從「無調性」到「十二音列」：荀貝格的心路歷程與達爾豪斯評論

From “Atonality” to “Twelve-tone Method”: Schoenberg’s Mind and Dahlhaus’ Comment

1908 年，荀貝格 (Arnold Schoenberg, 1874-1951) 與魏本 (Anton Webern, 1883-1945) 發表了一批具實驗性質的音樂作品。驚世駭俗的創作風格，日後被廣泛地稱為「無調性」(atonality)，也讓荀貝格成為廿世紀備受爭議的作曲家。除了晦澀難懂、不為廣大群眾所喜以外，一般人爭論的焦點是：無調性音樂是否違反調性的自然？而針對各項批評、指控，荀貝格的反應令人印象深刻：他摒棄「無調性」這個詞，他大聲疾呼「無調性」沒有違背自然規律，並在實務上具體地提出「十二音列作曲法」(Twelve-tone Method)，深信藉此可以代替由調性以及和聲所提供的功能。本文以「無調性」音樂早期的紛擾為起點，試著蒐集當時輿論對「無調性」音樂的看法與態度，接著從荀貝格著作中摘錄要點，以窺其創作過程中的心路歷程，最後以德國音樂學家卡爾．達爾豪斯 (Carl Dahlhaus, 1928-1989) 的論述為中心，就下面兩個問題進行詮釋：第一，「無調性」是音樂的自然，還是歷史的結果？第二，荀氏後來發展出的「十二音列作曲法」，是否可以取代傳統和聲調性？荀貝格作曲過程中的「無調性」與「十二音列作曲法」，一向廣為人知，本論文佐以達爾豪斯的評論與詮釋，希望提供國內相關研究一些新的觀察角度。

In 1908, Arnold Schoenberg (1874-1951) and Anton Webern (1883-1945) published a number of musical works of an experimental nature. This creative shift, later widely known as “atonality”, also made Schoenberg become a controversial composer in the Twentieth Century. In addition to being obscure and unpopular, the common criticism of this the shift in musical approach is: “Does atonal music depart from humanity? Is atonal music against nature?” Schoenberg’s response to these questions was impressive. On one hand, he mercilessly abandoned the word “atonality”, whereas on the other, he defended so-called “atonality” and later specifically proposed a “Twelve-tone Method” in practice, in the firm belief that the method can replace the functions that the traditional tonal method provided. This article begins from the early difficulties of atonal music, attempts to gather the views and attitudes regarding this approach, and then extracts some passages from Schoenberg’s writings, which may reveal his mindset during the course of his work. Particular comments regarding this issue made by Carl Dahlhaus (1928-1989) at the end of this paper will be elaborated upon. First, is “atonality” in the nature of music or the result of history? Second, can the “Twelve-tone Method” developed by Schoenberg replace traditional “tonality”? “Atonality” and the “Twelve-tone Method” have been well known for those interested in music. With Dahlhaus’ comments, it is hoped that the interpretation of these issues can provide some perspectives for further research into Schoenberg.