Handling Dissonance: A Musical Theological Aesthetic of Unity

By Chelle L. Stearns and Jeremy S. Begbie

Music can answer questions that often confound more discursive modes of thought. Music takes concepts that are all too familiar, reframes these concepts, and returns them to us with incisive clarity and renewed vision. Unity is one of these "all too familiar concepts," thrown around by politicians, journalists, and pastors as if we all know what it means. By turning to music, especially musical space, the relational structure of unity becomes less abstract and more tangible within our philosophy. Arnold Schoenberg, as an inherently musical thinker, is our guide in this study of unity. His reworking of musical structure, dissonance, and metaphysics transformed the tonal language and aesthetic landscape of twentieth-century music. His philosophy of compositional unity helps us to deconstruct and reconceive how unity can be understood and worked with both aesthetically and theologically. This project also critiques Schoenberg's often monadic musical metaphysic by turning to Colin Gunton's conviction that the particularity and unity at the heart of God's triune being should guide all of our theological endeavors. Throughout, music accompanies our thinking, demonstrating not only how theology can benefit the philosophy of music but also how the philosophy of music can enrich and augment theological discourse.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Pickwick Publications
• Release date: Jun 12, 2019
• ISBN: 9781725249226

Chelle L. Stearns

Chelle L. Stearns is Associate Professor of Theology at The Seattle School of Theology & Psychology in Seattle. She received her PhD from the University of St. Andrews as part of the Institute for Theology, Imagination, and the Arts.

Book preview

Handling Dissonance

A Musical Theological Aesthetic of Unity

Chelle L. Stearns

foreword by Jeremy S. Begbie

28172.png

Handling Dissonance

A Musical Theological Aesthetic of Unity

Princeton Theological Monograph Series 239

Copyright © 2019 Chelle L. Stearns. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3, Eugene, OR 97401.

Pickwick Publications

An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers

199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3

Eugene, OR 97401

www.wipfandstock.com

paperback isbn: 978-1-62564-546-3

hardcover isbn: 978-1-4982-8836-1

ebook isbn: 978-1-7252-4922-6

Cataloguing-in-Publication data:

Names: Stearns, Chelle L., author. | Begbie, Jeremy, foreword.

Title: Handling dissonance : a musical theological aesthetic of unity / by Chelle L. Stearns ; foreword by Jeremy S. Begbie.

Description: Eugene, OR : Pickwick Publications, 2019 | Princeton Theological Monograph Series 239 | Includes bibliographical references.

Identifiers: isbn 978-1-62564-546-3 (paperback) | isbn 978-1-4982-8836-1 (hardcover) | isbn 978-1-7252-4922-6 (ebook)

Subjects: LCSH: Schoenberg, Arnold, 1874–1951. | Music—Philosophy and aesthetics. | Music—History and criticism. | Art and religion.

Classification: ml3800 .s74 2019 (print) | ml3800 .s74 (ebook)

Manufactured in the U.S.A. 04/16/19

Table of Contents

Title Page

Foreword

Acknowledgments

Abbreviations

Prelude

Part I: Unity and Particularity

Chapter 1: Schoenberg and the Procrustean Bed of Tonality

Chapter 2: Schopenhauer and Schoenberg

Chapter 3: The Particularity at the Heart of God

Part II: Unity and The Whole

Chapter 4: Schoenberg’s Theories of Coherence and the Musical Idea

Chapter 5: The Composer as Genius

Chapter 6: Unity and the Freedom of Being

Postlude

Bibliography

Princeton Theological Monograph Series

K. C. Hanson, Charles M. Collier, D. Christopher Spinks, and Robin A. Parry, Series Editors

Recent volumes in the series:

Steven C. van den Heuvel

Bonhoeffer’s Christocentric Theology and Fundamental Debates in Environmental Ethics

Andrew R. Hay

God’s Shining Forth: A Trinitarian Theology of Divine Light

Peter Schmiechen

Gift and Promise: An Evangelical Theology of the Lord’s Supper

Hank Voss

The Priesthood of All Believers and the Missio Dei:A Canonical, Catholic, and Contextual Perspective

Alexandra S. Radcliff

The Claim of Humanity in Christ: Salvation and Sanctification in the Theology of T. F. and J. B. Torrance

Yaroslav Viazovski

Image and Hope:John Calvin and Karl Barth on Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting

Anna C. Miller

Corinthian Democracy:Democratic Discourse in 1 Corinthians

Thomas Christian Currie

The Only Sacrament Left to Us: The Threefold Word of God in the Theology and Ecclesiology of Karl Barth

for Colin Gunton

and the promise of trinitarian theology

for Dave

for your patience, love, and writing skills

In music there is no form without logic, there is no logic without unity.

