# Arnold Schoenberg (1874 – 1951)



## Bach

Such an intellectual composer - the only composer that frightens more or less all western society fifty years after his death.


----------



## Tapkaara

Is "frighten" the word? I don't know. What about "perplex," revolt" or "irritate?"

Sorry, I am not a Schonbergian. I think he sould be creditied as a musical pioneer to some extent: he did develop the 12-tone system which has become (and still is) a viable and, dare I say, popular compositional style. But when I say viable, I mean that it works "technically," but on a purely "musical" level, I believe, for the most part, it does not.

I believe music is so much more than technique, it is true art - it is created in the mind of the artist/composer to be artistically, psychologically and, finally, emotionally appealing. I find too much artifice and ugliness is Schonberg, I'm afraid.

There will be lots of variance fo opinion in this thread, and I am looking forward to it. There will be those who would defind Schonberg to the death and those, like me, who don't get it.


----------



## Lang

I've never been able to understand why people can't 'get' Schoenberg. He was a great composer, and there was nothing cold or emotionless about his music. Listening to some of his works, Verklarte Nacht, A Survivor From Warsaw, Moses und Aron, for example, can be an emotionally overwhelming experience.


----------



## Tapkaara

Well, perhaps hs early works were rooted in a post-Mahlerian late-Romanticism and contained a healthy dosage of angst and emotion. But, it's just something I feel I could ever latch onto. And I have tried! Perhaps I feel his music of that period lacks a certain sincerity, that is very present in the works of Mahler. Just my own personal gut feeling.

Once the 12-tone thing kicked into full effect, he loses me completely.

But alas, Lang, as you cannot understand why people don't like him, there will be as many who don't understand why you do. 

What on earth could possibly be more subjective than the appreciation of art?


----------



## JTech82

The reason people don't "get" Schoenberg is because there's nothing to "get." He composed terrible music that had no kind of lyrical or emotional qualities whatsoever. It was too modern for it's own good. It lacked heartbreak, soul, and most important beauty.

Innovator/pioneer he may be, but I don't see how anyone in their right mind could enjoy him. Totally inaccessible to my ear.


----------



## World Violist

I've absolutely never understand 12-tone stuff; that said, I haven't found any of Schoenberg's earlier music either, so I can't say anything definite about the earlier Schoenberg.

Apart from the early works I have not yet heard, I'm afraid I agree totally with Tapkaara.


----------



## Sid James

Although his music is definitely not easy listening, I think it still has value. Just look at the impact he made on his contemporaries like Berg and Webern (and generations beyond). I mean, in a way, some of the best music is challenging. I think that if you can't get beyond Mahler and Sibelius, then good for you, but its no use bagging Schonberg who is their equal in many ways.


----------



## Tapkaara

I can get beyond Sibelius and Mahler very easily. I admire Stravinksy (except his 12-tone works), Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Wojciech Kilar, Einojuhani Rautavaara and so on and so on.

The difference between these composers and Schonberg, however, is that it is music that does sound, for the most part, what I consider to be music. You mentioned "easy listening". I wouldn't consider a whole lot of Stravinsky to be "easy listening," (Les Noces?!) for example, but he often (at least in his earlier works) did not go to the extremes Schonberg was often so wont to do. So, I guess I have a limit.

I'm sorry if my musings on Schonberg is hurting anyone's feelings,; I am not trying to be nasty about it. Just sayin', though, he is not my cup of tea and sitting through his, for example, String Trio op. 45 does not amount to a satisfying listening experience for me.


----------



## JTech82

Andre said:


> Although his music is definitely not easy listening, I think it still has value. Just look at the impact he made on his contemporaries like Berg and Webern (and generations beyond). I mean, in a way, some of the best music is challenging. I think that if you can't get beyond Mahler and Sibelius, then good for you, but its no use bagging Schonberg who is their equal in many ways.


Music that is technically proficient doesn't mean it's good and/or better than something that is more simplistic. Did you ever hear the saying "Less is more." In Schoenberg's case, he did do something completely different and not many people liked it and still don't. I compare him with Ornette Coleman in jazz music, but in my opinion these guys like Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern didn't make meaningful, beautiful music. They put their own radical ideas ahead of lyricism, harmony, melody, rhythm, and structure, which ultimately diminished the quality of the music.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

Why would something as simple as atonal or serial frighten anyone? The onlything complex in it is it's inability to be comprehensible.



> I think it still has value


Deffinately! but it often fails at expressing beauty, the closest is Berg's violin Concerto.... but.... that is actually tonal more or less.

GOD I HATE PC KEYBOARDS THEY ARE SO FOUL. /otrant


----------



## Lang

JTech82 said:


> The reason people don't "get" Schoenberg is because there's nothing to "get." He composed terrible music that had no kind of lyrical or emotional qualities whatsoever. It was too modern for it's own good. It lacked heartbreak, soul, and most important beauty.
> 
> Innovator/pioneer he may be, but I don't see how anyone in their right mind could enjoy him. Totally inaccessible to my ear.


Oh, so I am not in my right mind? Thanks very much. It seems to me that you making definitive statements based on your own subjective impressions. We all do it to a certain extent, but this is an egregious example.


----------



## Lang

Tapkaara said:


> Well, perhaps hs early works were rooted in a post-Mahlerian late-Romanticism and contained a healthy dosage of angst and emotion. But, it's just something I feel I could ever latch onto. And I have tried! Perhaps I feel his music of that period lacks a certain sincerity, that is very present in the works of Mahler. Just my own personal gut feeling.


You think Verklarte Nacht _lacks sincerity_? That seems to me a very strange point of view. Mind you, it's interesting that contemporary critics of many composers criticise them for their very strengths. For example, Mahler was criticised for lack of structure; Beethoven for musical incompetence, and Schoenberg for being emotionless.



Tapkaara said:


> What on earth could possibly be more subjective than the appreciation of art?


Now that is very true. Which is why I try not to make objective statements about the worth of composers whom I personally don't like.


----------



## Tapkaara

I think I've made it clear that my views on Schonberg are quite *subjective,* not objective. I'm not sure there is such a thing as on objective opinion, for starters, and I don't recall anywhere in this thread making a statement against him without making it clear that it was *my stance*, and not necessarily the last word on the subject.

I am not definitively declaring him to be a bad composer. I am saying that it is merely my opinion that he is.

But maybe "bad" isn't the word. "Unappealing" works better for me. Unappealing *to me*, that is. But if you find something in his work that touches you, than more power to you.


----------



## Lang

Tapkaara said:


> I think I've made it clear that my views on Schonberg are quite *subjective,* not objective.


Yes, which is why I agreed with you. The only statement you did make which struck me as an objective criticism was that the music lacked sincerity, and you did qualify that with 'I feel'.



Tapkaara said:


> I am not definitively declaring him to be a bad composer. I am saying that it is merely my opinion that he is.


But that is just sophistry!


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> The reason people don't "get" Schoenberg is because there's nothing to "get." He composed terrible music that had no kind of lyrical or emotional qualities whatsoever. It was too modern for it's own good. It lacked heartbreak, soul, and most important beauty. However, Pierrot Lunaire is one of the few pieces of his (of his atonal phase) that I find expressive. Again, it still can only paint a 'grotesque' expression, whether on top of beauty or not, but that grotesque expression pervades the beauty.
> 
> Innovator/pioneer he may be, but I don't see how anyone in their right mind could enjoy him. Totally inaccessible to my ear.


The successors to his reign did a much better job at expressing anything at all. Much like how Wagner took Berlioz and made it more expressive. Pioneers rarely are the best in what they have pioneered (rare examples are Beethoven* and Debussy), it is often (from what I see) those that actively use the new work and turn it into music.



> What on earth could possibly be more subjective than the appreciation of art?


I hope you are not trying to say that art _cannot_ be appreciated objectively...


----------



## R-F

While I'm definately _not_ a fan of Schoenberg's music, I'm not going to call it awful music, or anything like that. So many composers and musicians, obviously more intelligent than my humble self, have embraced this style of music. The way I see it, there must be something very appealing about this music if so many people embrace it.

However, I think I'll focus on appreciating Opera before I try to appreciate serialism.


----------



## Tapkaara

Yagan Kiely said:


> I hope you are not trying to say that art _cannot_ be appreciated objectively...


Um, I think I am saying that. The old bit of wisodm that "Art is in the eye (or in this case, ear) of the beholder has held up so well over the ages because it is so darn true.

If one begins to make OBJECTIVE statements about art, then they are attmpting to make statements that are not opinion, but actually true.

Appreciation of art is a purely subjective experience. Schonberg's music should make this quite obvious: I find nothing but ugly sound in his output, yet others hear something else, something musically satisfying...and this is all from listening to the same work/composer. I say it's ugly, and someone else says it's music...who is REALLy right? I'd like to think I'm right, but the other guy thinks he's just as right as me. Which of us has the right/authority to make the OBJECTIVE statement that is definitevly true of what we've just heard. Alas, neither.


----------



## Herzeleide

Tapkaara said:


> Is "frighten" the word? I don't know. What about "perplex," revolt" or "irritate?"


The words are _épater les bougeoisie_.



Tapkaara said:


> Sorry, I am not a Schonbergian. I think he sould be creditied as a musical pioneer to some extent: he did develop the 12-tone system which has become (and still is) a viable and, dare I say, popular compositional style.


It's not a compositional style.



Tapkaara said:


> But when I say viable, I mean that it works "technically," but on a purely "musical" level, I believe, for the most part, it does not.


Such assertions depend on how the method is used - it can be used musically or not musically.



Tapkaara said:


> I believe music is so much more than technique, it is true art - it is created in the mind of the artist/composer to be artistically, psychologically and, finally, emotionally appealing.


I agree



Tapkaara said:


> I find too much artifice and ugliness is Schonberg, I'm afraid.
> 
> There will be lots of variance fo opinion in this thread, and I am looking forward to it. There will be those who would defind Schonberg to the death and those, like me, who don't get it.


Is this a diatribe against Schoenberg or atonal/twelve-tone/serial music _per se_?


----------



## Herzeleide

JTech82 said:


> Music that is technically proficient doesn't mean it's good and/or better than something that is more simplistic. Did you ever hear the saying "Less is more." In Schoenberg's case, he did do something completely different and not many people liked it and still don't. I compare him with Ornette Coleman in jazz music, but in my opinion these guys like Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern didn't make meaningful, beautiful music. They put their own radical ideas ahead of lyricism, harmony, melody, rhythm, and structure, which ultimately diminished the quality of the music.


Their radical ideas were ALL ABOUT harmony, melody, structure and to a lesser extent rhythm, and a lot of their music - especially by Berg - is intensely lyrical.


----------



## Tapkaara

Herzeleide said:


> It's not a compositional style.]?


Please explain why you think 12-tone/Serialism is not a style/method of composing music...



Herzeleide said:


> Is this a diatribe against Schoenberg or atonal/twelve-tone/serial music _per se_?


I wouldn't call my comments "diatribe!" At any rate, I suppose I am speaking out against Schonberg AND Serialism.

Mind you, I have heard Serialist works that actually sound more "beautiful" than most of Schonberg. Toru Takemitsu was the occasional serialist, and while I don't tend to be head over heels for his work either, his compositions don't grind and groan like Schonberg, and there is, dare I say, a modicum of poetry in how he handles this type of composition.

Be that as it may, my tastes don't lie with Schonberg or Serialism in general, thus my comments on the subject.

Atonal is different because there are no tone rows. Often, this music is also something I can take or leave. Icelandic composer Jon Leifs often wrote in an atonal idiom, and I find many of his works to be fairly attractive, believ it or not. I guess he handles atonality in such a way that he still creates something that falls pleasantly on my ears. Go figure!


----------



## Herzeleide

Tapkaara said:


> Please explain why you think 12-tone/Serialism is not a style/method of composing music...


Style and method are not the same thing. It is indeed a method of producing material of at least one parameter of the music.


----------



## Tapkaara

Herzeleide said:


> Style and method are not the same thing. It is indeed a method of producing material of at least one parameter of the music.


Well, maybe at this point we are just mincing words, and maybe my choice of wording could have been more precise at the start, but at least we can agree that Serialism is, at least, a method!


----------



## Bach

A lot of people (especially those who use subjectivism in their arguments) are artistically ignorant on this board, however - Herzeleide shares my precise sentiment.


----------



## Tapkaara

Bach said:


> A lot of people (especially those who use subjectivism in their arguments) are artistically ignorant on this board, however - Herzeleide shares my precise sentiment.


I hope you are not saying that people who don't care for Schonberg are artistically ignorant. I think that is patently unfair.


----------



## Guest

What a comfort it must be to live in such a simple world. Objective (true). Subjective (opinion). Or is it so simple? Tapkaara has said over and over again that he (or she) doesn't understand Schoenberg (note the spelling, please), that his traducing of Schoenberg is merely his opinion. But if that were true, Tapkaara wouldn't be continuing to post, would he? I mean, what would be the point?

Fact is, there's a definite subtext to all this. The subtext to "this is my opinion" is "my opinion is more valuable than anyone else's." (In JTech82's posts, this subtext even comes up to the surface, as Lang noted to his dismay.) Tapkaara and Yagan Kiely and JTech82 and World Violist have all said they don't like Schoenberg. OK, fine. But the questions are raised: "Who are you? What are your qualifications for expressing an opinion on this matter?" Some of these posters have supplied an answer, even: "I am someone who doesn't understand twelve-tone music." 

Now there's a fine validation of one's opinion! "I don't understand this, therefore my opinion on it is valid and must be respected."

I wonder how this discussion would have gone had all the posters agreed ahead of time not to use the words "objective" and "subjective"? Most of the comments, good or bad, have been opinions and therefore subjective. That says nothing one way or the other about their validity, however. And that's been at the heart of this discussion so far, has it not? Whose opinions are valid and whose are not? Tapkaara says "Which of us has the right/authority to make the OBJECTIVE statement that is definitevly true of what we've just heard. Alas, neither." 

Other than the misuse of "objective" that bedevils these kinds of threads, that comment strikes me, as do many other comments on these threads, as ever so slightly disingenuous. The subtext here being "No one is right, but I'm more right than anyone else." Why else would Tapkaara keep posting his opinions on the matter if he didn't think they were somehow valid? 

Here's a new thing to consider, something to replace the jejune (and often impertinent) objective/subjective way of dividing up the world: opinions can be valid or invalid. What makes an opinion one or the other? A valid opinion is one based on knowledge and understanding (so "I don't get it" doesn't cut it). An invalid opinion will be composed solely of categorical assertions with no support: "He composed terrible music that had no kind of lyrical or emotional qualities whatsoever."

The most sensible kind of comment from someone who doesn't understand the music will look something like this: "While I'm definately not a fan of Schoenberg's music, I'm not going to call it awful music, or anything like that. So many composers and musicians, obviously more intelligent than my humble self, have embraced this style of music. The way I see it, there must be something very appealing about this music if so many people embrace it."

