schoenberg, Fourth String Quartet Op. 37, movement I, mm. 27479 (coda, nal cadence,
rst part). Used by permission of G. Schirmer, Inc.
I could argue (and have argued) that D minor and Bf major serve as tonal-
reference surrogates for the two principal motives of the piece; they, like the duple
and triple meters that are associated respectively with the rst and second parts of
the rst theme, make the contrast between <2,1,9> and <7,8,0> more immedi-
ately audible. In certain passages, like m. 171 in the recapitulations rst theme, the
Bf key attribution is the most audible indication of Schoenbergs move away from a
solution in these measures. (Return to Example 6.12 for an illustration.) However,
even though the conict between <2,1,9> and <7,8,0> is nally resolved by
putting them next to each other inside the recapitulations second theme, the
conict between their surrogate key areas continues through the nal measures.
On one level, there is resolution, and on another level, there is not.
In the multitude of ways outlined above, the opening movement of the Fourth
String Quartet presents a mature, well-worked-out example of how the motives,
Example 6.16b
Schoenberg, Fourth String Quartet Op. 37, movement I, mm. 28084 (coda, nal cadence,
second part). Used by permission of G. Schirmer, Inc.
meters, textures, and harmonies of a large twelve-tone instrumental piece in sonata

form can manifest the problems, elaborations, and solution of their underlying
musical idea. Our next step in our tour through Schoenbergs twelve-tone music
will be a step back chronologically, to 193032 and Moses und Aron. The unnished
opera is nevertheless a culminating piece in Schoenbergs vocal and choral oeuvre in
a number of ways, and it will be instructive for us to consider how the musical
idea or lack thereof and the Idea of Schoenbergs text parallel, support, and
illustrate each other.
7 Moses und Aron
An incomplete musical idea represents an unresolved conict
between using word and image to communicate God
Introduction
Of the nine pieces and movements by Schoenberg that are analyzed in this book,
only one of them is unnished: his opera Moses und Aron. He worked on the three-
act libretto from September 1928 to 1932, and composed the music for the rst two
acts from May 1930 to March 1932. He made a number of attempts to complete the
opera up to his death in 1951, but nothing more than a few sketches survives from
his work on the music of Act III.
Since Adornos discussion of the opera in Sakrales Fragment: ber Schoenbergs
Moses und Aron, a debate has raged about whether Moses und Aron ought to have
been nished or whether it works perfectly well as a two-act opera, and whether
Schoenbergs text for the third act should be read from the stage as part of
performances.1 A letter from Schoenberg to Walter Eidlitz dated March 15, 1933
suggests one possible reason for Schoenbergs inability to write the music for Act
III: he was hung up over how to portray the scene in Numbers 20:613 where God
decrees that Moses and Aaron should die before reaching the Promised Land
(verse 12), because they struck the rock at Meribah to give water to the thirsty
Hebrews, rather than speaking to the rock as God had commanded them.
(A parallel passage in Exodus 17:6 further confuses the issue by asserting that
God had commanded Moses to hit the rock in the rst place.) It seems as though
Schoenberg may have been challenged by what seems to be a punishment far more
severe than the crime, as modern writers on the passage have also been.2 In the
Numbers account, Moses is accused of failing to trust and honor God and given the
(eventual) death sentence; Schoenberg in his libretto for Act III transfers the crime
of striking the rock instead of speaking to it to Aaron, and includes it in a list of
visual aids that Moses accuses him of using not to communicate God, but to gain
power over the people; thus Aaron deserves to die.
Schoenberg claimed in his letter to Eidlitz that he could probably complete Moses
und Aron without [getting] over the divergence between and thou shalt smite the
rock and speak ye unto the rock, as he put it.3 But his admission that it was an
1
Theodor Wiesengrund-Adorno, Sacred Fragment: Schoenbergs Moses und Aron, in Quasi una
Fantasia: Essays on Modern Music, trans. Rodney Livingstone (London: Verso, 2002), pp. 22548.
2
See for example Jonathan Kirsch, Moses: A Life (New York: Ballantine Books, 1998), pp. 30407.
3
Schoenberg, Letters, p. 172.
Moses und Aron 331
issue of the meaning expressed through the opera, and not merely compositional
issues, that was holding him up opens up a window to what I believe is the truth of
the matter. This opera is about unresolved conicts, principally Moses inability to
communicate the Idea of God to his people without images, and the conict that
causes in him with his passionate belief that God may not be represented in image.4
The end of the second act expresses in an unusually effective way Moses failure to
completely understand God or to communicate Him to his people in words. At the
same time, Aarons use of images such as the pillar of re or pillar of cloud, while it
does not portray God in depth for the people, is successful in the sense that it gives
them enough information to march forward into the Promised Land. Musically,
Moses utter defeat is portrayed by conicting partitions of the tone row, which,
rather than coming to some sort of agreement or synthesis at the end, simply
disappear, to be replaced by a simple division into pentachord and heptachord that
seemingly ignores the musical conict that has come before. After this soul-
shattering cadence, a third act that places Moses back in the ascendant position
and enables him to assert condently that Aaron will be united with God after
death seems tacked on, and I believe that Schoenberg recognized this.5
But my assertion that Moses und Aron is textually and musically about an
unresolved conict, and that its nal cadence at the end of Act II is the only
appropriate ending for such a work, has great signicance for my book as a whole.
For the rst time, we are dealing with an extensive work that does not project a
complete musical idea. The rst two stages of the typical Idea are certainly in force
in Moses und Aron: a conict is presented in the opening measures of Act I between
the depths of Gods being and Moses limited ability to grasp Him. Out of that
conict, others grow between Gods command to Moses to prophesy and Moses
reluctance to do so, between Moses and Aarons conceptions of God, between
Moses and Aarons preferred ways of communicating God to their people (word
and image), between Aarons desire to communicate God through image and the
4
Others who have analyzed this piece before me, such as David Lewin, Michael Cherlin, and Christian
Martin Schmidt, begin from the same premise, and their work on what the unresolved conicts of
Moses und Aron are, and how they are expressed in music, serves as a guide to my own investigation.
All three authors will be referred to frequently in the coming pages.
5
Lewin makes a similar argument in Moses und Aron, p. 2. As he puts it: To what extent the tragic
breakdown is due to Mosess inability to communicate clearly enough to Aron, or to Arons inability
to suspect and resist his natural affection for the Volk this remains an open question at the end of
Act II. Schoenberg evidently meant to decide this question, in the third act, in Mosess favor. But the
libretto is unconvincing to me. The problem posed by the drama is not whether Moses or Aron is
right, but rather how God can be brought to the Volk. If the triple-play combination of God to
Moses to Aron to Volk has broken down between Moses and Aron, and if the MosesAron link
cannot be repaired, then the catastrophe of the philosophical tragedy has occurred in Act II and the
drama is over. If there is a personal tragedy involved, it is surely that of Moses, and he, as well as or
instead of Aron, should be the one to die (which in a sense he does at the end of Act II).
peoples desire to use the same image for baser ends, and so on. Each of these
conicts is represented by partitions of the twelve-tone row that are set against one
another, and that gradually gain ascendancy over and yield to one another. But at
the end of the opera, none of those partitions take rm control and relate the others
to itself, as we have seen happen so frequently in previous chapters. The partition
that represents the Depths of God (what David Lewin and Michael Cherlin call
X Y) does reappear at the end of Act II, scene 3, but it is changed in its essential
aspects, no longer recognizable as itself. And at the end of the opera, Depths of
God appears one more time without creating any clear resolution of the previous
conicts, and then quickly gives way to a partition that represents Moses failure to
lead his people. It seems that Moses und Aron can be described only as an
incomplete musical idea.
Leitmotivic partitions
As my previous paragraph stated, I understand row partitions in Moses und Aron to
have a representative or leitmotivic function. The idea of partitions as leitmotives
comes from David Lewins and Michael Cherlins analytic work on the opera (and
to a lesser extent, Christian Martin Schmidts), and where my partitions match
theirs I will give their labels (and where mine are different I will explain why).6 I will
also add some leitmotivic partitions of my own. Example 7.1 illustrates a number of
them, focusing principally on the ones that play important roles in the long scene
that portrays the orgies surrounding the creation of the Golden Calf, Act II, scene 3
(but the appearances of them I will discuss come from various parts of the opera).
Depths of God
First and foremost among the leitmotivic partitions is the one that Lewin and
Cherlin both call X Y, because it divides the row into two elements, the rst and
fourth discrete trichords (X), which are typically given as verticals, and the middle
hexachord (Y), which typically appears as a melodic line. I have given it a name
that I believe characterizes its leitmotivic signicance, Depths of God. This
partition, as it is deployed in Act I, scene 1 and throughout the opera, enables a
number of vertical and horizontal symmetries between combinatorial row forms,
6
Lewin, Moses und Aron; Michael Cherlin, The Formal and Dramatic Organization of Schoen-
bergs Moses und Aron (Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, 1983), especially pp. 4548; Cherlin,
Schoenbergs Musical Imagination, especially pp. 237ff.; Christian M. Schmidt, Schnbergs Oper
Moses und Aron (Mainz: Schott, 1988), especially pp. 5983. Schmidt lists thirty-three partitions
by number, but does not give them descriptive names or focus on their leitmotivic signicance to the
same extent as Lewin, Cherlin, or myself.
Moses und Aron 333
Example 7.1
Schoenberg, Moses und Aron: some partitions that play leitmotivic roles
Example 7.1 (cont.)

Moses und Aron 335
Example 7.1 (cont.)
and within individual row forms. Some of these symmetries are common to every
row form (the ones between the corresponding X chords of inversion-related rows)
and others are unique to this particular row (those within the Y melody). Two
instances of the partition in the opening scene, reproduced in Examples 7.2a and
7.2b, will illustrate.
Example 7.2a presents the opening measures of the opera; here, six solo voices
(representing some aspect of Gods person, communicating to Moses from the
Example 7.2a
Schoenberg, Moses und Aron, Act I, scene 1, mm. 13: Depths of God. Schoenberg MOSES
UND ARON, Copyright 1951 by Schott Music GmbH & Co. KG, Copyright renewed.
All rights reserved. Used in the U.S. by permission of Belmont Music Publishers; used in the
world excluding the U.S. by permission of European American Music Distributors
Company, agent for Schott Music GmbH & Co. KG
burning bush) offer the four X trichords of P9 and RI0 and leave out the two middle
Y hexachords. As the pitch-class map below the score indicates, Schoenberg
arranges the pitches of P9s rst and last discrete trichords so that they create
vertical mirrors with the last and rst trichords of RI0. P9s two X chords consist of
(in unordered pitch intervals) <5-above-6> and <3-above-8>, and RI0s X chords
produce <8-above-3> and <6-above-5>. The pitches themselves are also vertically
symmetrical, forming a mirror around Bf3 and B3. Now, any pair of inversion-
related rows (not only this particular P9 and I0) could be disposed in such a way, so
that the rst three notes and last three notes form mirror inversions between the
rows; but Schoenberg adds a second dimension to the symmetry by overlapping P9
with RI0, creating a horizontally symmetrical pattern among the four chords. This
horizontal symmetry is reinforced by the durations of the rst P9 trichord (three
Moses und Aron 337
Example 7.2b
solo voices,
WW
vcls., cbs.,
bsns.
Vertical symmetries in Y:
speaking
chorus Symmetrical
around F4
Y: <+1, 2, +6, 2, +1> Symmetrical

11
P9
9 3 around E2
<+1, +1, +2, +1, +1>
8
5 RI0 8 7
X: 4 4 6
8 3 2
6 <+1, +1, +2, +1, +1>
0 11
10 9 6
8 5
Symmetrical
around E3/F3
X: 5
1
0
3 10
Y: <+1, 2, +6, 2, +1>
7 6
3 5
2 1
Schoenberg, Moses und Aron, Act I, scene 1, mm. 1113: Depths of God. Used by
quarter notes), the fourth P9 and rst RI0 trichords together (four quarters), and the
fourth RI0 trichord (three quarters).
Despite being reinforced by the rhythm, the horizontal and vertical symmetry may not
be the most obvious feature of mm. 13, however. Schoenbergs setting also highlights
invariant dyads between corresponding rst and fourth trichords of P9 and RI0. P9/r1
and RI0/r1 share pitch classes 9 and 10, and P9/r4 and RI0/r4 share 11 and 0. These pitch
classes (shaded in the pitch-class map) appear as outer voices, and give the unmistakable
aural impression of a progression repeated down an octave with a different middle voice.
In this way, the symmetry that is so obvious visually in the pitch-class map becomes
partially obscured aurally by the pitch-class invariants between the rows. This veiling of
symmetry has a representative function, as we will soon see.
In mm. 1113, shown in Example 7.2b, Schoenberg brings back the horizontally
and vertically symmetrical X chords of P9 and RI0 in the six solo voices, which sing
the phrase Lege die Schuhe ab to the X chords of P9 and Bist weit genug
gegangen to the X chords of RI0. But a new component is added here, which has
been introduced in the intervening measures: the middle Y hexachords of both
rows. As the registrally ordered chart on the right of Example 7.2b illustrates, the
two Y hexachords create a vertical symmetry with one another, around E3/F3 (the
other tritone pole, across from Bf3/B3). Two inversion-related elements can always
be disposed in such a way. But in addition, each of the Y hexachords is vertically
symmetrical within itself, a characteristic not shared by every row: the Y hexachord
in P9, registrally lower, centers on E2, and the Y hexachord in RI0, registrally
higher, mirrors around F4. Not only that, but the Y hexachords are so ordered so
that their ordered pitch-interval succession creates a horizontal palindrome:
<1,2,6,2,1>. As a result, each inversion of Y is equivalent to a transpos-
ition of the retrograde, and each retrograde inversion is equivalent to a transposition
of Y itself. The latter property is clearly illustrated in Example 7.2b: instead of our
hearing a retrograde-inversional relationship between the two Ys, what seems obvi-
ous to the ear instead is a transposition up 1 (in pitch-class space); <2,3,1,7,5,6> goes
to <3,4,2,8,6,7>.
As in the case of mm. 13, the horizontal symmetry in mm. 1113 is reected in
the durational values. It is not the pattern created by the durations themselves that
forms palindromes in the latter passage, but the relationship between the six solo
voices and the larger number of speaking voices in the chorus (representing that
aspect of God that communicates directly to Moses through the burning bush). For
both phrases, Lege die Schuhe ab and Bist weit genug gegangen, the speaking
chorus places itself right in the middle of the durational space generated by the six
solo voices. The speaking voices begin three quarter notes after and end three
quarter notes before the singing voices in the rst phrase, and begin two quarter
notes after and end two quarter notes before the singing chorus in the second
phrase. These durational symmetries are made visible by dotted lines on the score
of Example 7.2b.
What Schoenbergs rst leitmotivic partition makes available is the same kind of
intervallic shape that we have seen representing the ideal or perfection in
several compositions discussed earlier in this book: the Prelude of the Suite
Op. 25, the third Satire Op. 28, and the Piano Piece Op. 33a. In Moses und Aron,
the vertically and horizontally symmetrical shape at the opening represents God
Himself (or Themselves, as portrayed by the singing and speaking choruses). The
multiple symmetries and transformational relationships (both those that are inher-
ent in the row and those imposed on it) represent aspects of His person, which are
clearly visible and audible at times (the durational symmetries), partially visible and
audible at times (the X symmetries in both examples, and the Y symmetries in
Example 7.2b), completely invisible and inaudible at other times (the Y components
in Example 7.2a), and hidden behind more obvious relationships at other times (the
Moses und Aron 339
vertical and horizontal symmetries of the X chords that are obscured by the {9,10}
{11,0} invariances, and the RI-relationship between the two Y melodies in Example
7.2b, which is obscured by the t 1 relationship). These visible, invisible, and
hidden symmetries represent beautifully the central conict of the opera, which is
expressible as a question: since God is innite, too deep and complex to be
completely visible, is it acceptable to try to capture some of Him visually (as Aaron
tries to do and fails with the calf, and then succeeds with the pillar of cloud and
pillar of re), or must one forswear any kind of visual representation (as Moses tries
to do, but ultimately fails)?7 And the faltering attempts of Moses and Aaron to
grasp Gods nature and communicate it to their people are beautifully represented
by passages where Depths of God appears missing all or some of its symmetries,
or where completely different partitions that signify Moses or Aaron create sym-
metries, intervallic patterns, or set classes belonging to Depths of God (but
without the full context). We will encounter a number of such passages as we work
our way through the other leitmotives.
Before moving on to the other partitions, however, I would like to look at the
version of Depths of God that occurs at the nal cadence of Act II, scene 3: where
the people of Israel have nished all their orgies around the Golden Calf and
collapse in exhaustion. As I suggested at the end of the introduction to this chapter,
God comes back into the picture here, but the partition representing Him is
changed in many of its essential aspects, which diminishes its effectiveness to
create symmetries. This is portrayed in Example 7.2c. Rather than retrograding
one of the rows in the combinatorial pair as he did with the previous occurrences
of Depths of God (such as P9 and RI0), Schoenberg runs both P2 and I5 in the
forward direction. Thus, many of the characteristic invariances of Depths of God
that I described above, like the common dyad subsets between corresponding
X trichords, or the apparent transpositional relationship between the correspond-
ing Y hexachords, are no longer in place. What comes to the fore instead is the
ability of corresponding second trichords of Y (which we will label Y2) to create
something chromatic, and they do this in the rst violins, which are marked as
Hauptstimme. (As we shall see, chromatic elements in Moses und Aron signify the
7
Cherlin also takes note of the intervallic symmetries in the X chords that are partially hidden by the
{9,11}{10,0} dyad invariances, and the RI relationship between Y hexachords that is hidden by
the more obvious t 1. His interpretation of the signicance of these multiple ways of relating is
partly different, but (I believe) harmonizes with mine: as he puts it (speaking specically of the
Y hexachords), it is not so much that either choice, retrograde inversion or transposition, is
wrong, but rather that neither is an adequate name for the musical relationship. We might
paraphrase the musical conundrum to claim that which cannot be adequately named cannot be
adequately conveyed (through language), a thought that brings us into the realm of musical
signication, representation, and the role of the X Y partition in the opera (Schoenbergs Musical
Imagination, p. 240).
Example 7.2c
m. 962 963 964 965 966
1st violins
celesta
2nd and 3rd
violins 6 3
5 11
violas 6 3
harp
2nd and 4th

horns
cbs.
tuba
Y2
2nd and 3rd 6-1: chromatic tetrachord
violins, tuba, m. 962
m. 962
P 2: 2 3 9 7 8 6 0 10 11 1 4 5
1st vn., violas,
celesta and harp, mm. 963 66 cbs.,
m. 963
m. 962 mm. 963 66
I5: 5 4 10 0 11 1 7 9 8 6 3 2
violas, 1st vn., 2nd and 3rd
2nd and 4th horns,
m. 962 mm. 964 65 violins,
m. 962
mm. 963 66
Schoenberg, Moses und Aron, Act II, scene 3, mm. 96266: Depths of God modied so that both rows progress in the same direction, and a chromatic
hexachord is created from combining corresponding Y2 trichords. Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European American Music Distributors
Moses und Aron 341
magical ability of the calf to lead the people astray, and turn their attention away
from God.) The violins start with Y2 of P2 in m. 963, <0,10,11>, and follow that
immediately with Y2 of I5, <7,9,8>. What results is a chromatic hexachord, from
which they continue to repeat fragments up to the end. Meanwhile, the other
voices link P2 and I5 in some new ways. The rst notes of both generate a {2,5}
punctuation in the celesta and harp in m. 962, while the order positions 11 of both
yield another {2,5} dyad, which becomes the ostinato in the basses from m. 963 to
the end. The sustained string voices take order positions 1 and 2 of both rows, the
second and third violins <3,9> from P2 and the violas <4,10> from I5, to create
their sustained chord in m. 962. For their nal chord that stretches from m. 963 to
the end, they use order positions 9 and 10 from both rows: the violas take <1,4>
from P2 and the violins <6,3> from I5. Because they are taking corresponding
order positions in P2 and I5, and the interval between the two violins can therefore
be the same as that between the two violas, the string chords do project vertical
symmetry, which is reminiscent of that created by the X chords in the original
layout of Depths of God. The chord in m. 962 consists of the unordered pitch
intervals <6,5,6> (counted from the bottom up), and the chord in mm. 96366
consists of <3,11,3>. Finally, the only elements not accounted for, the rst
Y trichords of the two rows, are given to the horns and tuba in m. 962, where
they are both played backward.
This nal appearance of Depths of God in Act II, scene 3 obscures many (but
not all) of the vertical and horizontal symmetries and layers of relationships that
the partition possessed in its rst appearances at the beginning of the opera. It
preserves some of the vertical symmetry among X chords (or parts of them), and
also retains the original intervallic patterns of the Y trichords (enabling us to
identify the whole partition aurally). But it uses two of the Y trichords to create a
chromatic hexachord, which throughout the opera signies the inuence of the
calf. All of this depicts quite well the situation at the end of the Golden Calf orgies.
The people have returned to God, but their experience with the calf has changed
the relationship, and made it impossible for them to recognize the many levels of
Gods perfection.
The discrete tetrachord partition: Moses Understanding

Example 7.3 illustrates the rst instance of the discrete tetrachord partition,
representing Moses and his limited, yet unparalleled grasp of Gods depths and
complexity. This passage, mm. 811 of Act I, scene 1, appears between the two that
were illustrated in Examples 7.2a and 7.2b. In effect, Moses discovers for himself
some of Gods horizontal and vertical interval symmetries that are associated with
the Y melody, played on the English horn. These were not given in the opening
seven measures, as Y was either left out completely (mm. 13 and 67) or presented
Example 7.3
m. 8 9 10 11
> > > > > >
english
horn
> > > > >

>
1st vas.,
vcls.
> > > > > >

tuba
Moses
Vowels & dipthongs:

---------------
7 6
3 5
2 Y: <+1, 2,+6, 2,+1>
1 P7
11 9
8
5 6
4
1
10 0 0 10
7 10
3 4
RI1 2 t2
11 t3
9 t1
t1 t2 t3 8
Schoenberg, Moses und Aron, Act I, scene 1, mm. 811: Moses Understanding of God.
Distributors
in a manner that obscured its symmetry (mm. 36). In the passage immediately
following Example 7.3, mm. 1113 (as we have already seen in Example 7.2b), these
Y symmetries are conrmed by the complex of singing voices and instruments.
What is remarkable about the Y melody in mm. 811 is that it is generated as a
multidimensional hexachord presentation from two new tone rows, RI1 and P7.
These rows are not combinatorial (this is one of the few places in the opera where
non-combinatorial rows are closely associated as a pair), but when they are both
subjected to the discrete tetrachord partition, one note from each tetrachord can be
pulled out to form Y at exactly the same transposition it takes in mm. 1112:
<10,11,2,4>, <5,3,9,7>, <8,6,0,1>, <7,8,2,0>, <1,11,5,3>, <4,6,9,10>. I can
think of no better way to depict Moses, coming to the burning bush with a
Moses und Aron 343
completely different level of understanding, human rather than divine (represented

by his use of a new partition of RI1 and P7 and the unusual association of these non-
combinatorial row forms), and yet somehow managing to grasp more of Gods
inherent symmetries than any other human character in the opera (as we shall see,
Aarons attempts reproduce the vertical and horizontal X symmetries of Examples
7.2a and 7.2b, but in a transformed way). Moses almost-successful attempt to grasp
God is also reected in the vowels that he speaks while the English horn plays
<2,3,1,7,5,6>, as Michael Cherlin has pointed out. The full text reads Einziger,
ewiger, allgegenwrtiger, unsichtbarer, und unvorstellbarer Gott! The sequence of
vowels and dipthongs that occur together with the English horns rst ve notes,
ei, eh, ah, oo, oo, and nally aw, which follows the sixth note, traces a
progression toward the O that the six solo voices sang in the opening measures
but falls just short.8
Aarons Understanding
Listed next as part c of Example 7.1 is a partition associated with Aaron and his
grasp of the Unrepresentable One. Its rst appearance is in Act I, scene 2, where
Moses and Aaron meet and seem to talk past one another for a while, before Moses
pleads with his brother to purify his thinking. The original statements of Aarons
partition in mm. 124ff. are remarkable in that they rst associate themselves with
Moses before Aaron takes them over, so that they can be heard as a communication
from Moses to Aaron of some aspect of God. But the example I want to use to
illustrate Aarons Understanding comes from the operas nal scene, Act II,
scene 5. At this point, Aaron is about to persuade Moses that visual images, though
they cannot capture every aspect of Gods being, do still have some usefulness in
leading the people toward God. In the upcoming measures, he will point to the
pillar of re and pillar of cloud, and will remind Moses that even his own stone
tablets containing the Law are themselves a visual image.
In mm. 107375a, displayed in Example 7.4, Aaron is near the end of his
argument: he is reassuring Moses that the people will be preserved as a testimony
to the eternal Idea. The most striking aspect of the passages music is that, using a
completely new partition (alternating pitch classes), Aaron is able to recreate in a
different way some of the vertical and horizontal symmetries that came out of the
X Y partition at the beginning of the opera. As the bottom of Example 7.4
shows, Aarons melody (stating even order positions of P7, 0,2,4,6,8,10, and odd
order positions of RI10) carries out an almost-complete vertical mirror around Gs4
and A4 with the utes (which play even order positions of I10 followed by odd
order positions of R7). Only the initial trichords of m. 1074, <8,1,0> in Aarons
8
See ibid., p. 283.
Example 7.4
m. 1073 1074 1075
flutes
bass cl., bsns., harp
Aaron
16 16
2nd violins, 11 9
viola,
1st trombone
4 15 7 11
Aaron: 3-5 3-4 3-4 3-5
P7: 7 8 2 0 1 11 5 3 4 6 9 10 RI10: 7 8 11 1 2 0 6 4 5 3 9 10
3-11 3-11 3-3

1st trombone, violas, 2nd violins: 3-3
flutes: 3-5 3-4 3-4 3-5
I10: 10 9 3 5 4 6 0 2 1 11 8 7 R7: 10 9 6 4 3 5 11 1 0 2 8 7
bass cl., bsns., harp: 3-3 3-11 3-11 3-3
7 +1 4 +1 +7 (+1 5) +1 4 +1 +5
(almost) vertical flutes
3-5 3-4 pc retro 3-4 3-5
pitch-interval
symmetry Aaron
+7 1 +4 1 7 (+11 7) 1 +4 1 5 Horizontal pc and
set-class symmetry
Schoenberg, Moses und Aron, Act II, scene 5, mm. 107375a: Aarons Understanding of God. Used by permission of Belmont
Moses und Aron 345
solo and <9,4,5> in the ute part, break the pattern. This vertical symmetry is of
the same kind as that displayed by the X chords in Examples 7.2a and 7.2b,
though the axis is different: Schoenberg is taking inversion-related rows and
creating actual pitch and interval inversions from them. In addition, because of
his row sequence (P7 and I10 in m. 1073 followed by RI10 and R7 in mm. 1074
75), the ute pitch classes <9,4,5,1,2,7> in mm. 107475 reverse Aarons pitch
classes in m. 1073, <7,2,1,5,4,9>, and the ute pitch classes <10,3,4,0,1,8> in m.
1073 reverse Aarons pitch classes in mm. 107475, <8,1,0,4,3,10>. So Aarons
partition creates both vertical and horizontal symmetry, and two of the trichords
that create the horizontal symmetry are members of set class 3-5, the set class of
the rst X chord in m. 1 (the other two trichords belong to set class 3-4). Aaron
recreates some (but not all) of the horizontal and vertical symmetries that dene
God, but in a different way from God and Moses, and using a different partition.
His ability to lead the people using images that represent God (rather than using
words, as his brother wants to) is effectively depicted by musical relationships in
Example 7.4.
The chromatic tetrachord partition: Magic of the Image