—Arnold Schoenberg

Permissions and Acknowledgments:

*All photographs of Schoenberg are curtesy of The Arnold Schoenberg Center in Vienna

**All of Schoenberg’s paintings are published with permission by © 2018 Belmont Music Publisher, Los Angeles / ARS, New York / Bildrecht, Vienna

Foreword

Few will deny that the unity of the human race is one of the most pressing issues of our age. In the current geo-political climate, with rise of new nationalisms, long-standing and seemingly intractable political conflicts, and a keenness in many places to construct permanent walls of exclusion, it would seem the best many in our world can hope for is to live in fragile zones of mutual tolerance.

At the same time, we all know that schemes to build unity too easily slide into programs of uniformity. In the Christian Church, many will resist calls for unity for fear of an oppressive, homogenous oneness. Vive la difference, cries the Protestant, for fear of a super-Church that irons out all diversity. The irony is that this all too easily folds back into uniformity. Indeed, Protestants in particular are adept at creating communities of sameness, in which church members need only relate to the like-minded, those they have chosen.

As we struggle to find ways of avoiding these equally destructive options—fissiparous plurality and stifling uniformity, what might music have to offer? There is now widespread evidence of that music has considerable power in peace-building, in bridging entrenched divisions while respecting difference, creating a kind of community that is hard to achieve by other means. This is all well and good. But Chelle Stearns digs deeper than this, pressing us to consider the implications of music for the way we imagine unity. She argues that the experience of musical sound can challenge some of our most ingrained assumptions about what unity actually is, and not least what it is in classical Christian faith. What is more, she makes us look beyond the human sphere, showing that the question of human unity cannot be divorced from how we imagine the unity of the material world we inhabit, and, ultimately, the unity of the Creator who made it.

To open all this up, with considerable acumen, Stearns explores and critiques the compositional strategy of Arnold Schoenberg, revealing how he operates with a conception of unity dominated by the one at the expense of the many. By contrast, and drawing especially on the trinitarian theology of Colin Gunton, Stearns shows how music can open up a sonic imagination of the one and the many—in which we don’t see them as competitive options fighting for the same space, but as mutually constitutive. Not surprisingly, she roots this oneness-with-particularity in the being of God as Father, Son, and Spirit.

What her argument implies is that for too long Christian thought has been captive to bad habits, ways of thinking about unity that are quite foreign to the scriptural texts Christians revere. Trapped by an over-dependence on the eye, on visual modes of thinking, we have succumbed to a curious kind of tone-deafness, ignoring what our ears might be telling us. We have been too concerned with what unity might look like, instead of what it might sound like. Having said that, Stearns’ thesis has immense implications for what unity looks like—in the sense of visible, practical action, on the ground. Once we are released from thinking that unity and diversity are enemies, life will never be the same again. If those who turn to this book simply to glean some new intellectual categories, they are in for some sharp surprises. Those with ears to hear, let them hear.

Jeremy Begbie

Duke University

Acknowledgments

It takes a village to write a PhD dissertation and then (more than 10 years later) turn it into a book. Though this sounds a bit cliché, I have to admit that I am a bit overwhelmed by the number of people who have helped and supported me along the way. As isolating as this process can be, I can look back now and see that I was never alone, even in my most anxious moments.

I would like to thank the community at St. Mary’s College at the University of St. Andrews. Initial thanks go to Trevor Hart for his leadership of the Institute for Theology, Imagination, and The Arts. The many seminars and colloquia over the years have been stimulating and rich ground for theological inquiry and growth. Trevor’s insights have often challenged my preconceived ideas and persuaded me to re-examine many of my theological and philosophical assumptions. I would also like to thank Alan Torrance for his leadership of the Theology Seminar at St. Mary’s, and for creating an encouraging yet rigorously critical space for theological exploration. He was also, in the midst of his busy schedule, always willing to stop and talk, especially if it was about violin pedagogy. Many thanks to the secretarial and library staff of St. Mary’s (Susan, Debbie, Margot, Colin, and Linda) for their patient and knowledgeable help. I also want to say thank you to all of my colleagues at St. Mary’s—too many to name here—for the numerous conversations, meals, insights, pub nights, and laughs. Thanks to my students and colleagues at The Seattle School for Theology & Psychology, especially Dr. Keith Anderson, who believed in me and my scholarship enough to give me my first job. Thanks also go to Bruce, JJ, Stasia, and Kayla for befriending us in St. Andrews and feeding us (in many ways) in Berkeley. Finally, my deepest thanks go to Jeremy Begbie who taught me I could think musically about theology and theologically about music. This project would have never come about without his groundbreaking research and leadership in the realm of theological engagement with the arts. Jeremy’s patience, encouragement, and wisdom have helped me through the many twists and turns of the writing process. He believed in my research even when I doubted, and for that I will always be grateful.