Indeed.


----------



## Bach

Tapkaara said:


> I hope you are not saying that people who don't care for Schonberg are artistically ignorant. I think that is patently unfair.


No, absolutely not - but saying that Schoenberg is rubbish is wrong.


----------



## Tapkaara

OK, as for the "Schonberg" spelling, his name is actually spelled "Schönberg." I've been spelling it minus the umlaut. SchoEnberg is the English version of his name, and I have obviously elected not to use it.

Please, Some Guy, please don't be surprised I continue to post on this topic. This is a forum and, in forums, we exchange ideas. Am I only supposed to post once that I don't care for Schonberg (or shall I say Schönberg...or shall I say Schoenberg) and leave it at that and not explain myself or elaborate on or clarify past postings? Even if people respond to my posts? I'm just responding to others' responses to me.

Who am I? What are my qualifications to have an opinion on this? Well, who are you, first of all? Let me guess, you are a composer, a musicologist or someone who has been a devote of classical music longer than me. OK, you're right, I am not entitled to my opinion because I'm just a guy who buys recordings. 

I know that many will think of me as an idiot, uneducated, unseasoned, etc. because I don't care for Schonberg (or should I say Schönberg...or should I say Schoenberg). Objective, subjective, understand, don't understand, like, don't like, etc...blah, blah, blah. The bottom line, folks, is I do not like this composer and that's that. I guess that makes me an outsider to the elite world of knowing what is art and what isn't, but I am comfortable here and I sincerely hope my lack of appreciation for this man's music doesn't offend anyone.

But why is there is "us" and "them" mentalilty going on in this thread? I have not attacked anyone for saying they like this composer. I have not tried to discredit anyone's knowledge of music because they like him. I'm surprised that I now have this bullseye on my forehead for saying I do not care for the guy and 12-tone music in general. Mind you, I am a fan of classical music like everyone else in here, but I think it's safe to assume we will not always see eye to eye on what we like. We should "celebrate diversity" and say "OK, I see your points...I wish you had a different view on this, but I will respect your thoughts."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I sense a real hostility towards me, and have even been asked "Who are you to make this opinion?" suggesting somehow that I'm not qualified to not like him. That's insulting and unfair.

(Perhaps I should stop posting now...?)


----------



## Bach

I respect your opinion, and I can fully understand why you wouldn't want to listen to Schoenberg.


----------



## Tapkaara

Bach said:


> I respect your opinion, and I can fully understand why you wouldn't want to listen to Schoenberg.


Bach, I appreciate that. (I just hope you're not being sarcastic!) Although we disagree, we have a mutual respect for each other's opinions and I would never question your "classical cred" or sense of taste for liking someone I do not.

I never said to anyone "YOU should not like Schonberg (or should I say Schönberg...or should I say Schoenberg) because of XYZ, I have only said that *I* do not like him because of XYZ.

After all, I think this thread was created so we could discuss our differing views on a controversial figure...did anyone really expect this thread to be one big love-in?


----------



## JTech82

I will post again regarding Schoenberg and his "school of composing" in which Berg and Webern followed.

I don't like it because I don't agree with the tone row system of composing music. I mean it's one thing to hint at these kinds of ideas in a composition, but to design a whole piece of music around tone rows, which by the way are a series of notes that are totally unrelated to each other, is a preposterous way to compose music. It's just a technique, but technique is not a means within itself. Music has to have melody, harmony, structure, and rhythm. Even as loose as jazz music is it has structure, melody, harmony, and rhythm, though the improvisational aspect of jazz what makes it what it is.

There have been plenty of radicals of classical music: Stravinsky, Debussy, Bruckner, etc., that composed classical very differently, BUT these composers never lost sight of all the elements of the music I listed and they never lost sight of beauty and the lyrical quality of music.

You fans of Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern can come back with all the counter arguments you want to, but the reality is not many people are into their music. There's a reason they're looked at as pioneers and not timeless, classic composers, because they didn't create a bond between themselves and the listener in their works. They chose to create music that is inaccessible and not friendly to the average listener. It's music of the mind and not of the heart.

A composer should never sacrifice the impact of lyricism and beauty in music.

This is a debate that has been going on a very long time, but I chose not to debate it. I chose to listen to what I like and not what All Music Guide tells me to like. If I listened to them, I would have everything Berg, Schoenberg, Webern, Hindesmith, etc. ever did, which proves my point of only you know what you like and I know I don't like the 12-tone row way of composing. For better or for worse, this is how I feel about it.

So I'm not merely dismissing the composers, I'm dismissing the music. There's a difference. I'm done with this thread.


----------



## Guest

Tapkaara said:


> OK, you're right, I am not entitled to my opinion because I'm just a guy who buys recordings.


My post was about language and how threads go awry owing to misuse and evasion. If I make a comment about an opinion of yours, that's all there is to it. No comment about you, personally. About what you say, sure.



Tapkaara said:


> I know that many will think of me as an idiot, uneducated, unseasoned, etc. because I don't care for Schonberg (or should I say Schönberg...or should I say Schoenberg).


No, your caring or not caring for Schoenberg is not the point. Your opinion, whatever it is, should be supported, that's all. And if all it comes down to is "I do not like this composer and that's that," then that's not a very useful opinion. It says something, a very little something about you and your listening habits, and nothing about Schoenberg. And it's not just you. Several other posters have said nothing more than "I do not like this composer." Well? So what? I don't like Bax. But I never go on Bax threads to say that. It would be pointless.



Tapkaara said:


> Why is there is "us" and "them" mentalilty going on in this thread? I have not attacked anyone for saying they like this composer. I have not tried to discredit anyone's knowledge of music because they like him. I'm surprised that I now have this bullseye on my forehead for saying I do not care for the guy and 12-tone music in general. Mind you, I am a fan of classical music like everyone else in here, but I think it's safe to assume we will not always see eye to eye on what we like. We should "celebrate diversity" and say "OK, I see your points...I wish you had a different view on this, but I will respect your thoughts."


I wish your points expressed something more than that very little something about you. That they genuinely expressed something about Schoenberg.



Tapkaara said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I sense a real hostility towards me, and have even been asked "Who are you to make this opinion?" suggesting somehow that I'm not qualified to not like him.


You're wrong. No hostility towards you. (I don't even know you.) The question "Who are you?" arises simply from comments that explicitly identify themselves as opinions: "in my opinion," "to my ears"--things like that. It's that kind of statement that raises the question. That kind of statement explicitly says that it's saying something about the person doing the stating, thus raising the question "Who is the person?" Nothing personal. Just an observation about the type of statement that you (and many others) have made.

As for being qualified to not like him, that's not the point. You don't need any qualifications to like or dislike things. You should however have some qualifications for making judgments about the things you like or don't like. One way to assure us that you do is to get beyond "I do not like this composer, and that's that."


----------



## Tapkaara

Well, I appreciate your comments, Some Guy.

Like Jtech, I too am going to bow out of this discusion. But I think he summed up fairly well my thoughts on this school of composition. Lyricism and beauty at the expense of technique and theory. I know, I know, there is lyricism and there is beauty in the 2nd Viennese School. How can I say that? I know, I know, I know. But this is where this just becomes a back and forth with no end in sight.

So, I will now bow out and I wish everyone in this thread many happy and through-provoking exchanges!


----------



## World Violist

some guy said:


> Fact is, there's a definite subtext to all this. The subtext to "this is my opinion" is "my opinion is more valuable than anyone else's." (In JTech82's posts, this subtext even comes up to the surface, as Lang noted to his dismay.) Tapkaara and Yagan Kiely and JTech82 and World Violist have all said they don't like Schoenberg. OK, fine. But the questions are raised: "Who are you? What are your qualifications for expressing an opinion on this matter?" Some of these posters have supplied an answer, even: "I am someone who doesn't understand twelve-tone music."


Well, by this reasoning, none of us should even bother saying who our favorite composers are (composer guestbooks or otherwise) lest we shoot each other down for it.

Point being, someone could give a million reasons why he/she hates J. S. Bach, but still I bet many of us active members would say something to the effect of "you're ignorant." Why bother giving any reasons for disliking Schoenberg if we're just going to be told we shouldn't, whether or not these reasons are valid?


----------



## JTech82

World Violist said:


> Well, by this reasoning, none of us should even bother saying who our favorite composers are (composer guestbooks or otherwise) lest we shoot each other down for it.
> 
> Point being, someone could give a million reasons why he/she hates J. S. Bach, but still I bet many of us active members would say something to the effect of "you're ignorant." Why bother giving any reasons for disliking Schoenberg if we're just going to be told we shouldn't, whether or not these reasons are valid?


Great post. I couldn't agree more.


----------



## Bach

My message is thus: You can dislike Schoenberg (or Bach for that matter) but you cannot deny their greatness.


----------



## World Violist

Bach said:


> My message is thus: You can dislike Schoenberg (or Bach for that matter) but you cannot deny their greatness.


I don't deny any of Schoenberg's greatness, I just have a very difficult time understanding any of it. Practically everyone was on the verge of 12-tonality at the time anyway, and my understanding is that someone elsewhere in Europe had come up with the 12-tone system at roughly the same time as did Schoenberg, completely independent one of the other. So why should Schoenberg be hugely accredited for "starting" something that was pretty much inevitable/already happening?


----------



## JTech82

Bach said:


> My message is thus: You can dislike Schoenberg (or Bach for that matter) but you cannot deny their greatness.


Like I said, I'm dismissing the music, not the composer. Someone being "great" is subjective anyway isn't it? It's opinion-based, just like all music is.

I don't like Bach's music, but you don't see me bashing him or telling somebody they're wrong for liking him. Oh, wait I have done that before.

To Tapkaara, I'm sorry for lashing out at you. I had no right saying what I did. I wish we could just put this behind us. You've been a good chat buddy to me on here.


----------



## Bach

I'm not quite sure if that's true - I would need to read an article. Schoenberg was the first to use atonality in it's truest sense in his non-serialist Drei Klavierstücke, Op. 11.

Greatness is not subjective. Influence, compositional and technical mastery, originality etc. are all very quantifiable.


----------



## JTech82

Bach said:


> I'm not quite sure if that's true - I would need to read an article. Schoenberg was the first to use atonality in it's truest sense in his non-serialist Drei Klavierstücke, Op. 11.
> 
> Greatness is not subjective. Influence, compositional and technical mastery, originality etc. are all very quantifiable.


Whatever you say. I think we'll agree to disagree.


----------



## Tapkaara

JTech82 said:


> To Tapkaara, I'm sorry for lashing out at you. I had no right saying what I did. I wish we could just put this behind us. You've been a good chat buddy to me on here.


Accepted. Just edit some of your past post to remove the nastiness and remove the photo of the crying baby and we're good 

I guess I will say one more thing before I'm off to Never-Never Land...I think World Violist's quote is like a hammer hitting this thing on the head.

Enjoy everyone!


----------



## Bach

It's interesting that someone who dislikes Bach and Schoenberg has an avatar depicting Sibelius - in light of this quote:

"If Sibelius is good, this invalidates the standards of musical quality that have persisted from Bach to Schoenberg: the richness of inter-connectedness, articulation, unity in diversity, the 'multi-faceted' in 'the one'"


----------



## World Violist

Bach said:


> "If Sibelius is good, this invalidates the standards of musical quality that have persisted from Bach to Schoenberg: the richness of inter-connectedness, articulation, unity in diversity, the 'multi-faceted' in 'the one'"


Just saying, that quote has to be one of the more absurd things I've ever read about Sibelius, for the sole reason that the "standards of musical quality" listed are exactly what Sibelius strove for all his life.


----------



## JTech82

Bach said:


> It's interesting that someone who dislikes Bach and Schoenberg has an avatar depicting Sibelius - in light of this quote:
> 
> "If Sibelius is good, this invalidates the standards of musical quality that have persisted from Bach to Schoenberg: the richness of inter-connectedness, articulation, unity in diversity, the 'multi-faceted' in 'the one'"


Bach, you seem like you evaluate music based on criteria that has nothing to do with the music. It seems like the criteria you use is not of the heart. Innovation, technical mastery, etc. are not reasons people listen to a composer. You listen to a composer because they touch your heart and have an emotional impact on you. You like Bach and Schoenberg. Well that's great, I don't and I don't have to explain why I don't.

I just don't dig them from a musical perspective, which is how I evaluate music anyway. If you want to throw quotations at me and get me to admit something that I don't agree with, then you're wasting your time.

Good day to you, I'm out of here.


----------



## Bach

I'm an academic, so music has to have academic rigour and intellectual depth to interest me. I don't judge music based on the heart or 'emotion' (ghastly word). That's fickle and silly.


----------



## Edward Elgar

I love this guy, the quality of his music shouldn't be debated because it depends very much on your taste. It merely needs to be listened to and appreciated as abstract art.

Many have described his music as the "decay of the German tradition", but I think of it as simply a continuation of it. If you ask me, Beethoven was far more of a radical than Schoenberg and now Beethoven is a god-like figure in music.

People who don't like the 12-tone stuff; listen to the early stuff. It's easier to listen to than a lot of Wagner. Things like "Transfigured Night" and "Gurrelider", they are absolute masterpieces and reveal the genius that was to concieve the miracle of the tone row.


----------



## JTech82

Bach said:


> I'm an academic, so music has to have academic rigour and intellectual depth to interest me. I don't judge music based on the heart or 'emotion' (ghastly word). That's fickle and silly.


Well good luck with that.

By the way, the reason Sibelius is on my avatar is because he's one of my favorites. That's okay isn't it or does someone have to explain why they like who they like so they can get your stamp of approval?

It's okay to connect with something that moves you emotionally. It won't destroy or corrupt you, Mr. Thinking Man.


----------



## Bach

Such brutal mockery. 

I'm moved by the rigorous structure and succinct treatment of musical ideas in Beethoven's Op. 59 No. 1 not the materialistic sentiment of Barber's Adagio for Strings (for want of a better example).


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> Um, I think I am saying that. The old bit of wisodm that "Art is in the eye (or in this case, ear) of the beholder has held up so well over the ages because it is so darn true.
> 
> If one begins to make OBJECTIVE statements about art, then they are attmpting to make statements that are not opinion, but actually true.
> 
> Appreciation of art is a purely subjective experience. Schonberg's music should make this quite obvious: I find nothing but ugly sound in his output, yet others hear something else, something musically satisfying...and this is all from listening to the same work/composer. I say it's ugly, and someone else says it's music...who is REALLy right? I'd like to think I'm right, but the other guy thinks he's just as right as me. Which of us has the right/authority to make the OBJECTIVE statement that is definitevly true of what we've just heard. Alas, neither.


Have you heard of aesthetics? It's a branch of philosophy to try and make art subjective. There are physical reasons and psychological reasons for humans to create and enjoy art, these _can_ be explained. Of course, these explanations are functionally meaningless and convey no expression into the art; they are dry and inhumane, which is why we use metaphors and analogies to convey the meaning and expression.



> Don't believe the cloth-eared, everyone!


You _do_ realise there are very valid arguments against so-called 'atonal' music regardless of how _you_ think? Stop forcing your view down everyone's throats and calling them 'nonsense'.



> Their radical ideas were ALL ABOUT harmony, melody, structure and to a lesser extent rhythm, and a lot of their music - especially by Berg - is intensely lyrical.


Agreed. But Schoenberg often failed in being able to convey much due to many of his pieces being incomprehensible. And berg's violin concerto (for example), is tonal! It just uses a serial technique (that still encompasses tonic dominant at the beginning of the row) to become tonal.



> Please explain why you think 12-tone/Serialism is not a style/method of composing music...


Tonal music isn't a style so-to-speak. He is just being semantic and VERY picky.



> Yagan Kiely and JTech82 and World Violist have all said they don't like Schoenberg.


Bah, don't put such a generalisation on my opinion. If I ever said that in this thread it was a mistake and I take it back. I don't like aspects and I don't believe he is the most expressive. To say that Ravel is better (IMO) than Debussy doesn't mean I dislike Debussy.



> No, absolutely not - but saying that Schoenberg is rubbish is wrong.


Not if you believe everything Shoenberg did is rubbish....



> (so "I don't get it" doesn't cut it)


Given that the ability to instantly understand music is inherent in humans (unlike language - though the ability to learn language is inherent), that is an invalid (opinion? argument?). Those you don't 'get' so-called 'atonal' music have merit, they just don't understand the merit. That said, there opinions are indeed worthless regardless of that smattering of validity.



> So many composers and musicians, obviously more intelligent than my humble self, have embraced this style of music. The way I see it, there must be something very appealing about this music if so many people embrace it."


Shoenberg is hardly embraced. More a formal fat on the back at this rate.



> Music has to have melody, harmony, structure, and rhythm.


Penderecki obvious piece is almost lacking in all comprehensible melody, harmony and rhythm. The harmony is random, the rhythm to difficult to understand, and the melody... mostly isn't there. Yet, it is one of the most expressive pieces of music for what it is (written as) expressing. The music for Alien (for example), isn't ANY of those things (the form is in the movie, not the music). But it is very effective in conveying the same expressions as on the movie. What is music if not to express? It doesn't _need_ those per se (mind you, they do tend to help).



> There have been plenty of radicals of classical music: Stravinsky, Debussy, Bruckner, etc., that composed classical very differently, BUT these composers never lost sight of all the elements of the music I listed and they never lost sight of beauty and the lyrical quality of music.


Well, neither did Schoenberg... he composed tonal pieces late in is life, and many of is completely 'atonal' pieces indeed incorporate unintended tonal aspects. He admitted himself that he, throughout is life, was always drawn to tonal music and had to practically fight it.



> You fans of Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern can come back with all the counter arguments you want to, but the reality is not many people are into their music.


I will say that I am a fan of Berg, not the rest. Berg finds a mediator between the two antithesis of the same purpose.



> They chose to create music that is inaccessible and not friendly to the average listener.


Schoenberg believed that 'schoolboys would whistle his melodies in the street' (or there abouts), so he didn't chose that course. And we know that Berg definitely tried to bridge the gap.



> but you cannot deny their greatness.


What on EARTH is this concept of greatness of yours?

I didn't have time to read any more.......


----------



## Yagan Kiely

Wait, wait wait....


> People who don't like the 12-tone stuff; listen to the early stuff. It's easier to listen to than a lot of Wagner. Things like "Transfigured Night" and "Gurrelider", they are absolute masterpieces and reveal the genius that was to concieve the miracle of the tone row.


What??? Why would something of an extreme exaggeration of Wagner/Mahler be easier to understand than the less ambiguous Wagner? Gurrelieder I find to be quite an immature work and it's size seems to have no real purpose, but Verklärte Nacht is indeed an 'absolute masterpiece'. You do know though, that there is NOTHING atonal or even suggestive of atonality in those two pieces? They are as tonal as Mozart. Schoenberg's step into tonality was a conscious step in an opposite directing to where those two pieces were heading. In fact, almost all 'new' styles of the 20th century were reactions again these types of works, not extensions.



> If you ask me, Beethoven was far more of a radical than Schoenberg and now Beethoven is a god-like figure in music.


Did Beethoven ever puposfully omit the prime and only constant in music up to that point? No. Did Schoenberg? Yes....



> Many have described his music as the "decay of the German tradition", but I think of it as simply a continuation of it.


Almost every historian/musicologist/etc. will recognise serialism as the dead end. You can't go 'further' from there, only back a step and then onto a new direction.



> I'm an academic, so music has to have academic rigour and intellectual depth to interest me. I don't judge music based on the heart or 'emotion' (ghastly word). That's fickle and silly.


So you don't appreciate the only reason music exists? For that matter, the only reason art exists? One thing for sure, it is silly and fickle to ignore the only meaning in music. Schoenberg himself was also _not_ trying for intelectual depth, but for expression. I suggest accounting. No emotion there, and it is strict intellectuality!



> compositional and technical mastery


Which is subjective........


> , originality


Which means nothing. The originality has to actually be worth some thing (Oh wait... sujectivity).
Yes, influence on _others_ can objectively contribute to a subjective opinion.



> "If Sibelius is good, this invalidates the standards of musical quality that have persisted from Bach to Schoenberg: the richness of inter-connectedness, articulation, unity in diversity, the 'multi-faceted' in 'the one'"


How _rediculously subjective_ and _completely pointless_ to this discussion is this spiteful quote which is spitefully quoted? Amazing how you riducule those for suggesting that Schoenberg may not be great (not that they did), and then you again ridicule those for enjoying Sibelius. Hypocracy at it's greatest.



> It seems like the criteria you use is not of the heart. Innovation, technical mastery, etc. are not reasons people listen to a composer.


Heart is a terrible word, but I do see what you mean. And technical mastery IS important it can give a piece so much mroe depth, and it certainly means the composer can do MUCH more to achieve the emotions (not to mention is is pretty much a pre-requisit to being able to express well anyway).



> Well that's great, I don't and I don't have to explain why I don't.


You don't like Bach?



> If you want to throw quotations at me


Indeed. I'm sure if I bothered I could find someone critisising Schoenberg or Bach. Of course, that quotation would be as meaningless as your, Bach, if as blatently subjective.


----------



## Herzeleide

Yagan Kiely said:


> Have you heard of aesthetics? It's a branch of philosophy to try and make art subjective.


Sorry, this comment is incorrect. Please try again later!

'Aesthetics or esthetics (also spelled æsthetics) is commonly known as the study of sensory or sensori-emotional values, sometimes called judgments of sentiment and taste.[1] More broadly, scholars in the field define aesthetics as "critical reflection on art, culture and nature."[2][3] Aesthetics is a subdiscipline of axiology, a branch of philosophy, and is closely associated with the philosophy of art.[4] Aesthetics studies new ways of seeing and of perceiving the world.[5]'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetic

It's all referenced, so we know it's true.


----------



## Herzeleide

Yagan Kiely said:


> And berg's violin concerto (for example), is tonal! It just uses a serial technique (that still encompasses tonic dominant at the beginning of the row) to become tonal.


Is that so! What key is it in then?


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> Is that so! What key is it in then?


Gmin a lot of the time (due to the tone row spelling out G Bb D and then [D] F# A C - if you can't tell (since you seem to think that everything tonal has to have a key of the piece - I can't tell how much you actually do know about tonality) this notes spell a Gmin chord and then a DMaj7 chord (or F#dim) AKA: Tonic Dominant. If memory serves, it also quotes a Bach choral in Bb in a complete tonal Language (unless you wish to argue that Bach is atonal).

Hah, I just looked it up on Wikipedia, and even there it says that it has tonal undercurrents.

Also: you should also understand that tonal undercurrents in a piece doesn't mean it is in a key. Remember kids! False dichotomies are fallacies too!


----------



## Herzeleide

Yagan Kiely said:


> Gmin a lot of the time (due to the tone row spelling out G Bb D and then [D] F# A C - if you can't tell (since you seem to think that everything tonal has to have a key of the piece - I can't tell how much you actually do know about tonality) this notes spell a Gmin chord and then a DMaj7 chord (or F#dim) AKA: Tonic Dominant. If memory serves, it also quotes a Bach choral in Bb in a complete tonal Language (unless you wish to argue that Bach is atonal).
> 
> Hah, I just looked it up on Wikipedia, and even there it says that it has tonal undercurrents.


Yes, yes, yes. 

Thanks for telling me stuff I already know. Yes, there are tonal 'undercurrents'; most 'overcurrents'  in that case are clearly atonal! Hence describing it as a tonal piece is inaccurate.


----------



## Herzeleide

Yagan Kiely said:


> Wow, you really _are_ are civilised person aren't you! The 12-tones are tonally unrelated. That is what serial and atonal music sets out to do (one of the many); destroy (so to speak), the tonal relationships between notes. Why don't you think before you speak(?).... no no... wrong word... oh: blindly and personally attack and flame.


It would be wise to act out your own advice! The original quote did not say 'tonally unrelated' - and you're contradicting yourself because you've pointed out the tonal relationship in the twelve-tone row of Berg's Violin Concerto!

To sum - the original quote asserted that the twelve notes were unrelated to each other (it did not add the qualifier 'tonally'). This is incorrect, as I've proven.



Yagan Kiely said:


> If I composed a piece of jagged rhythms and harsh harmonies and intervals but called it 'Lyric Piece' it would _not_ make it lyric. What a humongous (to quote you) '********' fallacy. However much I agree with you that it is lyrical, for god's sake try arguing with logic.


If you agree with me, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. Do you enjoy wasting your time? And it's not really a fallacy; one can assume that a musician of Berg's enormous stature would know if a piece were lyrical or not.


----------



## Herzeleide

Yagan Kiely said:


> To say a piece is not tonal even though is is both tonal and atonal at the same time is unfairly favouring one side. Effectively you were saying it doesn't in this case. Or at least that is how I read our fallacy ridden arguments. I could be wrong, it's hard to find an actual argument in your writing.


To describe Berg's Violin Concerto simply as 'tonal' would be wrong; the same could be said of Brahms, Beethoven, Bach etc. Since the traces of tonality are but one facet of this piece it is tendentious to the point of being incorrect referring to the piece simply as 'tonal'.



Yagan Kiely said:


> No I didn't, in fact I never have. I would prefer you to read what I say first. That's also a 'False Analogy'.


This is what you wrote:



Yagan Kiely said:


> The 12-tones are tonally unrelated. That is what serial and atonal music sets out to do (one of the many); destroy (so to speak), the tonal relationships between notes.


It's rather mortifying seeing someone deny that they wrote something when one only has to scroll up the screen to read it!


----------



## Herzeleide

Yagan Kiely said:


> There is no point in arguing with an immature poster who only attacks (personally) but never defends


I was defending Schoenberg, Berg and Webern.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

Sorry, but that argument sounds so funny and childish.

So, you _really_ think that Schoenberg would like you to defend him by deliberately trying to insult others to whom Schoenberg isn't their favourite composer?

And how are you defending Berg? I love berg, I've already expressed such. And if you think me saying his piece is expressive because of it's tonal foundations is attacking Berg, your are... amazingly... mistaken. Berg put those tonal foundations there for that reason, the other option is that Berg did it by accident...............

Webern? I never mentioned Webern. And when did I actually say I didn't like Schoenberg? Even if you _were_ defending those long-dead composers, there is nothing to defend! I enjoy them. Me-think you are a little paranoid.

No, you are not defending anything, you are attacking others because their opinion differs from yours.


----------



## Herzeleide

Yagan Kiely said:


> Me-think you are a little paranoid.


I have indeed defended the Second Viennese School, the fact of which anyone who reads the first few pages on this thread can discover.


----------



## jaybee57

So confident are they of success, the administrators of Symphony Hall, Birmingham UK (possibly the UK's best concert hall) are offering a 'money back' promise of enjoyment later this month for a performance of Schoenberg's Gurrelieder with the Philharmonia under Essa-Pekka Salonen. I doubt many refunds will be needed - apart from the few predictable smart alecs trying to get a free ride. 

I only 'dicovered' Gurrelieder a couple of years ago and now rate it among my top favourites. The last ten minutes or so of Gurrelieder are simply stunning, full of wonderful chromatic sounds. Gurrelieder has hints of both Richard Straus and Mahler but perhaps most of Wagner. 

If you have not heard it, try it; you are unlikely to b e disappointed, in fact it might just blow your socks of. 

Cheers

Jaybee

Forget what you have heard of Schoenber and his atonalism; this is totally melodic stuff. If you ha


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> If you have not heard it, try it; you are unlikely to b e disappointed, in fact it might just blow your socks of.


I'm sure the performance will be. I find the piece itself to be as if an early symphonic study by Schoenberg. I prefer Transfigured Night and even Pierrot Lunaire.



> Forget what you have heard of Schoenber and his atonalism; this is totally melodic stuff.


He wrote tonal pieces later in his life also.


----------



## jaybee57

So confident are they of success, the administrators of Symphony Hall, Birmingham UK (possibly the UK's best concert hall) are offering a 'money back' promise of enjoyment later this month for a performance of Schoenberg's Gurrelieder with the Philharmonia under Essa-Pekka Salonen. I doubt many refunds will be needed - apart from the few predictable smart alecs trying to get a free ride. 

I only 'dicovered' Gurrelieder a couple of years ago and now rate it among my top favourites. The last ten minutes or so of Gurrelieder are simply stunning, full of wonderful chromatic sounds. Gurrelieder has hints of both Richard Straus and Mahler but perhaps most of Wagner. 

If you have not heard it, try it; you are unlikely to b e disappointed, in fact it might just blow your socks of. 

Cheers

Jaybee


----------



## Herzeleide

Herzeleide said:


> To describe Berg's Violin Concerto simply as 'tonal' would be wrong; the same could be said of Brahms, Beethoven, Bach etc.


In hindsight this comment lacks clarity. What I meant was that it would be grossly misleading to call Berg's Violin Concerto 'tonal', when this adjective is used to describe the music of the aforesaid common-practice period composers.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Isn't the 12 tone system just like the tonal system in the way that it's just another way of getting musical ideas down on paper? The fact that it isn't what we've been conditioned to like is the only reason some of us don't like it. If we were brought up on Schoenberg we would probably cringe at Mozart. 

Listen to Schoenberg's 5 Orchestral Pieces, that has to be one of the best manipulations of the orchestra ever. Also, all the musical elements found in tonal music are present (rhythm, timbre, harmony, melody, texture, form). What more do folks want? Nice litte harmoic triads? Tonic - Dominant - Tonic - Dominant - Tonic - Dominant - Tonic - Dominant - Tonic - Dominant - Tonic - Dominant - Tonic?

To deny Schoenberg was an important historical figure with revolutionary ideas is crazy, but not to embrace those ideas is just missing out in my opinion. Schoenberg didn't write a single piece of music that doesn't carry emotional strength, beauty and sadness. If he did can somebody tell me?


----------



## Herzeleide

Edward Elgar said:


> Listen to Schoenberg's 5 Orchestral Pieces, that has to be one of the best manipulations of the orchestra ever. Also, all the musical elements found in tonal music are present (rhythm, timbre, harmony, melody, texture, form). What more do folks want? Nice litte harmoic triads? Tonic - Dominant - Tonic - Dominant - Tonic - Dominant - Tonic - Dominant - Tonic - Dominant - Tonic - Dominant - Tonic?
> 
> To deny Schoenberg was an important historical figure with revolutionary ideas is crazy, but not to embrace those ideas is just missing out in my opinion. Schoenberg didn't write a single piece of music that doesn't carry emotional strength, beauty and sadness. If he did can somebody tell me?


Agreed!



Edward Elgar said:


> Isn't the 12 tone system just like the tonal system in the way that it's just another way of getting musical ideas down on paper? The fact that it isn't what we've been conditioned to like is the only reason some of us don't like it. If we were brought up on Schoenberg we would probably cringe at Mozart.


It's one way of organising music - that's about as far as its parallels with tonal music go! To be honest, sweeping statements don't really work, there are so many ways to use and apply serialism, some of which create musical structures analogous to tonality (or modality) inasmuch as they create a sense of centricity or hierarchy. Really serialism is used by a composer to define his own musical parameters and to develop material which retains *invariance*; a term used to describe alterations in material which is nonetheless related to the original idea/tone-row (or as Schoenberg would say, _Grundgestalt_).


----------



## Edward Elgar

Yagan Kiely said:


> Tonal music in inherent in humans. Humans automatically 'know' where the dominant goes. We haven't been conditioned to it by any external forces.


Oh yes, humans "know" when they hear a dissonance, that's their que to run a mile in the opposite direction!

Of course we've been conditioned, how can you deny that?! Every single aspect of music, from style, period, mood, message, it's all what we have been told what and what not to like. Often this is standardised by our circumstances or inherited personality. Wouldn't it be great to wake up and enjoy music for a change?!


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> Of course we've been conditioned, how can you deny that?! Every single aspect of music, from style, period, mood, message, it's all what we have been told what and what not to like. Often this is standardised by our circumstances or inherited personality. Wouldn't it be great to wake up and enjoy music for a change?!


Style =/= foundation of the music. Beyonce, Beatles, Mozart, Messiaen and Perotin are all tonal yet there styles are remarkably different. It is a natural and inherent ability for humans to predict the tonality (and where it goes), i.e. play a dom 7, all (bar possibly the tone deaf) will hear that something is 'iffy' if it goes to a flatmaj VI. All I am saying that for humans to be pulled toward tonal music over atonal music is not conditioning, it is natural, even Schoenberg was continually pulled towards it. Conditioning makes person A like style X over Y, but without training all will be pulled towards tonality.

That doesn't say atonality is bad, so don't you dare try to suggest it is, I never have in this thread (even though certain individuals have tried to imply I have and attack me over this failed implication).


----------



## Sid James

As I said earlier, his music is not easy listening. & maybe it's meant to be "ugly" and uncompromising. Like you could compare it to a skyscraper by Mies van der Rohe, or a painting by Jackson Pollock. All of these artists were of the twentieth century, and wanted to make a complete break from the past. I suppose you have to accept that, whether you like what they did or not.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Yagan Kiely said:


> Tonal music in inherent in humans. Humans automatically 'know' where the dominant goes. We haven't been conditioned to it by any external forces.


I know this is a bit off topic, but can I ask this? How do you explain the fact that people that havn't been exposed to western tonal music i.e. African tribes, eastern cultures e.t.c. don't recoginse the dominant seventh chord as a tool to tonicise the key. If what you said was true they would be able to identify this. The fact that they can't suggests tonal music is not inherited but learned, this theory is not extreme and should be acknowledged in order to aid the enjoyment of atonality.


----------



## msegers

Edward Elgar said:


> I know this is a bit off topic, but can I ask this? How do you explain the fact that people that havn't been exposed to western tonal music i.e. African tribes, eastern cultures e.t.c. don't recoginse the dominant seventh chord as a tool to tonicise the key. If what you said was true they would be able to identify this. The fact that they can't suggests tonal music is not inherited but learned, this theory is not extreme and should be acknowledged in order to aid the enjoyment of atonality.


Thank you. This whole discussion had gotten too unpleasant for me, but I have to join in on Edward Elgar's comment. 
The European music traditions that Schoenberg & Co. were working within and against are cultural constructs of European civilization. If we grow up in that civilization, they may seem "natural" to us, but they aren't.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Exactly, although I'm not sure if you're pro/anti Schoenberg! If we had all been raised on 12 tone nursery rhymes we would definitly enjoy Schoenberg a lot more!


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> I know this is a bit off topic, but can I ask this? How do you explain the fact that people that havn't been exposed to western tonal music i.e. African tribes, eastern cultures e.t.c. don't recoginse the dominant seventh chord as a tool to tonicise the key. If what you said was true they would be able to identify this. The fact that they can't suggests tonal music is not inherited but learned, this theory is not extreme and should be acknowledged in order to aid the enjoyment of atonality.


Their music is tonal. Pentatonic music in all over the world; native Australian, native Canadians, Africa, China, Japan etc. etc. this is tonal music. Indians have tonal music. Just because they don't have the exact same style of tonality as westerners means nothing.



> If we had all been raised on 12 tone nursery rhymes we would definitly enjoy Schoenberg a lot more!


This is seriously laughable. A average human is incapable of predicting what the next note will be in 12 tone music. There is no argument here.

And don't get started on how pentatonic isn't tonal. It is. I'm not using tonality in it's restricted sense.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Yagan Kiely said:


> Their music is tonal. Pentatonic music in all over the world; native Australian, native Canadians, Africa, China, Japan etc. etc. this is tonal music. Indians have tonal music. Just because they don't have the exact same style of tonality as westerners means nothing.


That still doesn't answer my question! Why can't they recognise that a dominant seventh tonicises the key?! If what you say is true they would be able to!



Yagan Kiely said:


> This is seriously laughable. A average human is incapable of predicting what the next note will be in 12 tone music. There is no argument here.


After the first exposition of the tone row, each note that follows is highly predictable!

We were all raised on melodies from major and minor scales which strongly infer tonality. Therefore wouldn't it be sensible to suggest that if we were presented with 12 tone melodies from an early age, we would have been conditioned to see Schoenberg's method as the norm in music.

I think you only find this laughable because you can't find an effective counter-argument. If I am incorrect and you do, please present it!


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> After the first exposition of the tone row, each note that follows is highly predictable!


Only if the exposition actually lays out the notes without chords; only if the listener has perfect pitch; and only if the listener has in depth knowledge of how serialist music works. No listener knows



> Why can't they recognise that a dominant seventh tonicises the key?


Please provide an article and I'll have a read. I haven't heard of this (and I am certainly not taking _your_ word for it), perhaps they are unique because all other groups of humans this is inherent in. Also, it must provide proof that it hasn;t been trained out of them. i.e. I don't want th tests done on people over 3 years of age. Then there are the tone deaf people in the world.



> That still doesn't answer my question! Why can't they recognise that a dominant seventh tonicises the key?! If what you say is true they would be able to!


Please tell me why tonality is inherent is other civilisations who have no contact with each other? Please tell me why the harmonic series - a natural phenomon - is the basis of an overwhelming majority of the worlds history in music (and music which uses this phenomenon in it's construction - atonal music does not do this).



> I think you only find this laughable because you can't find an effective counter-argument.


What I find laughable is that I'm talking to someone who finds a proven fact arguable. This isn;t my research. I'm just quoteing thousadns of others before me, sceintists etc. etc.

So far your arguments are based on your bias for tonality. My arguments have no such reasoning.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Yagan Kiely said:


> Only if the exposition actually lays out the notes without chords; only if the listener has perfect pitch; and only if the listener has in depth knowledge of how serialist music works. No listener knows.


You obviously havn't heard much serialism.



Yagan Kiely said:


> Please provide an article and I'll have a read. I haven't heard of this (and I am certainly not taking _your_ word for it), perhaps they are unique because all other groups of humans this is inherent in.


Sadly, to access the online archives where the articles in question reside you will need my university username and password which I'm not about to give! And don't you dare say this is very convenient because I think it convenient that you can't give a valid example of me or Mr Schoenberg misrepresenting you on the laptop thread!

Plus, I find your theory that there is an evolutionary divide in humans regarding recognition of tonality laughable and borderline racist! All humans are born with the same cognitive and senory traits and it's madness and dangerous to suggest that non-westerners have extra evolutionary traits.


----------



## Herzeleide

Some African music is almost exclusively rhythmic, hence they're brought up with a much greater intuition of complex rhythms than Westerners are, but not of the Western tonal system. The idea that the dominant seventh should lead to the tonic would be totally foreign to them, as would their intricate rhythmic pattern be to someone conditioned by the Western tonal system.

Also, Indian, Oriental musics etc. are not 'tonal'; they're *modal*. Some Hindustani ragas don't even feature the perfect fifth above the home note of the mode. They're also not fixed pitch (the home note of the mode is decided by the singer) and obviously not confined to the equal temperament.

This last point is crucial. Tonality was born on the premise of equal temperament. Music before in the western tradition was *modal*, or in the seventeenth century in a state of evolved modality that was on the brink of tonality.

Bear in mind that the meaning of *modal* means that the music is primarily linear - Medieval and Renaissance polyphony was conceived linearally, and 'harmony' simply does not exist in various Eastern and Oriental musics - the two highly developed facets are linear melody and rhythm.


----------



## Lang

Edward Elgar said:


> Listen to Schoenberg's 5 Orchestral Pieces, that has to be one of the best manipulations of the orchestra ever. Also, all the musical elements found in tonal music are present (rhythm, timbre, harmony, melody, texture, form). What more do folks want? Nice litte harmoic triads? Tonic - Dominant - Tonic - Dominant - Tonic - Dominant - Tonic - Dominant - Tonic - Dominant - Tonic - Dominant - Tonic?


This has revived an early memory. While I was at primary school we were shown a film in which twelve-note music was derided (unfortunately I can't remember what the film was about, but there was clearly a conservative bias to it). We were then treated to a clip of an orchestra playing a piece of music which was supposed to horrify us, but in actual fact filled me with joy. It was some years before I heard it again, but recognised it instantly. It was the climax from 'Premonitions', the first of the five orchestral pieces - not even twelve-note music!


----------



## Tapkaara

Schönberg is, to say the least, controversial. I'm glad I left this discussion when I did!


----------



## JTech82

Tapkaara said:


> Schönberg is, to say the least, controversial. I'm glad I left this discussion when I did!


I hear you on this one, Tapkaara. Discussions like this whether controversial or not are not helpful, because they don't prove anything.

People have been arguing over the tonal vs. atonal battle for years. It's the same exact thing is the jazz world. There are people those who like bebop, then there are those on the other side who like free jazz.

As I mentioned or may have not mentioned, organized chaos is not music. This, in my opinion, is what Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, and all those who have followed in their footsteps do with music. They take a bunch of notes that have no relation to each other and develop "music" from that, while technically demanding on so many levels, it does not equate to good music.

Being melodic but powerful and lyrically beautiful is what makes classical music so great. Motivic development is also an important part to classical that helps draw the listener in.


----------



## Edward Elgar

The Evolution of Twelve-Note Music The Evolution of Twelve-Note Music Oliver Neighbour Proceedings of the Royal Musical Association, 81st Sess., (1954 - 1955), pp. 49-61

Music Psychology and Music Theory: Problems and Prospects Music Psychology and Music Theory: Problems and Prospects Carol L. Krumhansl Music Theory Spectrum, Vol. 17, No. 1 (Spring, 1995), pp. 53-80 

Review: Are There Two Tonal Practices in Nineteenth-Century Music? Review: Are There Two Tonal Practices in Nineteenth-Century Music? Robert P. Morgan Reviewed work(s): The Second Practice of Nineteeth-Century Tonality by William Kinderman; Harald Krebs Journal of Music Theory, Vol. 43, No. 1 (Spring, 1999), pp. 135-163 

I also checked with my analysis tutor, Dr Stephen Jan, who has written books on the matter. He clarified that even though there is a physical basis to the dominant/tonic relationship, our recognition of this is learned through exposure to scales and tonal music.

Happy?


----------



## Edward Elgar

Yagan Kiely said:


> Stop hiding..


I have no reason to. Oh, and since I was good enough to spend time reading through articles for evidence, perhaps you can find me some articles to back up your argument. I bet you don't find one.



Yagan Kiely said:


> I was showing you that peoples throughout the world (Australia, Canada, Iceland, Africa, Asia etc.) all have a version tonality even though they have no connection to each other.


Exactly! Thanks for proving my point that the learning of tonality varies from culture to culture. Ergo if our culture was absent of tonality, atonality would be the norm, simple really.



Yagan Kiely said:


> You don't see me attacking your credentials without any knwloedge of you.


How about:


Yagan Kiely said:


> I am certainly not taking_ your_ word for it





Yagan Kiely said:


> Hah, I just looked it up on Wikipedia
> 
> Also read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris and http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/uncivilized
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkmate
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument
> 
> I suggest reading them


I know where you do research! Bad discipline!


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> I bet you don't find one.


Off the top of my head, listen to Bernstein's Harvard lecture.



> I know where you do research! Bad discipline!


lol? And you don't seem to understand what the word credentials means.....



> Exactly! Thanks for proving my point that the learning of tonality varies from culture to culture. Ergo if our culture was absent of tonality, atonality would be the norm, simple really.


So how did every culture in the world develop the pentatonic scale without contact with each other? You seem to be missing several points. Is it deliberate?


----------



## Edward Elgar

Yagan Kiely said:


> Off the top of my head, listen to Bernstein's Harvard lecture.


Will I find this on Wikipedia?



Yagan Kiely said:


> So how did every culture in the world develop the pentatonic scale without contact with each other? You seem to be missing several points. Is it deliberate?


I'm highly doubtful that every culture in the world developed the same pentatonic scale. Taking unequal temprement into account, there are many different variations of the pentatonic scale and near infinate variations of every common mode.

It looks like your scraping the barrel with weak arguments that have no foundations. You aren't addressing my point made about; "if our culture was absent of tonality, atonality would be the norm". Why don't you try coming up with a good, solid counter-argument for this and maybe I'll acknowledge it.


----------



## Guest

Yagan Kiely said:


> 1)Most atonal works _do not_ provide the tone row in scalic form. Given that *fact*, it is difficult (at the very least) to aurally attain which note comes first in a row when in chord form, regardless of whether you have perfect pitch or not.


No atonal works provide a tone row in any form. Only dodecaphonic or serial works do that. Many serial works provide the row in "scalic form." I don't know what the ratio is. Do you have numbers for this? (Bolding and italics on the word "fact" do not make what you've said into a fact.)



Yagan Kiely said:


> 2)Because there is no harmonic relationship between the notes, it is difficult to predict the notes. Because of this, you need to not only know the theory of serialist music, but you must be able to tell the difference between a C# three 8ves above C and a D two 8ve bellow three bars later. This is extremely difficult unless you have perfect pitch.


There are other relationships between notes than harmonic. (There are more harmonic relationships than tonal ones.)



Yagan Kiely said:


> 3)To correctly follow the music (assuming you have mastered the above two options) you actually need to know the theory in depth, and be able to invert and retrograde music in your head. This is difficult for most to do who are not musical trained, i.e. most of the population.


I have mastered none of these things, nor have I mastered any of the intricacies of tonal music, intricacies that few have mastered, I'm sure. And yet I thoroughly enjoy serial music, and atonal music (if "atonal" can really be made to contain any meaning--I'm not at all sure that it can) and can sing some of it and "play back" most of it in my head. But I can do that with any piece, if I've heard it enough, though there are some bits that I never get quite right, in tonal, atonal, or serial pieces. In other words, when I'm listening to it, I can tell where my memory has played me false.

For some of the other dissenters on this thread, particularly JTech82, the music of Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern can be enjoyed. So what if the ratio is 20 to 150? That may simply mean that 130 people have not succeeded (or not seen the need) to overcome their prejudices. Only one person needs to be able to enjoy Schoenberg for one to recognize that Schoenberg is enjoyable. And there are plenty more than one. Intelligent, sensitive listeners. You know, do you not, that serialism is an ordering system. Like tonality. It extends ordering principles to several parameters, not just one.

Order, JTech, not chaos.

(Chaos is very nice, too, I have come to find. Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern are very bad examples of chaos, however, being the complete opposite. Perhaps you and your 129 colleagues _hear_ chaos when you listen to these three. That's altogether possible. Is the chaos in the music or in your listening, though? Hard as it may seem to acknowledge, it may just turn out to be that it's your listening that's at fault. Are there _no_ tonal composers whom you found incomprehensible at first but now thoroughly enjoy, or have you understood everything else immediately, no problem? If the former, the only one I would find at all likely, then you already understand that you are capable, one day, of enjoying the truly splendid music of these three men.)


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> No atonal works provide a tone row in any form. Only dodecaphonic or serial works do that. Many serial works provide the row in "scalic form." I don't know what the ratio is. Do you have numbers for this? (Bolding and italics on the word "fact" do not make what you've said into a fact.)


Oh, my bad I meant serial. My own fault I often get the two mixed up, because i use 'free tonality' for (for example) Schoenberg;s early atonal works.

Almost all serial works are atonal, and most serial works do not have a unharmonised single voice line for the whole first prime series, thankfully because most of the composers are musical....



> There are other relationships between notes than harmonic. (There are more harmonic relationships than tonal ones.)


Yes, but these notes are not perceivable aurally without in depth knowledge of serial music and without perfect pitch.



> nor have I mastered any of the intricacies of tonal music, intricacies that few have mastered, I'm sure.


You don't have to 'master' them, there is no such thing as mastering for a listener.



> And yet I thoroughly enjoy serial music, and atonal music


I said to correctly follow the music. To correctly follow the music, you need to be able to predict the next note and be shocked when it isn't the right one (or whatever), you can't do this with serial works unless you have mastered what I told you. I have explained this already, how come you have misinterpreted me?



> That may simply mean that 130 people have not succeeded (or not seen the need) to overcome their prejudices


Now, at least I never jump to such a evidence-less hypothesis...



> Like tonality. It extends ordering principles to several parameters, not just one.


Which is one reason I prefer free atonality personally. I think that the music of serialism is too easy for a learned composer to make an good and acceptable piece, it also restricts the freedom much more so than tonal music.



> Order, JTech, not chaos.


The chaos maybe interpreted by the (sometimes) over complex rhythms (Stravinsky adds form to these rhythms which means they are easier to follow regardless of more complexity), and that the atonality can make it sound random.



> Are there _no_ tonal composers whom you found incomprehensible at first but now thoroughly enjoy, or have you understood everything else immediately, no problem? If the former, the only one I would find at all likely, then you already understand that you are capable, one day, of enjoying the truly splendid music of these three men.)


I normally have to listen to a knew kind of tonality twice before I fully understand it (as it _is_ designed to trick your senses, this can be confusing). That isn't really an argument when Schoenberg has been inaccessible for millions for over half a century.



> Hard as it may seem to acknowledge, it may just turn out to be that it's your listening that's at fault.


Just because notes or rhythms have some underlying deep structural form, that doesn't mean it is actually aurally perceptible. I could create a piece based on Einstein's Quantum Theory, but it could would likely not sound like it had any form.


----------



## JTech82

Arnold Schoenberg said:


> I wasn't directly quoting you! However, you did refer to it as 'chaos' and the 'vienna school of wrong', so it is pretty deceiferable that you think it *is* crap, whether or not you said those exact words.
> 
> If you back this argument up with something other than an opinion, then I will let it pass. If you would have said something along the lines of _'personally, I don't like Schoenberg becuase atonality really doesn't do anything for me'_ then I would respect your opinion. Instead, you have launched into some sort of factual statement, or at least it _sounds_ like you're trying to state a fact. You should have said _'I think'_ for a start, becuase it sounds as though you are trying to define what good and bad is, not only for yourself, but for everyone reading this thread.


If you can't gather that everything I said about Schoenberg is an opinion by now, then I'm afraid I can't help you.


----------



## Herzeleide

JTech82 said:


> Chaos is not music.


The music of Schoenberg, Berg and Webern is not chaotic. Quite the contrary! The musicologist Richard Taruskin has even made parallels between totalitarianism and Webern's music, such is the strictness, symmetry and precisely organised nature of his music! Similar studies have been made about Berg and Schoenberg. These are demonstrable truths. Just because they elude your comprehension (assuming you have actually listened properly to a reasonable amount of the music of the Second Viennese School) it does not mean they don't exist.


----------



## Krummhorn

And now, we return you to our topic ...


----------



## Guest

Yagan Kiely said:


> To correctly follow the music, you need to be able to predict the next note and be shocked when it isn't the right one (or whatever), you can't do this with serial works unless you have mastered what I told you.


Then we must disagree about what it means to "correctly follow the music." And probably also we must disagree about whether there's a correct way to follow music. I have been listening to tonal classical music since about 1960 and to twentieth century musics (tonal, atonal, serial, experimental, multimedia, minimal, electroacoustic, and so forth) starting in 1972. I have enjoyed all of it thoroughly, and I have never thought that even tonal music had to be listened to in the way you suggest, by predicting the next note and then reacting when it turns out differently than what I'd predicted. I suppose that may be true to a very limited extent, but surely harmony and polyphony and even the speed at which many notes may be coming at you, singly or in groups would make that predicting only one of the things you do when you listen.

As for serial music specifically, its lines, its logic, its overall sound have always seemed to me to be very similar to tonal music. More similar to tonal music than to indeterminacy or electroacoustic or the various turntable, laptop, live electronics musics. Serial music always seems to be engaging, as does tonal music, in discourse or in narrative, to borrow the concepts from literature that we usually borrow at this point! There are tunes, there is rhythm, there is development, there is modulation, there is transposition, there are all the tricks of inversion and retrograde.*

Even more specifically, Schoenberg's _Variations_ and Schoenberg's _Pelleas und Melisande_ sound like they were written by the same guy. As do Wellesz's symphony no. 9 (twelve-tone) and symphony no. 1 (late romantic tonal).

*Not that these things cannot be found in the other musics I mentioned, but the logic is much looser, much less discursive on the whole, if it's present at all. In the broadest sense, all music has melody, harmony, and rhythm, that is sounds go higher or lower, there are different sounds sounding at the same time, and all of it happens in time.


----------



## Lang

some guy said:


> Even more specifically, Schoenberg's _Variations_ and Schoenberg's _Pelleas und Melisande_ sound like they were written by the same guy. As do Wellesz's symphony no. 9 (twelve-tone) and symphony no. 1 (late romantic tonal).


Very good point, that needs emphasizing.


----------



## Arnold Schoenberg

JTech82 said:


> If you can't gather that everything I said about Schoenberg is an opinion by now, then I'm afraid I can't help you.


What you have said is not just an opinion about *Schoenberg*. If it was then I would have let your comments pass, however, you have also made opinion on the music genre as a whole, the 'vienna school of wrong' to directly quote you... This thread is not about _that_.


----------



## Tapkaara

Arnold Schoenberg said:


> What you have said is not just an opinion about *Schoenberg*. If it was then I would have let your comments pass, however, you have also made opinion on the music genre as a whole, the 'vienna school of wrong' to directly quote you... This thread is not about _that_.


I think a discussion of(and opinions on) the 2nd Viennese school is certainly appropriate in a thread about Schonberg as he was, more or less, the founder of it.


----------



## JTech82

Tapkaara said:


> I think a discussion of(and opinions on) the 2nd Viennese school is certainly appropriate in a thread about Schonberg as he was, more or less, the founder of it.


You mean the Second Viennese School of Wrong? If that's the one you're referring dial 9, if not then please hold for an operator.


----------



## Bach

Haha.. Viennese School of Wrong.. that's that strange form of blunt humour that I haven't come across in ages..


----------



## JTech82

Bach said:


> Haha.. Viennese School of Wrong.. that's that strange form of blunt humour that I haven't come across in ages..


You know I'm a blunt a person Bach, so I can't disappoint my audience.


----------



## Sid James

*Schoenberg Violin Concerto*

I have just acquired a recording of Schoenberg's *Violin Concerto* and listened to it for the first time.

The immediate impression I had was that the violin solo part conveyed a sense of fidgetiness and unease. But upon returning to it, I could hear the subtle grace, wit, lyricism and drama after that initial impression.

I think one has to be somewhat perceptive to comprehend Schoenberg's music. The basic level of enjoying music is hearing it. But when I return to a work for subsequent hearings, I peel back the layers because first impressions can be misleading. It takes a long time to develop real perception, but Schoenberg's music really pushes you to the limit in this regard. You are forced to confront sounds that had never happened before in classical music, although it has happened since. Many composers have taken up the challenge laid down by composers like Schoenberg.

Apparently, the composer had the greatest violinist of the time, Jascha Heifetz in mind when he composed the work. But upon seeing the score, Heifetz said that it was unplayable, unless the violinist had a sixth finger. & in the notes to this recording, the soloist Hilary Hahn discusses how the work forced her to use techniques that she hadn't used before and completely change the position of her fingers, posture, etc.

I recommend this work to anyone who enjoys and knows some of the great violin concertos of the C20th, such as by Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Bartok, Shostakovich and even more recent ones like by Philip Glass. As I said above, it is played by Hilary Hahn, on Deutsche Grammophon (released 2008) and intriguingly coupled with the Sibelius concerto.


----------



## JTech82

Andre said:


> I have just acquired a recording of Schoenberg's *Violin Concerto* and listened to it for the first time.
> 
> The immediate impression I had was that the violin solo part conveyed a sense of fidgetiness and unease. But upon returning to it, I could hear the subtle grace, wit, lyricism and drama after that initial impression.
> 
> I think one has to be somewhat perceptive to comprehend Schoenberg's music. The basic level of enjoying music is hearing it. But when I return to a work for subsequent hearings, I peel back the layers because first impressions can be misleading. It takes a long time to develop real perception, but Schoenberg's music really pushes you to the limit in this regard. You are forced to confront sounds that had never happened before in classical music, although it has happened since. Many composers have taken up the challenge laid down by composers like Schoenberg.
> 
> Apparently, the composer had the greatest violinist of the time, Jascha Heifetz in mind when he composed the work. But upon seeing the score, Heifetz said that it was unplayable, unless the violinist had a sixth finger. & in the notes to this recording, the soloist Hilary Hahn discusses how the work forced her to use techniques that she hadn't used before and completely change the position of her fingers, posture, etc.
> 
> I recommend this work to anyone who enjoys and knows some of the great violin concertos of the C20th, such as by Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Bartok, Shostakovich and even more recent ones like by Philip Glass. As I said above, it is played by Hilary Hahn, on Deutsche Grammophon (released 2008) and intriguingly coupled with the Sibelius concerto.


Whatever. It sounds like chicken scratch to me.

He was a composer of promise, but unfortunately lost his way. It's really a shame too, but at least we have two good pieces from him before he went off the deep end.


----------



## Sid James

JTech82 said:


> Whatever. It sounds like chicken scratch to me.
> 
> He was a composer of promise, but unfortunately lost his way. It's really a shame too, but at least we have two good pieces from him before he went off the deep end.


Well, current European audiences who have embraced this concerto recently wouldn't agree with you. The sleeve notes for the CD I bought, say that Hilary Hahn - prior to making the recording - had played the work in sellout concerts in Europe. She has really revived this concerto & made it her own, in a way.

As I said, this work really tests one's skills of perception. I have been listening to classical music all my life, but I've never heard anything like it (with the exception of, say, Berg's concerto or the much more recent one by living German composer Ulrich Leyendecker on Naxos). I suppose it either strikes a chord with you, or it doesn't.

But you have a right to your opinion, obviously...


----------



## JTech82

Andre said:


> Well, current European audiences who have embraced this concerto recently wouldn't agree with you. The sleeve notes for the CD I bought, say that Hilary Hahn - prior to making the recording - had played the work in sellout concerts in Europe. She has really revived this concerto & made it her own, in a way.
> 
> As I said, this work really tests one's skills of perception. I have been listening to classical music all my life, but I've never heard anything like it (with the exception of, say, Berg's concerto or the much more recent one by living German composer Ulrich Leyendecker on Naxos). I suppose it either strikes a chord with you, or it doesn't.
> 
> But you have a right to your opinion, obviously...


I despise Hilary Hahn and yes I do have a right to my opinion.


----------



## Sid James

JTech82 said:


> I despise Hilary Hahn and yes I do have a right to my opinion.


Well we seem to be opposites in this regard, but each to his own!

Unlike you, I really like what little I've heard of Schoenberg's mature period, for example this concerto & the _Chamber Symphony No. 2_. On the other hand, I find his earlier works like _Verklarte Nacht _and the _Gurrelieder_ to be quite boring. If you're talking about other composers who were his colleagues, I like *Berg* (_String Quartet, Violin Concerto, Wozzeck, Lulu_) but I think *Webern *was too cerebral and intellectual for his own good.

Also unlike you, I find that I don't despise any classical performer in particular. I'm quite open to giving any performance a go. I think Hahn has done a good job in bringing the Schoenberg concerto into the spotlight again. It seems to have been neglected, and a legend built around Heifetz's criticisms that it was unplayable... Let us not forget that in his time, Schubert's _Great C major Symphony _was also considered as such. I think if you can play a work like this, one of the most demanding in the repertoire, you have to be good. But I don't want to digress from the focus of this thread, which is the composer & not about separate performers. Anyhow, that's just my two cents worth!

But I'd really be interested in why you like his earlier output. Not to argue, but just to get another insight. Maybe I've missed something with regards to that?


----------



## JTech82

Andre said:


> Well we seem to be opposites in this regard, but each to his own!
> 
> Unlike you, I really like what little I've heard of Schoenberg's mature period, for example this concerto & the _Chamber Symphony No. 2_. On the other hand, I find his earlier works like _Verklarte Nacht _and the _Gurrelieder_ to be quite boring. If you're talking about other composers who were his colleagues, I like *Berg* (_String Quartet, Violin Concerto, Wozzeck, Lulu_) but I think *Webern *was too cerebral and intellectual for his own good.
> 
> Also unlike you, I find that I don't despise any classical performer in particular. I'm quite open to giving any performance a go. I think Hahn has done a good job in bringing the Schoenberg concerto into the spotlight again. It seems to have been neglected, and a legend built around Heifetz's criticisms that it was unplayable... Let us not forget that in his time, Schubert's _Great C major Symphony _was also considered as such. I think if you can play a work like this, one of the most demanding in the repertoire, you have to be good. But I don't want to digress from the focus of this thread, which is the composer & not about separate performers. Anyhow, that's just my two cents worth!
> 
> But I'd really be interested in why you like his earlier output. Not to argue, but just to get another insight. Maybe I've missed something with regards to that?


Okay, maybe despise is a strong word to use. How about dislike? That's a much better descriptive isn't it? I think Joshua Bell is much better.

Anyway, Schoenberg's early work, which he only composed a few pieces in the Romantic German vein were influenced by Brahms and Wagner.

Go listen to "Verklärte Nacht" and "Pelleas und Melisande." This is tonal Schoenberg, which for me is the only Schoenberg.

If you do not have these two pieces on a recording, then check out Karajan's reading of both of these works on Deutsche Grammophon. They are very beautiful, especially "Verklärte Nacht," which I consider the best piece of music he ever wrote.


----------



## Lisztfreak

JTech82 said:


> especially "Verklärte Nacht," which I consider the best piece of music he ever wrote.


Agree with that. I heard it quite a long time ago, and have heard it many times since! And what's best of all, I can't remember ever listening to it during the day. It's always after midnight for me.

Other works of his I truly appreciate are Pierrot lunaire, Chamber Symphony No.2, and the Piano Concerto. 'Pelléas and Mélisande' I find overlong and too drawn. The Violin Concerto demands a lot of hard work to get it. The Variations op.31 are terribly boring.

Would like to hear his SQs, most of all.


----------



## Tapkaara

I heard Gurrelieder on the radio the other not...not a bad work at all. That post-romantic idiom I could certainly get into...it's just too bad (for me) Arnie drifted away from that style to another I find mostly opaque and unattractive.


----------



## Sid James

JTech82 said:


> Anyway, Schoenberg's early work, which he only composed a few pieces in the Romantic German vein were influenced by Brahms and Wagner.
> 
> Go listen to "Verklärte Nacht" and "Pelleas und Melisande." This is tonal Schoenberg, which for me is the only Schoenberg.
> 
> If you do not have these two pieces on a recording, then check out Karajan's reading of both of these works on Deutsche Grammophon. They are very beautiful, especially "Verklärte Nacht," which I consider the best piece of music he ever wrote.


Since you like his early works, you might also want to check out Schoenberg's orchestration of *Brahms*' _Piano Quintet_. Pundits have called it the equivalent of Brahms' 5th symphony. It's a fine orchestration, and sounds like Brahms, not Schoenberg.

I have heard the Karajan recording you mention, years ago on vinyl. It struck me as an excellent performance & got me interested in Schoenberg. I accessed it through my university library in the mid '90s & haven't heard it since. Maybe it's worth acquiring for _Verklarte Nacht_, probably one of the greatest works of the period for string orchestra.

Verklarte Nacht is great, but one needs to understand why Schoenberg couldn't continue to compose works like that...Around 1900 there was a crisis in tonality and different composers found various ways of dealing with this, not only atonalism, but impressionism, modernism and other more individual responses meant that music really changed during this period. Although it was only one of the approaches, after WWII in the 50's and 60's a kind of orthodoxy developed around serialism. It was favoured above all else by radio and concert programmers, academics at universities and even Stravinsky took it up. The 70's saw composers turn away from this orthodoxy, and embrace other styles. It was not Schoenberg's fault that the rise of serialism immediately after the war produced a new kind of dogma. It's still somewhat influential today, but composers are not put down by the elites any longer for embracing other approaches influenced by those other styles that emerged in the early C20th. Even Romanticism, which was really frowned upon after the war, has now come into its own, with composers like Penderecki and Rautavaara embracing it.

So my point is, I guess, that I enjoy listening to all of the solutions those composers had when the crisis of tonality occured, including atonalism. & if you look at the composers around Schoenberg, there was alot of variety there. Berg, Webern, Eisler where all different stylistically and even politically. So I'm interested in this variety, but I like Berg best followed by Schoenberg. I think Webern was too cerebral and intellectual, and I don't know much about Eisler except that he composed many cabaret/political songs and also the (now defunct) East German national anthem.

I'm not really a big fan of vocal works full stop, so that kind of cancels out Schoenberg's _Gurrelieder_ and _Perriot Lunaire_. As I said, I like the _Violin Concerto & Chamber Symphony No. 2._ I would like to hear some more, particularly the _Piano Concerto_. & maybe, as JTech suggests, I should also get _Verklarte Nacht_. So far, I've liked what relatively little I've heard of Schoenberg. To me, his style doesn't have to be all dogma. I think it can be very expressive, but you have to peel back the layers...


----------



## JTech82

Andre said:


> Since you like his early works, you might also want to check out Schoenberg's orchestration of *Brahms*' _Piano Quintet_. Pundits have called it the equivalent of Brahms' 5th symphony. It's a fine orchestration, and sounds like Brahms, not Schoenberg.
> 
> I have heard the Karajan recording you mention, years ago on vinyl. It struck me as an excellent performance & got me interested in Schoenberg. I accessed it through my university library in the mid '90s & haven't heard it since. Maybe it's worth acquiring for _Verklarte Nacht_, probably one of the greatest works of the period for string orchestra.
> 
> Verklarte Nacht is great, but one needs to understand why Schoenberg couldn't continue to compose works like that...Around 1900 there was a crisis in tonality and different composers found various ways of dealing with this, not only atonalism, but impressionism, modernism and other more individual responses meant that music really changed during this period. Although it was only one of the approaches, after WWII in the 50's and 60's a kind of orthodoxy developed around serialism. It was favoured above all else by radio and concert programmers, academics at universities and even Stravinsky took it up. The 70's saw composers turn away from this orthodoxy, and embrace other styles. It was not Schoenberg's fault that the rise of serialism immediately after the war produced a new kind of dogma. It's still somewhat influential today, but composers are not put down by the elites any longer for embracing other approaches influenced by those other styles that emerged in the early C20th. Even Romanticism, which was really frowned upon after the war, has now come into its own, with composers like Penderecki and Rautavaara embracing it.
> 
> So my point is, I guess, that I enjoy listening to all of the solutions those composers had when the crisis of tonality occured, including atonalism. & if you look at the composers around Schoenberg, there was alot of variety there. Berg, Webern, Eisler where all different stylistically and even politically. So I'm interested in this variety, but I like Berg best followed by Schoenberg. I think Webern was too cerebral and intellectual, and I don't know much about Eisler except that he composed many cabaret/political songs and also the (now defunct) East German national anthem.
> 
> I'm not really a big fan of vocal works full stop, so that kind of cancels out Schoenberg's _Gurrelieder_ and _Perriot Lunaire_. As I said, I like the _Violin Concerto & Chamber Symphony No. 2._ I would like to hear some more, particularly the _Piano Concerto_. & maybe, as JTech suggests, I should also get _Verklarte Nacht_. So far, I've liked what relatively little I've heard of Schoenberg. To me, his style doesn't have to be all dogma. I think it can be very expressive, but you have to peel back the layers...


Good post, Andre.

Having heard a good bit of Schoenberg a few years ago. I did a lot of research on him recently and the methods to his madness. The problems I have with Schoenberg, Berg, and others who compose atonal music is the simple fact there's no kind of melody or harmony that is defined. He simply uses tone rows in his compositions, which as most of us know are a series of notes that are basically unrelated to each other. He based his music around this method, which I find to be quite unsettling and for me isn't deeply rewarding.

Unfortunately, for me, it's not about peeling back the layers, it's about having something to hold onto to begin with. Schoenberg's music, in my assessment, does not have purpose. It doesn't go anywhere. It's just kind of this intellectual floating mass of notes that doesn't define anything. It's not that I don't understand it, it's just that it's not interesting to me musically.

The 12-tone method is really something you experiment with on your own time, but to make a composition out of it is simply a useless task.

The war of tonality vs. atonality has been raging since Schoenberg made that bold step. I understand people enjoy him and that's fine, but I would rather listen to something that touches me emotionally than intellectually, though I love the intellectual side of music as well, but without some kind of clear definition or some kind of purpose, I'm afraid I'm just lost in the notes.


----------



## Guest

Schoenberg wouldn't recognise a tune if he fell over one! completely unlistenable noise for me.


----------



## JTech82

Andante said:


> Schoenberg wouldn't recognise a tune if he fell over one! completely unlistenable noise for me.


I agree completely, Andante.


----------



## Tapkaara

Andante said:


> Schoenberg wouldn't recognise a tune if he fell over one! completely unlistenable noise for me.


It's so nice to know I am not alone!


----------



## Guest

Tapkaara said:


> It's so nice to know I am not alone!


If you come on a thread devoted to Schoenberg and consistently reveal how little you understand his music or his aims, but insist on talking about how horrible he is, then probably you should feel a little lonely!

I really don't understand the point of the last three posters falling over each other in their eagerness to be the one who can excoriate Schoenberg the most, falling over each other in their eagerness to demonstrate how faulty their perceptions are, perhaps I should have said. Schoenberg's music is all of it quite pleasant and late romantic sounding, even the dodecaphonic stuff. His putative inability to harmonize or make good melodies is all my grandmother's eye. Some people over the years have demonstrated their inability to hear his music. OK. People have done the same on this board for Beethoven's _Grosse Fuge,_ too, of all pieces.

Says nothing about the music and everything about the perceiver.

It's of course neither here nor there what any of us likes or dislikes. It is both here and there, however, when obvious prejudice and poorly developed perceptions are made into virtues. Slamming a composer, particularly one of Schoenberg's stature, that you neither understand nor appreciate is not the high moral ground! Quite the contrary. (Oh, it's fun!! But don't you feel just a little bit embarrassed? Just a skosh?)


----------



## Tapkaara

As far as I'm concerned, Some Guy, anything is this forum is fair game. Just as you take offence in a few of us folks "falling over each other" in expresing our distaste for this composer, I am equally dumbstruck by those who are "falling over each other" in this thread in support of him.

And for you to call my perception "faulty" because it is not in line with yours could be insulting if I let it be, but I won't, because nothing I read on the internet or in forums I take personally.

When these threads about specific composers open up, I think one should expect people's comments either way, especially on such a polarizing figure such as this.

"Says nothing about the music and everything about the perceiver."

All it says about me (and a few others) is that we don't like his music. If you are trying to suggest that we are somehow uneducated saps who wouldn't know good music if it slapped us in the face, you should reconsider that arrogant line of thinking. 

And by the the way, I have never questioned anyone's taste or judgement when they like a composer I do not. Not for one second, Some Guy, will I make any judgement call on you personally for liking Schonberg. I respect your appreciation for this music. However, everyone is entitled to their opinion, even if it differs from yours.

And no I'm not embarrassed.


----------



## JTech82

Tapkaara said:


> As far as I'm concerned, Some Guy, anything is this forum is fair game. Just as you take offence in a few of us folks "falling over each other" in expresing our distaste for this composer, I am equally dumbstruck by those who are "falling over each other" in this thread in support of him.
> 
> And for you to call my perception "faulty" because it is not in line with yours could be insulting if I let it be, but I won't, because nothing I read on the internet or in forums I take personally.
> 
> When these threads about specific composers open up, I think one should expect people's comments either way, especially on such a polarizing figure such as this.
> 
> "Says nothing about the music and everything about the perceiver."
> 
> All it says about me (and a few others) is that we don't like his music. If you are trying to suggest that we are somehow uneducated saps who wouldn't know good music if it slapped us in the face, you should reconsider that arrogant line of thinking.
> 
> And by the the way, I have never questioned anyone's taste or judgement when they like a composer I do not. Not for one second, Some Guy, will I make any judgement call on you personally for liking Schonberg. I respect your appreciation for this music. However, everyone is entitled to their opinion, even if it differs from yours.
> 
> And no I'm not embarrassed.


This is an intelligent and well-conceived answer. I couldn't have said it any better myself.


----------



## Guest

Tapkaara said:


> As far as I'm concerned, Some Guy, anything is this forum is fair game.


Including your opinions.



Tapkaara said:


> Just as you take offence in a few of us folks "falling over each other" in expresing our distaste for this composer, I am equally dumbstruck by those who are "falling over each other" in this thread in support of him.


The "taking offense" part is your conclusion. I wasn't taking offense. Puzzled, maybe. Incredulous. But not offended. Expressing delight should never dumbstrike, I say! Expressing delight is a natural and healthy thing. Expressing distaste may be equally so, but not necessarily.



Tapkaara said:


> And for you to call my perception "faulty" because it is not in line with yours could be insulting if I let it be, but I won't, because nothing I read on the internet or in forums I take personally.


Again, "not in line with" is all you. I was calling your perception faulty because it's based on ignorance (lack of knowledge) at best and prejudice at worst. You cannot hear Schoenberg's music for some reason, possibly because it doesn't fulfill your expectations of what music should be. In any case, your words "drifted away from" (from an earlier post) are remarkably inapposite. It was anything but a drift. It was purposeful, not only in Schoenberg but in a number of other composers, some of whom preceded him.

My point is simply that your distaste for Schoenberg is not a criticism of Schoenberg but an expression of your current status as a listener. I find another Arnold's music extremely distasteful, which I never bring up except to make this point: so what? Who cares whether I like Bax or not? Whether I find his music absolute dreck or not? I'm thinking no one. I wonder if I went on a Bax thread and commenced traducing his music if that strike any of you as "fair."



