Schoenberg: Why He Matters

by Harvey Sachs

An astonishingly lyrical biography that rescues Schoenberg from notoriety, restoring him to his rightful place in the pantheon of twentieth-century composers. In his time, the Austrian American composer Arnold Schoenberg (1874–1951) was an international icon. His twelve-tone system was considered the future of music itself. Today, however, leading orchestras rarely play his works, and his name is met with apathy, if not antipathy. With this interpretative account, the acclaimed biographer of Toscanini finally restores Schoenberg to his rightful place in the canon, revealing him as one of the twentieth century’s most influential composers and teachers. Sachs shows how Schoenberg, a thorny character who composed thorny works, raged against the “Procrustean bed” of tradition. Defying his critics―among them the Nazis, who described his music as “degenerate”―he constantly battled the anti-Semitism that eventually precipitated his flight from Europe to Los Angeles. Yet Schoenberg, synthesizing Wagnerian excess with Brahmsian restraint, created a shock wave that never quite subsided, and, as Sachs powerfully argues, his compositions must be confronted by anyone interested in the past, present, or future of Western music. 10 illustrations

Genres: Music, Biography, Nonfiction, History, Art, Audiobook, Music Biography

272 pages, Paperback

First published August 15, 2023

Reviews

[Lyra · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thoughtful book that places a complex composer in his milieu. Readers will better understand what inspired Schoenberg to develop the twelve tone system and value what he achieved, but it helps to have some familiarity with the existing music - a play list at the start of each chapter (or the end) might have been helpful. Because Schoenberg’s music isn’t played as much, some of prices will be less familiar to all but the most die-hard fans. The author makes a great case for appreciating what Schoenberg achieved and contrasts different performances of the same piece, but readers would have benefited from an index.

I will note, I read an ARC and there were multiple (TK) notations.

[Kristina · Rating 5 out of 5]

4.5 stars, rounded up

I'm not a huge of of Schoenberg's music, but this book was fantastic! Sachs fulfills his goal of proving why the late composer and musician matters in the scheme of music, both before and after his work.

[Peter Dunda · Rating 4 out of 5]

I didn’t get to finish it but I very much enjoyed the insights I received into Natalia’s musical hero. A true icon. Very bald. Scared of 13.

[Jason Cady · Rating 2 out of 5]

I don't know why this book exists. There are much better books on Schoenberg, such as Schoenberg's Journey by Allen Shawn. Sachs reveals no new research into Schoenberg's life or music. This, rather slim, biography is like a Wikipedia of commonly known information but loaded down by Sachs' grumpy opinions. Sachs seems to dislike all Modernism in music (except, inexplicably Boulez—who he frequently quotes as gospel). Sachs said that when being forced to listen to Schoenberg for research purposes he would follow it up by listening to Mozart to cleanse himself of the awful Schoenberg.

Why is this book subtitled "Why He Matters?" First of all, of course Schoenberg matters. He was one of the greatest and most influential composers of the 20th century. Was he controversial? Yeah, 100 years ago, but he hasn't been controversial since the 1950s. In fact, I think the worst one could say about Schoenberg is that his once radical ideas have become passé. Sachs devotes the book to arguing that Schoenberg doesn't matter. After reading this trash I can only conclude that Harvey Sachs does not matter.

[Milo · Rating 3 out of 5]

