I'm trying to recall if we talked about Schoenberg very much in my years at university. I don't think we did. We talked a lot about Bartók, Shostakovich, DuFay (not much about Messiaen), and a host of others so obscure I don't even recall their names. But Schoenberg? Despite the fact that he was and is a huge boulder in the stream of music history, professors deftly execute manoeuvres to slip by Schoenberg without engaging. Why is this?
Early in the volume of the Oxford History of Music devoted to the early twentieth century, Richard Taruskin handles Schoenberg by setting him alongside contemporaries like Mahler and Richard Strauss, framing him as just another modernist of the day. The main chapter on Schoenberg, subtitled "Schoenberg, Webern, and Expressionism; Atonality," observes:
Schoenberg's whole career was fraught with ironies, contradiction, and ambiguities, beginning with the paradox that one of the outstanding academic music theorists and composition teachers of the twentieth century was himself self-taught.
In a similar irony, the greatest composer of all was just an underpaid church musician in Saxony, also pretty much self-taught.
The claim I want to make, after trying to figure out Schoenberg for much of my musical life is that he is not just an important modernist, or inventor of atonal music, or composition teacher--no, Schoenberg is actually the most important composer of the twentieth century--certainly the first half, and probably of the whole century. Never mind his social alienation, his difficult reconciliation with his Jewish heritage or his struggles with the musical establishment. He just wrote the most important music, next to which the music of so many of his well-known contemporaries is mere lemon meringue.
Let's have some examples. His early rival was Stravinsky, who attended one of the first performances of Pierrot Lunaire and was impressed. He had just written The Rite of Spring, which many (myself included) have considered the greatest work of the twentieth century. But, you know, with a bit more thoughtful consideration, while The Rite is a brilliant ballet based on primitive Russian themes--an astonishing compilation of so many harmonic, melodic and rhythmic inventions that it still feels avant-garde, Pierrot on the other hand is actually a deeper and more profound work, synthesizing much of the devices in Western music into an expressionist tapestry of unique expression: a new kind of ensemble (since imitated many times), a new vocal technique (Sprechstimme), a new kind of music theatre and so on. The measure of just how radical this music is, is that while it took audiences a year or two to appreciate The Rite, most audiences today, over a century later, still don't know what to make of Pierrot.
I could go on, listing other pieces by Schoenberg that easily surpass in their substance more famous pieces: Verklärte Nacht over Berg's Lyric Suite, the Piano Concerto, op 42 over any piano concerto by Stravinsky or Prokofiev (but yes, those by Bartók stand up pretty well), the Violin Concerto, op 36 over any violin concerto by Stravinsky, Bartók, Prokofiev and so on (but, the Violin Concerto no. 1 by Shostakovich is pretty good competition), even the opera Moses und Aron over Wozzeck or a bunch of other 20th century operas (but I haven't such a broad knowledge of them, so I accept correction), and so on. The point is, just about everything Schoenberg wrote was and is hugely important. And I haven't even mentioned all the amazing piano music.
The empirical reason I am saying this is, in this 150th anniversary of Schoenberg's birth, as I come back to listen to some pieces, I realize that I have been listening to them all along, never stopped listening to them and I want to hear music by Schoenberg more than almost any other music. It is pure, solid, musical truth, and there is not a lot of that around.