It seems that much of Schoenbergs purpose in rewriting the story of Moses and
Aaron is to show how visual images of God can, if used indiscriminately, lead
people away from God and toward celebrating their own baser inclinations. The
Golden Calf scene portrays how the creation of the calf leads eventually to delusion,
suicide, unrestrained military power, murder, and rape. For me, this calls to mind
another image Schoenberg would have been familiar with in Germany in the 1930s.
Some of its early twentieth-century portrayals, for example, on the title pages of
Stefan Georges original publications, make it look like a spinning cross, a variation
of the central Christian symbol, though it has origins other than Christian ones as
well. I am speaking, of course, of the swastika.
The magical power of images to benet the people (if used rightly) and harm
them (if used wrongly) is represented by its own leitmotive, which I call Magic of
the Image and list as part d of Example 7.1. Cherlins name for this partition,
Miracle, captures its leitmotivic signicance as well, but in addition it locates the
rst appearance of the partition in the opera. According to Cherlin, that is Act I,
scene 4, where Aaron does three miracles to convince the people of Gods reality
and power: he changes Moses staff into a snake and back again, changes Moses
hand into a leprous hand and back again, and nally changes the water of the Nile
into blood (and back again).9 I have found in my study of the opera that there is an
9
See ibid., p. 245, and Cherlin, The Formal and Dramatic Organization of Schoenbergs Moses und
Aron, p. 73.
earlier manifestation of the partition, in that part of Act I, scene 1 where God
predicts the three miracles for Moses, mm. 4447 (showing perhaps that God knew
about the miracles and the excesses of the Golden Calf scene from the
beginning). Those measures are illustrated in Example 7.5a.
The initial manifestation of Magic of the Image in Act I, scene 1 is a gradual
one: rst, portions of it are generated, and ultimately the whole partition comes
together. (This same procedure characterizes all of the appearances of Magic of the
Image in Act II, scene 3 it is always emerging out of something else.) In m. 44, the
six solo voices, each doubled by an instrumental part (second ute, second clarinet,
English horn, second bassoon, bass clarinet, and second cello) divide P0s two
hexachords in two different ways. The rst hexachord is divided into contiguous
dyad (sopranos and altos) plus tetrachord (mezzo-sopranos), which in the immedi-
ate context signies the rst half of Magic of the Image. The second hexachord
undergoes a partition that is not part of Magic of the Image, as the tenors and
baritones take order positions <8,9> and the basses <6,7,10,11>. Meanwhile, the
instrumental voices that are not doubling take the two hexachords of P0 and reverse
them, stating the second followed by the rst (to create combinatoriality). The
horns, rst oboe, and celesta divide P0/h2 into contiguous tetrachord plus dyad,
and P0/h1 into contiguous dyad plus tetrachord; these are the same partitions the
two hexachords will undergo as part of Magic of the Image, but since their order is
reversed, the larger partition is not yet in view. (The text in m. 44 alludes to the rst
miracle: By your rod they will hear you and admire your great wisdom!)
Measure 45 presents a similar picture, as the text progresses to the second miracle
(Then by your hand they will believe your power). The six solo voices and their
accompanying instruments divide up I3 according to exactly the same pattern that
they used in the previous measure, so that, again, only the rst half of Magic of the
Image is apparent. The horns, rst oboe, and celesta use a slightly different partition,
as the lower part of Example 7.5as pitch-class map for m. 45 illustrates: RI3/h1
(creating combinatoriality with I3/h1 in the solo voices) divides into interlocking
trichords <0,1,6> and <4,7,5> instrumentally, and I3/h1, which follows it (creating
combinatoriality with the solo voices I3/h2), divides into dyad (horns) plus tetra-
chord (celesta). Thus in the solo voices followed by the non-doubling instruments,
we hear <3,2> <8,10,9,11> twice, the rst half of Magic of the Image.
In mm. 46 and 47, the partition that has been hinted at in previous measures
emerges into full view. (This comes as the voices allude to the third miracle: and [they
will] feel in the waters of the Nile what their own blood commands them.) The altos
and tenors sing the rst two and last two notes of R6, <9,8> and <7,6>, projecting
each dyad as a vertical, and then repeating both of them. The sopranos and mezzo-
sopranos take the contiguous tetrachord <5,3,2,4> and sing it in order, while the
piccolo doubles {3,5} as a trill. Finally, the baritones and basses sing the contiguous
tetrachord <10,0,11,1>, while the violins play a rotation of the same, <0,11,1,10>.
Example 7.5a
Schoenberg, Moses und Aron, Act I, scene 1, mm. 4347: Magic of the Image. Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and
Each part of the texture produces a chromatic tetrachord, 4-1 (0123), which is why
Cherlin also refers to this partition as the chromatic tetrachord partition.
Though this passage in Act I, scene 1 introduces the Magic of the Image
partition for the rst time, many of the invariant properties that are associated
with the partition do not show up here. Schoenberg would have had to use a full P0
in combination with a full RI3 to create the ordered invariance at positions
<0,1,10,11> and the reordered invariances at positions <2,3,4,5> and
<6,7,8,9> that are demonstrated in part d of Example 7.1. Likewise, to create the
ordered and unordered invariances between different harmonic areas that are
illustrated in part d of Example 7.1, he would have had to follow P0 and RI3 with
harmonic areas related by four and eight half steps: P4/RI7 and P8/RI11. Instead, in
this earliest appearance of Magic of the Image he chooses not to reveal the
partitions full potential (which ts its character as something that emerges only
gradually). Nevertheless, some of the invariances shown in part d of Example 7.1 do
form an interesting pattern in the non-doubling instruments during mm. 44 and
45. As the circles and connecting arrows on Example 7.5as musical score in those
measures show, <10,8,9,11> in the horns in m. 44 (part of P0/h2) is answered by
<8,10,9,11> in the celesta at the end of m. 45 (part of I3/h1). This forms a variation
of what Cherlin calls the STOPPOST relation between interior tetrachords of
anti-combinatorial rows partitioned by Magic of the Image; his label stems from
the fact that the letters from the word STOP to the word POST undergo the same
ordering transformation as pitch classes do in those interior tetrachords. In mm.
4445, the horns and celesta would manifest a STOPTSOP relation. In a slightly
different way, <7,5,6,4> in the celesta at the end of m. 44 (part of P0/h1) is
answered by <4,6,7,5> in the rst oboe and rst horn (part of RI3/h1) at the
beginning of m. 45, if a registral partition is allowed rather than the instrumental
one I described above (this registral partition is represented not only by the circle in
the score, but also by a bracket in the pitch-class map). This gives rise to a true
STOPPOST relation (the second tetrachord of which, however, is played back-
ward). Both relations together, STOPTSOP on the outside and STOPPOST on
the inside, form yet another horizontal pitch-class symmetry (representing the
visual images ability to show at least some of Gods perfection).
It remains for later manifestations of Magic of the Image to exploit fully the
numerous invariances that the partition makes possible. Cherlin in Schoenbergs
Musical Imagination provides an excellent illustration from Act II, scene 2, where
the elders implore Aaron to get on with making the Golden Calf.10 To avoid
duplicating Cherlins efforts, my illustration comes from near the beginning of
Act II, scene 3, mm. 42328, in an orchestral passage that serves as a dynamic
10
Cherlin, Schoenbergs Musical Imagination, pp. 24852.
Moses und Aron 349
Example 7.5b
Schoenberg, Moses und Aron, Act II, scene 3, mm. 42328: Magic of the Image. Used by
climax part-way through the Dance of the Butchers. I think this dynamic climax
suggests the looming power of the calf to inuence the people to think and do evil,
as the passages that portray their various delusions and sins begin to occur not long
after, at m. 454. It does this by causing confusion for the listener and analyst who is
trying to determine from which row form each of its chromatic terachords comes.
The passage is given as Example 7.5b.
Example 7.5b uses a slightly different format from others in this chapter, as
I want to highlight the idea that Schoenberg is pulling out chromatic tetrachords
from all six of the row forms that are collectionally invariant with each other under
Magic of the Image, P8, RI11, P0, RI3, P4, and RI7, as well as their retrogrades, and
in this way he exploits the invariant properties of the partition to a larger degree
than he did at the beginning of the opera. In some cases, Schoenberg pulls an
ordered tetrachord that appears only once in the twelve row forms, like <6,4,5,7>
in the cellos and basses from mm. 42528, which appears only in P8. (This
tetrachord is also remarkable because Schoenberg uses phrasing a slur over its
rst two notes to highlight it, even though it does not begin on a strong beat. The
highest and lowest lines in this passage are full of such examples.) In other cases,
ordered tetrachords in this passage are pulled from more than one row, like
<0,2,1,3> in the fourth horn and second bassoon at mm. 42325. That tetrachord
appears in order in both R8 and I7. In several other cases, he takes an ordered
tetrachord that is shared by multiple rows and reorders it: for example, the succes-
sion <2,0,3,1>, which shows up in the bottom violin and viola parts in
mm. 42526, is shown on my chart as a reordering of <3,1,2,0>, shared by P8
and RI7. (Or, in truth, <2,0,3,1> could also be heard as a reordering of ten other
tetrachords that share those pitch classes.) The succession <4,5,7,6>, which
anchors the texture in m. 423 as its bass line, can be heard as a reordering of
<4,5,6,7>, which comes from P4 and RI7, or of <6,4,5,7>, which follows it two
measures later. In general, the listener or analyst who attempts to gure out the row
forms on which these measures are based is met with utter confusion an
appropriate depiction of the calfs increasing ability to confuse the people.
Finally, there are long stretches of the third scene of Act II that portray the
struggle for the hearts of the people between God (represented by Moses) and the
Golden Calf. Schoenberg provides a musical analogue to the action by alternating
quickly between the discrete tetrachord partitions characteristic of Moses and the
chromatic tetrachord partitions, which, as we have just seen, signify the calf and
its ability to confuse the people. Example 7.5c portrays one of these passages,
found late in the Golden Calf scene. At m. 881, a two-part antiphony that was
introduced in previous passages begins again in earnest. This involves two
families of instruments, an upper group and a lower group (named as such
here because of their placement on my reduction of the score, although the earlier
instances of the two-part antiphony do involve registrally higher and lower
instruments, as we shall see in Example 7.8). The lower instruments begin in
mm. 88183, and divide into three groups, each of which contains a melodic
instrument or instruments and a chordal accompaniment. The groups are violins
accompanied by horns, three piccolos accompanied by violas and cellos (with
some doubling by the glockenspiel and xylophone), and rst trumpet accompan-
ied by trombones and tuba. All three of the melodic parts partition their materials
in the same way: they divide a rst hexachord of some row into dyads rhythmic-
ally, P2/h1 in the violins, R2/h1 in the piccolos, and I5/h1 in the trumpet. More
signicant for the leitmotivic process is what the accompanying instruments do
with their rst hexachords; I5/h1 in the horns, RI5/h1 in the violas and cellos, and
P2/h1 in the trombones and tuba. Each group starts with a chord built from order
Moses und Aron 351
positions 03, a discrete tetrachord, and then progresses to a chord built from
order positions 25, a chromatic tetrachord. Thus within each accompanying
strand, the discrete tetrachord sound which has been associated with Moses yields
after about two measures to the chromatic tetrachord, associated with the calf.
(The words discrete and chromatic, arrows, and shaded boxes for the chro-
matic sets on the score and pitch-class map of Example 7.5c make this process
visually more accessible.)
This struggle between Moses and the calf is then interrupted in mm. 88384 by a
short outburst from the other group in the antiphony, the higher group. Low
woodwinds take the four-note segment from a partition of P2 that I call Revelry II
(it will be described in detail a few pages below) and repeat it as a chord, while three
groups, the basses, harp, and piano, the clarinets and oboes, and the second
trumpet, mandolin, celesta, piano, and harp, create an imitative texture from the
other eight notes (some of the voices are truncated).
The struggle then continues back and forth in the lower group in mm. 88487.
This time, the melodic instruments (still violins, piccolos, and trumpet) divide their
three hexachords, P2/h2 in the violins, R2/h2 in the piccolos, and I5/h2 in the
trumpet, into a contiguous dyad followed by a contiguous tetrachord, in every case
giving emphasis to the third discrete tetrachord of the row at the phrases end.
Meanwhile, the accompaniment reverses the trajectory it took in the opening
phrase, though its individual strands do that in two different ways. The horns
partition R2/h2 and the trombones and tuba RI5/h2 by moving from order positions
<6,7,8,9>, a chromatic tetrachord, to <6,7,10,11>, what I call a transitional
tetrachord between chromatic and discrete (this particular transitional tetrachord is
a member of set class 4-Z15, with interval vector [1 1 1 1 1 1], making it less
chromatic than 4-1s [3 2 1 0 0 0], but more chromatic, and more weighted toward
the left, than 4-16s [1 1 0 1 2 1]). The third accompanimental strand, the violas and
cellos, moves simply from a 4-1 at <6,7,8,9> to a 4-16 at <8,9,10,11>. So in every
melodic and chordal strand, the trajectory reverses that of the rst phrase, moving
from chromatic back toward discrete and transitional. For the time being, Moses
and God have the upper hand. This is again followed by an outburst from the
upper group in mm. 88788, which now partitions I5 in the same ways and
among the same instruments as it did before on P2 in mm. 88384.
Gods Chosen People

The next leitmotivic partition, part e of Example 7.1, recurs as a kind of refrain in
various parts of the opera, in the sections where the Jews favored position as Gods
chosen people is described or referred to. These include Act I, scene 1, mm. 7184
(where God predicts the Jews favored position for Moses), Act I, scene 4, mm. 896
912 and 91933 (where Aaron tells the people that God has chosen them after
Example 7.5c
m. 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888
2nd tpt., mand., cel., hp., piano obs., cls., mand., cel., hp., piano
obs., cls. trumpets
bass cl., bsns. bass cl., bsns.
cbs., hp., piano cbs., hp., piano
piccs. piccs. piccs. piccs.

violins piccs.
violins violins violins violins
horns
violas and cellos

glock. and xyl.
1st trumpet
trombones, tuba
discrete chromatic chromatic transitional or discrete
Schoenberg, Moses und Aron, Act II, scene 3, mm. 88188: conict between the discrete and chromatic tetrachord partitions. Used by permission of Belmont Music
Example 7.5c (cont.)
violins bass cl., bsns.: 4-18 violins: 4-Z15 discrete bass cl., bsns.: 4-18
P2 /h1: 2 3 9 7 8 6 P 2: 2 3 9 7 8 6 0 10 11 1 4 5 P 2 /h2: 0 10 11 1 4 5 I 5: 5 4 10 0 11 1 7 9 8 6 3 2
horns: 4-16 discrete 4-1 chromatic cbs., hp., piano, obs., cls., horns: 4-1 chromatic 4-Z15 transitional cbs., hp., piano, obs., cls.,
I5 /h1: 5 4 10 0 (10 0) 11 1 2nd tpt., mand., cel.: 8-18 R 2 /h2: 6 8 7 9 (6 8) 3 2 tpts., mand., cel.: 8-18
piccs. Revelry II piccs.: 4-16 discrete Revelry II
R2 /h1: 5 4 1 11 10 0 R2 /h2: 6 8 7 9 3 2
vas., vcls., vas., vcls.,
glock, xyl.: 4-Z15 discrete 4-1 chromatic glock, xyl.: 4-1 chromatic 4-1 chromatic 4-16 discrete
RI5 /h1: 2 3 6 8 (6 8) 9 7 RI5 /h2: 1 11 0 10 (1 11 0 10) (0 10) 4 5
1st trumpet 1st trumpet: 4-Z15 discrete
I5 /h1: 5 4 10 0 11 1 I5 /h2: 7 9 8 6 3 2
tbs., tuba: 4-16 discrete 4-1 chromatic tbs., tuba: 4-1 chromatic 4-Z15 transitional
P2 /h1: 2 3 9 7 (9 7) 8 6 RI5 /h2: 1 11 0 10 (1 11) 4 5
Example 7.6
m. 1084 1085 1086 1087
Backstage:
piccolo
flute, clarinet
xylophone
mandolins 2,4
timpani (1st &

2nd beats)
piano
trombone
mezzos
altos mezzos altos
choral
women
tenors
bars. and
basses
Aaron
Schoenberg, Moses und Aron, Act II, scene 5, mm. 108487: Gods Chosen People. Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European
Example 7.6 (cont.)
tenors (3-1) tenors, baritones & basses (3-8)
altos
altos mezzos altos mezzos
P O T S T S O P S T O P P O S T
R9 /h1: 0 11 8 6 5 7 I0 /h1: 0 11 5 7 6 8 P9 /h1: 9 10 4 2 3 1 RI0 /h1: 9 10 1 3 4 2
baritones & basses (3-2) tenors, baritones & basses (3-3)
piccolo fl. and cl. (3-4)

Aaron (3-2) fl. and cl. (3-4) piccolo Aaron (3-2) piccolo fl. and cl. (3-5)
fl. and cl. (3-5) Aaron
P9 /h1: 9 10 4 2 3 1 RI0 /h1: 9 10 1 3 4 2 R9 /h1: 0 11 8 6 5 7 I0 /h1: 0 11 (5 7) 6 (8)

piccolo
Aaron (5-10)
mands.,
trombone (4-1): STOP trombone (4-1): POST timpani, xyl.(4-8) trombone piano (5-7)
(4-1): POTS trombone (4-1): TSOP
mands., piano (4-8)
P9 /h2: 7 5 6 8 11 0 RI0 /h2: 8 6 7 5 11 0 R9 /h2: 1 3 2 4 10 9 I0 /h2: 2 4 3 1 10 9

timpani, xyl. (4-8) mands., piano (4-18)
mands., piano (4-18) timpani, xyl. (4-18) timpani, xyl. (5-Z38)
convincing them of His power through the three miracles), and Act II, scene 5, mm.
108497 (where the people joyfully assert their favored position, as Aaron tries to
convince Moses that visual images can have a positive effect, because they reveal
enough of God for the people to follow). It is this last appearance of Gods Chosen
People that I am most interested in, as it plays such an important role in the nal
scene. The rst four measures of this last appearance, mm. 108487, are reproduced
as Example 7.6, to show how the discrete hexachord partition derives its signi-
cance from its context. The pitch-class map shows that each measure creates a
counterpoint of three hexachords: the altos (in the even measures) and mezzo-
sopranos (in the odd measures) sing their hexachord (R9/h1, I0/h1, P9/h1, RI0/h1
successively) straight through from left to right, and the other voice parts and
instruments divide up two other hexachords in different ways, as an accompani-
ment. (In each case, the piccolo, ute, and clarinet and Aaron partition the rst
hexachord of the retrograde of the row from which the altos and mezzo-sopranos
hexachord comes (which is combinatorial), though the type of partition changes,
and the timpani, xylophone, mandolin, piano, and trombone partition the second
hexachord of the same retrograde, which retrogrades the hexachord that the altos or
mezzo-sopranos are singing, and thus is anti-combinatorial.)
The polyphonic effect of one or more voices singing a hexachord straight through,
while numerous others partition its close relatives into smaller successions and repeat
those successions as an accompaniment, is common to all three places in the opera
where Gods Chosen People is featured. Rather than some quality of the discrete
hexachord partition itself, it is the effect of the voices together, which in performance
gives the strong impression of a single line rising above the surrounding static, that
depicts the meaning of these passages: in other words, the discrete hexachord lines
stand for the chosen people, singing their song which rises above the surrounding
noise (smaller partitions) created by the other instruments and voices, the Gentiles.
One of the accompanimental partitions highlights an invariance we have already
discussed under the heading Magic of the Image. Since the trombone takes the
rst four notes of the second discrete hexachord in every measure, order positions
<6,7,8,9>, in P9, RI0, R9, and I0, it creates a STOPPOST relation as it moves from
P9/h2 to RI0/h2, and the reverse, POTSTSOP, as it progresses from R9/h2 to I0/h2
(see the labels above the trombones bracketed tetrachords in the pitch-class map).
This reverses a similar pattern created by the last four pitch classes of the four
discrete hexachords in the altos and mezzo-sopranos, POTSTSOP from R9/h1 to
I0/h1 (mm. 108485), and STOPPOST from P9/h1 to RI0/h1 in mm. 108687.
Neither pair of relations is made obvious by the texture: the voices slur across the
tetrachord beginnings in two cases, and the trombone does not present its notes in
row order, but instead improvises brief melodies on them, full of repetitions and
order changes. But in some sense, the retrograde relationship between the trom-
bone and main voices gives a palindromic cast to the passage, and may also signify a
Moses und Aron 357
remote allusion to the Golden Calf (because of the chromatic tetrachord relations)
in what is essentially Aarons apologetic for the usefulness of visual images.
Revelry I
Next, in parts f and g of Example 7.1, come two families of partitions that control
large stretches of Act II, scene 3. The rst group (under the label Revelry I)
appears three times in the scene: in mm. 37196 (associated with the partition of P9
in part f of Example 7.1), mm. 42953 (associated with the partition of I4 in that
same example), and mm. 91428 (where the rst partition returns). The rst and
second of these passages accompany the people as they prepare for the sacrice to
the golden calf at the beginning of the scene, and the third supplants Magic of the
Image not too far into the Erotic Orgy near the scenes end (perhaps suggesting a
connection between perfect fths, diatonic music, and fertility?). As part f of
Example 7.1 shows, in every case Revelry I divides its tone row into a
pentatonic component (5-35 (02479)) and a diatonic one (7-35 (013568T)), produ-
cing a texture that sounds unusually tonal (more often, bitonal) for Schoenbergs
serial music. The pentatonic collection is often set as an open fth ostinato in the
strings, and the diatonic one as a series of melodic statements suggesting one mode
or another. For example, the initial appearance of Revelry I, in mm. 37174 of
Act II, is shown in Example 7.7a.
In this passage, both P9 and R9 are subject to Revelry I, and the partition
reverses along with the row forms, so the two groups of instruments project the
same collections consistently. The violins and violas (and cellos in m. 371 only)
present {0,2,4,7,9} as an ostinato based on a perfect fth chord, rising from <C3,G3,
D4> through <G3,D4,A4> to <D4,A4,E5> and back again. Since C3 seems to be
emphasized contextually as bass note for the beginning and end of the rising and
falling gure, I have identied Schoenbergs presentation of {0,2,4,7,9} as a C
pentatonic collection. Meanwhile, the complement <10,3,1,5,6,8,11> is presented
in such a way that Df sounds like a tonic: pitch class 1 comes on a strong beat, and
<5,6,8>, mifasol in Df, is repeated, the second of the statements coming on the
downbeat of m. 373. Thus the collection could be identied as Df mixolydian.
Schoenbergs realization of the partition of R9 uses changes in note order to
reinforce the Df mixolydian feel; he reverses the correct row order <8,6,5> to
<5,6,8>, forming mifasol a third time, and then changes <1,3> to <3,1>,
creating redo.
The juxtaposition of C pentatonic and Df mixolydian in mm. 37174 is
followed by several passages dividing rows into pentachords and hexachords that
increase in dissonance. Example 7.7b portrays the second step in the progression,
mm. 37579. Now the row forms in use are RI0 and I0 (as opposed to the P9 and
R9 of the previous measures), but the critical change is in the partition into ve
Example 7.7a
Schoenberg, Moses und Aron, Act II, scene 3, mm. 37174: Revelry I. Used by permission
and seven notes used. RI0 is divided into <0,3,7,8,11> and <1,2,4,5,6,9,10> in
mm. 37576a, followed by I0 in mm. 376b379 under the reverse partition,
yielding {0,3,6,7,9} and {1,2,4,5,8,10,11} both times. These belong to the set classes
5-31 (01369) and 7-31 (0134679), both of which are subsets of the octatonic
collection. Unlike the previous four measures, mm. 37579 do not seem to
emphasize specic pitch classes within the ve- and seven-note octatonic subsets
contextually (though both D and E of the 7-31 are given some weight through
repetition in mm. 378 and 379). The overall sense is that the music is moving
away from its (dual) tonal bearings and gradually becoming more dissonant. And
mm. 38092 continue along the same path of greater and greater dissonance,
dividing the rows into 5-26 and 7-26, then 5-Z12 and 7-Z12. The action on the
Moses und Aron 359
Example 7.7b
m. 375 376 377 378 379
violins
violas
xylophone, mandolins, celesta, piano, harp
violins, violas: 5-31 (01369), from OCT0,1 violins, violas: 5-31 (01369), from OCT0,1
RI0: 9 10 1 3 4 2 8 6 7 5 11 0 I 0: 0 11 5 7 6 8 2 4 3 1 10 9
xylophone, mandolins, celesta, piano, xylophone, mandolins, celesta, piano,

harp: 7-31 (0134679), from OCT1,2 harp: 7-31 (0134679), from OCT1,2
Schoenberg, Moses und Aron, Act II, scene 3, mm. 37579 (continuation of Example 7.7a).
stage at this point is people preparing for the sacrice to the Golden Calf, so the
gradual increase in dissonance seems to portray the calfs increasing inuence.
Revelry II
In part g of Example 7.1 we nd Revelry II, a partition that, in its different forms,
dominates the texture in mm. 82857, 86470, and 883906 of Act II, scene 3, the
latter parts of what Schoenberg calls the Orgy of Destruction and Suicide. (Thus
the kind of revelry this partition portrays is a much more dangerous one than the
rst.) The feature that all four versions of Revelry II have in common is that they
divide each discrete trichord into two notes (which are given to the larger, eight-
note, set) and one note (which is given to the smaller, four-note, set). The rst,
second, and fourth are symmetrical order-number partitions, while the third one
divides each discrete trichord into one note followed by two notes.
Example 7.8 portrays the initial appearance of Revelry II in mm. 828b834, just
after the slaughter of the four naked virgins, where, as Schoenbergs (typically
understated) stage directions say, The crowd now begins to destroy things and kill
themselves. Six row forms from the same harmonic area are divided up using
Revelry II: P2, I5, R2, RI5, RI5, and R2. The rst three use the partition listed rst
Example 7.8
m. 829 830 831 832 833 834
oboes, mandolins, piano, harp
violins, violas
cellos, cbs.
1st trombone
oboes, mandolins, piano, harp: 8-18 oboes, mandolins, piano, harp: 8-18 oboes, mandolins, piano, harp: 8-27
P 2: 2 3 9 7 8 6 0 10 11 1 4 5 R 2: 5 4 1 11 10 0 6 8 7 9 3 2 RI5: 2 3 6 8 9 7 1 11 0 10 4 5
violins, violas: 4-18 violins, violas: 4-18 violins, violas: 4-27

oboes, mandolins, piano, harp: 8-18 oboes, mandolins, piano, harp: 8-Z15 oboes, mandolins, piano, harp: 8-Z15
I5: 5 4 10 0 11 1 7 9 8 6 3 2 RI5: 2 3 6 8 9 7 1 11 0 10 4 5 R 2: 5 4 1 11 10 0 6 8 7 9 3 2
violins, violas: 4-18 violins, violas: 5-19 violins, violas: 4-Z15
cellos, cbs. cellos, cbs. cellos, cbs. cellos, cbs.