It seems the short blurb of this book is, in essentially every detail, wrong. First, ‘an astonishingly lyrical biography’. What is here written is not, by any means, lyrical; it is a straightforward, rather slimmed down account of a life. There are no flights of fancy. Descriptions of music are somewhat specific to Sachs’ taste but are not, in being so, written outside of the neutral tone. Let us instead write: ‘a suitably objective biography’. Then, ‘that rescues Schoenberg from notoriety’. I would suggest Sachs does not ‘rescue’ Schoenberg from notoriety, but rather defines his notoriety, and specifies the ways in which Schoenberg himself courts notoriety by intent. There is no rescue necessary: Sachs argues that Schoenberg is notorious because Schoenberg made himself notorious (though, in counterpoint, perhaps wished to be loved in spite of it). We might prefer: ‘that examines Schoenberg’s notoriety’. Following, ‘restoring him to his rightful place in the pantheon of twentieth-century composers.’ Here we must suppose two things: first that Sachs is interested in pantheonic thinking, and second that Schoenberg has been at some point removed from said pantheon. Taking the second first, it is true that Schoenberg’s glimmering forelight has become somewhat dimmer of late, insomuch as the future of music no longer seems bound up in his ideas. But I think there is no question of his totemistic presence, and given the bibliography outlined by Sachs it is clear that his pantheon-place is very much secure in-argument. Whether resented or not, he is one of the gods. The first is perhaps more essential: Sachs is not writing a defence of Schoenberg, and certainly not a book that aims to deify, rather he is attempting to disambiguate a composer who is often lost in noise and reputation. If anything, he is dethroning the distant Schoenberg in attempts to make his music intelligible and his life sensible. Therefore, and in total: ‘A suitably objective biography that examines Schoenberg’s notoriety, bringing him down from the pearly clouds of avant-garde heaven.’ Though this new blurb nonetheless misses the fundamental point of Sachs’ book, which in fact provides a general biography only to square his final essay (ideas of which filtered throughout), which is not to discuss Schoenberg in historical or relative terms, but rather Schoenberg’s phantom and future. Thereat it is as much a discussion of Schoenberg as it is one of atonal, serial music in general: it is a question (taken casually, and legibly) of whether the final ‘emancipation’ of dissonance is a dead-end in musical grammar, and whether the academic line of post-modern music has fundamentally severed it from the semi-popular tradition. Sachs must, with a little reluctance, answer affirmative to the both. But he takes a compatibilist approach. That this is, at times, good and interesting music; and that this music is fundamentally unappealing to the untrained ear. Wagner, Debussy, Stravinsky: these sounds were initially harsh, but seem now intelligible. Schoenberg, for a reason Sachs cannot distinctly define (a much more difficult task than might be imagined) remarks the beginning of a period in which the initially harsh sounds remained so for the most who heard them. The Rite of Spring would now pass for Star Wars music; Debussy and Wagner might even seem unadventurous to some listeners. Schoenberg and his many children remain at distance. But, and perhaps this is the coda, this is no reason to dispose of the man and his work. Sachs defines an acquired taste, and advises his readers to acquire it.

[Abhi V · Rating 3 out of 5]

I went back to my notes to write up any of my comments, but they are almost all just comments on nice turns of phrase... Not much to comment on.

I was interested in Schoenberg because I thought Schonberg's portrait of him in The Lives of the Great Composers had a lot of pathos: This genius who was insistent that his vision would soon be recognized, and it wasn't ever really, or only by some, while it was castigated by others. (And what would he think of a review like this, which is equivocal on his work overall?) The Jewish convert to Christianity who nonetheless fixates, in the end of his life, on Moses, who was slow of speech, but chosen by God to deliver an important message, to Hebrews who constantly stray....

Of course it was probably true, but Sachs thinks that Schoenberg's defensiveness was at least in part a reaction to his icy reception. But I prefer a vision of Schoenberg which is almost unselfconscious and unaware, so intent is he on his mission. And for whatever the author says, maybe he really is, after all, in fact, that seems almost likely, given his fanaticism. (More on that below.) He seems to believe in the obviousness of his innovations, and what he is doing as the culmination of the music of Bach and Beethoven. I was attracted to his declaration that he's a conservative forced to become a radical. And in some ways, I am drawn to believe him--he is, after all, immensely knowledgeable in traditional tonality; he is a fantastic teacher of it; he is, after all, the composer of Transfigured Night....! And other early ops. (The image I have in mind is of the Wes Anderson character saying, "If he can do that, but chooses to do that, you know it's the real deal...." But maybe it's just like Pascal or Newton's Christianity? I don't think so, because there is just so much more continuity between atonality and traditional Western (German) music.) They say to understand Schoenberg, to listen to his works in order. I wonder what that would do, besides convince you that he's at least a musical genius and major composer in his own right, and therefore make you at least consider tonality? But regardless, I am not one to settle this debate. If there is something to the complicated works, I probably won't ever figure it out, lacking the time or education to appreciate it. Sachs, for his part, seems fixated on the fact that even major musicians can't *remember* Schoenberg's music, even if they studied and performed it.