I want to thank Mr. Lawrence Schoenberg and Belmont Music Publishers for permission to use images of Arnold Schoenberg’s paintings in my dissertation and Belmont Music Publishers, Los Angeles; ARS, New York; and Bildrecht, Vienna for permissions to use these images in this book. In addition, I want to thank the Arnold Schoenberg Center in Vienna for allowing me to include photographs from their archives. The Schoenberg Center was very helpful with my research by sending me documents, answering copyright questions, and, most importantly, by making documents, images, recordings, etc. available on their remarkable web-site. Having easy access to so much archival material has been invaluable.

I also want to express my gratitude to my parents, my two brothers and their wives, and to my nieces and nephews—Hannah, Lindsey, Caleb, and Matthew—for their continued love and support. Thank you to my husband’s family for their encouragement. And thank you to all our Seattle friends who have prayed and cared for us over the years.

Special thanks to everyone who read and gave feedback along the way: Sharon Jebb Smith, Matt Jenson, Keith Hyde, Julie Canlis, Joy Beardsley, Brent Johnson, Heidi Worthen Gamble, Melissa Morton, Mom, Grandma Wood, Mark Dieter, and my brother Rick (all insights were helpful and all mistakes are mine!). Rick and Melissa, thanks for being writing buddies! Matt, thanks for helping me start the rewrites of this book. I also want to thank Jane Rowland for reading everything with painstaking attention and giving me amazing wisdom and support. Jane, I cannot express enough how grateful I am for your help.

And finally, thank you to my husband, Dave, to whom I owe more than I could ever repay. Without his patience and extensive editing help (often over the dinner table!) I could never have finished this project. Thank you, my one and only love.

Chelle Stearns

Seattle, WA

August

2018

Abbreviations

Arnold Schoenberg:

FMC Fundamentals of Musical Composition

Letters Arnold Schoenberg Letters

MI The Musical Idea and the Logic, Technique, and Art of its Presentation

S&I Style and Idea

Schoenberg-Kandinsky Arnold Schoenberg-Wassily Kandinsky: Letters, Pictures, and Documents

SFH Structural Functions of Harmony

TH Theory of Harmony

ZKIF Coherence, Counterpoint, Instrumentation, Instruction in Form

Arthur Schopenhauer:

P&P Parerga and Paralipomena, Vol. 2

WWR The World as Will and Representation

Colin Gunton:

A&B Act and Being

C&C Christ and Creation

E&A Enlightenment and Alienation

FS&HS Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

OTM The One, The Three, and The Many

PTT The Promise of Trinitarian Theology

TC The Triune Creator

Y&T Yesterday and Today

Jeremy Begbie:

TMT Theology, Music, and Time

Victor Zuckerkandl:

S&S Sound and Symbol: Music and the External World

Prelude

As with all ancient peoples, it is our destiny to spiritualize ourselves, to set ourselves free from all that is material. . . .

We want to perfect ourselves spiritually: we want to be free to dream our dream of God—as all ancient peoples, who have left material reality behind them.

—Arnold Schoenberg¹

Where the Spirit is, there do the creatures become that which God creates them to be.

—Colin Gunton²

Music answers questions that often confound more discursive modes of thought. Music can take what we think we know well, reframe it, and return it to us with incisive clarity and renewed vision.

In particular, music has the capacity to help conceive and re-conceive relational space. This is because musical space is able to hold indivisibly together multiple relational particulars (such as tones) within a structured place not encumbered by the laws of exclusion and juxtaposition. Within musical space a unique and constitutive mutuality exists which does not seem to be found readily in any other created phenomena.

Musical space, then, has the ability to sound out complex correlations between the one and the many, what we might think of as the relationship between diversity and unity. Because of this, it would be wise to bring musical space to bear upon the theological conception of unity.

