Twelve-tone theory

doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521623711.021

19 - Twelve-tone theory

from B - Compositional Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 March 2008

John Covach

Edited by

Thomas Christensen

Show author details

Thomas Christensen: Affiliation:
University of Chicago

Book contents

Get access

Summary

As scholars begin to gain a sense of historical perspective on art music in the twentieth century, it seems clear that the introduction and development of twelve-tone compositional procedures will remain one of the cardinal markers of musical modernism. The careers of Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Boulez, Stockhausen, Babbitt, and even Stravinsky (among many others) are all at some point intimately bound up with dodecaphonic concerns, as is the course of avant-garde music generally. No matter what one may think of the twelve-tone idea – and it has been the source of considerable controversy almost from the start – understanding dodecaphony and its appeal to several generations of composers in Europe and America will continue to play a central role in understanding twentieth-century music and culture.

The twelve-tone idea has also played a pivotal role in the development of music theory as a professional discipline, especially in the United States during the post-World-War-II period. Indeed, twelve-tone theory and composition are deeply interdependent, and this is in no small measure attributable to the fact that in many cases the theorists involved were also composers. Unlike Schenkerian theory – which along with twelve-tone theory has played an important role in the professional growth of music theory in the second half of this century – twelve-tone theory often seems more prescriptive than descriptive; rather than explicating the structural features of works already established within the canon of Western art music, dodecaphonic theory is frequently speculative, suggesting structural possibilities for pieces yet to be written (or in some cases, pieces just finished by the composer himself).

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge History of Western Music Theory , pp. 603 - 627

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521623711.021 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Babbitt, M. “Remarks on the Recent Stravinsky,” Perspectives of New Music 2/2 (1964)Google Scholar

Babbitt, M. “Set Structure as a Compositional Determinant,” Journal of Musicology, Greenfield, OH, and St. Joseph, MI, Music Science Press, 1982– 5 (1961)Google Scholar

Babbitt, M. “Some Aspects of Twelve-Tone Composition,” The Score and I.M.A. Magazine 12 (1955)Google Scholar

Babbitt, M. “Twelve-Tone Invariants as Compositional Determinants,” Musical Quarterly 46 (1960)Google Scholar

Babbitt, M. “Twelve-Tone Rhythmic Structure and the Electronic Medium,” Perspectives of New Music 1/1 (1962), pp. 49–79;Google Scholar

Babbitt, M. ‘Who Cares If You Listen?,” High Fidelity 8 (1958)Google Scholar

Babbitt, M.Words About Music, ed. Dembski, S. and Straus, J., Madison, University of Wisconsin Press, 1987Google Scholar

Babbitt, M. review of Schoenberg et son école and Qu’est ce que la musique de douze sons? by Réne, Leibowitz, Journal of the American Musicological Society, University of Chicago Press, et al., 1948– 3 (1950)Google Scholar

Black, L. in Style and Idea: Selected Writings of Arnold Schoenberg, ed. Stein, L., Berkeley, University of California Press, 1984Google Scholar

Boulez, P. “An der Grenze des Fruchtlandes (Paul Klee),” Die Reihe 1 (1955)Google Scholar

Boulez, P. “Eventuellement…,” La Revue musicale 212 (1952)Google Scholar

Boulez, P. “Propositions,” Polyphonie 2 (1948)Google Scholar

Boulez, P. “Schönberg is Dead,” The Score 6 (1952)Google Scholar

Boulez, P. “Stravinsky demeure,” in Musique russe, ed. Souvtchinsky, P., Paris, 1953Google Scholar

Eimert, H.Atonale Musiklehre, Leipzig, Breitkopf und Härtel, 1924Google Scholar

Eimert, H.Grundlagen der musikalischen Reihentechnik, Vienna, Universal Edition, 1964Google Scholar

Eimert, H.Lehrbuch der Zwölftontechnik, Wiesbaden, Breitkopf und Härtel, 1952Google Scholar

Eschman, K.Changing Forms in Modern Music, Boston, E. C. Schirmer, 1945Google Scholar

Forte, A.The Structure of Atonal Music, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1973Google Scholar

Hauer, J. M. “Atonale Musik,” Die Musik 16/2 (1923)Google Scholar

Hauer, J. M. “Die Tropen,” Musikblätter des Anbruch 6 (1924)Google Scholar

Hauer, J. M. “Offener Brief,” Die Musik 17/2 (1924), p.Google Scholar

Hauer, J. M. “Sphärenmusik,” Melos 3 (1922)Google Scholar

Hauer, J. M.Deutung des Melos: Eine Frage an die Künstler und Denker unserer Zeit, Leipzig and Vienna, E. P. Tal, 1923Google Scholar

Hauer, J. M.Lehrbuch der Zwölftontechnik: Vom Wesen des Musikalischen, Berlin-Lichterfeld, Schlesinger, 1923Google Scholar

Hauer, J. M.Vom Melos zur Pauke: Eine Einführung in die Zwölftonmusik, Vienna, Universal Edition, 1925Google Scholar

Hauer, J. M.Vom Wesen des Musikalischen, Vienna, Waldheim-Eberle A. G., 1920Google Scholar