Tapkaara said:


> When these threads about specific composers open up, I think one should expect people's comments either way, especially on such a polarizing figure such as this.


Of course.



Tapkaara said:


> All it says about me (and a few others) is that we don't like his music.


If that were all, then I doubt you'd say things the way you've said them. No, it's somehow that your dislike is normative. That Schoenberg is unlistenable and since there are arrogant people who insist that he's not, you must go on Schoenberg threads and make sure everyone knows that he's terrible.

Here's my question to you and to Andante and JTech82: why is it so important to you to make sure that we all know how distasteful Schoenberg is to you? What would happen if you didn't?


----------



## Tapkaara

Yes my opinions are fair game. But I think when you personalize your opposition to my opinions by basically calling my an idiot when it comes to music is the wrong way to disagree.

Please do not refer to my distaste for Schonberg as "ignorance." I can assure you, I have listened to enough Schonberg to "see what it's all about" and, despite by best efforts to allow this music to enter my heart and soul, I'm left feeling like I've wasted time. Why? Because to my "ignorant" ears, I don't hear touching music, I hear experimental, intellectual excercises take the place of lyricism and a more traditional humanism. That's right, "more traditional." I guess that makes me a little "old-fashioned", but certainly not "ignorant." (There is a difference.) Again, I think for you to make a judgement call against me PERSONALLY, someone you do not know, is presumptuous. I would never call into questions YOUR taste any any music or call you "ignorant" or anything else if you did not like any of my favorite composers. I would simply disagree with you, perhaps vigorously, but I would not call you ignorant.

Who cares if you don't like Arnold or Bax? I suppose no one would. Because, perhaps, they are not notorious, polarizing composers like Schonberg. So, again, in threads about especially contorversial figures like this, a little controversy should be expected. I think so, anyway. And why is it important for folks like me to say we don't like this composer? I don't know...perhaps because we are in a forum where an exchange of opinions and ideals is the reason why we're here. I guess everyone is supposed to march in lock-step in forums and uniformly shower praise on every composer who ever lived. While I am not familiar with every post you have ever made, Some Guy, I anticipate that somewhere in the archives, you've expressed a less-than-favorable opinion of a composer or two, which would fall in line, I'd say, with what one would occaisionally expect in a forum: an exchange or differing opinions.

Anyway, Some Guy, nothing personal against you...there never was. And I am done discussing this with you. We've both made our points and I will let you have the last word.


----------



## Herzeleide

JTech82 said:


> The problems I have with Schoenberg, Berg, and others who compose atonal music is the simple fact there's no kind of melody or harmony that is defined. He simply uses tone rows in his compositions, which as most of us know are a series of notes that are basically unrelated to each other.


For someone who has supposedly 'done a lot of research on him [Schoenberg]' you aren't half ignorant. The series of notes *are* related to one another - it's stated explicitly in the a well-known essay by Schoenberg called 'Method of Composing with Twelve Tones *Which are Related Only with One Another*'. Since I have already pointed out, we can add to the charges that of being obtuse.

For anyone whose ears are attentive and memory is not deficient, the harmonies and melodies are quite clearly defined in the music of Berg and Schoenberg, especially in the music of the former. This is especially so in the neoclassical serialist works of the 1920s and after.


----------



## Herzeleide

Andante said:


> Schoenberg wouldn't recognise a tune if he fell over one! completely unlistenable noise for me.


A vacuous criticism; a great deal of the best music of the sixteenth century is contrapuntally composed, where there is no melody because each voice is equal in a polyphonic texture.


----------



## Bach

That criticism isn't even applicable.. I can summon many of Schoenberg's melodies and motifs to the forefront of my imagination on demand.. "duh duh duh duh - duh duh duh duh" String Quartet No. 3 "Duuuuuh duh duh daah daah duh duh daaaaaaa duh daaa daaa doooooo" String Quartet No. 1


----------



## Herzeleide

Tapkaara said:


> Because to my "ignorant" ears, I don't hear touching music, I hear experimental, intellectual excercises take the place of lyricism and a more traditional humanism. That's right, "more traditional."


"Ignorant" indeed! The quality of being experimental is not a sufficient critique of a work: I am sure, if examined, you tastes would not exclude 'experimental' tonal works.

And please tell me what is 'intellectual' about Schoenberg's music. The idea that there is no lyricism in Schoenberg is again pointless, because a lack thereof is still an insufficient reason for believing Schoenberg's music to be of poor quality. For what it's worth, one only needs to listen to the second movement of his op. 16 to hear his lyricism.

The idea that Schoenberg wasn't traditional enough need not be taken seriously, Schoenberg was very conscious of being part of a tradition, was saturated in his own tradition and his music makes this explicit by constant use of old forms. It is not for nothing that Schoenberg's post WWI music has been regarded as neoclassical.


----------



## Herzeleide

Bach said:


> That criticism isn't even applicable.. I can summon many of Schoenberg's melodies and motifs to the forefront of my imagination on demand.. "duh duh duh duh - duh duh duh duh" String Quartet No. 3 "Duuuuuh duh duh daah daah duh duh daaaaaaa duh daaa daaa doooooo" String Quartet No. 1


Indeed, sufficient exposure to atonal music in order to rectify an ear saturated in tonal music should eventually make people cognizant of the great power of much serial and atonal music, and indeed make them _remember_ it.


----------



## Bach

Quite.

I don't understand those who don't hear the great wealth of emotion in Schoenberg's music - whether as insignificant as a witty, satirical gibe or as overwhelming as his sorrow and pain - I always hear the abundant humanism of Schoenberg's art - thinking about it - 'human' is such a fantastic word for Schoenberg (I might explain when I have more time to think it though - I'm certainly touching upon something though). Far greater humanism than the superficiality and materialism I hear in much 20th century tonal music.


----------



## Tapkaara

Herzeleide said:


> "Ignorant" indeed! The quality of being experimental is not a sufficient critique of a work: I am sure, if examined, you tastes would not exclude 'experimental' tonal works.


Is it really necessary to call me or my points of view ignorant? Why can't they just be different from yours?

Anyway, I am not opposed to all "experimental" or atonal music. I have heard some experimental/atonal works from other composers that are not half bad. Leifs has written great atonal music, but somehow, to my (insert "ignorant" are any other put down here) ears, an element of lyricism is retained. I can say this of some Takemitsu as well. His "The Flock Decends into the Pentagonal Garden" comes to mind as an atonal work that I admire.

But, even though these composers have put forth an output of atonal music, it is their particular sentiments as artist that still shines through and their idiom "speaks" to me.

Schonberg, for me, does not write atonally with the same amount of lyricism. And the tone-row stuff may be "beautiful" or "genius" on a structural level, but FOR ME, it's at the expense of musicality. That is, musicality according to my own personal tastes.



Herzeleide said:


> "And please tell me what is 'intellectual' about Schoenberg's music. The idea that there is no lyricism in Schoenberg is again pointless, because a lack thereof is still an insufficient reason for believing Schoenberg's music to be of poor quality. For what it's worth, one only needs to listen to the second movement of his op. 16 to hear his lyricism.


Well, I think I already kind of answered that. The "intellectualism" is the strict adherence to the tone-row system. Granted, ALL music has some amount of "intellectialism, as music is governed by rules. But Schonberg's invention of the tone-row is a particular set of rules, or methodology if you will, that, because of its structure, produces rising and falling pitches that end up sounding like sort of tonal (or should I say atonal?) jibbersih TO ME.



Herzeleide said:


> "The idea that Schoenberg wasn't traditional enough need not be taken seriously, Schoenberg was very conscious of being part of a tradition, was saturated in his own tradition and his music makes this explicit by constant use of old forms. It is not for nothing that Schoenberg's post WWI music has been regarded as neoclassical.


Nothing in life should be taken too seriously. But as for how "traditional" Schonberg was, or at least ended up, I cannot see how someone who invented a new kind of music could be considered "traditional" in any sense. Maybe his early works, but he, basically, created a new "tradition" seperate from any other tradition set before him.

The final thing I will say is that it's frustrating that the Schonbergites have such a hard time understanding that there are people who will not like this music. For those of you who like Schonberg, surely there are composers you do not like...are you somehow "ignorant" or ill-informed for simply not having a taste for any one composer or their individual style?

Anyway, I'm gonna have to break off this discussion with you as well, Herzelieder, as I think we can both agree we're on opposite ends of the street here and nothing I say will convince you, and vice versa. I will let you have the last word.


----------



## Bach

Tapkaara said:


> Is it really necessary to call me or my points of view ignorant? Why can't they just be different from yours?


Black people are inferior. Is it really necessary to call me or my points of view ignorant? Why can't they just be different from yours?


----------



## Guest

some guy said:


> Some people over the years have demonstrated their inability to hear his music. OK. People have done the same on this board for Beethoven's _Grosse Fuge,_ too, of all pieces.


I find nothing out of place with the Grosse Fuge but to somehow connect this with an inability to hear_ Schoenberg's music._ quite frankly amazes me and in your own words

_Says nothing about the music and everything about the perceiver._


----------



## Bach

The connection is strong.


----------



## JTech82

Herzeleide said:


> For someone who has supposedly 'done a lot of research on him [Schoenberg]' you aren't half ignorant. The series of notes *are* related to one another - it's stated explicitly in the a well-known essay by Schoenberg called 'Method of Composing with Twelve Tones *Which are Related Only with One Another*'. Since I have already pointed out, we can add to the charges that of being obtuse.
> 
> For anyone whose ears are attentive and memory is not deficient, the harmonies and melodies are quite clearly defined in the music of Berg and Schoenberg, especially in the music of the former. This is especially so in the neoclassical serialist works of the 1920s and after.


It's so nice being referred to as "ignorant." Ignorant as in if I don't like what you like I'm wrong. Ridicule and name-calling are the lowest forms of communication known to man. Keep those barbaric traditions alive!

But what the icing on the cake has been is trying to figure out what credentials you actually have to judge music, Herzeleide. What is your main instrument and secondary instrument? What idiom of music do you compose in?

These are simple questions, which I have asked of you for a few days now, but you seem to be avoiding and I believe I know why.


----------



## Bach

I just asked him as well (see the .. what was it.. 10 Greatest Symphonists thread, I believe) - seemed to ignore me too. Silly boy. Naughty. Probably studies music tech at some poly.. *gasp* what a snob.

JTech, you love Verklarte Nacht, so to draw you into mature Schoenberg - can I openly recommend his first string quartet. It's written in a chromatic idiom (similar to VN) but with a little bit more tonality knocked off. An excellent 'bridge' work. It's not serialist or twelve tone so you may enjoy it with a bit of effort. Certainly not light listening, but put something in and you'll get something fantastic in return. 

Mahler famously said of it: "I have conducted the most difficult scores of Wagner; I have written complicated music myself in scores of up to thirty staves and more; yet here is a score of not more than four staves, and I am unable to read them."


----------



## JTech82

Bach said:


> I just asked him as well (see the .. what was it.. 10 Greatest Symphonists thread, I believe) - seemed to ignore me too. Silly boy. Naughty. Probably studies music tech at some poly.. *gasp* what a snob.


The reason he's avoiding the questions is simple: he doesn't have the necessary credentials to evaluate and give an educated analysis of why he dislikes something in particular music.

My questions are as simple as basic math, but it's quite funny to me that he is running away from them.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Andante said:


> Schoenberg wouldn't recognise a tune if he fell over one! completely unlistenable noise for me.


What's the matter, afraid you might hear something?!


----------



## Guest

Edward Elgar said:


> What's the matter, afraid you might hear something?!


Such as what??????


----------



## Edward Elgar

Andante said:


> Such as what??????


Music??????


----------



## Guest

Edward Elgar said:


> Music??????


No, I can safely say that I wouldn't hear any


----------



## Guest

Herzeleide said:


> A vacuous criticism; a great deal of the best music of the sixteenth century is contrapuntally composed, where there is no melody because each voice is equal in a polyphonic texture.


By crikey its amazing what you learn on some posts, any more gems that we are ignorant of?


----------



## Edward Elgar

Andante said:


> No, I can safely say that I wouldn't hear any


If that is the case, there must have been some point in history when music ceased to be music. Care to give us a specific date or are we just going to say that this occured when Wagner didn't resolve a particular dissonance in the overture to Tristan and Isolde? Either that or no music is music as what applies to one music applies to all music.


----------



## Herzeleide

Tapkaara said:


> Is it really necessary to call me or my points of view ignorant? Why can't they just be different from yours?


Is there any need to call someone who thinks pigs can fly ignorant? Why can't they just be different from everyone else's opinion?



Tapkaara said:


> Anyway, I am not opposed to all "experimental" or atonal music.


Hence, your criticism of Schoenberg as 'experimental' is, by your own admission, redundant.



Tapkaara said:


> Well, I think I already kind of answered that. The "intellectualism" is the strict adherence to the tone-row system. Granted, ALL music has some amount of "intellectialism, as music is governed by rules. But Schonberg's invention of the tone-row is a particular set of rules, or methodology if you will, that, because of its structure, produces rising and falling pitches that end up sounding like sort of tonal (or should I say atonal?) jibbersih TO ME.


Tonal music is just as strict. There are less rules in Schoenberg's music than in much tonal music.

If you'd like to explain how Schoenberg's music, at the same time as following strict rules, still amazingly sounds like 'jibbish[sic]', I'd be more than willing to listen.



Tapkaara said:


> But as for how "traditional" Schonberg was, or at least ended up, I cannot see how someone who invented a new kind of music could be considered "traditional" in any sense. Maybe his early works, but he, basically, created a new "tradition" seperate from any other tradition set before him.


Incorrect; the use of serialism was a direct consequence of the early tonal chromaticism, which directly and smoothly took Schoenberg into atonal territory (this is why it is so hard deciding what the 'first' atonal piece is) and then again smoothly into twelve-tone technique. This all derives from the harmonic practice of Wagner, Strauss and Mahler amongst others (who themsleves were influenced by earlier Romantic composers).


----------



## Herzeleide

JTech82 said:


> It's so nice being referred to as "ignorant." Ignorant as in if I don't like what you like I'm wrong. Ridicule and name-calling are the lowest forms of communication known to man. Keep those barbaric traditions alive!


This isn't petty name calling, the likes of which you are well acquainted with. This is merely an observation regarding a mistaken idea of yours.



JTech82 said:


> But what the icing on the cake has been is trying to figure out what credentials you actually have to judge music, Herzeleide. What is your main instrument and secondary instrument? What idiom of music do you compose in?
> 
> These are simple questions, which I have asked of you for a few days now, but you seem to be avoiding and I believe I know why.


_Vide_ t'other thread. You can ask this until you're blue in the face; I shall take great pleasure in ensuring my personal details remain safely undisclosed.