This process is simultaneously an aesthetic and a theological reimagining of the issues that arise when we think about the unity of being, both divine and created. Music, it will be argued, can assist in opening up, thinking, and re-thinking a range of theological issues surrounding the notion of unity. In some cases, investigating unity through musical space can aid in reconceiving the very shape or taxis of the unity of being. At stake in this theological conversation is how we talk about God’s relationship to the created order. For example, does the unity of God’s being override or suppress the unity of creaturely being? In other words, we will explore if both divine and created freedom can be maintained in a simultaneous, mutual, and interdependent manner.

British theologian Colin Gunton argues that this interconnectedness of concurrent freedom, being, and unity is necessary for a truly robust account of particularity in an age that has consistently compromised true particularity for a thinly disguised homogeneity. For Gunton, the particularity at the heart of God calls us into a dynamic relational freedom throughout the created order that is deeply rooted in the freedom of God’s being.³ Divine and created freedom, in Gunton’s construal, is non-competitive and mutually constitutive. Thus, in his theology, concepts such as will, love, and personhood are not imagined in competitive terms (e.g., competitive = if God’s will is to be followed I necessarily must abnegate my will), but rather God’s gift to the created order is one of non-competition (e.g., creation is gifted space to be itself).⁴ Unity and diversity in this model are mutually constitutive and vitally interrelated.

Musical space is able to model—both materially and conceptually—this complex and concurrent relational mutuality. In this exploration, it will be shown that music can enrich the depleted soil of Western philosophies of unity. We might go so far to claim that without the turn to musical thinkers, such as the Austrian composer, Arnold Schoenberg, we might be stuck replanting in over-tilled and exhausted ground. Music, instead, has, as Jeremy Begbie argues, the power to liberate theology from some of its most potentially damaging ways of working, and open up fresh and unexplored avenues for the future.⁵ He believes that the arts and music have the potential to revitalize, re-engage, and, in certain cases, even correct specific forms of theological thinking.⁶ Music, in particular, is able to do this because it provides something of a three-dimensional, almost geometric conceptual microcosm. This has led some philosophers and scholars to think of music as an unconscious exercise in metaphysics in which the mind does not know it is philosophizing (Leibniz).⁷ German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer, takes this claim at face value and then refers to music as the true philosophy because it expresses the metaphysical to everything physical in the world.⁸ Composers, such as Schoenberg, took this claim to heart and reconfigured the entire compositional landscape of the twentieth century. Music was no longer just music in the twentieth century; it was the very means of sounding out the reality of the universe.⁹

Music, then, can provide a means to re-imagine a theology of relational spatiality, especially the spatiality of God’s triunity: the manner in which God can as triune be one and three and three-in-one. Music enables a constructive exploration of how particularity (the three) and oneness (the one) are related in unity. Thus, musical space has the capacity to hold unity and distinction together as mutually constitutive rather than mutually exclusive—that is, the value and distinction of the one note is not sacrificed for the unity of many notes together. Music, to be music, relies on the complexity of the sounding out of the one and the many within a composition. Unity emerges because of the mutuality and reciprocity between particular and diverse tones within musical space. Similarly, as Gunton argues more theologically, "God is not God apart from the way in which Father, Son, and Spirit in eternity give to and receive from each other what they essentially are. The three do not merely coinhere, but dynamically constitute one another’s being."¹⁰ Unity, in music and theology, is a reciprocal mutuality.

In light of these musical metaphysical claims, this book will explore and engage both the music and writings of Arnold Schoenberg (1874–1951) and the trinitarian theology of Colin Gunton (1941–2003). Schoenberg’s philosophy of compositional unity, as embodied in his theory and practice, brings his metaphysical assumptions about the one and the many to bear upon his compositional innovations. In his compositional philosophy, he tends to overemphasize the one (e.g., the totality of a piece as the idea¹¹) and undermine the value of the many (e.g., the liquidation or dissolving of the differences between tones¹²). He maintains that conflict governs the very substance of the musical material and his task as a composer is to balance and manage this enmeshed strife.

Gunton’s trinitarian theology, in contrast, emphasizes the dynamic relationship between the one and the many, claiming that particulars are necessary for the unity (and freedom) of the many. In his theology, unity is not a simple oneness or singularity, and it never requires the dissolution of particulars. Conflict and competition are not essential in Gunton’s model. Instead, freedom emerges from the interaction and interanimation between and through particulars.