The book is too much about specific pieces... which may be fine on its own, but really wasn't what I was after (maybe I chose the wrong biography?). The specific problem was that I read much faster than I can listen to the entire oeuvre, to even know what he's talking about. (Maybe it's fine in his case, since I am really only interested in what he does before he breaks with tonality anyway, and I got that far? Per the advice, I'll listen to his works in order... and also know where to stop!)

It's interesting that Schoenberg had his minor numerological fixation, and died of it. Also interesting was that he was a wonderful parent (his kids, and in other interviews, say this), even despite his wife nearly eloping with the overrated Gerstl. He reports being happily married to a younger woman after she dies, and I genuinely believe that he could have that kind of uncomplicated happiness. He was agonized by his reception, but didn't, ultimately, lose his self-assurance--and/or at least, that's the version of him I prefer.

Unfortunately, the great modernists of art music--Schoenberg, Bartok, and Stravinsky, although I'm least confident about the third--seem to have lived mostly boring and conventional lives, even as they were so impacted by Nazism and political developments, at least far more than my family has been, and that I anticipate being. They died with things to say, but their work was all cognitive, and done under circumstances unnotable. They were thoroughly institutionalized. Good and bad.

But regardless, and for no real fault of Sachs, I didn't quite get what I was looking for. I may be forgetting some parts.

[Lynn · Rating 4 out of 5]

As someone who came from a musical family and was a composer myself (and still am to some extent), I've known the music of Arnold Schoenberg for most of my life. This book struck at the core of issues I had to deal with in my student days. As a composer, my chief influences were Stockhausen, Berio, Carter, Boulez, Varese, and to a lesser extent, John Cage. I could name many more. I was familiar with them all, and I knew and understood advanced serialism and used it in my own work, though never strictly, until I finally left school to found and pursue a rock and roll band, for which I learned to compose a much different sort of music.

I understand what the author Harvey Sachs says about Schoenberg's music never really making it to the mainstream. Some people realize it's important, but fewer actually like it or the music of his primary students or imitators. Today post-tonal serialism seems like a dead horse. I've abandoned it myself, but not with malice. I still listen to a great deal of modern music.

Sachs makes a case that the progression of harmony in Western music since Medieval times has been inevitable, and once the late romantics were in full bloom, outright atonality could not be far behind. This proved to be the case with Schoenberg and his followers and a whole generation of composers who came into their prime in the middle of the twentieth century and somewhat later, which was my own time period.

What direction might music go in today? The author does not know. I've seen some very interesting things being done lately in microtonal music. The big number of scale points at this writing seems to be 31 to the octave, all based on ratios of cycles per second of intervals. There have been some pretty good pieces of music written along that line, but they are hard to play. Now that we have electronics, and new instruments to make sure that the music is "in tune" (with itself), we composers can experiment freely.

Another direction is seen in the music of Jacob Collier, who is filling auditoriums and stadiums wherever he goes with musically knowledgeable people that understand that his perception and implementation of harmony are something that has never been done before, and furthermore, he does all this with extreme virtuosity and an agreeable personality that causes people to flock around him like a Messiah. His sense of pitch is so keen that he's able to compose pieces that modulate to previously unheard keys, e.g. one that switches to G-sharp-plus. You've got to hear this to appreciate what it's about. Listening to Jacob's harmonies is like drinking honey. It's amazing.

There is still room for atonality, but I've long been of the opinion that the better my ear gets, the more I hear tonality in everything.

[Amogh Dwivedi · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author comes off as someone who was genuinely curious about the composer, but also the attitudes many have formed about him— it reads like an honest inquiry. The book was my favorite musical biography yet— I have read forgettable accounts of the lives of Bill Evans and Dmitri Shostakovich— because though it was colored with some personal opinions, the author's biases were openly admitted nevertheless and this made the reading experience more engaging than usual, because as a musician myself, I felt like I was reacting to what was being said. This wouldn't have been the case if I was reading a biography where being plain and factual was a requirement.

I particularly enjoyed reading Schoenberg's quips, the relationships which helped—and hurt— his career, the cameos made by the likes of Stravinsky, Mahler, Strauss, etc., and Sachs' memorable descriptions of the Schoenberg's personality ("persecuted" by the world at large but simultaneously felt "superior" to it). I often just skipped over Sachs' descriptions of the music, but this is the kind of issue I would take with any kind of description of music in general. I think trained musicians would have preferred to see the score, but conversely, untrained people probably wouldn't understand the terms being used anyway— so what is the point of such long paragraphs of words to describe long passages of music if it likely doesn't result in the reader audiating the music? In any case, I attempted to create a playlist for myself but the whole process is taxing and felt like a chore. Maybe musical biographers ought to supplement their work with a companion website where excerpts could be listened to as you read the book.