Hauer, J. M.Zwölftontechnik: Die Lehre von den Tropen, Vienna, Universal Edition, 1926Google Scholar

Headlam, D. “Fritz Heinrich Klein’s ‘Die Grenze der Halbtonwelt’ and ‘Die Maschine,’” Theoria 6 (1992)Google Scholar

Hill, R. S. “Schoenberg’s Tone-Rows and the Tonal System of the Future,” Musical Quarterly 22 (1936)Google Scholar

Klein, F. H. “Die Grenze der Halbtonwelt,” Die Musik 17/4 (1925)Google Scholar

Krenek, E. “Extents and Limits of Serial Techniques,” in Problems of Modern Music, ed. Lang, P., New York, Norton, 1962Google Scholar

Krenek, E. “New Developments of the Twelve-Tone Technique,” Music Review 4 (1943)Google Scholar

Krenek, E. “A Study of Cadential Formations in Atonal Music,” paper presented to the Greater New York Chapter of the American Musicological Society, November 13, 1940Google Scholar

Krenek, E.Music Here and Now, New York, Norton, 1939Google Scholar

Krenek, E.Schoenberg et son école, Paris, Janin, 1947Google Scholar

Krenek, E.Studies in Counterpoint, New York, G. Schirmer, 1940Google Scholar

Leibowitz, R.Introduction a la musique de douze sons, Paris, L’Arche, 1949Google Scholar

Lewin, D. “A Study of Hexachord Levels in Schoenberg’s Violin Fantasy,” Perspectives of New Music 6/1 (1967)Google Scholar

Lewin, D. “A Theory of Segmental Association in Twelve-Tone Music,” Perspectives of New Music 1/1 (1962)Google Scholar

Martino, D. “The Source Set and Its Aggregate Formations,” Journal of Music Theory, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1957– 5 (1961)Google Scholar

Mead, A. “Some Implications of the Pitch Class/Order Number Isomorphism Inherent in the Twelve-Tone System, Part One,” Perspectives of New Music 26/2 (1988)Google Scholar

Mead, A.An Introduction to the Music of Milton Babbitt, Princeton University Press, 1994CrossRef Google Scholar

Messiaen, O.Technique de mon langage musical, Paris, Leduc, 1944Google Scholar

Morris, R. D.Composition with Pitch Classes, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1987CrossRef Google Scholar

Newlin, D. as Schoenberg and his School, New York, Philosophical Library, 1949; reprint New York, Da Capo, 1975Google Scholar

Oesch, H. “Pioniere der Zwölftontechnik,” Forum Musicologicum: Basler Studien zur Interpretation der alten Musik 1 (1975)Google Scholar

Peles, S. “Serialism and Complexity,” in The Cambridge History of American Music, ed. Nicholls, D., Cambridge University Press, 1998Google Scholar

Perle, G. “Evolution of the Tone-Row: The Twelve-Tone Modal System,” Music Review 2 (1941)Google Scholar

Perle, G.Serial Composition and Atonality, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1962Google Scholar

Perle, G.The Listening Composer, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1990Google Scholar

Perle, G.Twelve-Tone Tonality, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1977Google Scholar

Rahn, J.Basic Atonal Theory, New York, G. Schirmer, 1980Google Scholar

Rufer, J.Komposition mit zwölf Tönen, Berlin, M. Hesses, 1952Google Scholar

Schoenberg, A. “Composition with Twelve Tones (1),” ed. and trans. Newlin, D. in Style and Idea, New York, Philosophical Library, 1950Google Scholar

Searle, H. as Composition with Twelve Tones Related Only to One Another, New York, Macmillan, 1954Google Scholar

Spies, C. “Vortrag/12TK/Princeton,” Perspectives of New Music 13/1 (1974)Google Scholar

Stein, E. “Neue Formprinzipien,” in Arnold Schönberg zum fünfzigsten Geburtstag, Sonderheft der Musikblätter des Anbruch, Vienna, Universal Edition, 1924; reprinted in Von neuer Musik, Cologne, Marcan-Verlag, 1924Google Scholar

Stein, E.Orpheus in New Guises, London, Rockliff, 1953Google Scholar

Stewart, J. L.Ernst Krenek: The Man and his Music, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1991Google Scholar

Stockhausen, K. “… wie die Zeit vergeht…,” Die Reihe 3 (1957)Google Scholar

Toop, R. “Messiaen/Goeyvaerts, Fano/Stockhausen, Boulez,” Perspectives of New Music 13/1 (1974)Google Scholar

Vogel, M.Schönberg und die Folgen, Teil 1: Schönberg, Bonn, Orpheus, 1984Google Scholar

Vogel, M.Schönberg und die Folgen, Teil 2: Die Folgen, Bonn, Orpheus, 1997Google Scholar

Walsh, S. in Stocktakings from an Apprenticeship, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1991Google Scholar

Yasser, J.A Theory of Evolving Tonality, New York, American Library of Musicology, 1932; reprint New York, Da Capo Press, 1975Google Scholar

Book contents

19 - Twelve-tone theory

Summary

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive