1

Danny Ziemann
MHS 123pa
Schoenberg Paper
2/10/11

While comparing the two versions of Schoenbergs Piano Piece op 11,

no. 2, I came to a realization that neither piece is clear-cut in terms of
categorizing. That is, neither piece can simply be labeled as looking
to the past or looking forward. Both versions of this piece contain
elements of rhythm and especially harmony that gain a lot from the
influence of someone like Bach, while pushing harmonic boundaries
that resemble jazz-like chords, with extensions such as #11s and
13s over a Dominant 7 chord.
Schoenberg was special in the fact that he was always looking to push
music forward, but was well educated in music of the past. Because of
this, his music is purposeful and well crafted. Thats not to say that
other music in this style is not well crafted, but many people try to
fake writing atonal/contemporary music with very limited success.
Any style of music has language that is idiomatic, and any musician
who has absorbed themselves into the language can easily distinguish
genuine music from fake music.

2
Schoenbergs music certainly was not fake. It is highly logical, and
draws inspiration from the past. The second movement of this piece
reminds me of baroque era music, specifically Bach. Not the content,
but in the way that the piece is very specific harmonically. Everything
has a specific purpose, and all the lines are voice-lead very well. Take
for example mm. 10-12. While some of the chords jump around in
distant intervals, many of the inner voices move by half step to create
a smooth sounding melodic line. Any parallel intervals are also pretty
scarce. The bass line is an ostinato that in a way acts like an Alberti
bass line, providing forward motion but also an opportunity for more
dissonant harmony.
One other reason that this piece looks to the past is the rhythmic
development and overall intensity of the piece. The piece starts off
with the ostinato and a simple melody that continues over the bar line.
A chorale-like section occurs between m.10-12, and soon after the
rhythmic values are diminished and further explored. To compliment
the decreasing rhythmic values, there is an increase in chromaticism
and slight manipulation of the bass line. After a cadence point on
what seems to be a G7 chord (F and B being the 7th and 3rd), we are
brought back to the beginning material, just like a recapitulation.
Busonis re-composition bears a lot of similarities to the compositional
structure of romantic and late-romantic era works. In general, he

3
takes some of the more melodic moments from Schoenbergs original
and expands upon them. For example, m. 4-5 expands on what
Schoenberg did in m. 4. He also takes motives and brings it back in
different places with a different tonal area, bass line, or harmony. In m.
22 for example, he moves the bass line to the right hand and puts a
manipulation of the opening melody in the left hand. The bass line is
up a half step from the original, and inverts the intervals so the pattern
goes up a major 3rd as opposed to down a minor 3rd. Another key
aspect of this version is that it seems very spontaneous, almost like
parts are improvised. Referencing the same little motif in m. 4 that is
played twice, it seems like a musical afterthought of the composer; it
sounds like it was not written down, but instead the performer added it
because it sounded right.
That seems to be a key aspect of romantic compositions. Pieces such
as the Pines of Rome and Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun are perfect
examples of pieces that are through composed, but have very
unpredictable harmony and a very organic flow. There is a lot of push
and pull, and the very nature of the music allows for much
interpretation.
Knowing the history of Schoenberg, it is clear that this piece was also a
forward-looking work. What is amazing is that Schoenberg was hearing
this music naturally, without any twelve-tone technique. The

4
beginning three bars hint at a twelve-tone melody, but we do not get
all twelve notes. The heavy increase of chromaticism (especially on
page 4), the deliberate dynamic choices and chords with upper
extensions come from the end of the romantic tradition and but look to
push boundaries. In terms of jazz nomenclature, in m. 9, Schoenberg
employs the use of a F13#11 chord (there is no chordal 3rd; it is implied
in this voicing) as a cadence point. What is special is that he takes a
seemingly dissonant sound, but in the context of his piece makes it
sound beautiful. This specific sound is one that became very useful to
jazz musicians, and in that respect is also very forward-looking.
Busonis reinterpretation also pushes boundaries and looks towards the
future, harmony especially. For example, fourth page, 4th system.
There is a chord that is voiced A-E-Bb, with Major 3rds and 4ths being
voiced above. One of the only places in the whole piece that there is a
stop in motion, and the chord is an AMajadd4(b9). Some of the
sparseness and then flurries of rhythmic activity, such as in mm. 4445, is something new, especially in the context of atonal music. For
the most part, he seems to be drawing on inspiration from the past,
but has to be willing to push boundaries since he even attempted to re
work Schoenbergs piece.
While the new composition still bears a lot of resemblance to the
original work, enough has changed to the point where it loses the

5
original meaning. The bass line is manipulated throughout, and no
longer has that static ostinato effect. While the new composition is a
very nice work, I believe it absolutely ruins the original idea and
meaning. The first piece wasnt just musical gibberish; Schoenberg
was really hearing all these intricate inter-woven lines. Its very easy
to tell he wasnt faking by his deliberate choice in dynamics, notes,
voice leading, and rhythmic development. Some of the very intricate
sounds do not exist anymore, such as at m. 9, with the dissonant
dominant 7th cadence.
I sincerely believe that it is not okay to change a composers original
intentions. I understand Schoenberg wanting Busoni to hear his music,
but dissecting it to change the meaning is not okay. While many jazz
musicians today re-harmonize tunes and other works, the melody is
always left untouched. Though it may be hard to hear in Schoenbergs
original, there is a definite melodic aspect that is not prevalent in
Busonis version. Also, Busonis re-interpretation of the piece seems to
be a textbook example of compositional development. The motives
are developed very nicely, the harmony is spontaneous at times, and
the bass line is manipulated and brought back in a new key area. Yet, I
find it to be less interesting than the original version of the piece.
Though I find a lot of Schoenbergs music to be questionable, I respect
that he wrote what he heard and attempted to push musical
boundaries forward, even with some resistance from the public.