Gunton champions and develops a critically important tradition of trinitarian theology that derives especially from the seminal work of Karl Barth.¹³ In particular, the focus will be on Gunton’s doctrine of God, which, significantly, is integrally related to his doctrine of creation. We are concerned with the way he relates divine and created unity and freedom by means of trinitarian categories. Our goal, however, is not to establish a comprehensive theology of unity. That would require a thoroughgoing doctrine of redemption, for which we do not have time or space. Instead, we aim to explore how the unity of created being can be, and ought to be, firmly rooted in the distinctive unity of God’s being. Gunton argues, via Karl Barth, that God’s freedom as the Triune Creator upholds and maintains the dynamic freedom of the created order. Because God has space to be Father, Son, and Spirit in dynamic unity, the created order has space to be fully itself.¹⁴

In order to build a bridge between Schoenberg and Gunton, we will turn to Arthur Schopenhauer’s musical metaphysic and Jeremy Begbie’s musical theology. What will be shown is that relational categories of unity can be understood more fully through musical space, enabling us to find ways of re-imaging our embedded philosophies of the unity of being (both divine and created). This theological exploration will employ musical space to assist in sounding out a concept of unity that can be re-construed through a more non-competitive and trinitarianly conceived musical model. Trinitarian theology is able to engage with Schoenberg’s musical worldview in both a critical and constructive manner. Moreover, a trinitarian model of unity is potentially far more fruitful, both in theology and in the creative arts, than the model of unity that Schoenberg advocates within his compositional philosophy. Further still, we will suggest that resources in Schoenberg’s understanding of musical space can strengthen and advance our constructive theological task. Thus, this work shows not only how theology can benefit the philosophy of music but also how the philosophy of music can enrich and augment theological discourse.

The Structure of the Book

This discussion will be broken into two distinct, but related, parts. Part I will focus on particularity, what Colin Gunton calls a theology of the many. Part II will be concerned with the structure of unity, what we could call a theology of the one or, more appropriately, a theology of the unity of being.

Part I, Unity and Particularity, examines unity from the perspective of the many. We will trace Schoenberg’s investigations into the material of music, from which he draws two conclusions: that conflict is essential to the musical material and that the distinction between consonance and dissonance is illusory. Through these, Schoenberg unwittingly develops a theory of the many that undermines the value and integrity of material particulars. This comes into sharper focus when we lay bare, with particular reference to Arthur Schopenhauer’s philosophy, Schoenberg’s metaphysical assumptions regarding the categories of conflict, matter, and unity. By reviewing Schopenhauer’s metaphysical system, we can excavate a significant source for Schoenberg’s theory of the many in order to make explicit the true place of particulars within his philosophy of unity.

By way of critical response, our focus will be two-fold. First, we will develop the beginnings of a trinitarian theology of musical space. Second, we will turn to Gunton’s theology of the many, which is founded upon the notion of the [substantial] particularity at the heart of the being of God. Gunton argues that God’s distinctive trinitarian particularity upholds and brings value to created particularity. Thus, we will counter Schoenberg’s understanding of the dissolution of particulars with a trinitarian theology that upholds the integrity of particulars through a mutually constitutive understanding of particulars in relational space.

Part II, Unity and The Whole, examines unity from the perspective of the one. This investigation will focus upon Schoenberg’s structural principles of coherence, from which he makes three claims: 1) that the whole (i.e., the musical idea) is distinct from the composition; 2) that the essence of the musical idea must be expressed in every individual part within the whole; and 3) that the primary goal of the composer is to express the whole in each work of art. Schoenberg’s construction of unity is, therefore, dependent upon privileging the whole (the one) over the particular (the many). Thus, Schoenberg’s theory and practice lack the sort of unity in which the concepts of oneness and particularity can be adequately related in freedom.

Our response to Schoenberg will draw upon Gunton’s theology of the unity of being that is developed from his concept of perichoresis. For Gunton, perichoresis is rooted in his doctrine of God, which is reliant upon two important tenets of his theology: the freedom of divine being and mediation. Gunton establishes a significant theology of personal space through his concepts of freedom and mediation that allows for a way of conceiving of God as one ousia (being) with three distinct hypostases (substances or persons). In tandem with establishing God’s space to be as a unity-in-relation, Gunton also lays out the parameters of created freedom and contingency. He contends that creation is given a space to be itself as a gift granted from the God who is irreducibly and ontologically distinct from the created order.

