I like Schoenberg's music, his writings, his theory. All very impressive, useful, actually anything but orthodox even though associated with orthodoxy or conservatism. Structural Functions of Harmony is a totally weird text. I probably share Richard's feeling of being put off by the music, but what's off-putting about it is actually at the same time thoroughly intriguing. I am compelled to question what it is exactly that I find so off-putting.

Has anyone taken the time to read Martha Hyde's analyses of his twelve-tone music? She very much disagrees with the notion that Schoenberg's approach to Form and to Satz were very traditional (melody, bass, accompaniment) while the notes were made through rows; instead, she delves into the sketches to demonstrate that the pitch distribution technique (in e.g., op. 29 especially) was formulated so as to make the twelve-tone organization as clear as possible. He may have been just as much of a structure-freak as his pupils Berg and Webern were. Webern being the famously structure-freaky and Berg the more latently structure-freaky¹.

Well, I'd like to figure it out a little better myself, so take this as the expression of a desire to hear from those who've read Hyde and as a recommendation to in fact read her work if you're interested in that sort of thing.

¹ A former mentor (Schwehr) tells of his theory professor (Förtig) undertaking an analysis of the third mvt of Chamber Concerto, by first transcribing the thing, using one color for materials taken from the 1st mvt, another color for the materials (notes) taken from the second mvt. Apparently there weren't many notes left over.

Coming to this thread a bit late, I know... But S'berg's a difficult one for me. I just can't seem to get on either with most of the early, pre-1908 music (except for the Lieder which are wonderful and are far too infrequently performed), or with most of the 12-tone music (except perhaps the orchestral Variations). What does it for me, across the board, is his music c. 1908 (!)-c. 1923, the misnamed 'free atonal' period. I can't think of anything he wrote in those years that isn't extraordinary in one way or another. Pierrot Lunaire, sure. The orchestral pieces, definitely. But I'd pick Ewartung as tops. It's awesomely beautiful and full of dark, overpowering invention. Sometimes when I think of the music of that period, and S's adoption of a pretty conservative syntax and approach to structure after 'inventing' the 12-note method, I think he was actually rather scared or daunted by what he'd unleashed (in himself, I mean); and that the 12-note method was in a sense a way of closing his doors rather than opening them.

Well, I like all three, Pim! But I'd certainly agree that Webern's and Berg's 12-tone work is far, far more integrated and 'comfortable', expressively, with the technique than Schoenberg's. I just can't escape the impression that S invented the bluddy thing in order to feel more comfortable about old structures and climaxes/ cadences/ organic linkage/ harmonic consistency... whereas Webern and Berg could see the real potential for utterly new musical thinking. This is why Boulez proclaimed S'berg to be 'dead' in 1951 on the occasion of his, er, death. He was alluding to rather more than human mortality.

Ah, Pierre! Perceptive as ever ...