[Richard Thompson · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoyed learning more about Schoenberg's life. I was not surprised to find out how much he struggled to earn enough money to support himself or how long it took for his talent to be recognized. When your career is composing inaccessible music, that's to be expected. I did not know about his conversion to Lutheranism and then back to Judaism. And I had thought that by the time he moved to Los Angeles, he was acclaimed as a genius and must have lived comfortably. Not so, though he managed to buy a house in an area where the teardowns start at $5m today.

The big question posed by the book which isn't finally satisfactorily answered is why he matters. His music is little played today, and I confess that it doesn't appeal to me, though perhaps it would grow on me if I listened to more of it, which Mr. Sachs tells us is necessary. Mr. Sachs says that there is deep emotion and beauty there that comes out with repeated listening. He also says that the brilliance is evident to a trained musician who looks at the music on the page. Moreover, there are bits and pieces of his approach in a lot of modern music, so that's a sort of legacy, and there are some modern composers who consciously go the other way in reaction to him. That's another sort of legacy.

[Vicki · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have loved Schoenberg since my days at Cal Arts. This is an interesting take on Schoenberg and his work. I'm not positive that Sachs gets to the root of why this composer matters so much, though. There's little about who he influences and how (except Berg and Webern - very important, obviously - but what about Boulez, very little here). Schoenberg matters because he and Stravinsky blew open 2oth century music, and even though 12 tone music is not strictly used much these days, their influence can be seen almost anywhere: in avant-garde jazz, in film music, in choral music with extended techniques - it's endless. I was hoping for more of an argument for his brilliance and influence, and less about how knotty and difficult his music is to understand. I appreciate that it's not a one-dimensional portrait, but I think that reading Schoenberg's book of essays, "Style and Ideas" gives you a better sense of why Schoenberg REALLY Matters.

[Ethan Glattfelder · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoyed parts of this book, which is less of a biography and more of an analysis of how and why Schoenberg’s musical idiom fell into and then out of favor throughout the twentieth century. I struggled a bit with the slightness of the book (only just over 200 pages), which wasn’t enough for me to develop an appreciation for the subject. I also think the book’s project is a bit doomed from the start, since the author’s answer to “Why Schoenberg matters” is that he doesn’t anymore, at least not to the general music-listening public. Another paradox in the book is Schoenberg’s insistence that he wanted people to listen to what his music said, rather than focusing on how it says it — that is, the structure and form (in this case of the serialist style he innovated). That’s fine, but it does mean the biographer is left with little to discuss except for the point that you have to listen to Schoenberg as much as you can stand, except you won’t want to.

[Anjali · Rating 5 out of 5]

I cannot believe I voluntarily picked up a book about Arnold Schoenberg, let alone gave it five stars and voluntarily listened to many of Schoenberg's compositions in between chapters, and yet here we are. This is not a heavy tome with a boring recitation of biographical facts. Instead, Sachs gives us Schoenberg's life and work with an entertaining and thoughtful insight that (I think) will even appeal to the nonmusical layperson who is interested in this composer's impact on the world of classical music. I have never been more glad of my Apple Music (Classical) subscription, as there were multiple options of recordings for most of the works mentioned in this book. It really furthered my enjoyment of the book to stop and listen to a piece and reflect on it before continuing on with the book.

[Paul Narvaez · Rating 3 out of 5]

Schoenberg, who was one of those composers you had to know about when studying 20th Century music was the person who made the music many people disliked, but to a young person who thought that Mozart & Brahms were pretty "square", sparked my interest in how strange it sounded. Sure, he was arrogant, but he also needed a thick skin given the constant attacks throughout his career. This book argues, that while his time has come and likely gone, considering his mid-century reputation has lost its luster, he's still important, if underappreciated by most of the current crop of composers who have little interest in his project or find comfort in creating something less tied either the romantic music or twelve-tone theory that he "popularized" (as opposed to "made popular" which never happened).