After explicating Gunton’s theology of unity, we will critique Schoenberg through this theological lens. We will show that Schoenberg’s philosophy of unity lacks a proper theology of mediation and, in consequence, his theology of freedom fails as well. This results in an inability to maintain an adequate structure of unity within his thinking, one that can relate the one and the many together in a mutually constitutive manner. We will then turn once more to musical space to set up a more constructive trinitarian model of unity. This model will respect the ordered freedom of divine being and the gift of an unencumbered space to be that God extends to the created order. Thus, this project proposes that a proper understanding of unity (both divine and created) can arise only from a triune conception of being that holds oneness and particularity inseparably together: not as mutually exclusive but as mutually constitutive in relational freedom and being.

1. Schoenberg, Biblical Way,

329

.

2. Gunton, FS&HS,

81

.

3. Gunton, OTM,

190

.

4. This is a pervasive theme in Gunton’s work. This idea is most profoundly worked out in Gunton, Triune God,

46

–

68

; Gunton, TC.

5. Begbie, Through Music,

138

.

6. See Begbie, Introduction, xii–xiii. See also Begbie, Room of One’s Own?,

141

–

75

.

7. This is quoted by Schopenhauer, WWR,

1

:

264

.

8. Schopenhauer, WWR,

1

:

262

.

9. Jamie James identifies this as a continuous theme throughout musical history that was lost or set aside in the modern era. See James, Music of the Spheres, esp.

212

–

28

.

10. Gunton, OTM,

164

, my emphasis.

11. Schoenberg, S&I,

122

–

23

.

12. Schoenberg, MI,

259

.

13. For some of his initial engagement with Barth’s theology, see the book version of his PhD dissertation, Gunton, Becoming and Being.

14. For an examination of how Gunton’s doctrine of creation can help us reimagine human agency and freedom, see Whitney, Problem and Promise. By examining Gunton’s doctrine of creation we . . . see how the doctrine of creation holds significance, not merely for understanding the beginning of the world, but for how one exists in relation with the world through human action and through shaping the created realm into who it is intended to be—whether this be through aesthetics, work, politics, or theology (Whitney, Problem and Promise,

9

).

Part I

Unity and Particularity

1

Schoenberg and the Procrustean Bed of Tonality

Unity, Conflict, and the Material of Music

The primitive ear hears the tone as irreducible, but physics recognizes it to be complex. In the meantime, however, musicians discovered that it is capable of continuation, i.e., that movement is latent within it. That problems are concealed in it, problems that clash with one another, that the tone lives and seeks to propagate itself.

—Arnold Schoenberg¹⁵

the tone is the material of music. It must therefore be regarded, with all its properties and effects, as suitable for art.

—Arnold Schoenberg¹⁶

The turn of the twentieth century in Europe was an innovative era that played upon many of the cultural shifts and turns of the nineteenth century. One could describe these shifts as the rise of the middle class, the fall of the aristocracy, or the age of European revolution. Societal change was inevitable and occurred in every realm of culture—both public and private.

Fin-de-siècle Vienna exemplifies the generative volatility of this societal shift. This is the city of Freud, Wittgenstein, Kokoschka, Kraus, and Mahler who, with the other intellectuals of their day, discussed philosophy in cafes, argued about politics in newspaper editorials, and rebelled against established artistic norms through new and ever changing artistic movements such as the Vienna Secessionists and the Blue Rider Group. In fin-de-siècle Vienna, the seeds for wide spread change were planted long before the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, which marked both the end of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the beginning of World War I.¹⁷

A key artistic character in this period was composer Arnold Schoenberg. He believed the path of German music needed to progress both through and beyond the musical language of the late nineteenth century. The way forward was neither in the absolute music of Johannes Brahms nor in the extended chromaticism of Richard Wagner. In Schoenberg’s thinking, the very material of music required new forms and new means of tonal and compositional unity, because music demands . . . that the secret of the sounding tone be always pursued anew.¹⁸

Schoenberg was convinced that every tone concealed a profusion of musical material, thus the path to new compositional forms lay within the material of the single tone. Due to new discoveries in physics, it was known that the inner material of music was complex rather than simple. There was no such thing as a discrete pitch. Instead, every tone was a compound sound¹⁹ resonating in musical space, that is, every discrete pitch is comprised of an aggregate of underlying overtones and resonances that the human ear is unable to hear fully. From this view of the material of music, Schoenberg surmised that all tones are in relation to one another, but he also concluded that unity in compositional form, even in the most staid of functional tonality,²⁰ was brought about through the conflict found within the composite tone. Every part of the tone warred for dominance, and it was the duty of the composer to find