1st chord 2nd chord cellos, cbs. 1st chord 2nd chord 1st chord 2nd chord 1st chord 2nd chord
I5 /h2: 7 9 8 6 3 2 R 2 /t1: 5 4 1 11 R2 /4-8: 10 0 6 8 7 P2 /r1: 2 3 9 RI 5 /t1: 2 3 6 8 RI5 /4-10: 9 7 1 11 0 10 4
3-1(chromatic) 3-3 4-Z15 (discrete) 3-1 (chromatic) 3-5 4-Z15 (discrete) 3-8 4-5
P2 /h2: 0 10 11 1 4 5 RI 5 /t1: 2 3 6 8 RI5 /4-8: 9 7 1 11 0 P2 /h2: (0) 10 11 1 4 5 R 2 /4-10: 10 0 6 8 7 9 3

1st trombone: 5-4 1st trombone: 5-9 1st trombone: 7-10
1st trombone: 5-10 1st trombone, 5-19: last four pcs,
<5,4,1,11>, form a discrete tetrachord
Schoenberg, Moses und Aron, Act II, scene 3, mm. 828b834: Revelry II. Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European
Moses und Aron 361
in part g of Example 7.1 to divide the row between a repeated four-note violin and
viola chord (set class 4-18 (0147)) and an eight-note melody in the oboes, mandolins,
piano, and harp (set class 8-18). The fourth row form, RI5, uses a modied version of
the same partition (the third dyad in the eight-note set is shifted one order position
to the left) to form 8-Z15 (01234689) in the oboes, mandolins, piano, and harp and a
ve-note set, 5-19 (01367), in the violins and violas. The fth row, also RI5, uses the
partition listed second in part g of Example 7.1 to divide the row between those same
two groups of instruments, 4-27 (0258) in the violins and violas, and 8-27
(0124578T) in the oboes, mandolins, piano, and harp. Finally, the sixth row, R2,
uses the partition listed third in part g of Example 7.1, the non-symmetrical one, to
divide the row into 4-Z15 (0146) in the violins and violas and 8-Z15 in the oboes,
mandolins, piano, and harp. It is interesting to notice that Schoenberg changes his
partitions gradually as the passage progresses, forming a kind of partitional and set-
class developing variation (all of his partitions but the fourth, however, send two
notes of each discrete trichord to the larger set and one note to the smaller set, and
thus are all members of the Revelry II family). It is also interesting to point out that
he predicts the set classes that will be generated by later partitions using what we
might call pivot partitions: the 8-Z15 formed on the sixth row by the third partition
in part g of Example 7.1 is predicted (in some sense) by the 8-Z15 formed on the
fourth row by a slightly modied version of the examples rst partition.
The Revelry II partitions described in the last paragraph make up only half of
the content in Example 7.8. As Michael Cherlin points out in his dissertation, this
passage creates a stratied texture, with upper and lower strata alternating; in fact,
this example constitutes the beginning stage of the two-part antiphony that
I already discussed in Example 7.5c.11 (The passage in Example 7.8 comes around
fty measures before the one in Example 7.5c.) In this opening stage of the
antiphony, the registrally lower stratum, given to the cellos and basses playing
chords and the rst trombone playing small snatches of melody, is less consistently
partitioned than the upper one. But one notices a preference for discrete tetrachords
in places, like the rst tetrachords of R2 (low strings) and RI5 (trombone) in m. 830,
or the last tetrachord of P2 (played backward) in the trombone at the end of m. 832.
One also notices a few chromatic trichords coming to the surface, as in the low
strings on the third beat of m. 829, or in the same instruments on the third beat of
m. 831. The inclusion of discrete tetrachords together with chromatic sets in the
lower stratum seems innocuous at this point, but as we have seen already in
Example 7.5c, the juxtaposition of these two kinds of sets begins to take on a
programmatic signicance in the following seventy measures (representing the
struggle of God against the calf for the hearts of the people).
11
Cherlin, The Formal and Dramatic Organization of Schoenbergs Moses und Aron, pp. 18184.
Aarons Handiwork IIV

The four partitions listed as parts h, i, j, and k of Example 7.1, Aarons Handiwork
IIV, are so named because they constitute the majority of the texture in the
measures just after Aarons presentation of the calf to the people of Israel at the
opening of Act II, scene 3, mm. 32870. They become dominant again in a second
passage with some of the same features at mm. 397419 (the beginning of the
Dance of the Butchers). Looking for a moment at the partitions as they are
represented as parts hk of Example 7.1, we notice that three of them use for their
rst or second hexachord part of what I call Aarons Understanding, the partition
into odd and even pitch classes, and for their remaining hexachord one of the
partitions that Cherlin associates with magic, illusion, or deception. For example,
the rst hexachord of Aarons Handiwork I is the same as the rst hexachord of
Cherlins Illusion, a partition which comes to the fore at the end of Act I, scene 3,
where the people watch Moses and Aaron approach from the desert, and their eyes
start to play tricks on them.12 The partition listed as Aarons Handiwork III uses
for both its hexachords a partition associated with the second hexachord of
Cherlins Schlange, which portrays the miracle of Moses staff changing into a
snake in Act 1, scene 4.13 Interestingly, this snake partition does create two sets
belonging to set class 3-5, which we associated earlier with the rst X chord of
Depths of God. It shares this quality with the partition I have called Aarons
Handiwork II, which produces not only the set class of the rst X chord, but also
that of the second X chord, 3-3. Finally, the rst three of the Aarons Handiwork
partitions have a magical property in and of themselves: they create collectional
invariance between combinatorial row forms such as P1 and I4 and P11 and I2, and
two trichord exchanges between the rst and second hexachords of the combina-
torial rows (indicated using diagonal arrows in parts h, i, and j of Example 7.1).
Because of their invariant properties and their associations with other leitmotives
from earlier in the opera, the Aarons Handiwork partitions can be understood as
portraying the gradual transformation that is taking place in the rst part of the
Golden Calf scene: Aaron, out of his understanding of God (which enables God to
be represented with an image), has created the calf, and the calf is beginning to
work its magic and deception on the people, causing them to descend step by step
into orgies of murder, destruction, and rape. (At the same time, Aarons recon-
struction of God does retain certain qualities of the original, the set classes 3-3 and
3-5 which characterized the X chords of Gods X Y partition.) I want to illustrate
the rst few steps of the peoples descent into the Golden Calf orgies by means of
Example 7.9, which includes mm. 33138a from the beginning of Act II, scene 3.
The ve italicized and numbered headings on the pitch-class map of this example
12 13
Ibid., pp. 18687. Ibid., pp. 11215.
Example 7.9
m. 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338
violins
cellos
bassoons and contrabassoon

cellos
bassoons and contrabassoon
contrabasses 1st trombone
5) I: Schlange h2 + Schlange h2
1) rstanding + Illusion h2 3) Understanding
2nd vertical in vcls., 2nd vertical in bsns./cbsn.,
bsns., cbsn., m. 331: 2nd vertical in cbs., 2nd vertical in cbs., m. m. 337, 1st vertical in cbs., 1st trombone,
set class 3-3 m. 331: 3-5 bsns, cbsn, m. 334: 3-5 334: 3-3 m. 338: 3-5 mm. 337 38: 3-5
P11: 11 0 6 4 5 3 9 7 8 10 1 2 R 11 /h2: 3 5 4 6 0 11 I 2 /h1: 2 1 7 9 8 10 I 2: 2 1 7 9 8 10 4 6 5 3 0 11
1st vertical in cbs., 3rd vertical in cbs., 1st vertical in vcls., 1st 3rd vertical in 1st vertical in bsns./cbsn., 3rd vertical in bsns./cbsn.,
m. 331: set class 3-5 mm. 331 32: 3-3 vertical in cbs., m. 334: cbs., m. 334: 3-5 2nd vertical in cbs., m. 337: 3-4 1st vertical in cbs., m. 337:
3-3 3-4
4) rstanding + Illusion h2
2) I: Schlange h2 + Schlange h2 1st vertical in vns., 2nd 1st vertical in vcls., 1st vertical in cbs.,
bsns., cbsn., m. 332, 1st vertical in vcls., 3rd vertical 2nd vertical in cbs., 1st trombone, 3rd vertical in
1st vertical in cbs., m. 332: 3-5 vertical in cbs., m. 333: 3-5 in cbs., m. 335: 3-3 m. 335: 3-5 mm. 335 36: 3-3 bsns./cbsn., m. 336: 3-5
P11: 11 0 6 4 5 3 9 7 8 10 1 2 P 11: 11 0 6 4 5 3 9 7 8 10 1 2 I 2: 2 1 7 9 8 10 4 6 5 3 0 11
2nd vertical in cbs., m. 332: 3-4 bsns., cbsn, mm. 332 33: 3-4 bsns, cbsn, 2nd vertical
mm. 334 35: in vns., 1st
1st vertical in vcls., 2nd vertical in 1st vertical in 2nd vertical in
3-5
2a) /h1: vertical in cbs., m. 333: 3-5 cbs., m. 335: bsns./cbsn., bsns./cbsn.,
Illusion h1 3-3 2nd vertical in m. 336: 3-3
RI2 /h1: 11 0 3 5 6 4 cbs., m. 336: 3-5
2nd vertical in vcls., 3rd

vertical in cbs., m. 333: 3-4
Schoenberg, Moses und Aron, Act II, scene 3, mm. 33138a: Aarons Handiwork IIII. Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers
are noteworthy: in italics, they indicate the combinations of hexachords from

Aarons Understanding with hexachords from partitions named by Cherlin such
as Illusion and Schlange. In bold italics, they indicate the specic members of
my Aarons Handiwork family that these combinations form. Essentially, the
passage in Example 7.9 traces the same motion twice (the rst time represented by
leitmotives 1 and 2 on the pitch-class map, the second time by leitmotives 3, 4,
and 5). This motion progresses from Aarons understanding of God to illusion,
deception, and magic. Measure 331 splits up P11 using Aarons Handiwork II,
which begins with the oddeven partition of Aarons Understanding (bassoons
and rst vertical in the basses), and then progresses quickly to the second hexa-
chord of Cherlins Illusion (second and third verticals in the basses). Measures
33233 bring back P11 again, but it is partitioned a different way, using Aarons
Handiwork III, which consists of two second hexachords from Cherlins
Schlange. The bassoons play the Schlange partition of P11s second hexachord,
half of it forward, the other half backward, while the bass verticals progress from the
Schlange partition of the rst hexachord to the one on the second. The cellos
enter in m. 333 with the rst of several glissandi: their two verticals evoke the rst
hexachord of Cherlins Illusion partition, on RI2/h1.
In mm. 33438, the same succession of partitions repeats, lengthened and
elaborated. Measure 334 expands the single hexachord under Aarons Understand-
ing that m. 331 included to two of them, on R11/h2 followed by I2/h1. Then, in
mm. 335 and 336, both P11 and I2 are subjected to partition by Aarons Handi-
work II. (This can be heard as an elaboration of the single P11 that was divided up
with Aarons Handiwork II in m. 331.) The inclusion of both rows of the
combinatorial pair, one after another, enables the trichord exchanges of Aarons
Handiwork II to come to the surface: for example, {0,3,4}, which constitutes the
rst chord in the violins and second chord in the cellos in m. 335, is answered by
the same set in the second chord of the bassoon part in m. 336. There are three
other such trichord exchanges involving {5,6,11}, {1,9,10}, and {2,7,8}; these are
highlighted with boxes and arrows on the musical score and with different kinds of
shading, as well as arrows, in the pitch-class map. Finally, mm. 33738 partition I2
according to the pattern of Aarons Handiwork III.
The partition illustrated last among the four Aarons Handiwork partitions, IV,
retrogrades the second of the combinatorial row forms (making them anti-
combinatorial), and uses a different partition for P and RI (the P form follows
Aarons Understanding with the second hexachord of Cherlins Illusion, while
the RI form follows Aarons Understanding with the rst hexachord of Illu-
sion). For both of these reasons, Aarons Handiwork IV cannot demonstrate
either collectional invariance or trichord exchange. It has a different magical
property, however, which contributes to the sense of forward motion in the
passages at the beginning of the Golden Calf scene where these partitions are
Moses und Aron 365
Example 7.10
m. 354: 2nd low string

oboes: set class 3-3 vertical: 3-3 bassoons: 3-11
Handiwork
IV
P11: 11 0 6 4 5 3 9 7 8 10 1 2 RI2 /h1: 11 0 3 5 6 4
1st low string 3rd low string 2nd low string vertical: 3-4
vertical: 3-5 vertical: 3-5 Understanding
+ Schlange h2
m. 355: bassoons: 3-4 oboes: 3-5 clarinets: 3-4
Handiwork RI : 11 0 3 5 6 4 10 8 9 7 1 2 P11 /h2: 9 7 8 10 1 2

2
IV
1st low string 2nd low string 1st low string vertical: 3-5
vertical: 3-11 vertical: 3-4
clarinets: 3-5 bassoons: 3-4
m. 356:
Aaron P11: 11 0 6 4 5 3 9 7 8 10 1 2
Understanding
2nd low string vertical: 3-3 1st low string vertical: 3-11
Schoenberg, Moses und Aron, Act II, scene 3, mm. 35457: Aarons Handiwork IV. Used
featured: namely, it creates trichords within the corresponding hexachords of the

anti-combinatorial row forms that have two notes in common, such as {0,3,4} and
{0,4,5}, which are highlighted in the rst hexachord of part k of Example 7.1.
Schoenberg uses these n1 pitch-class similarities to simulate motivic development
in a number of passages in Act II, scene 3 that come soon after passages such as the
one illustrated in Example 7.9. One of them is illustrated in Example 7.10, which
shows mm. 35457, only sixteen measures after the end of Example 7.9.
Example 7.10s texture consists of woodwind families in an imitative texture over
an ostinato consisting of short low string chords. The imitative texture features
three-note head motives that continually expand their rst interval, <16,1> in
the oboes; this is answered by <17,1> in the bassoons, which is in turn
answered by <19,1> in the clarinets. The oboe and bassoon head motives result
from applying Aarons Handiwork IV to P11 and RI2; the n1 invariance between
{0,3,4} and {0,4,5} at order positions <1,3,5> accounts for the expansion between
them. Then in m. 356, Aarons Understanding is applied to P11, and the clarinet
head motive takes the even (rather than odd) order positions <0,2,4>, demon-
strating that the same leap-up, step-down contour can be projected from the even
order numbers of the rst hexachord as well. Measure 357 presents two hexachords
rather than a complete row, P11/h2 and RI2/h1, partitioning the former like the
second hexachord of Cherlins Schlange and the latter according to Aarons
Understanding. The bassoon head motive in this measure takes order positions
<0,2,4> from RI2/h1, which completes Schoenbergs rather methodical, deliberate
tour through the odd and even order positions of the rst hexachords of P11 and RI2
(odd positions of P11/h1, odd of RI2/h1, even positions of P11/h1, even of RI2/h1).
But such a partition yields a different contour from the three preceding ones,
consisting of a large leap up followed by a small leap up, and thus the motivic
variation goes to another level, continuing the forward motion that was initiated by
the expanding intervals earlier in the passage.
Alternating Dyads
The partition listed as part l of Example 7.1 has not been mentioned in earlier
accounts of Moses und Aron (except by Christian Martin Schmidt, who calls it
Selektionsmuster 3), and yet it plays an important role in Act II, scene 3, typically,
as a transitional partition.14 Alternating Dyads occurs in mm. 40619, as part of the
Dance of the Butchers. It thus serves as a transition from leitmotives that represent
Aarons making the calf, mostly Aarons Handiwork partitions together with
discrete and contiguous tetrachords and dyads (mm. 397406), to the appearance
of Magic of the Image at m. 420. It reappears (applied to only the rst eight notes of
the row) at mm. 57981, in the midst of a long stretch of discrete and contiguous
tetrachord and dyad partitions that lead to an eventual statement of Depths of God
at mm. 586 and 588. The rst of these two passages is given in Example 7.11.
Example 7.11 begins with the violins playing the rst, third, and fth discrete
dyads of R7 as verticals (forming set class 6-Z25 (013568)), and the celesta and
piano taking the second and sixth, while the ute and piccolo round out the
partition with the fourth discrete dyad (played horizontally and backward). At
the same time, the violas and trumpets overlay half of the Alternating Dyads
partition of I10, the second, fourth, and sixth dyads. This overlay prepares for m.
14
Schmidt, Schnbergs Oper Moses und Aron (Mainz: Schott, 1988), p. 62.
Example 7.11
m. 409 410 411 412 413
piccolo
flute flutes 1 3
1st oboe
1st horn oboes 1 3, mandolins, harp

mandolins, celesta, piano, harp trumpets 1 2
celesta
piano
cellos
violas
horns 1 & 3
violins
3rd trombone & tuba trombones 1 3 cellos

1st trombone
violas
trumpets
1 2
flute, piccolo
violins: 6-Z25 (backwards)
1st oboe: 6-Z47 flutes 1 3: 6-Z47
R7: 10 9 6 4 3 5 11 1 0 2 8 7 P 7: 7 8 2 0 1 11 5 3 4 6 9 10 P 7: 7 8 2 0 1 11 5 3 4 6 9 10
celesta, piano: 4-2 mandolins, celesta, piano, harp: 6-Z25 cellos: 6-Z25
violas, tpts.: 6-Z25 1st trombone: 6-Z19 horns 1 & 3: 6-Z19
I10: 10 9 3 5 4 6 0 2 1 11 8 7 I 10: 10 9 3 5 4 6 0 2 1 11 8 7 I 10: 10 9 3 5 4 6 0 2 1 11 8 7
cellos: 3-5 cellos: 3-4 flutes 1 3: 6-Z47 oboes 1 3, mandolins, harp: 3-5, 3-4
1st oboe: 6-Z47
I10: 10 9 3 5 4 6 0 2 1 11 8 7 I 10: 10 9 3 5 4 6 0 2 1 11 8 7
3rd trombone & tuba: 6-Z25 trumpets 1 2: 6-Z25

1st horn: 6-Z19 violas: 6-Z19
P7: 7 8 2 0 1 11 5 3 4 6 9 10 P 7: 7 8 2 0 1 11 5 3 4 6 9 1
cellos: 3-5 cellos: 3-3 trombones 1 3: 3-5 trombones 1 3: 3-4
Schoenberg, Moses und Aron, Act II, scene 3, mm. 40913: Alternating Dyads. Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers
410, where the tuba and third trombone play the same half of Alternating Dyads
on I10 (again as vertical dyads, so that they transpose the viola and trumpet music
from m. 409 down two octaves). The rst oboe plays the remainder of I10, forming
set class 6-Z47. All this sounds against a partition of P7 in the horn and cellos that
starts with Aarons Understanding for the rst hexachord, and then dissolves into
a discrete trichord and non-contiguous trichord.
After m. 411, the partition scheme and row forms stay consistent for the next
three measures. Alternating Dyads migrates from P7 to I10 and back in these three
measures, and trades places with a partition that mixes components of the various
Aarons Handiwork partitions (maybe we could dub it Aarons Handiwork V).
It uses Aarons Understanding for its rst hexachord, and then progresses to the
second hexachord of the partition that Cherlin calls Schlange. The instrumenta-
tion does not stay consistent: as the pitch-class map shows, certain groups drop out
and enter, while others (such as the utes) switch from one part of the partition to
another. The general effect of the passage seems to be avored by its mixing of
melodic and harmonic elements that were characteristic of the beginning of the
scene (those provided by the Aarons Handiwork partitions) with elements
generated by the new Alternating Dyads partition. Two of the rows discrete
dyads, the rst and last, have the potential of forming half steps in pitch space, and
in mm. 41112, the rst dyad of the Alternating Dyads partition is always
presented in that way (<G4-Af4> in the oboes in m. 411, <Bf6-A6> in the utes
in m. 412). These motives prepare the listener for an appearance of Magic of the
Image in mm. 420ff., in which contiguous half steps yielded by that partition (as
well as some that are not contiguous) are featured prominently.
Sick Woman
Part m of Example 7.1 is the one partition that I associate with a character besides
Moses or Aaron, Sick Woman. This partition can be derived by symmetrical
mirroring from one of the partitions that Cherlin associates with the peoples calf-
inuenced delusions. He calls it Deception and notes that it consists of a division
into order positions <0,1,5,6,8,9> and <2,3,4,7,10,11>. It appears primarily in Act
II, scene 2, where Aaron and the people speculate about why Moses is taking so long
to come down from Mount Sinai, and deceive themselves into thinking he may be
dead.15 What makes this partition deceptive is a feature of its rst hexachord: the
contiguous subset formed at order positions 2 through 4 can have the ordered pitch
intervals <2,1> in P forms (<2,1> in I forms), the very same pitch intervals
that constituted the two halves of Gods Y motive, but they are taken from a different
part of the tone row. If one takes the rst hexachord from Deception and appends a
15
Cherlin, The Formal and Dramatic Organization of Schoenbergs Moses und Aron, pp. 8892.
Moses und Aron 369
second hexachord that states the backward version of the same partition, one arrives
at Sick Woman which plays its most important role in the section of Act II, scene
3 where the sick woman sings about the calfs power to heal and then is healed, a
manifestation of the calfs deceptive power. The beginning measures of this music,
mm. 45863, are illustrated in Example 7.12. Notice that in mm. 45860, entire rows,
namely, R5 and RI8, are partitioned using Sick Woman. The sick woman takes order
positions <0,1,5,6,10,11> in both rows, forming set class 6-2 (012346), one interval
shy of a chromatic hexachord. As later music will feature the chromatic tetrachord
partition as a signal of the power of the calf over the people, the emphasis on an
almost-chromatic hexachord here could be understood as a step in the direction of
calf worship. Meanwhile, the oboes play the remainders of the row forms, which are
also members of 6-2. The motives formed by the last three notes in each of the oboe
hexachords (<11,10,0> and <2,3,1>) are notable. Their ordered interval succes-
sions, <1,2> and <1,2>, are both components of the Y hexachord from
Depths of God, which could signify the calf trying to imitate the attributes of God
and thus deceiving the people. The pitch-class succession <2,3,1> in m. 460 is
especially evocative, as it brings back the pitch classes, ordered pitch-interval succes-
sion, and certain rhythmic features of the rst trichord of Y in its original appearances
at mm. 89 and 11 (compare Example 7.12 with Examples 7.2b and 7.3).
After m. 461, complete rows give way to three hexachordal fragments, each of
them second hexachords and each subjected to the same partition, which is the
reverse of the rst hexachord of Cherlins Deception. Although Deception is a
strong inuence throughout the passage, in mm. 46263 it begins to dissolve the
trichord motives that evoked the Y hexachord in the previous measures. It does so
by applying itself (the reverse of its rst hexachord, that is) to the prime and
inverted forms P5 and I8, rather than their retrogrades. As the pitch-class map for
mm. 46263 shows, this change in row type yields set class 3-2 in order positions
1, 2, and 3 of the hexachord, rather than 3-1, which yielded the pitch-interval
successions reminiscent of Y. As set class 3-2 takes over, the oboes begin to widen
their pitch-interval content substantially, playing <11,2> in m. 462 and
<1,14> in m. 463 and obliterating most traces of the original motive. The calf
is looking less like God and more like itself at this point.
Peoples Understanding
We end our tour of leitmotivic partitions that have signicance for Act II, scene 3
with part n of Example 7.1, a variation on the Depths of God partition that began
our tour. In this variation, the two discrete trichords of Y are split apart, and each of
them adds on a single pitch class from the opposite end of the row, forming
tetrachords at order positions <0,6,7,8> and <3,4,5,11>. This variation is the
basis of the texture at mm. 675751, the song of the Seventy Elders praising the
people and what they have created, and it is prominent again at mm. 82223, just as
Example 7.12
m. 458 459 460 461 462 463
oboes 1 3
english horn
Sick Woman
english horn: 4-2 Sick Woman

Sick Woman: 6-2 and E.H. (arrows): 3-3
R5: 8 7 4 2 1 3 9 11 10 0 6 5 R5 /h2: 9 11 10 0 6 5
oboes 1 3: 3-1
oboes 1 3: 6-2
english horn Sick Woman
Sick Woman: 6-2 and E.H. (arrows): 3-4
RI8: 5 6 9 11 0 10 4 2 3 1 7 8 P5 /h2: 3 1 2 4 7 8
oboes 1 3: 6-2 oboes 1 3: 3-2

Sick Woman
and E.H. (arrows): 3-4
I8 /h2: 10 0 11 9 6 5
oboes 1 3: 3-2
Schoenberg, Moses und Aron, Act II, scene 3, mm. 457b463: Sick Woman. Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European
Moses und Aron 371
the four naked virgins are being sacriced. But it makes its rst appearance at
m. 606, the opening of the Orgy of Drunkenness and Dancing. Given the action on
the stage that is normally associated with it, and the fact that it is an approximation
of Gods X Y, I have chosen to call it Peoples Understanding (referring to their
understanding of God). The idea behind that label is that this partition makes two
small adjustments to the pure X Y form, but that those adjustments obscure the
symmetries associated with X and Y while generating an almost-chromatic tetra-
chord and a chromatic tetrachord. In a parallel way, the peoples attempt to worship
according to their own inclinations obscures God and leads to confusion and evil.
The example I will use to illustrate Peoples Understanding, Example 7.13, comes
from mm. 605b610, the beginning of the Orgy of Drunkenness and Dancing, which
is an orchestral introduction to the song of the Seventy Elders. In these measures, the
initial X chords of Depths of God, <8,9,3> from P8 on the pickup to m. 606 and
<8,9,0> from RI11 on the downbeat of m. 608, are presented as verticals with all three
voices attacking simultaneously (just as in the opening measures of the opera), and
the nal X chords, <7,10,11> from P8 on the second beat of m. 607 and <4,10,11>
from RI11 on the second eighth note of beat 1 in m. 610, have one note displaced
rhythmically and registrally (moved down an octave). This registral displacement, as
well as the registral reordering of the second X2 chord, obscures the typical vertical
and horizontal symmetry of X chords in combinatorial prime and retrograde inver-
sion rows: what were unordered pitch intervals <5-above-6>, <3-above-8>,
<8-above-3>, <6-above-5> in Examples 7.2a and 7.2b become in this instance
<5-above-6>, <3-above-20>, <8-above-3>, <6-above-23>. Meanwhile, the two
Y hexachords are split registrally and instrumentally into their component trichords,
obscuring the horizontal ordered pitch-interval symmetry within Y.
In Example 7.13, the partition that characterizes Peoples Understanding
depends on instrumentation to distinguish itself from Depths of God: order
positions 0, 6, 7, and 8 are given to the rst cellos in mm. 60607, then to the horn
in mm. 60810, and order positions 3, 4, 5, and 11 go to the bassoons and piano (but
not the bass clarinet, which plays a pure Y1 trichord, just order positions 3, 4, and 5).
As mentioned before, what makes this partition take a step in the direction of calf
inuence is the fact that the bassoon and piano tetrachord in mm. 60607,
<1,2,0,11>, is a chromatic tetrachord, as is the horn tetrachord in mm. 60810,
<8,7,5,6>. Registrally, the chromatic tetrachord emerges out of the depths (as well
as out of the Depths of God) in this passage, signifying the calfs growing inuence,
while the symmetries of Depths of God are progressively obscured.
The end of Act II, scene 5 as a culmination of processes that came before
At this point in the chapter, it will be useful to analyze a segment of Moses und Aron
that is a little longer than the ones I used to demonstrate the various leitmotivic
Example 7.13
m. 606 607 608 609 610
1st horn
1st cello
1st cello
1st horn
E.H.
E.H.
bass cl., bsns., piano
1st cello: 4-2 Y2 1st horn: 4-1 (chromatic tetrachord) Y2
8 8
6 7
5 5 6
4
X1 3 X1 0 4
10 10
9 9 X2
7 X2 3
2 2 1
1 0
11 11
P8: Y1 bass cl., bsns., piano: 4-1 RI11: Y1 bass cl., bsns., piano: 4-2
(chromatic tetrachord)
2nd vertical 2nd vertical
1st cello in horn and 1st horn in vcls. and
E.H. E.H.
8 9 3 1 2 0 6 4 5 7 10 11 8 9 0 2 3 1 7 5 6 4 10 11
1st vertical 1st vertical
in horn and bass cl. bsns., piano in vcls. and bass cl. bsns., piano
E.H. E.H.
Schoenberg, Moses und Aron, Act II, scene 3, mm. 605b610: beginning of Orgy of Drunkenness and Dancing, illustrating
genesis of Peoples Understanding from Depths of God. Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European
Moses und Aron 373
partitions. The main point is to show how Schoenberg develops his partitions over
time, and makes them interact with one another in different ways to depict the
action described in the libretto and the psychological drama suggested by it. Since
my partitions were taken mainly from Act II, scene 3, one would think it appropriate
to survey the Golden Calf scene. Unfortunately, that scene is so extensive and richly
detailed that it would be impossible within my space constraints to describe all of it
in the detail it deserves. In lieu of that, I provide a form chart for the Golden Calf
scene in Example 7.14, in which the reader by following the leitmotivic partitions
that I list in the second row from the bottom can get some sense of how they
combine into sequences to represent the trends in the action on the stage. For
example, if the reader traces the leitmotives through the recitative, A, B, A0 , and B0
sections on the form chart, he or she will see that there are two progressions from
Aarons Understanding through the various versions of Aarons Handiwork to
Magic of the Image. One culminates in m. 330, the second in m. 420. This parallels
musically the progression in the story: Aarons notion that God can be portrayed
through images leads to his fashioning of the calf, which in turn takes over and leads
the people astray through its magic.
The shorter passage that I will describe in detail, instead of the full Golden Calf
scene, comes from the end of the opera, the nal part of Act II, scene 5. At the
beginning of this chapter, I argued that a principal reason for recognizing Moses
und Aron as a complete two-act opera, rather than trying to understand it as an
incomplete three-act work, is that the closing measures of Act II make such a
convincing nal cadence. To be sure, this cadence is not the kind that brings
resolution in fact, it does the exact opposite, portraying a complete disconnect
between God, Moses, and his people and the failure of Moses mission but it
portrays this lack of resolution in a devastatingly nal way. One of the ways in
which Schoenberg accomplishes this is by going through a series of partitions and
processes on partitions that were important to earlier parts of the work (creating
something like a coda for the whole opera).16 More importantly, he transforms
some of these partitions and processes in ways that suggest that Aaron has taken over
the mantle of leadership and found a way to communicate God to the people, using
images. These transformed partitions occur a number of times in Act II, scene 5, but
I will focus on those just before and during that passage where Aaron points out to
Moses that the pillar of cloud, the pillar of re, and the burning bush itself are all
visual images that represent God quite effectively, thus winning his argument with
Moses that has been going on from the beginning. Directly after this, the partitions
16
Christian Martin Schmidt in his commentary on Act II, scene 5 also discusses how the last
scene reaches all the way back to the beginning of the work for its motivic reminiscences, and thus
plays the role of coda for the opera as a whole. See Schmidt, Schnbergs Oper Moses und Aron,
pp. 31415.
Example 7.14
Schoenberg, Moses und Aron, Act II, scene 3: form chart

Example 7.14 (cont.)
associated with God, Aaron, and the people disappear from the score as Aaron and
the people march off the stage. Moses is left alone and powerless and the only
partition left to him is one we have not yet discussed: Moses Failure. This
leitmotive represents his situation well, because it has no obvious relation to the
partitions that stand for Moses, Aaron, God, or the people, and because it has no
special powers to create symmetry or invariance, unlike Depths of God, Moses
or Aarons partitions, or even Magic of the Image.
We will pick up Act II, scene 5, at that place where Aaron reassures Moses that
this people will be sustained, to give proof of the eternal Idea, near the end of his
nal argument that clinches his victory over Moses. This is illustrated by Example
7.15a, mm. 107378, the larger context of the three measures that I used back in
Example 7.4 to introduce the properties of Aarons Understanding to create
symmetry. The reader will remember from our discussion of the previous example
that Aarons Understanding applied to P7 and I10 together in m. 1073 followed by
RI10 and R7 together in mm. 107475a creates a number of possibilities for
horizontal and vertical symmetry, some of which are realized. The ute line and
Aarons part create vertical ordered pitch-interval symmetry with each other in
mm. 1073 and 1074b1075a, but not in the rst part of m. 1074 (utes, <7,11,
4,11,17,1,5,11,4,11,15>, Aaron, <17,1,14,1,7,11,7,1,14,1,5>;
symmetrical parts highlighted in bold). And the pitch-class succession of Aarons
line in these two and a half measures, <7,2,1,5,4,9,8,1,0,4,3,10>, reverses that of the
utes, <10,3,4,0,1,8,9,4,5,1,2,7>. Finally, the set classes formed by the discrete
trichords of Aarons line and the ute line, 3-5, 3-4, 3-4, 3-5, create a horizontal
symmetry (which includes the set class of one of the original X chords, 3-5).17
There are two other properties of Aarons Understanding in this passage that
we did not discuss back on pp. 34345, as I was focusing on complete symmetries
there. Within each hexachord of their lines, both Aaron and the utes nearly
achieve horizontal ordered pitch-interval symmetry, one of the many symmetries
of Depths of God (this particular one was found originally in the ordered pitch
intervals of the Y hexachord, <1,2,6,2,1>). Here, the rst hexachord in the
utes (m. 1073) contains the ordered pitch intervals <7,1,4,1,7>, and
Aarons rst hexachord, mirroring the utes vertically as he does, reads
<7,1,4,1,7>. In both cases, they nearly create a horizontally symmetrical
17
Schmidt makes the point that since Aarons solo applies Aarons Understanding exclusively to P7,
I10 and their retrogrades in mm. 107378, the passage creates the potential for ordered pitch-interval
successions that recall Aarons hymn-like song in Act I, scene 2. The hymn-like song is found in
passages following m. 148, where Schoenberg applies Aarons Understanding to other row forms.
It is important to note that the earlier instances of Aarons hymn in Act I, scene 2 did not include a
vertical mirror in an instrumental line, as does this later one between Aaron and the utes. See
Schmidt, Schnbergs Oper Moses und Aron, p. 319.
Moses und Aron 377
ordered pitch-interval succession, but go astray on the last interval, which moves in
the wrong direction. The situation becomes even worse with the two second
hexachords the utes give us <5,1,4,1,5> (the last interval is gured
from the D5 in m. 1074 to the G5 in m. 1075), and Aaron, no longer mirroring
them in m. 1074, sings <7,1,4,1,5>. I argued earlier in the chapter that
Aarons Understanding is able to comprehend some of Gods symmetries but not
others (the horizontal interval symmetry of Y, in particular, is one that Moses can
reproduce, as he did in Example 7.3, but Aaron cannot). Our description of the
ordered pitch intervals of Aarons and the utes lines here strengthens my case,
because they depict Aaron trying to create horizontally symmetrical hexachords
and falling just short. But, later on in the scene, Aaron will start singing Depths of
God himself (he will take it out of Moses hands, if you will), so that the pure
intervallic symmetry of Y will be captured by him also.18
One last feature of the rst two and a half measures of Example 7.15a is worth
mentioning before moving on to the remainder of the example. I did not describe an
obvious textural feature that controls how the other two groups in this polyphony,
consisting of the bass clarinet, bassoon, harp and the second violin, viola, and rst
trombone respectively, project their parts of I10, P7, RI10, and R7. They also divide the
rows according to Aarons Understanding (they would have to do this, as the low
woodwinds and harp share rows with the utes, and the low strings and trombone
share rows with Aaron). Thus they too would have the potential to form vertical
interval symmetry with one another, and to reverse each others pitch-class succes-
sion, just as Aaron and the utes do. The reason why they do not is that the low strings
and trombone project their four trichords as verticals, while the low woodwinds and
harp create a line. Thus intervallic mirroring and pitch-class reversal become impos-
sible, but the texture itself calls to mind Depths of God, which also gives six notes of
each row to two trichord verticals, and projects the other six horizontally. This could
be understood as another way in which Schoenberg depicts Aaron trying to grasp God
and communicate Him to the people (but not quite getting there yet).
18
In this connection, it is important to acknowledge that Aaron has already sung several versions of
the horizontally symmetrical Y motive in the earlier parts of Act II, scene 5. Cherlin accounts for
some of them in The Formal and Dramatic Organization of Schoenbergs Moses und Aron,
pp. 29294. In m. 990, he sang <1,2,6,2,1> to But I still comprehended (his response
to Moses protest that he did not tell Aaron to construct the calf). Then, in mm. 100709, he
produces <1,2,6,2,1> and <1,2,6,2,1> back to back, to the words Israels endur-
ance proves the Idea of the Eternal. Finally, in m. 1050 on the words youll nd your people still
have human wavering, he slips in an almost unnoticeable <1,2,6,2,1> as part of a quick
run through all of P7. But this last emanation of Y from Aarons mouth happens twenty-three
measures before the passages I am describing, and the last really clear one (m. 1009) sixty-four
measures earlier, so I think the case can still be made that in mm. 107393 Schoenberg is depicting
Aaron reaching toward Y (and ultimately attaining it).
Example 7.15a
Schoenberg, Moses und Aron, Act II, scene 5, mm. 107378: Aarons Understanding taking over the typical texture of Depths of God and creating some
vertical symmetry (but not enough). Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European American Music Distributors
Example 7.15a (cont.)
Example 7.15b
Schoenberg, Moses und Aron, Act II, scene 5, mm. 1075b1078: intervallic symmetries
The idea that Aaron doesnt quite get there yet is then reinforced by what
happens in the rest of Example 7.15a, mm. 1075b1078. Schoenberg breaks the two
rows he has just used, R7 and RI10, into rst and second hexachords, and then
presents RI10/h1 and R7/h1 ve times in mm. 1075b1077a, and RI10/h2 and R7/h2
ve times in mm. 1077b1078. Each hexachord is partitioned according to the
alternating scheme of Aarons Understanding, and the hexachords appear in
various parts of the texture, sometimes overlapping each other in one of the
trichords given to Aaron to sing. (The numbered boxes in the score, matching
specic hexachords in the pitch-class map directly below, attempt to help the reader
grasp this process visually.) Such a fragmentation of material, together with the
specic pitch intervals that are used to project the different trichords, obscures the
thoroughgoing vertical and horizontal symmetries that were part of the previous
measures. Example 7.15b is a representation of the horizontal ordered pitch-
interval successions created by the various Y motives and vertical unordered
pitch-interval successions produced by the X motives in mm. 1075b1078, and
one is struck by the relative dearth of symmetrical relationships there.
Moses und Aron 381
We see three X chords participating in a two-part vertical symmetry, <5-above-3>,

<3-above-5>, <5-above-3>; all three are given to the high woodwinds, and they come
one after another in mm. 107576, so the symmetry is denitely audible. And two
Y motives in mm. 107778 participate in a vertical symmetry as well: <11,4> is
played by both the rst trombone and second violins and violas, and is answered about
a half-measure later by <11,4> in the bass clarinet and bassoons. (These symmet-
rical X chords and Y motives are shaded in Example 7.15as pitch-class map.) But that
is all as far as symmetries are concerned, and it gives the listener the impression that
Aarons attempt to grasp Gods perfection is gradually failing.
Aaron does grasp it eventually, however, and this seals Moses fate. The next
passage of Act II, scene 5 that we will consider is mm. 108793, illustrated by
Example 7.16. By this time, the chorus have entered, and they are singing a reprise
of the Gods Chosen People music that has been heard twice before in the opera: in
Act I, scene 1, mm. 7184 (where God predicts the Jews favored position for Moses),
and in Act I, scene 4, mm. 896912 and 91933 (where Aaron tells the people that
God has chosen them, after convincing them of His power through the three
miracles). The second instance of Chosen People in Act I, scene 4 linked directly
to the peoples marching music which ended Act I, and in this third instance at the
end of Act II, the same thing happens: Gods Chosen People, after some transitional
measures, leads in m. 1101 to the march that takes Aaron and the people offstage,
leaving Moses alone and defeated. (Schmidt makes the point that Act II, scene 5 thus
brings together material from the beginning of Act I for example, Aarons music
in scene 2, of which we just saw traces in Example 7.15a with the last two parts of
Act I, helping the nal scene to serve its coda function for the opera as a whole.)19
One feature of this third and nal instance of Gods Chosen People is different
from the one near the end of Act I, however: as the people sing about their
privileged position before God using most of the same words as they used back
in the earlier passage, Aaron adds a line to the texture, for the purpose of calling
Moses attention to the pillar of cloud and pillar of re that go before the people to
lead them. As I have suggested before, this nally clinches Aarons victory in his
ongoing dispute with his brother, because it is a clear example of God Himself using
a visual image to represent Himself at least partially to the people. It is as if Aaron
were saying: See? I told you God can use pictures! Moses reaction (m. 1091) is
predictable: Idols! And then Aaron administers his rhetorical coup de grce (mm.
109293): No, signs sent from God, just like the burning bush that was sent to you.
Aarons triumph is thus complete.
The use and projection of partitions in this passage gives support to the nal
stages in Moses and Aarons argument just described. In the rst three measures,
19
Schmidt, Schnbergs Oper Moses und Aron, p. 314.
Example 7.16
Schoenberg, Moses und Aron, Act II, scene 5, mm. 108793: the musical portrayal of Aarons nal victory, where he nally grasps the horizontally symmetrical
Y motive. Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European American Music Distributors
mm. 108789, one choral part or two sings a complete hexachord, while the other
choral parts and instruments touch on a variety of contiguous and non-contiguous
segments, as is usually the case with Gods Chosen People. The complete hexa-
chords are RI0/h1 given by the mezzo-sopranos, P9/h2 by the baritones and basses,
and RI0/h2 (rst ve notes only) by the baritones and basses again. I will not describe
all the fragmentary partitions in these three measures, but the pattern created by the
xylophone, mandolin, timpani, and piano verticals (which are set off by their double-
dotted rhythms), and doubled by the rst trombones melody, is a signicant one. In
m. 1087, the dotted chords begin the measure with two different voicings of
<1,3,4,2>, the last four notes of RI0/h1, and a chromatic tetrachord. The rst
trombone echoes this tetrachord in the latter parts of the measure, taking it out of
order: <4,2,1,3,1>. In m. 1088, the dotted chords consist of two tetrachords, the rst
four notes of R9/h1 on the rst two beats, <0,11,8,6>, which is a discrete tetrachord,
and the rst two and last two notes of the same hexachord on beats 3 and 4,
<0,11,5,7>, which we have called a transitional tetrachord between discrete and
chromatic, or vice versa. The trombone then follows by repeating the discrete tetra-
chord out of order: <11,0,8,6>. Finally, in m. 1089, the dotted chords project the
same order-number partition as in the previous measure, <0,1,2,3> to <0,1,4,5>, on
I0/h1 this time, and thereby reveal an invariance created by this discrete-to-
transitional progression: <0,11,5,7> moves back to <0,11,6,8>. The trombone in
m. 1089 again doubles the discrete tetrachord out of order, <11,0,7,11,5,0>, assisted
by the piano, which repeats <0,7,5>. Thus while the mezzo-sopranos and basses are
singing full hexachords as the chosen people must, and other voices are left with the
Gentiles fragments, the dotted verticals and trombone revisit the battle between
chromatic and discrete tetrachords one nal time. It seems as though the discrete
tetrachord (Moses) might win the battle in m. 1089 but there is more music to come.
In mm. 109091, the picture changes a little. Now the two complete hexachords are
given to instruments: the rst trombone and piano take R9/h2 in m. 1090 and I0/h2 in
m. 1091, while the baritones and basses sing the nal tetrachord of each hexachord
(a discrete tetrachord in both cases). The upper choral voices and instruments sing and
play a mixture of smaller segments, some contiguous, some not, and it is hard to
discern any distinct pattern outside of the fact that they are fragmenting hexachords as
the supporting voices normally do in Gods Chosen People. We could think of these
two measures as a transition from mm. 108789 to mm. 109293.
With the nal two measures of Example 7.16, Schoenberg creates a clear musical
depiction of what Aaron is doing to his brother rhetorically at this point in their
argument. The reader will remember from our discussion of Example 7.15a that
Aarons line (and the ute line that inverted it) in the rst two measures, mm. 1073
and 1074, could be understood as trying to create horizontally symmetrical hexa-
chords in the manner of the Y hexachord from Depths of God, but falling short on
the last interval. Aarons line in mm. 107578, the latter part of the same example, is
Moses und Aron 387
<5,1,4,1,7>, and thus falls just short of horizontal symmetry also. In the rst
part of Example 7.16, we have no idea that Aaron is trying to produce the
Y hexachord, as the only hexachords we hear are the discrete ones of Gods Chosen
People (and Aaron himself sticks to small fragments of the accompanying hexa-
chords, sometimes as little as a single pitch, which are circled or boxed in the pitch-
class map). But when he sings the words Signs from God, just like the burning bush!
the utes and clarinets launch into a full version of Y in its original, horizontally
symmetrical state, <1,2,6,2,1>, created by the middle six pitches of I0. The
xylophone and mandolins also provide the X1 and X2 chords from I0 as verticals, X1
as <11-above-7> and <6-above-5>, and X2 as <11-above-9>, and Aaron himself
sings along with the lower mandolin part. Now, this particular outbreak of Depths of
God does not have all the vertically and horizontally symmetrical properties of the
partition as it was rst introduced in Act I, scene 1 (compare Example 7.16 with
Examples 7.2a and 7.2b), mainly because P9 (rather than R9) is used to accompany it,
and P9 is not partitioned according to Depths of God (instead it moves from a
transitional back to a chromatic tetrachord, which could also signal Moses defeat).
But Aaron here, for the rst time in quite a few measures, has attained a horizontally
symmetrical Y hexachord, which was exactly that aspect of Gods symmetries that
Moses so laboriously discovered with his rst utterance in the opera (refer back to
Example 7.3 again). What better way to represent Aarons winning their argument
about whether God can be represented with visual images?20
Not long after, the people and Aaron leave the stage, following the pillar of
cloud. As I have mentioned, the music to which they depart is a recollection of the
marching music to which they sent Moses off at the end of Act I (Act I, mm.
93670). It makes use of a partition we have not discussed yet, since we focused
mostly on Act II, scene 3 in our earlier list of partitions; I will call it, simply,
Peoples March.21 As the pitch-class map in Example 7.17 shows, it divides a
20
Again I will remind the reader that though it represents Aarons rhetorical move well in the
immediate context, the music of mm. 109293 is not new to the opera. I have covered Aarons
Y motives earlier in Act II, scene 5 in n. 18. Here I will add that the pitch-specic line that is played
by the utes and clarinets in mm. 109293 already has appeared three times in Act I: once in Gods
prophecy to Moses in scene 1 (violins, mm. 7980), and twice in scene 4 where rst Aaron and then
the people repeat Gods promise (violins, mm. 90607, and violins again, mm. 92728). In all three
of these Act I occurrences of the line, it accompanied the words This I promise you or This He
promises you [us]. So, again I have to make the disclaimer that Aaron is not snatching
<1,2,-6,2,1> (or its inversion) away from his brother for the rst time in the opera near
the end of Act II. But the emergence of a perfectly symmetrical version of Y at this specic spot in
mm. 109293, and especially the very pitch succession associated with Gods promise to the people,
still carries the connotation that it is the AUTHENTIC God, not a false one, that is being depicted by
these pillars of cloud and re, just as He was depicted by the burning bush, and this is exactly the
point that Aaron is making in these two measures.
21
Schmidt labels it as Partition 18 in Schnbergs Oper Moses und Aron, p. 315.
Example 7.17
Schoenberg, Moses und Aron, Act II, scene 5, mm. 110209: the people marching offstage at the end of Act II to Peoples March. Used by permission of Belmont
row into two hexachords, order positions <0,2,3,5,6,11> and <1,4,7,8,9,10>,

and typically runs the rst of these forward and the second one backward (which
could depict Aaron and the people going in a different direction from Moses,
maybe). The two hexachords created thereby are both members of set class 6-5,
the same set class as the discrete hexachords of Moses und Arons row. In the
musical projection of Peoples March, both hexachords of both rows take part in
canons, which are represented by the labels and arrows on the pitch-class map at
the bottom of the example. The ute, clarinet, and piccolo create a three-voice
canon from <0,2,3,5,6,11> of RI9 (at the upper left-hand corner of the pitch-class
map), followed by <1,4,7,8,9,10> of R6 (directly below it). Meanwhile, the chorus
creates a four-part canon from some of the remaining order numbers moving in
the opposite direction within rows: order positions <10,9,8,7,4,1> of RI9
followed by <6,11> of R6. Order position <5> of R6 seems to be skipped over,
and then <3,2,0> of that row are given to the timpani and trombone as a bass
ostinato.
The pattern just described repeats once, which is why RI9 and R6 are shown twice
in my pitch-class map. But the second time through, starting in m. 1105, the
individual voices of both canons begin to trail off with respect to completing
their paths through the partition, as well as growing ever softer dynamically.
(Indeed, the piccolo has already left off the last note of its path through the rst
pair of combinatorial rows.) Both techniques depict Aaron and the people growing
ever more distant from Moses as they march away from him. In the voices, the altos
get all the way through their pitch succession, <8,2,4,3,1,7,10,6>, as do the basses
(which, however, transpose their last two pitch classes, 10 and 6, down an octave,
trailing off registrally). But the sopranos completely miss their second entry, and
the tenors only begin theirs, <8,2>, in mm. 110708. By the time we reach m. 1109,
the women are also singing fragments, though these are the next three notes in the
succession; the sopranos sound <4,3> and the altos pitch class 1. As for the canon
in the woodwinds, the ute plays through its pitch succession all the way up to the
last note, <6,10,0,11,5,9,8,2,0,11,1,(7)>. It then adds a fragment, <8,2>, in m.
1108. The next entry, the clarinet, begins with <6,10,0,11,5,9>, but then jumps over
8 and 2, picking up <0,11,1> and also leaving off pitch class 7. Finally, the piccolo
takes the fragmentation process to the extreme, playing three notes from RI9,
<0,11,5>, and three from R6, <0,11,1>.
As for the other voices, the piano, xylophones, and mandolins, they seem to be
something of a mystery with respect to the row-count. If we assume that they are also
drawn from harmonic area A6, then a segmentation something like what I have
provided at the bottom of Example 7.17 is the only recourse. About all I can say of it is
that it tends to favor discrete trichords, tetrachords, and, near the end, pentachords,
but usually with some other pitch from another part of the row appended. This could
be a very faint reference to the discretechromatic battle that was waged earlier, but
Moses und Aron 391
in general, most of the musical texture in this example is pointing away from that,
including the principal, canonic voices just described. This music depicts the people
leaving Moses and his struggle behind, and moving on with other concerns.
The last two measures of Example 7.17, mm. 1108 and 1109, include a new line
in the violins that begins a course through P3. In this way, the nal section of the
opera gradually intrudes on our consciousness; this is the scene where Moses
admits his defeat and gives up his efforts to communicate God to the people
through words, claiming that what he said before was madness, and can and
should not be spoken. In response, he hears only silence. The loneliness and
powerlessness of Moses are expressed both through pitch materials and through
more obvious features such as texture and orchestration in these nal measures.
After the joyful polyphony of the people and Aaron, the texture telescopes down
to a single line which begins in the violins. That single line is then doubled (at the
unison) by low strings and woodwinds, as well as piano, in m. 1127 after Moses
speaks of his madness. Finally, it is taken over by contrabasses, contrabassoons, and
tuba in mm. 112830 where Moses utters, and can and may not be spoken,
returning to the violins thereafter.
The pitch material that Schoenberg uses here to depict Moses fate is a starkly
simple partition of P3 and its combinatorial partner, I6, into the rst ve notes
followed by the last seven, which we will call Moses Failure. I suggested above
that this partition reects well Moses lonely and powerless state. It can only be
described in negative terms; it lines up with neither the discrete tetrachords that
represent Moses nor the 2 4 4 2 division that signies the calf, nor even
with the discrete trichords that form the basis for Gods X Y partition. And it
does not create the multiple symmetries of Depths of God, nor does it give rise
to collectional invariance among groups of rows like Magic of the Image. In
comparison to some of the more widely used partitions in the opera, it does
relatively little. P3 gets this partition in mm. 110914 (the 5 7 division is
projected by a longer note value at the end of the opening pentachord), followed
by a division of I6 into discrete hexachords in mm. 111521. What follows is
depicted in Example 7.18, showing the music from m. 1121 to the end. The
operas nal row form is RI6, and though its basic partition is Moses Failure,
there is some internal repetition, a musical stuttering, perhaps. (Church lore
teaches that stuttering was the speech impediment that Moses protested about
during his burning bush experience.) The violins repeat the opening dyad of RI6
in mm. 112123, as Moses acknowledges that he too has made a picture
(referring to the pillars of re and cloud, or maybe the stone tablets as well as
their visually impressive destruction). The repeated half step in pitch-class space,
<3,4>, calls to mind the chromaticism of the Golden Calf, signifying the evil
potential in visual images. The violins then continue with <7,9,10> in mostly long
notes (mm. 112426) as Moses admits his defeat and begins to renounce as madness
Example 7.18
Schoenberg, Moses und Aron, Act II, scene 5, mm. 112136: Moses Failure bringing the opera to its close. Used by permission of Belmont Music
Moses und Aron 393
everything he has taught before. A measure after he utters the word Wahnsinn, the
lower strings, woodwinds, and piano repeat <3,4,7,9,10> three times in a headlong
mad rush to the lowest registers (m. 1127), a clear text-painting device. (A more
subtle way to signify that Moses is out of it is his rhythm in mm. 112527, with
the quarter-note quintuplets and triplets detaching themselves from the
underlying meter.)
As mentioned above, the three lowest instruments and groups of instruments in
the orchestra take over at Moses words and can and may not be spoken, playing
the next three notes of RI6, <8,2,0>, in long or accented notes (mm. 112831).
Again, this is a musical stutter, as the violins will play the last seven notes,
<8,2,0,11,1,5,6>, starting in m. 1131. The use of the lowest register here most
likely signies Moses utter depression at the failure of his mission to represent God
using words to his people. Then, after the violins play the nal heptachord (which
rises, then falls precipitously to its nal note), they sustain the last Fs4, while
Moses utters his nal, heart-rending complaint: O Word, thou Word, that
I lack! The single pitch expresses well the isolation that Moses must feel at this
point, and makes a convincing, if rather devastating, conclusion to the act and
opera as a whole.
I began my discussion of Moses und Aron by mentioning the debate over
whether the opera should be understood as an incomplete three-act work or a
complete two-act one. Schoenbergs libretto for the planned third act is available
with most scores and recordings of the piece, and to read through it after
listening to the rst two acts evokes a sense of surprise (at least for this listener).
Moses somehow is placed again in the ascendant position, as judge at
Aarons trial, where Aaron is being convicted of leading the people astray after
other gods, images, strange wishes, and earthly pleasures, a capital offense. The
soldiers holding Aaron ask Moses if they should kill him, and Moses replies, set
him free, and if he can, he will live. Released from his chains, Aaron falls down
dead, and Moses assures him that he has now found unity with God. Now, one
could imagine a musical setting of this, probably in a coda to the act, which
resolves the conict between discrete and chromatic tetrachords in favor of the
discrete ones in some nal way, thus closing the circle and providing the listener
with a complete musical idea. Maybe Schoenberg could have given us several
presentations of Moses tetrachord verticals of Example 7.3 in a higher and
brighter register (woodwinds, then trumpets and horns?) which gradually grow
stronger dynamically, while descending chromatic tetrachords, taken from the
same row forms (to unify the conicting elements), disappear into oblivion in
the contrabasses and contrabassoon. Moses six tetrachord verticals could again
place the Y melody in the highest voice (now the trumpet, of course, rather than
the English horn), and they could be surrounded by a quotation of the X chords
from the beginning of the opera to depict Moses unity with God. But
Schoenberg could never bring himself to do anything like this, and as

I mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, the most convincing reason seems
to be the utter nality of Act IIs cadence. Schoenberg does such an amazing,
brilliant job of convincing us of Moses failure, just because he has created so
many conicts in the music that fail to come to resolution and are eventually
ignored. After this, to tack on a resolution, to solve Moses und Arons prob-
lems, would seem to diminish the piece.
8 String Trio Op. 45
A musical idea and a near-death experience are expressed
as a conict between alternative row forms
We will end our tour of Schoenbergs twelve-tone music admittedly not an

exhaustive tour, but one that describes a substantial variety of his musical structures
in terms of symmetry and musical idea with one of his nal compositions, the
String Trio. Many scholars have characterized this piece as a work marked by
discontinuity, at least on the surface. (After all, Schoenberg himself claimed that it
portrayed his lengthy loss of consciousness in August 1946, which he initially
thought to be due to a heart attack. This is not a subject that would normally
suggest long-range developmental stability.)1 Arnold Whittall remarks on the
prominence of abrupt contrasts between relatively brief musical units that
represses the works continuity, and Silvina Milstein writes of its jagged imagery
and fragmentary textures, while insisting that a unied formal and harmonic
structure lies beneath the surface nevertheless. Michael Cherlin goes a step further
when he claims that the fragmentation and sudden contrasts give the Trio the
appearance of alternatively remember[ing] and then abandon[ing] the musical
languages of its historical antecedents.2
Two features that add to the apparent confusion and fragmentation on the Trios
surface are the design of Schoenbergs basic row material and his tendency to
partition it in ways that obscure its linear continuity. Only relatively recently have
scholars such as Milstein, Martha Hyde, and Ethan Haimo demonstrated, on the
basis of the precompositional sketches for the work as well as internal evidence, that
it has two basic rows.3 The principal sections of the piece use an eighteen-tone row,
in which the third hexachord reorders the pitch classes of the rst, and the
intervening episodes are based on a twelve-tone row that combines the rst
1
Walter Bailey, Programmatic Elements in the Works of Schoenberg (Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press,
1984), pp. 15157, calls on primary sources such as Schoenbergs unpublished essay Mein Todesfall
and conversations with his students to explain specically what aspects of the Trios music represent
what stages of the supposed heart attack and recovery.
2
Arnold Whittall, Schoenberg and the True Tradition: Theme and Form in the String Trio, Musical
Times 115/1579 (September 1974): 740; Silvina Milstein, Arnold Schoenberg: Notes, Sets, Forms
(Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 15758; Cherlin, Schoenbergs Musical Imagination, p. 301.
3
Milstein, Arnold Schoenberg, pp. 16372; Martha MacLean Hyde, The Roots of Form in Schoen-
bergs Sketches, Journal of Music Theory 24/1 (Spring 1980): 2232; Ethan Haimo, The Late
Twelve-Tone Compositions, in Walter B. Bailey (ed.), The Arnold Schoenberg Companion (West-
port, CT: Greenwood, 1998), pp. 16971.
Example 8.1
Schoenberg, String Trio Op. 45: basic rows
hexachord of the eighteen-tone row with a reordering of its second hexachord.

Example 8.1 illustrates the two basic row forms.
Not only can the piece not be reduced to transformations of a single tone row,
but in the majority of its passages, either of the two basic rows is presented in such a
way that its complete linear form is obscured (as in most of the pieces we have
discussed to this point). Schoenberg routinely breaks the row into single hexachords
or pairs of hexachords, and typically presents each hexachord together with the
corresponding hexachord of the I5-combinatorial row form, instead of combining it
with the other hexachords in its own row. In addition, the partitions of the
hexachord that he creates through instrumentation, register, and groupings into
chords more often than not go against the grain of linear hexachord presentation.
One passage that could be offered as an illustration is m. 1, given as Example 8.2.
Here, Schoenberg interweaves the initial hexachords of P2 and I7 of the eighteen-
tone row, as is illustrated by both the row-count on the score in the upper left-hand
corner of the example and the pitch-class map indicating the instrumental parti-
tions of the hexachord pair at the bottom left. Because of this interweaving, neither
of the hexachords is recognizable as a linear entity, nor is their set class (6-5
(012367)) emphasized; instead, the segments that are highlighted by the instrumen-
tation, rhythm, and articulation bring together non-adjacent pitch classes from
both hexachords, which in some cases form set classes equivalent to linear segments
of the eighteen-tone row, and in others form set classes that are not available as
linear segments. (See the set-class analysis that appears at the top right of Example
8.2.) Each instrument forms a tetrachord that is set-class-equivalent to a linear
segment of the row: both violin and viola form 4-1 (0123), equivalent to order
positions 710, and the cello forms 4-9 (0167), equivalent to order positions 14.
(I am numbering order positions from 0 to 17.) The rst and second halves of the
measure in violin and viola together (separated by the sfpp attack) both form 4-7
String Trio Op. 45 397
Example 8.2
4-7 (0145)
4-1 (0123)
I7 /h1
violin violin
0 2 3
5
viola viola
0 3
2 5
P2 /h1
1
1 4 4
cello cello
4-9 (0167)
violin, viola, 6-20 (014589) 6-20 (014589)

viola, m. 1a
m. 1b m. 1b
P2 /h1: 2 10 3 9 4 1
4-9 (0167) 4-1 (0123) 4-7 (0145)
cello, m. 1a P2: 2 10 3 9 4 1 | 11 8 6 7 5 0 | 4 2 10 9 1 3
I7 /h1: 7 11 6 0 5 8
cello,
violin, m. 1a m. 1b
Schoenberg, String Trio Op. 45, m. 1. Schoenberg STRING TRIO OP. 45, Copyright 1950
by Boelke-Bomart Music Publications, Copyright renewed. All rights reserved. Used in the
U.S. by permission of Belmont Music Publishers; used in the world excluding the U.S. by
permission of European American Music Distributors Company, agent for Boelke-Bomart
Music Publications
(0145), equivalent to row order positions 1316. The two hexachords formed by all
three instruments in the two halves of the measure {2,3,6,7,10,11} in the rst half
and {0,1,4,5,8,9} in the second half are both members of set class 6-20 (014589),
which is not equivalent to a linear segment of the row.4 Finally, each dyad formed
4
It is possible to create a harmonic analysis of the entire String Trio by noting what passages feature
{0,1,4,5,8,9} and {2,3,6,7,10,11} as recognizable segments, and what passages adhere to the other
potential division of the aggregate into 6-20 hexachords, {1,2,5,6,9,10} and {0,3,4,7,8,11}. Martin
Boykan does exactly that in The Schoenberg Trio: Tradition at an Apocalyptic Moment, in
Reinhold Brinkmann and Christoph Wolff (eds.), Music of My Future: The Schoenberg Quartets
and Trio (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Department of Music, 2000), pp. 16366, and in a
by the rst and second halves of the measure in each instrument is a member of
interval class 1, which can be found several times between adjacent members in the
eighteen-tone row, but not within its rst hexachord. In general, Schoenberg is
obscuring not only the complete linear form of the eighteen-tone row, but also the
linear form of its rst hexachord, in order to bring out elements formed by non-
adjacent notes that will, as we shall see, play crucial roles in the following measures.5
As obscure as this works underlying row structure seems to be at its beginning, it
is precisely that quality which provides the starting point for the process that
ultimately gives continuity to the whole. The String Trio is a different version of
the structural type we encountered in the Piano Piece Op. 33a: it is a complete
musical idea consisting of problem, elaboration, and solution, in which the prob-
lem involves uncertainty about the basic rows identity. (Unlike the Piano Piece,
the Trio does not oppose row order to a horizontally and vertically symmetrical
shape.) The Trio leaves the listener uncertain about how the works hexachords
chain together to create a basic row (it shares that quality with the Violin Fantasy
Op. 47), but, beyond that, it also leaves the listener uncertain about what ordered
pitch-class and interval successions the hexachords actually consist of, and whether
we should be grouping the pitch classes into hexachords in the rst place. However,
as the work progresses, Schoenberg moves, in ts and starts as it were, toward
realizing the eighteen-tone row as the works true Grundgestalt. This culminates in
the solution of the pieces nal four measures, where he reveals the Grundgestalt
as a complete line, for the rst time (see Example 8.9c below, p. 420).
How Schoenberg carries out his Idea will be illustrated by rst giving an overview
of the works form, and then presenting several analytic snapshots of various
stages in the Ideas progress. These analyses will not only highlight some of
Schoenbergs steps toward realization of the full Grundgestalt, but also show how
he develops the elements that are created by nonlinear partitions such as the ones
illustrated in Example 8.2, the elaborations of the problem characteristic of any
musical idea.
The form of the work, represented as a sectional diagram in Example 8.3,
alternates three main sections, parts IIII, with two episodes. In addition, Schoen-
berg recapitulates part I and the rst episode in reduced forms to begin part III, and
more extensive version of the same essay, chapter 9 of Silence and Slow Time: Studies in Musical
Narrative (Lanham, MD: Scarecrow, 2004), pp. 197236.
5
Stephen Peles nds a different way from the ones I will demonstrate to show how the specic
registral and instrumental disposition of P2/h1 and I7/h1 in the rst measure predicts elements
important to the later music; he comments on how the two viola trills and the lower violin trill, which
constitute a segment of m. 1s registral ordering (from C3 to A3), produce the pitch-class set
{0,1,2,3,8,9}, which resurfaces at the onset of the second episode (m. 180) as the third hexachord
of R1, <0,3,8,2,9,1>. See Peles, Schoenberg and the Tradition of Imitative Counterpoint,
pp. 13536.
Example 8.3
Schoenberg, String Trio Op. 45: form chart
then follows them with a new section (in the place of part II and the second episode),
whose function is to work toward realization of the eighteen-tone row. The design of
the whole is something like a skewed sonata-rondo, with the episodes (rather than
the initial material) providing the refrain. The episodes contrast with the music of
parts I and II not only because of their use of the twelve-tone alternative row, but in
addition because, for many of their measures, they use rhythm, phrasing, and
melodic contour to evoke a Viennese waltz, which never quite manages to complete
itself. Michael Cherlin suggests that the waltz passages signify Schoenberg dancing
with Death, who offers the composer the relative repose of a balanced dance form
(together with the alternative row) in the midst of the chaos of his imagined heart
attack. Cherlin does not go further to suggest that the ascendancy of the eighteen-
tone row over the alternative in the nal measures of part III signies Schoenberg
conquering Death, but that interpretation is foundational to my understanding of the
works ending, as we shall see near the end of this chapter.6
What follows is a general overview of how the Trio works out its musical idea
within the form just described. As suggested above, the main sections use the eighteen-
tone row given in Example 8.1 as source material, while the two episodes rely on the
twelve-tone row. Part I attempts to realize the full eighteen-tone row as a linear entity,
but is only able to put two hexachords together at mm. 1921 and 3436 before
relapsing into single hexachords (which are always given with their combinatorial
partner). Since the listener has not yet been able to hear the basic row, the subsequent
rst episode has the effect of presenting a competitor for Grundgestalt status, rather
than a variation of an established row. The episode does succeed in presenting
6
See Cherlin, Schoenbergs Musical Imagination, pp. 32838. Cherlins view of the form as a whole is
different from mine; he describes it, following Carl Dahlhaus (somewhat critically), as a return to
Schoenbergs predilection early in his career for single-movement sonata forms that encapsulate a
multi-movement set. See ibid., pp. 31317. Martin Boykans understanding of the form is different
from both of ours: he divides the work into sections in the same way, but hears part I as a large
upbeat to the rst episode, and the second episode as a large upbeat to part III. That leaves part II as
the still center of the work. See Silence and Slow Time, pp. 21132.
the full linear form of the twelve-tone row several times (around mm. 8191),
but then reverts to partitions of the same row that bring together non-adjacent
members to form trichords, tetrachords, and hexachords of motivic signicance.
Part II returns to the eighteen-tone row, but instead of presenting it linearly,
Schoenberg focuses on partitioning out the boundary notes of its three hexachords,
order positions 0, 5, 6, 11, 12, and 17. Most often, these six order positions in both the
prime form and its I5-combinatorial inversion are highlighted through being given to
a single instrument, which results in yet another twelve-tone sequence that could be
heard as the basic row. Near the end of part II, around mm. 16467, Schoenberg
begins to put together pairs of hexachords from the original eighteen-tone row in
linear fashion, but, as he did in part I, he immediately liquidates his source material
by returning to single hexachords and their combinatorial complements.
The second episode switches back to the twelve-tone row (together with the waltz
rhythms, now in 12/8, beginning at m. 184). Its initial partitions bring together
non-adjacent elements, but it gradually moves in the direction of linear presenta-
tion. It attains a complete statement of the twelve-tone row in the violin at mm.
20007, but before the listener can assimilate it, Schoenberg launches into part III.
As the nal part starts with a reduced recapitulation of part I and the rst episode,
most of the strategies involving presentations of the two source rows that were
characteristic of those sections, whether linear, almost-linear (including pairs of
hexachords), or single-hexachord presentations, are worked through a second time.
The new section beginning in m. 267 begins, like part II, by focusing on partitions
involving the boundary notes of the three hexachords in the eighteen-tone row. But,
before too long, Schoenberg turns to solving the problem about the rows identity,
the culmination of the piece. This happens in stages: the viola makes a linear
statement of a single hexachord (m. 281), followed by a linear statement of two
hexachords together in the viola and cello (mm. 28284), which leads in turn to all
three hexachords of I7 in order in the violin (mm. 28689), and, nally, all three
hexachords of P2 in order in the violin (mm. 29093).
Having given both an overview of the works form and a more general descrip-
tion of the stages of the works Idea as they correspond to the parts of the form,
I would now like to go through the analytic snapshots referred to earlier, in order
to give a more detailed account of how the Idea progresses. We will begin with the
opening measures of part I, reproduced in Example 8.4. As we saw before, m. 1
obscures the linear forms of the rst hexachords of P2 and I7 to bring out interval
collections combining pairs of interval classes 1 that have motivic signicance for
later passages in the Trio. Measures 23a follow with the second hexachords of P2
and I7, and mm. 3b4 introduce the third hexachords of the same I5-combinatorial
pair. In the second hexachords, mm. 23a, Schoenberg adjusts his instrumental
partitions so that order positions 710 of both hexachords are heard as linear
segments in the viola. This creates the effect of the linear form of the hexachord
Example 8.4
m. 1 2 3 4
vn., va.: 6-1 I7 /h3
(6 11
vn., va.: 4-7
I7 /h1
P2 /h2 (6 11 )
6 11 6) 17
11 14 15 (14 15) 12
6
violin
3
0 2 5 7 9 10 14
7 8 9 10 8 13 15
16 (13 16)
viola
2 3
5
0 1 6 11 11 ) 13
P2 /h1 1 11
4 4 ( 6 6 12 16
17
cello
I7 /h2
P2 /h3 va., vcl.: 4-7

va., vcl.: 6-1
vn. and vcl.: 4-1 violin: 4-7; viola: 4-1; cello: 4-7
viola, cello, mm. 3b 4a violin, mm. 3b 4a

violin,
viola, m. 1a m. 1b violin, mm. 2 3a
m. 1b
P2/h1: 2 10 3 9 4 1 P2/h2: 11 8 6 7 5 0 P2 /h3: 4 2 10 9 1 3

viola, m. 2a viola, mm. 3b 4a
cello, m. 1a
viola, m. 2b cello, m. 4b
I7/h1: 7 11 6 0 5 8 I7/h2: 10 1 3 2 4 9 I 7 /h3: 5 7 11 0 8 6
violin, m. 1a cello, cello, mm. 2 3a violin, m. 4b

viola, m. 4b
m. 1b
Schoenberg, String Trio Op. 45, mm. 14. Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European American Music Distributors
emerging out of the confusion, which Arnold Whittall associates with the thematic
action of the work, and which Michael Cherlin refers to as the source materials
gradually coming into focus.7 (The continuation of this passage, mm. 2b3a, repeats
the half-step boundary intervals that are formed between order positions 6 and 11 of
P2/h2 and I7/h2 a number of times, and in this way looks forward to Schoenbergs focus
on these intervals later in part I, and his exclusive focus on them after the beginning of
part II.) In the third pair of hexachords, mm. 3b4, the linear tetrachords recede into
obscurity again, and Schoenberg chooses a different partition which has the same effect
as the partition of m. 1: it highlights the six interval classes 1 within the two hexachords.
I mentioned above (in my discussion of Example 8.2) that order positions 710
in the eighteen-tone row create set class 4-1. The statements of those order
positions in the viola in m. 2 are accompanied by another tetrachord in the violin
and cello belonging to the same set class, {11,0,10,9}, formed by the boundary notes
of the two second hexachords. (Though these partitions stem from different order
numbers and group together different pitch classes, they should recall the Golden
Calfs chromatic tetrachord partition from Moses und Aron, discussed in the
previous chapter.) The emphasis on chromatic-scale segments is furthered by the
hexachords that appear in viola and cello in the rst half of m. 2, {5,6,7,8,9,10}, and
in violin and viola in the second half of m. 2, {11,0,1,2,3,4}: both belong to set class
6-1. In mm. 3b4, the instrumental partitions bring forward another set class in
addition to the chromatic ones, but one that is still a member of the group that was
introduced in m. 1: the violin gives {5,6,9,10}, set class 4-7, the viola {11,0,1,2}, set-
class 4-1, and the cello {3,4,7,8}, set class 4-7 again. The violin and viola, the faster-
moving parts, in mm. 3b4a together form {1,2,9,10}, which is 4-7, and the viola
and cello in m. 4b form {7,8,0,11}, again giving 4-7. In general, Schoenbergs
strategy in mm. 14 seems to be threefold: (1) to obscure the linear presentation
of the hexachord at the onset, reveal a portion of it (the middle four notes of the
second hexachord), and then obscure it again; (2) to establish 4-1, 4-7, and 4-9 as
important set classes formed by non-adjacent row members as well as adjacent
ones, and 6-1 and 6-20 as important set classes formed by non-adjacent row
members; and (3) to establish that partition of the hexachord which separates its
boundary notes from the inside four pitch classes as important (<0,5> <1,2,3,4>).
All these moves will have signicance for the elaboration which follows.8
7
Whittall, Schoenberg and the True Tradition, p. 741; Cherlin, Schoenbergs Musical Imagination,
p. 313.
8
Other views of mm. 14 are provided by Richard Kurth, Mosaic Isomorphism and Mosaic
Polyphony: Balance and Imbalance in Schoenbergs Twelve-Tone Rhetoric (Ph.D. dissertation,
Harvard University, 1993), pp. 24548 and 26168; and David Lewin, Generalized Interval Systems
for Babbitts Lists, and for Schoenbergs String Trio, Music Theory Spectrum 17/1 (Spring 1995):
10918. Kurths analysis of m. 1 points out the pitch-class symmetry around the axis 10/114/5
(represented by the cello part) of the partitions. He also shows how the second and third hexachords
The next analytic snapshot in our journey through the musical idea underlying
the String Trio is of mm. 1217. This passage has been discussed briey by Martha
Hyde to illustrate the inuence of secondary harmonies on phrasing, in more detail
by Ethan Haimo to show symmetrical order-number partitions and a multidimen-
sional row presentation, and in painstaking detail by John Peel.9 Example 8.5s top
level traces the row forms P2 and RI7 through these measures, using order numbers
with lines drawn between them (in the same manner as previous examples in this
chapter). The middle level indicates how the various hexachords of the two rows are
partitioned instrumentally, and the bottom level provides a pitch-class map on
which several of the signicant set classes are labeled.
The primary role of this passage within the larger scheme of the works musical
idea is to present a twelve-tone sequence that sounds as if it could be the basic row,
an alternative to the as-yet-unheard eighteen-tone Grundgestalt. This alternative is a
further elaboration of a trend introduced earlier: it arises from the partition scheme
used in m. 2, <0,5>, <1,2,3,4>, with the order positions 14 taken out of order.
When Schoenberg applies the <0,5> {1,2,3,4} partition to all three hexachords of P2
in order followed by all three hexachords of RI7 in order, what results (in long notes
in the violin) is a twelve-tone sequence, <2,1,11,0,4,3,6,5,9,10,8,7>. This twelve-tone
row is different from the eighteen-tone source row and also from the twelve-tone
source row of the episodes in that its two discrete hexachords are members of set
class 6-1 (the source rows discrete hexachords all belong to 6-5), and its three
discrete tetrachords belong to set class 4-1. Therefore, this new row not only stems
out of the hexachord partition of m. 2, but highlights the same set classes that m. 2
had, the chromatic hexachord and tetrachord.10
At the same time, since the <0,5> {1,2,3,4} partition highlights the middle four
notes of each of the eighteen-tone rows hexachords (as well as the two boundary
notes), the viola and cello focus entirely on set classes 4-9, 4-1, and 4-7, the same
three sets that were featured in mm. 1-4. See the pitch-class set segmentation at the
bottom of Example 8.5. In every case, the tetrachord is stated and then echoed; and
of P2/I7 are joined together by a process involving isomorphic partitioning within each pair of
hexachords, and an identical pitch-class mosaic between the two pairs, {1,2}{3,4}{9,10}, which
connects the second hexachord of I7 with the third hexachord of P2. Lewin explains the horizontal
and vertical intervals of mm. 14 in terms of networks of transformations transpositions,
inversions, and a wedging transformation that he calls X thereby showing that the networks of
mm. 1, 2, and 3b4 are similar in design.
9
Hyde, The Roots of Form in Schoenbergs Sketches, pp. 2225; Haimo, The Late Twelve-Tone
Compositions, pp. 17173; and John M. Peel, On Some Celebrated Measures of the Schoenberg
String Trio, Perspectives of New Music 14/215/1 (SpringSummer/FallWinter 1976): 26079.
10
Martin Boykan points out that this row alternative also reinforces the tonic harmonic area of part I,
A2, by beginning on pitch class 2 and ending on pitch class 7, the rst notes of P2 and I7. See Silence
and Slow Time, p. 204.
Example 8.5
m. 12 13 14 15 16 17
RI7 /h3
P2 /h2 P2 /h3 RI7 /h1 RI7 /h2
P2 /h1
12 5
5 12 6
11 17 17 11 0
0 6
violin
2 4
( 1 3
etc.)
10 (8 10) 14 16 (14 16) 13 16 ) ( 10
(1 3) 8 ( 15 9 )
16 10
4 4
viola 2
n
3 3 2 etc. )
14 ( 14 13 ) (
3 9 (7 9) 15 (13 15) 8 4 1
1 (2 [4]) 7 13 9 7
2
cello 15
1
(should
be E)
violin, m. 12 violin, m. 13 violin, m. 14 violin, m. 15a violin, mm. 15b 16a violin, mm. 16b 17a
P2: 2 10 3 9 4 1 11 8 6 7 5 0 4 2 10 9 1 3 RI7: 6 8 0 11 7 5 9 4 2 3 1 10 8 5 0 6 11 7
cello, m. 12a cello, m. 13a cello, m. 14a va., m. 15a cello, m. 15a
va. & cello cello, Two verticals
viola, m. 12a viola, m. 13a viola, m. 14a vertical, m. m. 16a alternate between
15c; then va. & cello, mm.
(Echo exchanges instruments) (Echo preserves partition) 6 8 0 11 7 5 va., m. 16a 16b 17a
va., m. 15b cello, m. 15b (Echoes exchange instruments)
4-1 (0123) 6-1 (012345) 4-1 6-1 4-1
vn. 2 1 11 0 4 3 6 5 9 10 8 7
va. 3 4 10 9 6 5 6 5 10 1 10 1 8 7 8 7 0 8 4 4 2 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5
0 11 0 11 0 11 0 11 0
6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6
cello 10 9 3 (4) 8 7 8 7 2 9 2 9 0 11 0 11 11 7 2 3 1 11 5 11 5 11 5 11 5 11
4-9 (0167) 4-1 (0123) 4-7 (0145) 4-7 4-1
4-9
the echoes sometimes vary the partition of the tetrachord. In m. 12, the echo causes
the viola and cello to exchange pitch-class dyads, so that each instrument states 4-9
horizontally as well as combining with the other to create it.11 In mm. 1314, the
echoes repeat the original partition. In mm. 1517, the echoes take part in a process
worthy of the label developing variation. The rst partition in m. 15 groups
hexachord order positions 1 and 4 in the viola (they are positions 16 and 13 with
respect to the complete row) and 2 and 3 in the cello (15 and 14 in the complete
row). The echo in the middle of m. 15 then groups hexachord order positions 1 and
2 in the viola and 3 and 4 in the cello. The latter partition, <1,2> <3,4>, is then
taken over by the other hexachords of RI7 in mm. 1516. Schoenberg uses the
partitioning scheme of his echo in m. 15 to predict the partitions that are about to
come in the next two measures.
As I mentioned above in the overview of the works musical idea, what comes
next in part I of the Trio is an attempt to realize the real eighteen-tone Grundgestalt
as a linear whole. This happens twice, at mm. 1721 and 3436, illustrated by
Examples 8.6a and 8.6b. In neither case does Schoenberg get any further than two
hexachords of the Grundgestalt. Example 8.6a begins with the violin producing
almost all of the second and third hexachords of P2, before the row dives down into
the viola for order positions 16 and 17. (This follows right after the music displayed
in Example 8.5, so that Schoenberg seems to be immediately countering the inu-
ence on the listener of the false Grundgestalt.) In m. 19, the violin continues with
all of the second and third hexachords of R2, in perfect linear order. (Since this
happens directly after the third hexachord of P2 in m. 18, one could hear mm. 1821
as stating a complete R2 but not a linear one, because of the jumbling of order
caused by putting order positions 16 and 17 in the viola, and because R2s rst
hexachord is stated backward in m. 18.) After the violins R2, the music reverts to
stating single hexachords, as can be seen in the viola and cello in m. 21; these two
hexachords are given in linear form, however.12
11
This analytic observation is based on the note that should have appeared in the cello at the end of
m. 12 according to the row-count, pitch class 4 or E. In reality, there is an error in the published
score at this point: the cello plays D instead. This mistake is noted in the 1976 Boelke-Bomart
edition in much the same manner as in my example: with a circle, and with the correct pitch class in
parentheses. (Schoenbergs autograph also has the D; it can be found as MS49_1033.jpg in the
archive of the Arnold Schoenberg Center in Vienna, or at www.schoenberg.at (accessed August 20,
2013).)
12
Christian Martin Schmidt, in Arnold Schnberg: Streichtrio op. 45, Melos 47/3 (1985), also
characterizes mm. 1836 as an attempt to present the eighteen-tone rows hexachords in linear
form, after mm. 1217 has featured the twelve-tone row derived from these hexachords boundaries.
Schmidt exchanges the functions of the derived row and the eighteen-tone row as I have given them:
he considers the former the principal theme, and the attempts to realize the latter row a thematic
Gegensatz. Still, his characterization of mm. 1217 and 1836 as having opposing functions
parallels mine. See ibid., pp. 7879.
Example 8.6a
m. 17b 18 19 20 21 22a
R2 /h2
R2 /h3
P2 /h2 P2 /h3
11
8 2 1
8 13 15 10 7 5 4 0
6 7 9 10 11 12 14 6 3
9
violin
RI7 /h3 3 4 5
16
12
9
7 5 0 1 2
0
viola
17 15 10
4
( 8 ) P2 /h1 4 5
2 3
17 13 6 3
cello 11 1
0
16 14 8
I7 /h1 1
RI7 /h1 ( 9 ) 2
RI7 /h2
P2 /h2 & h3: R2 /h2 & h3: P2 /h1:

violin, mm. 17b 18 viola, m. 18 violin, mm. 19 22 viola, mm. 21 22
11 8 6 7 5 0 | 4 2 10 9 1 3 0 5 7 6 8 11 | 1 4 9 3 10 2 2 10 3 9 4 1
(Equivalent in content but not in order to a complete R2)
RI7: va. & cello va. & cello va. & cello I7 /h1:
vert., mm. 18b 19a vert., m. 20b vert., m. 20d cello, m. 21
6 8 0 11 7 5 9 4 2 3 1 10 8 5 0 6 11 7 7 11 6 0 5 8
va. & cello va. & cello va. & cello

vert., m. 18a vert., mm. 19b 20a vert., m. 20c
Schoenberg, String Trio Op. 45, mm. 17b22a. Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European American Music Distributors
Example 8.6b
m. 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
4 5
5
3 4 P2 /h3 P2 /h1 & h2
2 3 P2 /h2 I7 /h3
I7 /h1 2
0 1 8 9
0 1 17 0
6 (11) 4
7
12
violin (6) 4
11 17 2 11
12
13 14 15 16 9
7 8 9 10 0 3 6
0
(2)
viola
2 (0)
I7 /h2 1 3 7 10
P2 /h1 1 3 9 10 7 15 14
4 5 6 8 9 10 16
8 13 2 6 11
5
6
cello
7 8
11 1 5 10
11
I7 /h1 & h2
viola, m. 38
viola, m. 34 violin, m. 35 violin, m. 36a violin, m. 37 cello, cello,
m. 38 violin, m. 39 m. 40
P2: 2 10 3 9 4 1 11 8 6 7 5 0 4 2 10 9 1 3 P2 /h1 & h2: 2 10 3 9 4 1 11 8 6 7 5 0

viola, m. 35 viola, m. 36 viola, violin,
cello, m. 34
m. 39 m. 40
viola, m. 37
violin, m. 36b
violin, m. 34, 2 cello, m. 35, 2
I7: 7 11 6 0 5 8 10 1 3 2 4 9 5 7 11 0 8 6 I7 /h1 & h2: 7 11 6 0 5 8 10 1 3 2 4 9

cello, m. 37 viola,
cello, m. 36 cello,
violin, m. 38 m. 39 m. 40
6-20 6-20
Example 8.6b depicts a similar situation that ends differently. Two hexachords of
I7 are given in linear order, and then the third one is altered a little, after which
the instrumental partitioning of the hexachords becomes completely nonlinear.
In m. 34, the violin gives the rst hexachord of I7, in order, twice; even though
order positions 1 and 2 followed by 3 and 4 appear as verticals the rst time,
they can be heard to follow the correct order if they are heard as intervals up
from the bass. In m. 35, I 7 passes down to the cello, where the second
hexachord is stated twice, mostly in order, with the exception of verticals on
order positions 6 and 7 (rst time only) and 10 and 11 (both times). Then in
m. 36, the partition that made appearances in m. 2 and mm. 1217, separating
the boundary notes of the hexachord from the inner four notes, is applied to the
third hexachord of I7, and the linear segment that remains, the inner four notes,
is given in reverse order, giving order positions 16, 15, 14, 13. It is important to
notice that Schoenberg anticipates this <0,5> <4,3,2,1> partition of I7s third
hexachord in m. 36 by applying <0,5> <1,2,3,4> to the second hexachord of
P2 a measure earlier, another example of a change in partition expressed as a
gradual, developmental process.
What follows at mm. 3740 is anything but gradual, though within the larger
scheme we can certainly think of it as developmental. Schoenberg suddenly and
totally abandons all linear segments forming hexachords or parts of hexachords
larger than two notes, in favor of partitions that cross from a hexachord of P2 to its
combinatorial partner in I7. One can most clearly understand the picture by
examining the lower right corner of Example 8.6b, which shows how the three
instruments partition the rst and second hexachords of P2 and I7. This unfamiliar
partitioning leads to harmonic elements that are familiar, at least in mm. 3738.
The horizontal, vertical, and diagonal dyads have the effect of splitting the combin-
ation of P2/h1 and I7/h1 down the middle vertically, in a similar way to that effected
by the sfpp in m. 1. The same two hexachords result, therefore: {0,1,4,5,8,9} and
{2,3,6,7,10,11}, both belonging to set class 6-20.13
A snapshot will now be given of that place in the rst episode, the beginning of
the Viennese waltz with Death referred to earlier, where the alternative twelve-tone
row of Example 8.1 is realized as a complete linear entity for the rst time, together
with some of the subsequent measures. This will be followed by a brief analysis of
the beginning of part II, where Schoenberg extends the boundary vs. inner-note
partitioning scheme from m. 2, <0,5> {1,2,3,4}, over a much wider span of music
13
Kurths analysis of mm. 3740 in Mosaic Isomorphism and Mosaic Polyphony, pp. 26877,
also remarks on the division of the aggregate into 6-20 hexachords, but he divides these
hexachords further not by instrument (as I do), but by register, into three interval class 5s
(stacked on one another vertically) which are connected horizontally (for the most part) by
intervals in interval class 2.
than mm. 1217, bringing back the alternative row with chromatic hexachords that
was introduced in those six measures. Both snapshots will describe elaborations
of what we are calling the problem of the identity of the row, and we will follow
them (and conclude this analysis) by showing how Schoenberg solves this problem
in the nal measures of part III.
In the rst episode, mm. 8691 gradually build up the linear form of the
alternative twelve-tone row from Example 8.1, while the following measures, mm.
9295, start to break it down again. This whole passage is displayed as Examples
8.7a and 8.7b. The cello begins the process of realizing the alternative form of I3
(abbreviated AI3 in Example 8.7a and subsequent examples) by giving its rst four
notes in row order in m. 86. Three measures later, the violin progresses through the
second hexachord of alternative R10 in row order, increasing the linear segment to
six notes. Then immediately after, at mm. 90 and 91, the violin continues with all
twelve notes of alternative RI3 in order. As the cello in m. 86 and violin in mm. 8991
are building up the alternative rows, segment by segment, the other voices repeat-
edly express one of two hexachord partition schemes, both of which can be heard as
developments of earlier music. The cello in m. 87 applies the hexachord partition
{0,1}{2,3}{4,5} rhythmically, to make three vertical dyads out of the second hexa-
chord of AI3. This is a move that Schoenberg predicted in m. 86 by combining
order positions 4 and 5 into a vertical. The violin in m. 88 then echoes the {0,1}{2,3}
{4,5} partition in its statement of the rst hexachord of alternative R10.
Without exception, every measure in Example 8.7a that we have not yet discussed
is partitioned between two instruments according to one scheme, <0,1,3,5> <2,4>
or its reverse, <0,2,4,5> <1,3>. We have not seen either of these partitions in the
music we have discussed to this point, but they do derive from earlier parts of the
Trio in a signicant way: when one or the other is applied to both hexachords of any
form of the alternative row, they invariably form set classes 4-7, 4-1, and 4-9, the
same three set classes that were so strongly emphasized in mm. 14 and 1217, or a
new tetrachord, 4-5 (0126). For an example, look at the violin and viola in mm.
8687: in both measures hexachord order positions 0, 1, 3, and 5 (which are row
order positions 6, 7, 9, and 11 in m. 87) are given to the violin, and positions 2 and 4
(row order positions 8 and 10 in m. 87) are given to the viola. This gives rise to 4-7 in
m. 86 and 4-9 in m. 87 of the violin, and the viola plays 4-7 again over both measures.
(On Example 8.7a, I have placed the set-class labels on the lower part of the example,
above or below the boxes representing instrumental partitions of the row.) In mm.
8889, the trend continues, but the partition is reversed from <0,1,3,5> <2,4> in
the previous measures to <0,2,4,5> <1,3>. As the lower part of Example 8.7a
shows, this instrumental partition results in 4-9 in the viola in m. 88, followed by 4-7
in m. 89, and the cello stretches out 4-7 over both measures. In mm. 8889, the
same three set classes occur in reverse succession from their appearances at mm.
8687, because reverse partition schemes have been applied to retrograde-related
Example 8.7a
m. 86 87 88 89 90 91
AR10 /h1 ARI3 /h1 ARI3 /h2

11 9 AR10 /h2
AP10 /h1 AP10 /h2 7 0 0
10 8 1 1
6 2 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2
4 3 11
0 1 3 5 9 11 5
6 7
violin
7 6 1 AR10 /h2
2 4 8 10 5 3 0 9 7 (9 7)
11 9
viola
3 1
10
2 4 2 5 4 2
AI3 /h1 8 10 11 10 6 (8 7 6) 0
0 1 3 8 8
4 6
cello 11
7 9
5 AR10 /h1
ARI3 /h1 ARI3 /h1
AI3 /h2
violin, m. 86: 4-7 violin, m. 87: 4-9 violin, mm. 90 91
AP10: 10 6 11 5 0 9 2 1 4 7 3 8 ARI3: 5 10 6 9 0 11 4 1 8 2 7 3
violin, m. 88
violin, m. 89
viola, mm. 86 87: 4-7
AR10: 8 3 7 4 1 2 9 0 5 11 6 10
cello, m. 90: 4-5 cello, m. 91: 4-1
AI3: 3 7 2 8 1 4 11 0 9 6 10 5 AR10: 8 3 7 4 1 2 9 0 5 11 6 10
cello, m. 86 cello, m. 87
viola, m. 88: 4-9 viola, m. 89: 4-7
viola, mm. 90 91: 4-5
ARI3: 5 10 6 9 0 11 4 1 8 2 7 3
cello, mm. 8 89: 4-7
Schoenberg, String Trio Op. 45, mm. 85b91. Used by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European American Music Distributors
Example 8.7b
m. 92 93 94 95
AP11
2 4
8 10 (8 10)
violin
2 4 8 10
9 11 10 8 4 2
0 5 6 7
1 3
viola
AP7
1 3 5 6 7 9 11 ARI4 1
0 11 9 5 3 0
7 6
cello
cello, m. 92a: 4-7 cello, m. 92b: 4-9 cello, m. 94: 4-9 cello, m. 95: 4-7
AP7: 7 3 8 2 9 6 11 10 1 4 0 5 ARI4: 6 11 7 10 1 0 5 2 9 3 8 4
violin, m. 92: 4-7 viola, mm. 94b 95: 4-7
viola, m. 93a: 4-7 viola, mm. 93b 94a: 4-9
AP11: 11 7 0 6 1 10 3 2 5 8 4 9
violin, mm. 93 94a: 4-7
row forms (P10 and RI3). In mm. 9091, Schoenberg applies the <0,1,3,5> <2,4>
partition that has been associated with a forward-moving row to R10, and so we
would expect some new tetrachord set classes. As it turns out, the cello plays 4-5 in
m. 90 and 4-1 in m. 91, and the viola in the two measures together gives 4-5.
As the linear presentation of the alternative rows P10 and I3 falls by the wayside
in m. 92, the organizational principle that pushes it aside is the same partition
scheme that was introduced together with the linear segments in mm. 8691. In
m. 92, Schoenberg applies <0,1,3,5> <2,4> to alternative P7, in the following
measure, alternative P11 receives the same partition, and in mm. 9495 alternative
RI4 is split up between instruments according to the reverse partition, <0,2,4,5>
<1,3>. Thus, all the resulting tetrachords belong to 4-7 and 4-9, as a quick glance
over the bottom part of Example 8.7b will conrm. The purpose of the rst episode
passage displayed in Examples 8.7a and 8.7b with respect to the overall organiza-
tional scheme, the musical idea, is to present another alternative for Grundgestalt
status, attaining it gradually by longer and longer segments in row order, and then
quickly abandoning it for partitions which highlight the three tetrachords that have
had motivic signicance from the beginning of the piece. At the same time, this
passage also seems to suggest that the alternative, twelve-tone row form could be
the source of 4-7, 4-1, and 4-9.
Before leaving Examples 8.7a and 8.7b, a further comment is in order. Notice that
Schoenberg is grouping his alternative row forms into harmonic areas, which is
equivalent to my earlier assertion that he tends to use I5-combinatorial forms
together. P10, R10, I3, and RI3 constitute A10 in mm. 8691, P7 alone represents A7
in m. 92, and P11 and RI4 represent A11 in mm. 9395. Not only do the intervals
between the areas create a pattern familiar in much of Schoenbergs music
(<3,4>, a member of set class 3-3), but also the move from I3 in A10 to P7 in
A7 creates an invariant tetrachord between the rst four notes of both rows, {2,3,7,8}
(marked with shaded rectangles in the bottom halves of both examples). Schoenberg
does not bring out this invariant in any particular way in the P7 form of m. 92, but its
appearance in I3/h1 at m. 86 is highlighted by the four-note linear presentation
referred to earlier, and its appearance in RI3/h2 in m. 91 is similarly highlighted by
linear presentation in the violin. In general, unordered pitch-class set invariances
like this one account for many of Schoenbergs choices of transposition levels in the
Trio, and, together with the set-class and partitional invariances we have been
discussing, provide him with a repertory of techniques for developing variation.14
14
Christian Martin Schmidt also comments on the initial tetrachord invariance between prime and
inverted rows from harmonic areas related by interval class 3 (like A10 and A7); and he ties this
observation into a thorough analysis of the sequence of harmonic areas in part I and the rst
episode, which shows Schoenberg moving often (but not exclusively) through interval class 3 cycles
in the episode. See Schmidt, Arnold Schnberg: Streichtrio op. 45, p. 76.
Now I would like to skip forward to the onset of part II of the Trio. We will
discuss two passages near the beginning, mm. 13541 and 14549, illustrated as
Examples 8.8a and 8.8b. In mm. 13541, Schoenberg brings back the concept of
creating a twelve-tone row form by running through the boundary notes of an
eighteen-tone P form followed by the RI form ve half steps higher. This
technique, applied to P2 and RI7, played an important role at mm. 1217, as
Example 8.5 illustrated. In mm. 13541, it recurs ve half steps higher, at P7 and
RI0, and in the viola rather than the violin (this is shaded in Example 8.8as pitch-
class map). Within the larger scheme that is the musical idea, this constitutes a
return to and further development of an alternative to the true Grundgestalt
that has been introduced earlier. This later passage is different from mm. 1217,
though, in one very signicant way. Whereas the partitions of the inner four
members of each hexachord had never presented them in row order in Example
8.5, the inner tetrachords (and also the hexachords of the accompanying row) in
mm. 13541 become gradually more linear as the passage progresses. Thus, the
true eighteen-tone Grundgestalt comes partially into view in the violin and cello,
even as the viola emphasizes its alternative. Look especially at the violin and
cello in m. 136, and the same two instruments in mm. 13841. In the former
measure, the cello states the inner four notes of the second hexachord of P7 in row
order, forming set class 4-1, while the violin gives the rst four notes of the second
hexachord of I0 in order, before presenting the last two notes vertically. In
mm. 13841, the presentation of R7 becomes gradually more linear. The violin
in m. 138 begins by partitioning R7s rst hexachord into discrete dyads and
moving through them backward (creating a retrograde of the retrograde), followed
in m. 139 by the cello, which moves backward through the second hexachord of
R7, turning only the rst two dyads into verticals while the third is given in the
retrograde of row order. In mm. 14041, the violin completes the process by
moving through the third hexachord of R7 forward, in row order, without any
verticals. Meanwhile, the inner tetrachords of RI0 undergo a similar process: in m.
138 the cello progresses through the rst tetrachord backward, giving two notes as
a vertical and the other two in reverse order, while in mm. 139 and 14041 the
second and third inner tetrachords are presented linearly (the second backward
and the third forward). Each of these inner tetrachords of RI0 forms one of the
three tetrachord set classes that have been highlighted since the beginning of the
piece, 4-7, 4-1, and 4-9.
As has been the case with every previous attempt to realize the true eighteen-tone
Grundgestalt or its twelve-tone imitators, the false row in mm. 13541 of part II is
almost immediately followed by a passage where linear presentations are eschewed
completely. In mm. 14549, illustrated by Example 8.8b, this liquidating process
takes a new direction: according to my hearing, Schoenberg begins to create
successions out of the boundary notes of the eighteen-tone Grundgestalt and its
Example 8.8a
m. 135 136 137 138 139 140 141
R7 /h1 R7 /h3
I0 /h2 P7 /h3 RI0 /h2
16
2 3 13 14 5
1 4 14 15 4 3 1 0
16 2
violin 11
6 7 13 12 7 8 9 10
10 15 17
P7 /h1 8 9 15
0 5 6 11 12 17 6 5 0
11
viola
12
17
0
1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 16
17 16 7 4 2
12 14 15 8 10 11 3 1
14
cello
6
I0 /h1 P7 /h2 13
9
13 RI0 /h1 RI0 /h3
I0 /h3
R7 /h2
violin, m. 138 cello, m. 139 violin, mm. 140 41

viola, m. 135 viola, m. 136 viola, m. 137
P7 : 7 3 8 2 9 6 4 1 11 0 10 5 9 7 3 2 6 8 R7: 8 6 2 3 7 9 5 10 0 11 1 4 6 9 2 8 3 7
violin, cello, m. 136: 4-1

m. 135 violin,
m. 137
cello, m. 138: 4-7 violin, m. 139: 4-1 cello, mm. 140 41: 4-9
violin, m. 136
I0 : 0 4 11 5 10 1 3 6 8 7 9 2 10 0 4 5 1 11 RI0: 11 1 5 4 0 10 2 9 7 8 6 3 1 10 5 11 4 0
cello, m. 135 viola, m. 138 viola, m. 139 viola, m. 140 41

cello, m. 137
Example 8.8b
m. 145 146 147 148 149
I0, boundary notes

P7, boundary notes
17
11 12 5 0
6 5 11 0
)
violin
11 6
6 6 11
11
12 17
5 6 6 0
viola 5
I0 ,
0 11 boundary 17
P7, boundary notes 12
12 17
notes 12 11 12 11
6 6
5 17
cello 5
0
17 0 5
0
I0, boundary notes
I0, boundary
notes P7, boundary notes
viola, m. 148: 4-1 cello, m. 149: 4-1

violin, viola,
viola, m. 145: 4-1 mm. 146 47 mm. 146 47
P7: 7 6 4 5 9 8 P7: 7 6 4 5 P7: 7 6 4 5 9 8 P7: 7 6 4 5 9 8

violin, viola,
cello, m. 145: m. 148: m. 149:
4-7 cello, 4-1 4-1
mm. 145b 47
I0: 0 1 3 2 10 11 I0: (0 1) 3 2 I0 : 0 1 3 2 10 11 I0: 0 1 3 2 10 11

violin, m. 145: 4-7
violin, m. 149: 4-1

cello, m. 148: 4-1
I5-combinatorial complement.15 In m. 145 these successions present the boundary

notes in row order, giving order positions <0,5,6,11,12,17>, but starting in m. 148
they occur out of row order, as the partition schemes in the lower right corner of
Example 8.8b illustrate. Even though the three instruments seem to careen through
the boundary notes of P7 and I0 randomly, a set-class invariance controls the
partitions that enclose their successions: each instrument presents set class 4-1 in
mm. 148 and 149, and an inspection of the score will show that the instrumental
partitions continue to produce nothing but the chromatic tetrachord up to m. 153.
Not only that, but the order in which each instrument progresses through these
chromatic tetrachords is controlled for the most part by Schoenbergs attempt
to rst reproduce and then vary the <2,1,2> ordered pitch-interval pattern
that characterized the violas presentation of the middle four notes of P2 in m. 2.
These variations progress gradually toward larger intervals by means of octave
complementation and compounding (the variation of the inversion of <2,1,2>
to <10,23,34> in the viola in the latter half of m. 2 predicted such a move). In
m. 148 the violin plays <2,1,2>, and the cello its inversion, <2,1,2>. In
m. 149 the violin repeats <2,1,2>. and the viola plays an octave-
complemented and compounded variation of the inversion, <14,1,10>. In
m. 150 (consult the score), the cello has <2,1,2>, and the violin varies the
inversion as <10, 13,14>. By the time we reach m. 153, both statements of the
motive have been varied to produce wide skips: the violin has <10,11,22> and
the cello <22,23,10>. As we have seen a number of times before, both the
partitions and the direction of motion within those partitions in mm. 14853
15
My analysis begins to diverge from the conventional wisdom at this point, although Schmidts
reading corroborates mine for mm. 14547 (see Schmidt, Arnold Schnberg: Streichtrio op. 45,
pp. 7275). Martha Hyde, Silvina Milstein, Richard Kurth, and Schmidt have all presented analyses
of all or part of mm. 14853 in which each measure presents the second hexachords of some P form
and its I5-combinatorial complement, giving the boundary notes of both hexachords to one
instrument, the inner four notes of the P hexachord to another, and the inner four notes of the
I hexachord to the third. This view suggests a kind of development, keeping the <0,5> <1,2,3,4>
partition and the idea of combining corresponding hexachords invariant from mm. 13541 to 145
53, while changing the transpositions of the row forms, as well as limiting the material to the second
hexachords. Kurths version of it is especially interesting in that he shows a gradual transition across
mm. 14853 from the <0,5> <1,2,3,4> partition of both hexachords to a mirrored <0,5> <1,3>
<2,4> partition, expressed registrally. And Schmidt shows that the sequence of second hexachord
pairs in mm. 14852 includes as a salient component (in the top register of the viola, cello, or violin)
the same derived row that the viola has just given in mm. 13541, which I described in Example
8.8a. But the view held by these scholars of mm. 14853 lacks the sense of liquidating the row order
step by step while keeping the transposition constant that my interpretation provides. See Milstein,
Arnold Schoenberg, pp. 4849; Hyde, The Roots of Form in Schoenbergs Sketches, pp. 2931;
Kurth, Mosaic Isomorphism and Mosaic Polyphony, pp. 28398; Schmidt, Arnold Schnberg:
Streichtrio op. 45, pp. 7677.
contribute to a developmental process, which further elaborates trends suggested

near the beginning of the piece, in m. 2.
After the second episode, part I and the rst episode return in a reduced form.
Because of this, the strategies of presenting one twelve-tone alternative to the true
row in its complete form, then bringing the true Grundgestalt almost completely
forth, and then presenting the other twelve-tone alternative followed by the rst
alternative again, almost all reappear in the same order. The only element from part
I and the rst episode that is missing is what was illustrated in Examples 8.6a and
8.6b, Schoenbergs attempt to get through the whole eighteen-tone Grundgestalt
that is cut short after two hexachords. Therefore, the stage is set for a solution to the
Trios problem, the revealing of the true source row. As mentioned before, this
happens at mm. 28193, illustrated in Examples 8.9a, 8.9b, and 8.9c. Example 8.9a
depicts the rst stages of the Grundgestalts unveiling, starting with a pair of I5-
combinatorial hexachords, the rst hexachords of R8 and RI1, in row order in
m. 281. Note that the two hexachords swap last notes; the pitch class 11 that would
have ended RI1/h1 is supplanted by the pitch class 10 that does end R8/h1.
Measures 28285 then strive toward presenting all three hexachords of either P2
or I7 in row order, but fall short for each hexachord. The rst hexachord of P2 gets
through ve notes in the viola in mm. 282 and 283 before dropping down into the
cello at m. 283. The second hexachord of P2 starts in row order in the viola for two
notes but then moves into the cello for a linear statement of its last four notes. It is
accompanied in mm. 283b284 with a linear statement of the second hexachord of
I7, which starts with ve notes in the violin and then moves to the viola, again
falling short of completing the hexachord by one note. Finally, the third hexachord
of P2 is split up into its rst dyad (backward in the violin) and last tetrachord (in
row order in the viola), followed by an echo of the rst dyad (again backward) in
the viola. The only partition in these measures that is not almost linear is <0,2,5>
<1,3,4>, which controls the violin and cello in mm. 28283. But Schoenbergs use
of this partition does support the passages increasing linear character: he repeats it
three times and then makes it disappear after m. 283.
Example 8.9b, showing the next four measures, represents another step in solving
the problem of the rows identity. Now the violin, not yet the main voice (the viola
has that function here), begins to run through the three hexachords of I7 in row
order. The rst hexachord includes several repeated notes (as if the violin were
unsure of itself starting its ordered progression through the Grundgestalt), but by
the time we reach hexachords 2 and 3 in mm. 287 and 288, the violin not only
moves directly through the source row but begins to sound more continuous as it
goes along (mainly through Schoenbergs use of shorter note values and fewer
rests). Meanwhile, the cello and viola split the three hexachords of P2 according to
several partition schemes that we have seen in previous examples (making the lower
two voices a summary of the works partitions). They begin with the hexachord
Example 8.9a
m. 281 282 283 284 285
R8 /h1 I7 /h1 I7 /h2

15 ( 9 10 ) P /h3
16
RI1 /h1 17 2
violin 0
2 5 6
P2 /h1 5 5 0 2 4 7 8 10 9 13 12
0
15 14 13 2 14 15 (14 15) 16 17 (13 12)
16 12 1 3
0 2 4 ( 3 )
17
viola
6 7
13 1 3 4 5
14 12 4 1 3 1 3 8 10
6 9 11
cello
( 9 10 )
P2 /h2
cello, m. 283b
viola, m. 281 viola, mm. 282 83 cello, mm. 284b 85 viola, mm. 284b 85
RI1 /h1: 0 2 6 5 1 (11) P2 /h1: 2 10 3 9 4 1 P2 /h2: 11 8 6 7 5 0 P2 /h3: 4 2 10 9 1 3
replaces viola, m. 284a

violin, m. 285a;
violin, mm. 282 83a: 3-1, m. 283b: 4-1 viola, m. 285b
violin, m. 281
R8 /h1: 9 7 3 4 8 10 I7 /h1: 7 11 6 0 5 8 I7 /h2: 10 1 3 2 4 (9)
cello, m. 281 violin, mm. 284 85

cello, mm. 282 83a: 3-5
Example 8.9b
m. 286 287 288 289
I7 /h1 I7 /h2 I7 /h3

15 17 P2 /h3
14
6 7 8 10 12 13 16
0 1 2 ( 1 2 2 ) 3 11
4 5 9 P2 /h3
violin
12 13 16 17
4-7 4-7 15
4-1 14
viola
0 6 11 6 11 12 17 12 13 14
2 0 2 15 16 17
5 (0 2 5)
P2 /h1 4 5
1 3
(1 3) 1 3 7 8 9 10 7 8 9 10 13 14 15 16
cello
17
12 13 14 16
15 12
P2 /h2 4-1 P2 /h3 4-7 13
I7 /h3 I7 /h3
viola, mm. 287b 288a: 4-7 violin, m. 289b: 4-1

viola, mm. 286 87a: 4-1 viola, mm. 288b 289a
P2 /h1: 2 10 3 9 4 1 P 2 /h2: 11 8 6 7 5 0 P 2 /h3: 4 2 10 9 1 3 4 2 10 9 1 3 4 2 10 9 1 3
cello, mm. 287b 288a: 4-1 cello, m. 288b: 4-7 viola, m. 289b
cello, mm. 286 87a
cello,
violin, mm. 286 88 cello, m. 288c 289a m. 289b
I7 /h1: 7 11 6 0 5 8 I7 /h2: 10 1 3 2 4 9 I7 /h3: 5 7 11 0 8 6 5 7 11 0 8 6 5 7 (11 0 8 6)
4-1 4-7
Example 8.9c
partition <0,2,4,5> <1,3> in m. 286, producing set class 4-1 one more time in the
viola, and then progress in mm. 287 and 288 to <0,5> <1,2,3,4>, the partition of
boundary notes against inner four notes that we have already discussed at length.
The resulting set classes both belong to the group that has been featured throughout
this piece: 4-1 in the cello twice in mm. 287 and 288, 4-7 in the cello on the second
beat of m. 288, and 4-7 again in the viola over both measures. Since 4-1 is also being
heard in these same measures in the violin as the inner four notes of the second
hexachord of I7, and 4-7 also appears as the inner four notes of the third hexachord
of I7, Schoenberg seems to be explaining the source within the row of some of the
pieces most prominent tetrachords.
The last two eighth notes of m. 288, all of m. 289, and rst six eighth notes of
m. 290 repeat the last pair of I5-combinatorial hexachords, P2/h3 and I7/h3, twice.
On the rst repeat, both hexachords progress in row order, probably to conrm
what Schoenberg has done in the previous few measures with I7. On the second
repeat, both hexachords are partitioned to highlight the set class 4-1 that occurs at
hexachord order positions 0, 1, 4, and 5. This is a new hexachord partition, but one
that brings out a familiar interval collection, the most prominent tetrachord in the
Trio. Moreover, the rhythm of these violin and cello statements of 4-1 ( )
forms a link with the beginning of the Trios nal passage, as the rst four notes of
the rst hexachord of P2 use the same rhythmic motive.
Example 8.9c constitutes the nal stage in the solution of this pieces problem
concerning row identity, as Schoenberg gives P2, all eighteen tones in row order, for
the rst time, in the violin. The division of the row into hexachords, one of the main
tools in obscuring the linear form of the row earlier, is placed in doubt here, as order
position 11 progresses to order position 12 under the same motive (circled
on the score). Interestingly, the pitch classes C and E that these order positions
create are set to a rhythm that evokes the waltz passages from the episodes
referred to earlier, as do many of the rhythms in Examples 8.9a, 8.9b, and 8.9c. If
the Trios waltzes evoke the image of Schoenberg dancing with Death, as Michael
Cherlin has suggested, then perhaps the appropriation of some of their characteris-
tic rhythmic motives into a linear presentation of the row could signify Schoenberg
overcoming Death (as he eventually did in 1946). The Trios nal measures, with
their gradual diminuendo, could portray Schoenberg falling asleep peacefully, as
fragmentary memories of his struggle with Death pass across his mind.
As for the accompaniment in Example 8.9c, the viola and cello split up the three
hexachords of I7 mostly according to a simple <0,2,4> <1,3,5> partition scheme,
with even notes in the viola, odd notes in the cello, though they do diverge from
that scheme in the third hexachord (possibly to enable Schoenberg to nish the Trio
on an enharmonic perfect fth between the outer voices?).
Thus, at the end of the String Trio, uncertainty about its true Grundgestalt has
been dispelled. We know now that it is the eighteen-tone row, rather than either of
the twelve-tone rows that were put forth earlier, that forms the principal source of
this work. Part of the reason for this certainty is that we get a glimpse of how
elements that originally obscured the linear form of the eighteen-tone row, causing
conict and confusion, can t into the row as elements within its larger structure
(like the tetrachord set classes 4-1 and 4-7, and partitions such as <0,5> <1,2,3,4>
and <0,2,4,5> <1,3>).
My interpretation of the works ending squares quite well with Leonard Steins
assertions about part III as a whole:
In the case of the Trio, after the tormented and confused depiction of the portion of
his life found in the rst section of the work, Schoenberg felt justied in going back
and reliving that portion with the calmness and perspective of good health. Signi-
cantly enough, Schoenberg composed the bulk of the work while he was still too ill to
leave his bedroom. It was not until he reached part three of the Trio, the recapitu-
lation, that he was able to come downstairs to his regular workroom.16
Another scholar who understands the ending as depicting peace and resolution
after conict and torment is Joseph Straus, who not only uses Steins quotation to
support the idea that Schoenberg was reviewing his sickness from the perspective of
good health at the close of the Trio, but also draws on an earlier version of my
account of the gradual revelation of the rows identity as a musical metaphor for
what he identies as a cure narrative. 17
16
Steins quotation comes from a personal interview with Walter Bailey, and is published in Baileys
Programmatic Elements in the Works of Schoenberg, pp. 15657.
17
Strauss discussion of the work can be found in Disability and Late Style in Music, Journal of
Musicology 25/1 (2008): 1927. His reference to my work comes from an earlier draft of the present
chapter that I gave him as a manuscript in 2001.
Michael Cherlins interpretation of the Trios ending, in Schoenbergs Musical Imagination,
pp. 32628, on the other hand, provides a stark contrast to mine. Cherlin attends mainly to tonal
conceptions of cadence and phrase structure, and shows that in those realms the passage sets up
expectations that it cannot fulll. See my review of Cherlins book in Music Theory Online 15/1
(March 2009), http://mto.societymusictheory.org/issues/mto.09.15.1/mto.09.15.1.boss.html, para-
graph 14 (accessed August 20, 2013). Another published analysis that takes an approach similar
to Cherlins is Richard Kurths in Moments of Closure, pp. 15557. However, Kurth asserts
different latent key areas from Cherlin in the nal three measures of the piece: C major followed
by equally prominent dominant sonorities in Df and Bf, while Cherlin argues for D major/minor
with a hint of Df:V at the end. This suggests, to me anyway, the subjective quality of such an analytic
approach. Finally, Martin Boykan refrains from asserting specic tonal references at the Trios end,
but he does complain that the harmony becomes particularly unreferential after m. 291, and
points out rhythmic features (such as a hemiola suggesting duple meter) that upset the balance in
the last few measures. Interestingly, Boykan also claims that, up to m. 291, the Trios ending is
characterized by resolving all the compositional issues in an atmosphere of noteworthy calm, a
view of the piece more in line with Steins, Strauss, and mine. See Boykan, The Schoenberg Trio,
p. 170, and Silence and Slow Time, pp. 22932. Boykans view of the exact location of the
compositional resolution is different from Strauss and mine, however: he claims that it is produced
Schoenbergs String Trio is perhaps the most difcult of his twelve-tone compos-
itions to grasp immediately, because of the constant, violent changes that charac-
terize most of it. But once a listener understands that the confusion created by such
a jagged and fragmentary texture is the rst stage of a gradual process that
moves steadily toward explanation and unication, it becomes possible to grasp the
String Trio as a whole, and understand its program in terms of the composers
return to physical wholeness after a life-threatening sickness.
Concluding remarks
My nine analyses in this book have described a wide variety of musical structures,
but nearly all of them (eight, to be exact) grow out of the model for long-range
coherence on which Schoenberg himself insisted: setting up some sort of problem
or conict between musical elements near the beginning, elaborating it during the
course of the piece, and resolving it near the end. The only analysis that did not
illustrate a complete musical idea was Chapter 7s consideration of Moses und Aron.
Nevertheless, the opera seems to adhere to the rst two stages of Idea quite well,
putting forward and elaborating an ever-growing network of musical problems, and
its incompletion seems perfectly appropriate for its subject matter, Moses ultimate
failure to communicate God to his people. Had Schoenberg written the music for
the third act, he might have managed a solution, but as I argued in Chapter 7,
leaving the problem unsolved makes a much more effective, heart-rending, nal
cadence.
The musical idea as a framework for composition and analysis thus creates a
strong coherence-producing thread, within and between pieces, through much of
Schoenbergs twelve-tone music. Furthermore, the specic ways in which it is
manifested demonstrates both the composers gradual development of a mature
technique (as Ethan Haimo has already shown in Schoenbergs Serial Odyssey) and
his predilection for returning to certain ways of organizing his material after his
technique had developed (as Humphrey Searle suggested in his 1954 Groves Dic-
tionary article on the composer). My researches uncovered some of the same
Schoenbergian voyages of discovery that Haimo describes, like the progression in
Opp. 2629 from the rst tentative uses of hexachordal combinatoriality (or, rather,
anti-combinatoriality) in Op. 26 to a harmonic technique in Op. 28s third Satire
that uses combinatorial forms together consistently and treats the harmonic areas
that result like key areas, using them to dene parts of a large musical form. But
I also found some other interesting developmental progressions as I looked at the
by the transposition of a cantabile melody from part II (originally found at mm. 15962) into the
home harmonic area at mm. 28285, not by the linear presentations of the eighteen-tone row that
immediately follow.
nine pieces (mostly) in order of composition: for example, the progression from
using collectional exchange based on tetrachords to represent an ideal state or
solution (as Schoenberg does in the Intermezzo Op. 25, not discussed in detail in this
book, but illustrated briey in Example 2.19) to using exchange based on hexachords
for that same purpose (as he does in the Menuett from that same Suite). This
progression seemed signicant as a prelude to Schoenbergs more narrow focus on
hexachord partitions in the Gigue that was composed not long after.
Even more interesting were the places where I discovered Schoenberg going back
to earlier ways of organizing his material as his twelve-tone tool kit continued to
develop, and presenting older compositional strategies in ways enriched by more
recent developments in his style. What I consider to be the most important example
of this, one which recurs again and again all the way through his twelve-tone period,
is the notion that a symmetrical pitch or interval shape should be suggested or
presented as an ideal at the beginning of a piece, obscured suddenly or gradually,
striven toward, realized, and then (sometimes) forgotten. The Op. 25 Prelude, with
its horizontally symmetrical pitch-class (and pitch) shape afforded by the
tritetrachordal complex (applied to P4 and R4 or I10 and RI10), seems to have been
the rst twelve-tone piece to follow this plan. But, after Schoenberg had developed
the harmonic techniques associated with hexachordal combinatoriality, he returned
in the third Satire Op. 28 and also in the Piano Piece Op. 33a to the same kind of
overall strategy. In Op. 28, the horizontally symmetrical pitch shape created by the
principal pair of combinatorial rows (P0 and I5) is barely suggested at the beginning,
but it comes into view gradually over the course of the piece, and emerges triumph-
antly near the end of the fugue, just as the choir sings the words classical perfec-
tion. And in Op. 33a, the ideal shape becomes a horizontally and vertically
symmetrical interval pattern that conicts with row order at the beginning of the
exposition, and is gradually obscured through that section, but then returns and is
(mostly) reconciled to row order at the beginning of the recapitulation, as the work
returns to its home harmonic area after the modulations of the development.
Schoenbergs approach in Moses und Aron can be understood as a culminating
example of the ideal shape type of framework, or at least the rst parts of that
framework. In that opera, he merges ideal shape with a number of other tech-
niques he discovered during the course of his development. These include
hexachordal combinatoriality, harmonic areas, collectional invariance among mul-
tiple row forms under a single partition, and the association of row partitions with
the operas characters and topics in the manner of leitmotives, a technique he had
developed in Von heute auf morgen (not to mention a number of pre-twelve-tone
pieces that had used the leitmotive in signicant ways). In Moses und Aron, the
horizontally and vertically symmetrical interval and pitch pattern at the outset
creates mirrors on several levels, which are now associated with Gods perfection
rather than classical perfection, and the initial obscuring of the ideal shape
occurs by means of partitions associated leitmotivically with Moses and Aaron, who
can reproduce one or two but not all of its symmetries. Aarons faltering attempts to
communicate God to the people eventually lead to further problems: he makes the
Golden Calf, and the magical, invariance-producing partition representing the
calf ultimately battles for supremacy of the texture with Moses discrete tetrachordal
partition. Though the rst two stages of Idea, opposition and elaboration, are
illustrated extremely well by this opera, there is no solution. Gods partition does
indeed return at the end of the Golden Calf scene, but its assimilation of the
chromatic sets associated with the calf seems to weaken it. That is, the chromatic
element obscures many of the symmetries of Depths of God, particularly those
produced by the Y hexachord (which is divided in half and combined with the
corresponding trichords of another row). And the partition that ends the opera,
what I called Moses Failure, is merely a contiguous subset partition that repro-
duces none of Gods symmetries, portraying Moses abandonment of his attempt to
communicate God.
As I promised at the beginning of Chapter 1, my book has been an attempt to
heed Schoenbergs advice to Rudolf Kolisch to build his analyses around the
musical idea. I have done this by conceiving of Idea as a large framework for
analysis of a piece, which brings together the kinds of observations about his twelve-
tone music that have been made by writers since Schoenbergs death. Having done
so for a number of his twelve-tone pieces, I believe I have shown numerous and
ingenious ways in which the composer uses new, often (but not always) dissonant,
pitch materials to carry out the old functions of the tonal tradition, creating interest
and variety as well as promoting long-range coherence and the orderly (and
organic) function of formal sections within the whole. Some of these methods
could still be fruitfully adapted for use by contemporary composers, but instead
these composers seem to be looking elsewhere for inspiration. A number of years
ago, I heard a prominent composer from the West Coast of the USA give a lecture
at the University of Oregon, in which he called Schoenbergs twelve-tone music a
failed scientic experiment, and suggested that it is time for our musical culture to
move on past this music, to devote our precious listening and study time to
something more meaningful (like the music of this prominent West Coast com-
poser, I guessed). I hope that I have shown in this book that Schoenbergs music
still deserves careful listening and analysis, that there remains much for com-
posers, musicians, and listeners to learn from it, and that our best rst step in that
endeavor would be to [throw] the idea into relief and [show] how it is presented
and worked out.
Bibliography
Adorno, Theodor Wiesengrund. Sacred Fragment: Schoenbergs Moses und Aron, in Quasi
una Fantasia: Essays on Modern Music, trans. Rodney Livingstone. London: Verso,
2002, pp. 22548.
Babbitt, Milton. Some Aspects of Twelve-Tone Composition, The Score and IMA
Magazine 12 (1955): 5361.
Words about Music, ed. Stephen Dembski and Joseph N. Straus. Madison: University of
Wisconsin Press, 1987.
Bailey, Kathryn. Row Anomalies in Opus 33: An Insight into Schoenbergs Understanding
of the Serial Procedure, Current Musicology 22 (1976): 4260.
Bailey, Walter. Programmatic Elements in the Works of Schoenberg. Ann Arbor: UMI
Research Press, 1984.
Beethoven, Ludwig van. Complete Piano Sonatas, 2 vols., ed. Heinrich Schenker. New York:
Dover, 1975.
Boge, Claire. Idea and Analysis: Aspects of Unication in Musical Explanation, College
Music Symposium 30/1 (Spring 1990): 11530.
Bonds, Mark Evan. Wordless Rhetoric: Musical Form and the Metaphor of the Oration.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991.
Boss, Jack. An Analogue to Developing Variation in a Late Atonal Song of Arnold
Schoenberg. Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, 1991.
The Musical Idea and Global Coherence in Schoenbergs Atonal and Serial Music,
Intgral 14/15 (200001): 20964.
The Musical Idea and Motivic Structure in Schoenbergs Op. 11, No. 1, in Jack Boss
and Bruce Quaglia (eds.), Musical Currents from the Left Coast. Cambridge Scholars
Publishing, 2008, pp. 25681.
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 (2009): 22366.
Review of Michael Cherlin, Schoenbergs Musical Imagination, Music Theory Online 15/1
(March 2009), http://mto.societymusictheory.org/issues/mto.09.15.1/mto.09.15.1.boss.
html (accessed August 20, 2013).
Schoenbergs Op. 22 Radio Talk and Developing Variation in Atonal Music, Music
Theory Spectrum 14/2 (Fall 1992): 12549.
Boykan, Martin. The Schoenberg Trio: Tradition at an Apocalyptic Moment, in Reinhold
Brinkmann and Christoph Wolff (eds.), Music of My Future: The Schoenberg Quartets
and Trio. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Department of Music, 2000, pp. 16172.
Silence and Slow Time. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2004.
Breazeale, Daniel. Fichtes Aenesidemus Review and the Transformation of German
Idealism, Review of Metaphysics 34/3 (March 1981): 54568.
Bibliography 427
Brinkmann, Reinhold. Zur Entstehung der Zwlftontechnik, in Carl Dahlhaus, Hans

Joachim Marx, Magda Marx-Weber, and Gnther Massenkeil (eds.), Bericht ber den
Internationalen Musikwissenschaftlichen Kongress Bonn 1970. Kassel: Brenreiter, 1971,
pp. 28488.
Buccheri, John. An Approach to Twelve-Tone Music: Articulation of Serial Pitch Units in
Piano Works of Schoenberg, Webern, Krenek, Dallapiccola, and Rochberg. Ph.D.
dissertation, Eastman School of Music, University of Rochester, 1975.
Burnham, Scott. Form, in Thomas Christensen (ed.), The Cambridge History of Western
Music Theory. Cambridge University Press, 2002, pp. 880906.
Butz, Rainer. Untersuchungen zur Reihentechnik in Arnold Schoenbergs Blserquintett
op. 26, Archiv fr Musikwissenschaft 45/4 (1988): 25185.
Carpenter, Patricia. Grundgestalt as Tonal Function, Music Theory Spectrum 5 (1983): 1538.
Musical Form and Musical Idea: Reections on a Theme of Schoenberg, Hanslick and
Kant, in Edmond Strainchamps, Maria Rika Maniates, and Christopher Hatch (eds.),
Music and Civilization: Essays in Honor of Paul Henry Lang. New York: Norton, 1984,
pp. 394427.
A Problem in Organic Form: Schoenbergs Tonal Body, Theory and Practice 13 (1988):
3163.
Carpenter, Patricia, and Severine Neff. Schoenbergs Philosophy of Composition: Thoughts
on the Musical Idea and its Presentation, in Juliane Brand and Christopher Hailey
(eds.), Constructive Dissonance: Arnold Schoenberg and the Transformations of
Twentieth-Century Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997, pp. 14655.
Cherlin, Michael. The Formal and Dramatic Organization of Schoenbergs Moses und
Aron. Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, 1983.
Schoenbergs Musical Imagination. Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Cone, Edward T. Editorial Responsibility and Schoenbergs Troublesome Misprints,
Perspectives of New Music 11/1 (FallWinter 1972): 6575.
Corson, Langdon. Arnold Schoenbergs Woodwind Quintet, Op. 26: Background and
Analysis. Nashville, TN: Gasparo, 1984.
Covach, John. Schoenberg and the Occult: Some Reections on the Musical Idea, /www.
ibiblio.org/johncovach/asoccult.htm (accessed February 23, 2011).
Schoenbergs Poetics of Music, the Twelve-Tone Method, and the Musical Idea, in
Charlotte M. Cross and Russell A. Berman (eds.), Schoenberg and Words: The Modern-
ist Years. New York: Garland, 2000, pp. 30946.
The Sources of Schoenbergs Aesthetic Theology, www.ibiblio.org/johncovach/
sources_of_schoenberg.htm (accessed February 23, 2011).
Cross, Charlotte M. Three Levels of Idea in Schoenbergs Thought and Writings, Current
Musicology 30 (1980): 2436.
Cubbage, John Rex. Directed Pitch Motion and Coherence in the First Movement
of Arnold Schoenbergs Fourth String Quartet. Ph.D. dissertation, Washington
University in St. Louis, 1979.
Dahlhaus, Carl. Schoenberg and the New Music, trans. Derrick Puffett and Alfred Clayton.
Cambridge University Press, 1988. Includes: Schoenbergs Musical Poetics (1976),
Schoenbergs Aesthetic Theology (1984), Schoenberg and Programme Music
428 Bibliography
(1974), Musical Prose (1964), Emancipation of the Dissonance (1968), What is

Developing Variation? (1984), The Obbligato Recitative (1975), Expressive
Principle and Orchestral Polyphony in Schoenbergs Erwartung (1974), Schoenbergs
Late Works (1983), and The Fugue as Prelude: Schoenbergs Genesis Composition,
Op. 44 (1983).
ber das Analysieren neuer Musik: Zu Schnbergs Klavierstcken Opus 11/1 und Opus
33a, in Fortschritt und Rckbildung in der deutschen Musikerziehung, ed. Egon Kraus.
Mainz: B. Schotts Shne, 1965, pp. 22436.
Davison, Stephen. Of its Time, or Out of Step? Schoenbergs Zeitoper, Von heute auf
morgen, Journal of the Arnold Schoenberg Institute 14/2 (November 1991): 27198.
Dineen, Murray. Schnbergs Viennese Tuition, Viennese Students, and the Musical Idea,
Journal of the Arnold Schnberg Center 2 (2000): 4859.
The Tonal Problem as a Method of Analysis, Theory and Practice 30 (2005): 6996.
Tonal Problem, Carpenter Narrative, and Carpenter Motive in Schuberts Impromptu,
Op. 90, No. 3, Theory and Practice 30 (2005): 97120.
Epstein, David. Beyond Orpheus: Studies in Musical Structure (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,
1979).
Fichte, Johann Gottlieb. Early Philosophical Writings, trans. and ed. Daniel Breazeale. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, 1988.
Flammer, Ernst Helmuth. Zur Schnberg-Deutung in Adornos Philosophie der neuen
Musik, Beitrge zur Musikwissenschaft 32/1 (1990): 5662.
Forkel, Johann Nikolaus. Allgemeine Geschichte der Musik, 2 vols. Leipzig: Schwickert,
17881801.
Glofcheskie, John. Wrong Notes in Schoenbergs Op. 33a, Studies in Music from the
University of Western Ontario 1 (1976): 88104.
Goehr, Alexander. Schoenberg and Karl Kraus: The Idea behind the Music, Music Analysis
4/12 (1985): 5971.
Graebner, Eric. An Analysis of Schoenbergs Klavierstck, Op. 33a, Perspectives of New
Music 12/12 (Fall 1973Summer 1974): 12840.
Gradenwitz, Peter. The Idiom and Development in Schoenbergs Quartets, Music and
Letters 26 (1945): 12342.
Haimo, Ethan. Atonality, Analysis and the Intentional Fallacy, Music Theory Spectrum
18/2 (Fall 1996): 16799.
The Evolution of the Twelve-Tone Method and The Late Twelve-Tone Compositions,
in Walter B. Bailey (ed.), The Arnold Schoenberg Companion. Westport, CT:
Greenwood Press, 1998, pp. 10128, 15775.
Schoenbergs Serial Odyssey: The Evolution of his Twelve-Tone Method, 19141928.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990.
Tonal Analogies in Arnold Schnbergs Fourth String Quartet, Journal of the Arnold
Schnberg Center 4 (2002): 21928.
Haimo, Ethan, and Paul Johnson. Isomorphic Partitioning and Schoenbergs Fourth String
Quartet, Journal of Music Theory 28/1 (1984): 4772.
Hanslick, Eduard. The Beautiful in Music, trans. Gustav Cohen. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill,
1957.
Bibliography 429
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. Aesthetics: Lectures on Fine Art, 2 vols., trans. T. M. Knox.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975.
Preface to Phenomenology of Spirit, trans. A. V. Miller, in Encyclopedia of the Philosophical
Sciences in Outline and Critical Writings, ed. Ernst Behler. New York: Continuum,
1990.
Hoyt, Peter. Review of Mark Evan Bonds, Wordless Rhetoric, Journal of Music Theory 38/1
(Spring 1994): 12343.
Hyde, Martha. The Format and Function of Schoenbergs Twelve-Tone Sketches, Journal
of the American Musicological Society 36/3 (1983): 45380.
Musical Form and the Development of Schoenbergs Twelve-Tone Method, Journal of
Music Theory 29/1 (Spring 1985): 85143.
The Roots of Form in Schoenbergs Sketches, Journal of Music Theory 24/1 (Spring
1980): 136.
Schoenbergs Twelve-Tone Harmony: The Suite Op. 29 and the Compositional Sketches.
Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, 1982.
Johnson, Julian. Karl Kraus and the Schnberg School, Journal of the Arnold Schnberg
Center 2 (2000): 17989.
Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Judgement, trans. James Creed Meredith. Oxford University
Press, 1952.
Kirsch, Jonathan. Moses: A Life. New York: Ballantine Books, 1998.
Klein, Johann Joseph. Versuch eines Lehrbuchs der praktischen Musik. Gera: C. F. Bekmann,
1783.
Koch, Heinrich Christoph. Versuch einer Anleitung zur Composition, 3 vols. (Leipzig:
Bhme, 1787), trans. Nancy Kovaleff Baker in Aesthetics and the Art of Musical
Composition in the German Enlightenment, ed. and trans. Nancy K. Baker and Thomas
Christensen. Cambridge University Press, 1995, pp. 111204.
Kurth, Richard. The Art of Cadence in Schnbergs Fourth String Quartet, Journal of the
Arnold Schnberg Center 4 (2002): 24570.
Dis-Regarding Schoenbergs Twelve-Tone Rows: An Alternative Approach to Listening
and Analysis for Twelve-Tone Music, Theory and Practice 21 (1996): 79122.
Moments of Closure: Thoughts on the Suspension of Tonality in Schoenbergs Fourth
Quartet and Trio, in Reinhold Brinkmann and Christoph Wolff (eds.), Music of My
Future: The Schoenberg Quartets and Trio. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
2000, pp. 13960.
Mosaic Isomorphism and Mosaic Polyphony: Balance and Imbalance in Schoenbergs
Twelve-Tone Rhetoric. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1993.
Mosaic Polyphony: Formal Balance, Imbalance and Phrase Formation in the Prelude of
Schoenbergs Suite, Op. 25, Music Theory Spectrum 14/2 (Fall 1992): 188208.
Lake, William. Structural Functions of Segmental Interval-Class 3 Dyads in Schoenbergs
Fourth Quartet, First Movement, In Theory Only 8/2 (August 1984): 2129.
Lefkowitz, David S. Perspectives on Order, Disorder, Combinatoriality and Tonality in
Schoenbergs Opus 33a and 33b Piano Pieces, Intgral 11 (1997): 67134.
Lewin, David. Generalized Interval Systems for Babbitts Lists, and for Schoenbergs String
Trio, Music Theory Spectrum 17/1 (Spring 1995): 10918.
430 Bibliography
Inversional Balance as an Organizing Force in Schoenbergs Music and Thought,

