Deryk Barker wrote:

>Our mutual acquaintance Joseph Monzo [at the moment, I think, on
>vacation from the Mahler-list] gave me a bibliographic reference [lost
>in a computer crash, alas] to a book with a title something like
>"Schoenberg as numerologist" ; all I recall about it was that it was
>VERY expensive...perhaps when he gets back on line he'll be good enough
>to repeat the citation.
>
>Berg was also very much to ciphers, anagrams and numerology, of course...

Belief in numerology or its close counterparts was quite common.  One
physicist commented that most physicists are numerologists - the believe in
the recurance of pi,e, planck's constant and the fine structure constant
throughout the universe.

Today on NPR Micheal Greenberg made the declaration that he felt

   "that the 12 tone system, like communism, was one of the great failed
   experiments of the 20th century.  Both were launched witha great deal
   of optimism, but left behind no legacy."

One's internal alarm bells should go off at statments like this,
regardless of whether one likes the music or not.  It is true that
the method of 12 tones and its descendants did not live up to the most
grandiose pronouncements for it.  We areen't all whistling 12 tone these
days, and desite an attempt to impose it, we aren't all required to be
able to creat good 12 tone material in order to enter conservatories.

But the other extreme "left no legacy" seems just plain wrong.  Let us
assume, for the moment that we throw out the Second Vienna School entirely.
No Lulu, lyric suite or violin concero from Berg.  None of Schoenberg's
various cantatas or his piano concerto.

That still leaves us with composers such as Schostakovich and Britten who
are clearly very deeply influenced by Berg's use of 12 tone material - both
of them have string quartets which bear very strong indications of being
familiar with Berg.  Britten was a well knwon admirer of Berg's muisc.
Hindemith's modal methods of jkoining two keys a tritone apart, thouhg not
12 tone, are clearly influenced by the "tonal" tone row questions of his
time.  And then there is influence by reaction.  There quite probably would
be no Minimalist movment if not in reaction to "crazy creepy people writing
crazy creepy muisc." The baroque had a similar impact on the era that
followed.  To be un-baroque was essential.

Going further afield, the 12 tone system was the guantlet which many
composers had to respond to - either going farther in an avant garde
direction, or by responding asa traditionalist.  Put on Alwyn's 4th
symphony.  That would not be as it is, without the 12 tone challenge
lurking behind it.  The Serial system was influential in every method
composed piece in classical - or pop muisc.  The inspiraction that bop
took from 12 tone music is under explored - but it is clearly there.
12 tone music was an essential phase in Copland's career, and helped
onvince him to go in ohter directions.  12 tone music basically killed
neo-classicism as a dominant musical movement, as many of its young
adherents - Carter, Sessions, Lutoslawski, Foss and Ligeti for example,
decided they could not write music which responded to its challenges and
remain within the confines of the musical systems of Bartok and Stravinski.
Even Stravinski left his own temple...

I've taken a good deal of heat for not being Schoenbergian enough - I had
a conversation partner this week nearly woof his cofee when I dared to
criticise Webern - but it is important for people to be objecive about the
impact a movment has on others, and not clutter music history with various
forms of ideology.  But then, I am sure the chorous of anti-Newberrians
will soon enough provide another demonstration of why this folly is so
often praised - it is such an appealing road to erase and muss over those
who you dislike.

Stirling