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nice short (220 pg) biography about the 20th century composer. You get a feel for Schoenberg's personality in this book. The author is also not afraid to state his own opnions about his music, but is fair-minded. Now I need to relisten to his music - I went through a phase some years ago but have not listened since, except for Gurrelieder.

[N · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting take on Schoenberg's life and music. Sachs says you don't need to know much about music to appreciate Schoenberg, or understand the book, which is true. But some familiarity with basic theory, symphonic and other classical forms, and atonal music helps. Worth reading for a clear eyed understanding of Schoenberg's place in 20thC, modern music.

[Jonathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not just a tight, brief musical biography, but a clear-eyed arrow at the question: why has post-tonal music failed to resonate, with the possible exception of background sound in nature documentaries? Sachs asks it, and might not be able to answer it, but he works damned hard to explain why and how Schoenberg hoped it would, and why we might just get on the side of such a misanthrope.

[Janne · Rating 3 out of 5]

I felt I needed to know more about Schoenberg to (maybe) be able to appreciate his music and this book did accomplish that for me. I am still not ready to go buy a CD of his compositions, but I can understand the importance of his contribution.

[James Shaw Jr. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very well written. You cannot separate Schoenberg's music theory from Schoenberg the man, and Sachs effectively weaves both with the story of how his music affected others' music for the next hundred years. This book is destined to become the definitive biography of Schoenberg.

[Eric Sbar · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have always been interested in music and the avant garde. Schoenberg is a composer who I remain curious about due to his compositional effect on jazz more than classical music. This book was an easy guide to a complicated man

[Jerry Cutting · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an excellent companion book to guide you in the exploration of Schoenberg's music. It gives you reference points (pieces of music) to check out as an introduction to the composer. It will take you some time to explore them hand in hand with this book so budget your time accordingly.

[Lorenzo Sivilotti · Rating 4 out of 5]

A charming encouragement to engage open-mindedly with Schoenberg and his works on their own terms, its weaknesses are yet its strengths—short, superficial, unpretentious, approachable, and above all, sincere.
7/10

[francie · Rating 4 out of 5]

fun read! i'm not much of a non-fiction girly or a serialism girly (or most 20th century music) but this was actually quite interesting (if a little boring at times, although that kind of comes with the territory of biographies) and now i know a bunch of obscure shit about schoenberg.

[Jessica · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not an exhaustive bio or review of works, but a curious reflection of Schoenberg's work and significance from the explorations of the author. A nice refresher before visiting the Schoenberg Center in Vienna.

[Glenn Stenquist · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book and informative for anyone interested in music

[Bennie Conway · Rating 1 out of 5]

I love this story.you nailed it

[Tyler J Hinds · Rating 3 out of 5]

6.4

[Diehljk · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very readable, very helpful guide to a very formidable composer. Sachs is doubtful about Schoenberg’s legacy but leaves the reader with reasons to invest in listening to him.

[JerryDeanHalleck · Rating 2 out of 5]

Well, I read it, and Im still not sure why Schoenberg matters. Mr. S seems to be one of those musicians that are more enjoyable to read about then listen to. And is hyped for all sorts of reasons, none of which is the actual music.

But I agre that Schoenberg was *different*. And complex. And he was new (at the time). But his music isn't that great.

This book more or less highlights the difference between the average "fan" of various art forms and the critics/writers/artists/musicians. The average "Fan" listens to great music, sees great plays, reads great novels, observes great paintings because they give him enjoyment. He doesn't really listen, read, or see that much art or music. OTOH, the critics and the artists live, eat, and dream, about the art form. They soon get tired of the all "the greatest hits". They get bored. And they become attracted to the new, the complex, the different.

Its understandable. But their praise of the new/complex/different, misleads the average "fan". Because "new", "Complex" "Different" doesnt equal good. Whether a piece of art or music is "Great" or "good" - its intrinsic value - exists separately from complexity or being new or different.
And as time goes on, things stop being "new" or "Different". All that remains is their intrinsic value. Schoenberg's music, for example, in 2025, isn't new or different. It is "complex". But that's it.

[James Henderson · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fascinating view of this important composer.

[John B · Rating 1 out of 5]

One should ask "why this book matters?" This is a much too general overview of Schoenberg.