Perspectives of New Music 6/2 (SpringSummer 1968): 121.
Moses und Aron: Some General Remarks, and Analytic Notes for Act I, Scene 1,
Perspectives of New Music 6/1 (FallWinter 1967): 117.
Music Theory, Phenomenology, and Modes of Perception, Music Perception 3/4
(Summer 1986): 32792.
A Study of Hexachord Levels in Schoenbergs Violin Fantasy, Perspectives of New Music
6/1 (FallWinter 1967): 1832.
A Theory of Segmental Association in Twelve-Tone Music, Perspectives of New Music 1/1
(Fall 1962): 89116.
Vocal Meter in Schoenbergs Atonal Music, with a Note on a Serial Hauptstimme, In
Theory Only 6/4 (May 1982): 1236.
MacKay, John. Series, Form and Function: Comments on the Analytical Legacy of Ren
Leibowitz and Aspects of Tonal Form in the Twelve-Tone Music of Schoenberg and
Webern, Ex Tempore 8/1 (1996): 92131.
Maegaard, Jan. Studien zur Entwicklung des dodekaphonen Satzes bei Arnold Schnberg,
3 vols. Copenhagen: Wilhelm Hansen, 1972.
A Study in the Chronology of Op. 2326 by Arnold Schoenberg, Dansk aarbog for
musicforskning 2 (1962): 93115.
Marpurg, Friedrich Wilhelm. Kritische Briefe ber die Tonkunst 85 (November 7, 1761).
Martino, Donald. The Source Set and its Aggregate Formations, Journal of Music Theory
5/2 (Winter 1961): 22473.
Marx, Adolph Bernhard. Musical Form in the Age of Beethoven: Selected Writings on Theory
and Method, ed. and trans. Scott Burnham. Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Mattheson, Johann. Kern melodischer Wissenschaft. Hamburg: Christian Herold, 1737.
Der vollkommene Capellmeister. Hamburg: Christian Herold, 1739.
Maxwell, John. Symmetrical Partitioning of the Row in Schoenbergs Wind Quintet,
Op. 26, Indiana Theory Review 5/2 (1982): 115.
McCoy, Marilyn. A Schoenberg Chronology, in Walter Frisch (ed.), Schoenberg and his
World, Princeton University Press, 1999, pp. 115.
McCreless, Patrick. Music and Rhetoric, in Thomas Christensen (ed.), The Cambridge
History of Western Music Theory. Cambridge University Press, 2002, pp. 84779.
Mead, Andrew. Large-Scale Strategy in Arnold Schoenbergs Twelve-Tone Music, Perspec-
tives of New Music 24/1 (FallWinter 1985): 12057.
Some Implications of the Pitch-Class/Order-Number Isomorphism Inherent in the
Twelve-Tone System: Part One, Perspectives of New Music 26/2 (Summer 1988): 96163.
Tonal Forms in Arnold Schoenbergs Twelve-Tone Music, Music Theory Spectrum 9
(1987): 6792.
Mickelsen, William C. Hugo Riemanns Theory of Harmony: A Study and History of Music
Theory, Book III by Hugo Riemann, trans. and ed. William C. Mickelsen. Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press, 1977.
Milstein, Silvina. Arnold Schoenberg: Notes, Sets, Forms. Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Review of Ethan Haimo, Schoenbergs Serial Odyssey, Music and Letters 73/1 (1992):
6274.
Bibliography 431
Neff, Severine. Aspects of Grundgestalt in Schoenbergs First String Quartet, Op. 7, Theory
and Practice 9 (1984): 756.
Reinventing the Organic Artwork: Schoenbergs Changing Images of Tonal Form, in
Charlotte Cross and Russell Berman (eds.), Schoenberg and Words: The Modernist
Years. New York: Garland, 2000, pp. 275308.
Schoenberg and Goethe: Organicism and Analysis, in Christopher Hatch and David W.
Bernstein (eds.), Music Theory and the Exploration of the Past. University of Chicago
Press, 1993, pp. 40934.
Neighbour, Oliver. A Talk on Schoenberg for Composers Concourse, The Score and IMA
Magazine 16 (1955): 1928.
Pascall, Robert. Theory and Practice: Schoenbergs American Pedagogical Writings and the
First Movement of the Fourth String Quartet, Op. 37, Journal of the Arnold Schoenberg
Center 4 (2002): 22944.
Peel, John M. On Some Celebrated Measures of the Schoenberg String Trio, Perspectives of
New Music 14/215/1 (SpringSummer/FallWinter 1976): 26079.
Peles, Stephen. Continuity, Reference and Implication: Remarks on Schoenbergs Proverb-
ial Difculty, Theory and Practice 17 (1992): 3558.
Ist Alles Eins: Schoenberg and Symmetry, Music Theory Spectrum 26/1 (Spring 2004):
5785.
Schoenberg and the Tradition of Imitative Counterpoint: Remarks on the Third and
Fourth Quartets and the Trio, in Reinhold Brinkmann and Christoph Wolff (eds.),
Music of My Future: The Schoenberg Quartets and Trio. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Department of Music, 2000, pp. 11738.
Perle, George. Serial Composition and Atonality, 6th rev. edn. Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press, 1991.
Phipps, Graham. The Logic of Tonality in Strausss Don Quixote: A Schoenbergian
Evaluation, Nineteenth-Century Music 9/3 (Spring 1986): 189205.
A Response to Schenkers Analysis of Chopins Etude, Op. 10, No. 12, Using Schoen-
bergs Grundgestalt Concept, Musical Quarterly 69 (1983): 54369.
Rehding, Alexander. Hugo Riemann and the Birth of Modern Musical Thought. Cambridge
University Press, 2003.
Reichenberger, Johann Nepomuk. Die ganze Musikkunst, 3 vols. Regensburg: Hochfrstlich-
bischiches Schulhaus bey St. Paul, 177780.
Rufer, Josef. Composition with Twelve Notes Related Only to One Another, trans. Humphrey
Searle. London: Rockliff, 1954.
Schmidt, Christian Martin. Arnold Schnberg: Streichtrio op. 45, Melos 47/3 (1985):
6789.
Schnbergs Oper Moses und Aron. Mainz: Schott, 1988.
Schoenberg, Arnold. Analysis, (in the Form of Program Notes) on the Four String Quar-
tets, manuscripts T 70.0103, Arnold Schoenberg Center, Vienna, printed in the
program book for La Salle Quartet, Neue Wiener Schule Schoenberg, Berg, Webern
Streichquartette, Deutsche Grammophon 419 994-2, 1971.
Fundamentals of Musical Composition, 2nd edn., ed. Gerald Strang and Leonard Stein.
London: Faber and Faber, 1970.
432 Bibliography
Letters, selected and ed. Erwin Stein, trans. Eithne Wilkins and Ernst Kaiser. London:
Faber and Faber, 1964; reprinted, New York: St. Martins Press, 1965; reprinted,
Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1987.
Letter to Nicolas Slonimsky, June 3, 1937, originally written in English, transcription at
the website of the Arnold Schoenberg Center, Vienna, www.schoenberg.at, correspond-
ence database, le name 2892_2.jpg (accessed August 4, 2013).
The Musical Idea and the Logic, Technique, and Art of its Presentation (193436), ed.,
trans. and with a commentary by Patricia Carpenter and Severine Neff. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1995.
Smtliche Werke, section II: Klavier und Orgelmusik, series B, vol. IV, Werke fr Klavier
zu zwei Hnden, Kritischer Bericht, Skizzen, Fragmente, ed. Reinhold Brinkmann.
Mainz: B. Schott, Vienna: Universal Edition, 1975.
Smtliche Werke, section VI: Kammermusik, series B, vol. XXI, Streichquartette, Streich-
trio, Kritischer Bericht, Skizzen, Fragmente, ed. Christian Martin Schmidt. Mainz: B.
Schotts Shne, Vienna: Universal Edition, 1984.
Style and Idea: Selected Writings of Arnold Schoenberg, rev. paperback edn., ed. Leonard
Stein, trans. Leo Black. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1984.
Includes: Bach (1950), Composition with Twelve Tones (1941), Gustav Mahler
(1912, 1948), Hauers Theories (1923), Linear Counterpoint/Linear Polyphony
(1931), New Music, Outmoded Music, Style and Idea (1946), Phrasing (1931),
Problems in Teaching Art (1911).
Theory of Harmony, trans. Roy E. Carter. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press, 1978.
Schopenhauer, Arthur. The World as Will and Representation, 2 vols., trans. E. F .J. Payne.
New York: Dover, 1969.
Searle, Humphrey. Schoenberg, Arnold, in Eric Blom (ed.), Groves Dictionary of Music
and Musicians, 5th edn. New York: St. Martins Press, 1954, vol. VII, pp. 51323.
Shifrin, Seymour. Review of Arnold Schoenberg, Style and Idea, Perspectives of New Music
1415 (SpringSummer 1976, FallWinter 1976): 17481.
Specht, Robert John. Relationships between Text and Music in the Choral Works of Arnold
Schoenberg. Ph.D. dissertation, Case Western Reserve University, 1976.
Stein, Erwin. Neue Formprinzipien, Musikbltter des Anbruch 6/78 (AugustSeptember
1924): 286303.
Stein, Leonard. Schoenberg and kleine Modernsky, in Jann Pasler (ed.), Confronting
Stravinsky: Man, Musician and Modernist. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press, 1986, pp. 31024.
Stephan, Rudolf. Der musikalische Gedanke bei Schnberg, sterreichische Musikzeit-
schrift 37/10 (October 1982): 53040.
Straus, Joseph N. Disability and Late Style in Music, Journal of Musicology 25/1 (2008):
345.
Introduction to Post-Tonal Theory, 3rd edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice
Hall, 2005.
Stuckenschmidt, Hans Heinz. Arnold Schoenberg: His Life, World and Work, trans.
Humphrey Searle. New York: Schirmer Books, 1978.
Bibliography 433
Sulzer, Johann Georg. Allgemeine Theorie, 5 vols. (Leipzig: Weidmann, 1792), trans. Thomas
Christensen in Aesthetics and the Art of Musical Composition in the German Enlighten-
ment, ed. and trans. Nancy K. Baker and Thomas Christensen. Cambridge University
Press, 1995, pp. 3110.
Taruskin, Richard. The Oxford History of Western Music: Music in the Late Twentieth
Century. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Tingley, George Peter. A Brief Introduction to the Art of Schoenberg, In Theory Only 1/5
(August 1975): 1821.
Westergaard, Peter. Toward a Twelve-Tone Polyphony, Perspectives of New Music 4/2
(SpringSummer 1966): 90112.
White, Pamela C. Schoenberg and Schopenhauer, Journal of the Arnold Schoenberg
Institute 8/1 (June 1984): 3957.
Whittall, Arnold. Schoenberg and the True Tradition: Theme and Form in the String
Trio, Musical Times 115/1579 (September 1974): 73943.
Wicks, Robert. Arthur Schopenhauer, in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/
entries/schopenhauer/ (accessed February 18, 2011).
Winham, Godfrey. Schoenbergs Fourth String Quartet: Vertical Order of the Opening,
Theory and Practice 17 (1992): 5965.
Wintle, Christopher. An Island Formation in Schoenbergs Fourth String Quartet, in
Alison Latham (ed.), Sing, Ariel: Essays and Thoughts for Alexander Goehrs Seventieth
Birthday. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003, pp. 29198.
Wolf, Eugene K. Sonata Form, in Don Michael Randel (ed.), Harvard Dictionary of Music,
4th edn. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2003, pp. 799802.
Index
Adorno, Theodor Wiesengrund 276, 330 Dahlhaus, Carl 20 (n42), 33 (n68), 244, 399
all-combinatoriality 181 (n4), 182 Davison, Stephen 243
Des Prez, Josquin 192
Babbitt, Milton 182, 194, 247 (n6), 275, 304 (n23), developing variation 56, 123, 140, 144, 14951, 155,
315 170, 176, 226, 311, 32024, 361, 36566,
secondary set 194, 204, 20910, 215 405, 408, 412, 41617
Bach, Johann Sebastian 188, 201, 207, 216, 221, 224 diatonic scale 357
Jesu, der du meine Seele (BWV 78) 192 difference vector 180, 183
BACH motives 57, 309 Dineen, Murray 2829
Bailey, Kathryn 252
Bailey, Walter 395, 422 (n16) Eidlitz, Walter 330
de Balzac, Honor 22 Epstein, David 29
Baker, Nancy K. 12
basic image text painting 274 Fichte, Johann Gottlieb 1516
Beethoven, Ludwig van 2426, 71 Flammer, Ernst Helmuth 40
Symphony No. 3 Op. 55, Eroica 2526 Forkel, Johann Nikolaus 11, 13
Piano Sonata Op. 57, Appassionata 3033
Bible references 56, 330 George, Stefan 21, 345
bitonality 357 Glofcheskie, John 254 (n10), 259, 261 (n15), 270
Boge, Claire 33 (n68) Goehr, Alexander 21, 276
Bonds, Mark Evan 11 (n18), 12 (n22), 13, 23 Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von 15, 2223, 127, 156
Boss, Jack 8 (n14), 60 (n19), 96 (n41), 123, 422 Gradenwitz, Peter 275
Boykan, Martin 68, 75, 397, 399, 403 (n10), 422 (n16) Graebner, Eric 247
Breazeale, Daniel 16 (n31) Greissle, Felix 170
Brinkmann, Reinhold 36, 38, 95 Grundgestalt 67, 1213, 1516, 23, 26, 2830,
Buccheri, John 87 (n38), 118 3334, 52, 56, 58, 63, 6768, 77, 12426,
Burnham, Scott 24 (n51) 131, 156, 177, 280, 284, 39899, 403, 405,
Butz, Rainer 125 (n7), 126 (n7), 127 41213, 417
Carpenter, Patricia 1415, 29 Haimo, Ethan 2, 3538, 64, 68, 72, 76, 101 (n16),
Cherlin, Michael 2 (n3), 4, 331 (n4), 332, 339 (n7), 122, 127, 129 (n11), 151, 156, 180, 18283,
343, 345, 348, 36162, 364, 366, 36869, 221, 231 (n12), 243, 272, 293 (n17),
377 (n18), 395, 399, 402, 422 (n16) 295 (n18), 297, 299 (n21), 301 (n22),
Christensen, Thomas 12, 23 (n49) 306 (n24), 395, 403, 423
collectional exchange 3738, 6472, 7779, 81, isomorphic partitioning 23031, 243, 311
8486, 292, 362, 364, 424 mature combinatorial harmony 180, 18387,
collectional invariance 4143, 45, 51, 12830, 133, 21516, 221
137, 146, 156, 158, 16263, 178, 189, 324, multidimensional aggregate or row presentation
34850, 362, 364, 424 12728, 130, 133, 15658, 16163, 165,
Cone, Edward T. 259 16970, 17576, 178, 243, 271, 295, 298,
contour patterns and relations 56, 79, 97, 101, 104, 304, 3067, 310, 342, 400, 403, 413
115, 118, 14445 tritetrachordal polyphonic complex 3536, 38, 49,
contrapuntal combination 15051, 225 424
Corson, Langdon, 79 (n16), 125 (n7), 126 (n7), Hanslick, Eduard 15, 19, 23, 2628, 34
129 (n11) harmonic area ,129, 180, 183, 185, 192, 208, 211, 214,
Covach, John 16 (n32), 2223, 33 (n68) 216, 22426, 236, 24243, 247, 261, 264,
Cross, Charlotte 7 (n13), 29 272, 293, 412, 42324
cross-partitioning 302, 313 Hauptsatz 12, 17, 23, 26, 28
Cubbage, John Rex 275, 280 Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich 1619, 2325, 27
Index 435
Heraclitus 18, 327 mosaic 124, 131, 136

hexachordal combinatoriality 129, 158, 160, 17887, motivic liquidation 7172, 7982
221, 22426, 23133, 247, 272, 284, 313, multidimensional canon/imitation/counterpoint
346, 356, 364, 408, 42324 104, 15154, 16365
hexatonic scale (set class 6-20) 17678, 397, 408 multiple tone rows in one piece 39596, 399400,
Hoyt, Peter 13 (n24) 4089
Hyde, Martha 36, 38, 90 (n39), 180 (n2), 180, 297, musical idea (Gedanke) 10, 23, 26, 34
395, 4035, 40912, 416 (n15) and atonal music 8 (n14), 22, 34, 12223
secondary harmony 36, 243, 27172, 297, 39697, and composers intent 23
402, 412, 416, 421 and correct readings 34
and the cosmos 7, 24
incomplete musical idea 33132, 423, 425 and dialectic: problemelaborationsolution 1,
incomplete row forms 244, 254, 256, 25859 410, 1213, 1518, 21, 23, 25, 2834, 37,
invariance 45, 54, 9092, 9698, 1002, 104, 106, 49, 5657, 59, 6263, 68, 77, 8687, 9098,
109, 111, 115, 120, 126, 13640, 15156, 10121, 12326, 12930, 137, 141, 15662,
161, 16365, 16975, 178, 18589, 2057, 165, 16770, 172, 17779, 185, 189, 192205,
219, 231, 236, 243, 3012, 3067, 309, 311, 20716, 22024, 22642, 244, 24754,
31415, 317, 339, 356, 368, 412, 416 26070, 272, 274, 27687, 290, 299301, 304,
inversion presented as transposition 79, 82, 116 311, 31315, 31720, 32429, 398, 41725
and Einfall 7, 27
Johnson, Julian 21 and extra-musical content 2426, 56, 187, 189,
Johnson, Paul 297 193, 19598, 201, 204, 2078, 21011, 214,
216, 220, 226, 229, 231, 236, 242, 273,
Kant, Immanuel 1415 33031, 33859, 36162, 364, 36869,
Kirsch, Jonathan 330 37377, 38094, 399, 408, 42125
Klein, Johann Joseph 1112 and Idealist philosophy 10, 13, 27, 34
Koch, Heinrich Christoph 1112 and language 21
Kolisch, Rudolf 1, 34, 244, 425 and musical form 6, 1517, 19, 27, 3941, 6869,
Kraus, Karl 21, 23 79, 87, 115, 12223, 12931, 151, 16061,
Kurth, Richard 4, 39, 41, 5156, 69, 7274, 165, 165, 18892, 279, 373, 381, 393, 398400,
284, 327, 402 (n8), 408, 416 (n15), 424
422 (n16) and other worlds 2223, 26, 28
and perceptibility 45
Lake, William 275, 301 (n22), 317 projected by rhythm, dynamics, articulation,
Lefkowitz, David S. 254 (n10), 259, 261 (n15) 4448
leitmotivic partitions 243, 33271, 373, 381, 391, 424 register, texture, or instrumentation 50, 5356,
Lewin, David 2 (n3), 3, 101 (n42), 280, 284, 29293, 5859, 72, 9092, 94, 9899, 1034, 141,
331 (n4), 331 (n5), 332, 402 (n8) 158, 276, 284, 28687, 290, 299, 304, 307,
336, 338, 371, 39193
MacKay, John 68, 7172, 76, 84 and rhetoric 1013, 34
Maegaard, Jan 35, 38, 64, 86, 122, 125 (n7), 126 (n7), and row ordering 8, 39, 45, 48, 50, 5356, 64, 86,
127 91, 9394, 96, 98, 101, 1035, 112, 11518,
Mahler, Gustav 3 120, 122, 241, 39698, 4002, 4059,
Marpurg, Friedrich Wilhelm 12 41221
Martino, Donald 41 in Schoenbergs writings 58
Marx, Adolph Bernhard 16, 2426, 34 and symmetrical ideal 12, 8, 20, 3839, 4164, 87,
Mattheson, Johann 11, 13 9098, 1002, 1049, 11113, 115, 11821,
Maxwell, John 131, 150 12728, 137, 140, 144, 161, 17072, 176, 189,
McCoy, Marilyn 274 19293, 195, 197, 207, 216, 229, 23941,
McCreless, Patrick 10 (n17) 24454, 257, 259, 26172, 280, 287, 290,
Mead, Andrew 41, 125 (n7), 126 (n8), 130 (n12), 29293, 298, 311, 317, 33245, 348, 356, 368,
131, 133 (n14), 158 (n19), 160 (n20), 170, 371, 37677, 38081, 38687, 42425
17879, 274 as theme or motive 5, 1012, 24, 26
Mees, Nicolas 198 and tonal music 79, 28, 3034, 12223
Mickelsen, William C. 197 and twelve-tone music 1, 810, 28, 3334, 3738
Milstein, Silvina 97 (n16), 395, 416 (n15) and unrest/imbalance 67, 13, 15, 24, 156
monotonality 15 as whole piece 1, 5, 7, 2326
436 Index
musical foreshadowing 295, 299, 301, 306, 310 pre-twelve-tone music 35

(musikalische) Idee 10, 16, 2326 Satires, Op. 28 8, 39, 179, 18788
and artworks (Hegel) 16 I. Am Scheideweg 18788
II. Vielseitigkeit 18788
Neff, Severine 15, 18 (n36), 29 III. Der neue Klassizismus 161, 338,
Neighbour, Oliver 275, 295 (n18), 295 (n19) 42324
Serenade Op. 24 35, 231 (n12)
obscure endings in Schoenbergs music 6062, 64 String Quartet No. 3 Op. 30 1, 243
octatonic collections 87, 9697, 101, 109, 11518, String Quartet No. 4 Op. 37
120, 358 I. Allegro molto energico 45, 8, 272,
oration, parts of: 274329
Inventio, Dispositio 11, 27 Sketches 297, 324
Elaboratio, Elocutio, Refutatio, Confutatio 13, 18, String Trio Op. 45 8, 39, 395423
23, 28 Suite Op. 29 18083
Suite for Piano Op. 25 3538, 122, 156, 180
Pascall, Robert 275, 280 sketches 36, 38, 86, 9495 (n40)
Peel, John M. 403 Prelude 2, 5, 8, 3564, 118, 244, 272, 338, 424
Peles, Stephen 6467, 7576, 7879, 274, 280, Intermezzo 35, 38, 6468, 82, 424
293 (n17), 398 Gavotte 35, 64, 6768
pentatonic collection 357 Menuett 35, 3738, 6486, 424
Perle, George 244, 254, 261 (n15) Trio 35, 64, 6768, 86
Phipps, Graham 29 Gigue 35, 3738, 86121, 123, 127, 424
Plato 20 Three Songs Op. 48 274
Variations Op. 31 243
quartal harmony 125, 127, 130, 163, 178 Violin Concerto Op. 36 274
Violin Fantasy Op. 47 398
recapitulation with themes in counterpoint 27576, Von heute auf morgen, Op. 32, 243, 424
315, 31718 Woodwind Quintet Op. 26 8, 38, 12280,
Rehding, Alexander 198 423
Reichenberger, Johann Nepomuk 13 I. Schwungvoll 118, 12327, 275
Renaissance motet 192, 207 III. Etwas langsam 12779, 225 (n11)
Riemann, Hugo 19798 sketches 127
rotation of tone rows 6869, 7677, 79, 84, 86, 130, writings
133, 137, 140, 145, 156, 158, 165, 178 Bach (1950) 15051, 225 (n11)
row segments as unordered collections 3637, 47, Composition with Twelve Tones (1941) 35,
5253, 57, 6091, 9394, 104, 107, 112, 12223
115, 118, 120, 131, 13637, 14041, 144, Fundamentals of Musical Composition 6, 71
160, 16769, 183, 19395, 19798, 201, Gustav Mahler 3
204, 207, 21416, 224, 229, 233, 239, 241, Hauers Theories 7
244, 250, 252, 254, 310 letter to Rudolf Kolisch (July 27, 1932) 1
Rufer, Josef 28, 124 (n6), 275 letter to Nicolas Slonimsky (June 3, 1937) 35
Linear Counterpoint/Linear Polyphony 197
Schenker, Heinrich 4, 78 The Musical Idea 6, 29, 276
Schmidt, Christian Martin 295 (n19), 331 (n4), 332, My Subject: Beauty and Logic in Music 7
366, 373 (n16), 376 (n17), 381 (n21), 381, New Music, Outmoded Music, Style and Idea
405 (n12), 412 (n14), 416 (n15) 56
Schoenberg, Arnold Phrasing 197
compositions Problems in Teaching Art 19
Moses und Aron 12, 8, 21, 32994, 402, Theory of Harmony 197
42325 Zu: Darstellung d. Gedankens 89, 28
incomplete vs. complete 37376, 39394 Schopenhauer, Arthur 1, 1920
Golden Calf scene Act II, scene 5 332, Searle, Humphrey 24344, 272, 423
34546, 350, 362, 364, 37393 sentence structure 7173, 7981
Piano Piece Op. 33a 8, 37, 24273, 275, 338, Specht, Robert John 187 (n7)
398, 424 Spinner, Leopold 28
sketches 25659 Stein, Erwin 28
Pieces for Mixed Chorus Op. 27 180, 183 Stein, Leonard 187 (n7), 422
III. Mond und Menschen 183 Steiner, Rudolf 22, 26
Index 437
Stephan, Rudolf 10 (n16) tonal references in Schoenbergs twelve-tone music

Steuermann, Eduard 28 4, 68, 7276, 8284, 126, 12930, 133,
Straus, Joseph N. 245 (n5), 247 (n6), 261 (n15), 14445, 15455, 158, 160, 178, 180,
422 18587, 189, 19293, 19596, 198, 2048,
Stravinsky, Igor 187, 201, 208 214, 21621, 22931, 233, 24142, 259,
Stuckenschmidt, Hans Heinz 274 26166, 27576, 27879, 284, 28687, 290,
Sulzer, Johann Georg 23 29293, 298, 3012, 31415, 31820,
swastika 345 32324, 32628, 35758, 42123
Swedenborg, Emanuel 22, 26 transposition presented as inversion 118
symmetries, veiled behind other musical
relationships 337, 34142 Westergaard, Peter 29293
White, Pamela C. 2 (n2), 20 (n42)
Taruskin, Richard 3 Whittall, Arnold 395, 402
Tingley, George Peter 275, 280 whole-tone scale 12425, 127, 130, 149, 151, 158,
tonal forms in Schoenbergs twelve-tone music 172, 178, 307
12223, 22930, 423, 425 Wicks, Robert 20
canon 390 Winham, Godfrey 284
fugue 192, 21642 Wintle, Christopher 27576, 299 (n21)
sonata form 25, 122, 126, 170, 24445, 254, Wolf, Eugene K. 275
261, 264, 266, 27479, 28790, 297, wrong notes in Schoenbergs twelve-tone music 165,
315, 327 170, 25960, 270, 405

1107046866music PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1107046866music PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Schoenbergs Twelve-Tone Music

gener a l e di tor Arnold Whittall

Titles in the series

Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge.

It furthers the Universitys mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of

Jack Boss 2014

This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception

First published 2014

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

ISBN 978-1-107-04686-3 Hardback

Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of

List of music examples page x

1.1 Beethoven, Piano Sonata Op. 57, movement I, mm. 113

3.2 Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, movement I: ordered invariant

Op. 37, Copyright 1939 by G. Schirmer, Inc. All rights reserved.

by permission of Belmont Music Publishers and European American Music

2007 Mannes Institute on Schoenbergs music to discuss my analyses of the

Successions of pitch classes or intervals are enclosed in angle brackets, unordered

Arnold Schoenbergs response to Rudolf Kolischs analysis of his Third String

vertical and horizontal symmetry, combinatoriality, trichord exchange, collectional

Despite Schoenbergs warning and my disclaimer, I will indeed make statements of

Schoenbergs musical idea

Schoenbergs music, in that it constitutes a diachronic process from beginning to

manuscript (November 12, 1925) on the subject of representing a musical idea

Musical idea before Schoenberg

Before leaving our discussion of eighteenth-century music as rhetoric, it is

focuses his claims about Schopenhauers inuence on Schoenberg on Schopenhauers metaphysics

to express thoughts from other worlds in a language (tonality) so closely tied to

Musical idea since Schoenberg

I mentioned above, there are nineteenth-century precedents for both ways of

After having considered Schoenbergs conception of the musical idea, as well as

Furthermore, although Schoenberg made a number of attempts prior to the Suites

on a tritetrachordal polyphonic complex by which he means three tetrachords

My position with respect to the aforementioned debate could be thought of as a

Schoenberg, Prelude Op. 25: the palindromic basic form

Schoenberg, Prelude Op. 25: form chart

Example 2.4 (cont.)

Example 2.4 (cont.)

motives within an overall segmentation into tetrachords. (This same problem

downbeat of m. 2; then AfD going into the second dotted quarter of m. 2 is

with a downbeat, s f , or marking. The 82/28 palindrome between P4 and P10 in

in which a complex partitioning of four row forms gives rise to palindromic

summarize part of Kurths argument, the vertical dyads 45 and 32 of P4 in m. 15 are

Schoenberg, Prelude Op. 25, mm. 17b19: ordering of row elements

a fragmentation. When we reach m. 7b, P4 is presented, so there would be the

Bf><A,Bf><D,Ef>.27 These are shown on the score excerpt in Example 2.23.

A bigger problem is that it becomes harder to nd strong references to the key of Ef

passage is based on the most chronologically proximate groupings.) In the left

Schoenberg, Gigue Op. 25: form chart

appearances of the octatonic collection, as well as a contrast between horizontal and

Stage 2 of subsection a1 further disrupts the palindromic shapes of the rst

<6, 7,6,7,6> and then inverts it to <6,7,6,7,6>. Just as in m. 9, the

invariances are highlighted by register or by being stated as a single line. The

motives placement at the beginning of a four-note group obscure it. With

elements (the <6,7> motive) is displayed according to a technique that was

symmetry this time vertical pitch symmetry to an emphasis on lines alternating

the bottom note, <4,6,3>, <9,4,2> in mm. 3738 becomes

W (mosaic of order numbers):

{0,6} {5,11} {1,2,3,4} {7,8,9,10}

WP3 (pitch-class collections yielded by applying W to row form P3):

{3,10} {0,5} {7,9,11,1} {2,4,6,8}

Quintets opening movement, there is a conict involving the intervals created

ordered pitch-class interval 5 of any inversion) will result in an invariant ordered