----------



## Herzeleide

Bach said:


> I just asked him as well (see the .. what was it.. 10 Greatest Symphonists thread, I believe) - seemed to ignore me too. Silly boy. Naughty. Probably studies music tech at some poly.. *gasp* what a snob.


Such redoubtable aperçus.

Yes, yes alright. I have been exposed. 

I got all Es in my A-levels and am currently struggling my way through a Btech diploma in Music Technology at the local college.


----------



## Bach

Oh dear, what a sorrowful tale. I'm sure we can find you a temp job as a bouncer at the Reading Festival..


----------



## JTech82

Herzeleide, it's so sad that you can't even answer simple questions, but I guess diminishing your credibility isn't that important to you.

I'm sure you'll pass remedial math one day. Perhaps you can cheat off the 9 yr. old child sitting next to you.


----------



## Guest

Edward Elgar said:


> If that is the case, there must have been some point in history when music ceased to be music. Care to give us a specific date or are we just going to say that this occured when Wagner didn't resolve a particular dissonance in the overture to Tristan and Isolde? Either that or no music is music as what applies to one music applies to all music.


Come on mate, are you for real. get a life spend a bit more time in the real world and develop a sense of humour it will help ease the pain.


----------



## Herzeleide

JTech82 said:


> Herzeleide, it's so sad that you can't even answer simple questions, but I guess diminishing your credibility isn't that important to you.
> 
> I'm sure you'll pass remedial math one day. Perhaps you can cheat off the 9 yr. old child sitting next to you.





Herzeleide said:


> _Vide_ t'other thread. You can ask this until you're blue in the face; I shall take great pleasure in ensuring my personal details remain safely undisclosed.


http://edhelper.com/language/Reading_Skills.htm


----------



## Edward Elgar

Andante said:


> Come on mate, are you for real. get a life spend a bit more time in the real world and develop a sense of humour it will help ease the pain.


The real world is a one whereby its inhabiants are so conditioned by popular culture that they profess to hate art. In a world so driven by hate and money, my pains will never be eased.


----------



## Bach

amen, amen


----------



## Guest

Edward Elgar said:


> The real world is a one whereby its inhabiants are so conditioned by popular culture that they profess to hate art. In a world so driven by hate and money, my pains will never be eased.


Depends where you live! Can I ask which Country you live in?
And as the man said *"All the world is mad save for thee and me but even thee is a bit queer"* 
I don't know if Art is hated but some of it is just beyond comprehension e.g. A pile of metal [Gravel] dumped just off the side of the road with a stick poked into it. Now that took no skill what so ever and meant nothing to most. When asked what it meant the Artist apparently replied " whatever you want it to mean" Great eh


----------



## Edward Elgar

Andante said:


> Depends where you live! Can I ask which Country you live in?


Britain, which might as well be called "land of puppets and muppets". I wish I lived in New Zealand, I'll tell thee that for nowt!



Andante said:


> Now that took no skill what so ever and meant nothing to most. When asked what it meant the Artist apparently replied " whatever you want it to mean" Great eh


I hope audio art never suffers from the same amount of undiciplined pretentiousness. If you know of any composers who exercise the equivelent lack of effort please point them out so I can avoid them.


----------



## JTech82

You know at the end of the day I'm not worrying about if I like Schoenberg or not. It's not important to me. What is important is listening to what I enjoy and not what everybody else enjoys and unfortunately Schoenberg doesn't make my listening list.

For all who like Schoenberg, listen to him and enjoy him. Who cares if somebody doesn't like him or understands him the way you do. That will never change and trying to change people's opinion of a composer who they obviously do not like is their own prerogative.

Listen to what inspires and moves you. Screw what people think. We can play this little intellectual game of why I might like dislike him and then have somebody come back at me with a counter argument, but is it really going to change that person's perception or opinion? No of course not and nobody should expect it to. We can argue until we are blue in the face, but the only thing that stands are two opinions and two opinions only.

I'm done with this thread. It's lived past it's life-expectancy already.


----------



## Sid James

JTech82 said:


> You know at the end of the day I'm not worrying about if I like Schoenberg or not. It's not important to me. What is important is listening to what I enjoy and not what everybody else enjoys and unfortunately Schoenberg doesn't make my listening list.
> 
> For all who like Schoenberg, listen to him and enjoy him. Who cares if somebody doesn't like him or understands him the way you do. That will never change and trying to change people's opinion of a composer who they obviously do not like is their own prerogative.


I agree with this.

Schoenberg is definitely an acquired taste, so some people are bound to not like his atonal works. I''m in the category who like him, but he is definitely not one of my favourite composers, who would probably be Prokofiev or Bartok. I suppose those composers didn't have to stick to a system, such as what Schoenberg did. All three were revolutionaries, & particularly Prokofiev & Schoenberg were iconoclasts. I find the other two's approach more engaging, but all three were responding to the crisis of tonality that presented itself around 1900. Music would never be the same.

When I hear Schoenberg's _Violin Concerto_, I think that he has deconstructed the genre almost totally. It's like he's put it in a blender and mixed it up. But this, perhaps, reflects the nature of the human condition from the C20th on: ambiguity, restlessness, agitation, uncertainty, uprootedness, exile - both in their emotional, social and physical aspects.

I think his music is meant to sound that way. If people don't like it that's fine, but as JTech suggests, don't act as if this is the only view or response. Look at what I said about the _Violin Concerto_ earlier, Hilary Hahn had been packing houses with it in Europe prior to making the recording I mentioned in 2007. So his music still has resonance with audiences today.


----------



## Guest

Edward Elgar said:


> Britain, which might as well be called "land of puppets and muppets". I wish I lived in New Zealand, I'll tell thee that for nowt!


The Arts are quite well supported here in general mainly because for the last 9 years we have had a sympathetic Government, now we have a Government that is pro Market and User Pays. This will knock things around a bit as most Arts depend upon Government aka "Tax Payer" for support and funding, and quite frankly some of it is taken advantage of by certain groups, I suspect that our one Classical Radio channel will become commercial and dumbed down, we will see



> I hope audio art never suffers from the same amount of undiciplined pretentiousness. If you know of any composers who exercise the equivelent lack of effort please point them out so I can avoid them.


Don't tempt me 

Last night I listened to Arvo Parts "Credo" for Piano. Orch & choir I like this work and most of Parts works but just can't get into Schonberg, Hindemith, Berg, etc.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Andante said:


> Don't tempt me
> 
> Last night I listened to Arvo Parts "Credo" for Piano. Orch & choir I like this work and most of Parts works but just can't get into Schonberg, Hindemith, Berg, etc.


From your previous post, it seemed to me that you were not happy with the lack of discipline in the visual art world. I really can sympathise with this, the sculpture, "unmade bed", is quite baffling as it's something I see every day and takes little effort to create. Possibly a good concept if the sculptist had spent much more time exploring the different ways to get their idea across, but nonetheless, quite banal work. I think this is a subject of which we are both in agreement.

However, this does not explain your lack of interest with Schoenberg. The man invented a new method of expression and his output on either side of this historical landmark shows it has been well thought, heard and composed. It would seem obvious to me that it is the minimalists who spend relatively little time and effort over their compositions. True, their music sounds less offensive and quite atmospheric at times, but they can't have spent as much time and effort over the composition process as Schoenberg.

It's funny you should have listened to the "Credo" recently, because I listened to Part's "Tabula Rasa" last night, have you heard it? It's quite atmospheric, makes good use of prepared piano and is less repetative than some of his other works. I know that five years ago I would have turned my stubborn nose up at this piece and said something along the lines of "why prepare a piano it's perfect the way it is". However, now I realise that it's much better to absorb and enjoy new music, rather than find faults with it. It's true you are unlikely to find yourself whistling a Schoenberg melody walking down the street, but simply listening without predjudice to the previously undiscovered harmonies and textures, I find, is very rewarding, like playing and analysing the complex counterpoint of Bach.


----------



## Elgarian

Edward Elgar said:


> they can't have spent as much time and effort over the composition process as Schoenberg.


As a matter of general principle in the arts, I think it's very easy to be misled by considerations about how much 'skill' or 'effort' is _apparently_ employed in producing a work of art. After all, great pains can be taken to produce a work of art that's entirely vacuous. As Ruskin said (I can't remember the exact words), 'there's no reason to be proud of anything that can be accomplished using polish and sandpaper' when it comes to the arts. Or as Whistler famously retorted, when challenged whether it was reasonable to ask 300 guineas for a painting he'd made in a couple of afternoons: 'I ask it for the experience of a lifetime,' he said. (Tracey Emin might say something similar about her unmade bed, perhaps.)

I've no way of knowing whether Schoenberg's music is good art myself. (I'm inclined to assume from the accounts of those who can appreciate it, that it is.) But the general principle holds: the amount of time and effort he took over it tells us only about the 'craft' aspects of his work (sandpaper and polish), and can't tell us anything about the quality of the musical ideas - the 'art'.


----------



## Guest

Edward Elgar said:


> However, this does not explain your lack of interest with Schoenberg. .


Is there a period that you don't listen to very often? I see various posters here do not like music pre Classical! yet I enjoy all of the early periods and in particular when played on period instruments, as I have said before I find little enjoyment in certain Composers and _*I listen to music for enjoyment*_, it is not that I haven't tried but quite honestly I doubt that I will ever be a big purchaser of their Cds. [I do have some]
I have heard "Tabula Rasa" but do not have in my collection.


----------



## Herzeleide

Elgarian said:


> As a matter of general principle in the arts, I think it's very easy to be misled by considerations about how much 'skill' or 'effort' is _apparently_ employed in producing a work of art. After all, great pains can be taken to produce a work of art that's entirely vacuous. As Ruskin said (I can't remember the exact words), 'there's no reason to be proud of anything that can be accomplished using polish and sandpaper' when it comes to the arts. Or as Whistler famously retorted, when challenged whether it was reasonable to ask 300 guineas for a painting he'd made in a couple of afternoons: 'I ask it for the experience of a lifetime,' he said. (Tracey Emin might say something similar about her unmade bed, perhaps.)


From what I've read, there does tend to be a correlation between the amount of effort and time put into composing and the overall quality of a composer's oeuvre.

For instance, both Mozart and Liszt composed frequently and swiftly and had great facility; but then _facility_ can often teeter on the brink of _facileness_; hence, whilst both composed masterly, wonderful pieces, one finds recourse to formulae and occasionally a kind of cheapness in some of their works.

This can be distinguished from someone like Debussy or Oliver Knussen; the former composed very slowly and with great discernment, whilst the latter's oeuvre is quite small, and the length of his pieces tends not to be great, but the quality of his music is of an extraordinarily high standard, with many things happening over a short amount of time, evincing a preternaturally acute ear and perfect sense of timing. There's much more happening in a two-minute piece by Knussen than there is in a thirty-minute piece by any minimalist composer.

'Edward Elgar': you should be thankful for living in Britain. We are very lucky to have the BBC (Radio 3) and the Proms, not to mention a large and fascinating history, tradition and culture (as opposed to countries in the New World). This can be extended to Europe as a whole. I feel lucky to be in the centre of Occidental culture and civilisation and would hate to live thousands' of miles from the place where most the culture in which I'm interested takes place and _has_ taken place.


----------



## Elgarian

Herzeleide said:


> From what I've read, there does tend to be a correlation between the amount of effort and time put into composing and the overall quality of a composer's oeuvre.


I'm sure you're right. As you say, the arts are full of shallow works that are dashed off with facility but little else. (In painting these are often the most obviously 'skilful' works in a slick, purely technical sense.) That's not quite what I was getting at, though. I'm saying that if _apparent_ 'skill' and 'effort' become the chief criteria for basing a judgement, then great work will almost certainly be missed along the way. For instance, a piece by Schoenberg may _seem_ to the uninitiated (eg, me) to be a mess, lacking in skill (just as a Jackson Pollock might, to some people); but that's because we haven't appreciated the essential character of the work. We miss it because we're looking for the wrong things.


----------



## Herzeleide

Elgarian said:


> I'm saying that if _apparent_ 'skill' and 'effort' become the chief criteria for basing a judgement, then great work will almost certainly be missed along the way.


Of course, this would be the poietic fallacy; 'poietic' derived from the Greek _poiein_ 'to make', in order to distinguish this from the way in which one should analyse: aesthetically (_aisthesis_ 'perception').


----------



## Elgarian

Herzeleide said:


> Of course, this would be the poietic fallacy; 'poietic' derived from the Greek _poiein_ 'to make', in order to distinguish this from the way in which one should analyse: aesthetically (_aisthesis_ 'perception').


Yes, that's a better way of putting it: mistaking the poeitic for the aesthetic - the making from the receiving. The only modification I'd like to make would concern the word 'analyse' - I'd prefer 'receive'; the fallacy isn't necessarily analytical - in fact I imagine most people make this mistake through a kind of fallacious intuition rather than analysis; but whatever word we choose, the mistake is made over and over and over again.


----------



## JTech82

This thread isn't dead yet? That's very surprising.

The war rages on then.


----------



## Sid James

*Back to Schoenberg* & not these rather futile arguments...

I think there is something very Germanic about his music. Much like what I wrote about Hindemith in that thread, but for different reasons.

Schoenberg's music sounds very serious & profound, it garners all of your attention, much like the works of earlier composers in the Germanic tradition, like Beethoven, Brahms & Mahler. Perhaps this is part of the baggage that he inherited & is really apparent in his earlier works like _Verklarte Nacht & the Gurrelieder._ Even in his atonal works, like the _Violin Concerto & Chamber Symphony No. 2_, there is a sense of this stolidness and seriousness. One can't fail to notice that he mainly stuck to the old forms (symphonies, concertos, string quartets & operas), much like Hindemith, & unlike someone like Edgard Varese, who went in completely other directions. So he was still somewhat of a traditionalist, which many people don't give him credit for.


----------



## Guest

Andre said:


> *Back to Schoenberg* & not these rather futile arguments...
> 
> Schoenberg's music sounds very serious & profound, it garners all of your attention, much like the works of earlier composers in the Germanic tradition, like Beethoven, Brahms & Mahler. Perhaps this is part of the baggage that he inherited & is really apparent in his earlier works like _Verklarte Nacht & the Gurrelieder._ Even in his atonal works, like the _Violin Concerto & Chamber Symphony No. 2_, there is a sense of this stolidness and seriousness. .


Just out of curiosity where would you place his "Chamber Sym #2 Op38", I have this work and find it quite Bland an uninteresting, I suppose this will encourage all the wrath of his admirers and they will have a go at me, I will add that I find this particular piece a bit more accessible than some of his other works that I have heard in the past.


----------



## Sid James

Andante said:


> Just out of curiosity where would you place his "Chamber Sym #2 Op38", I have this work and find it quite Bland an uninteresting, I suppose this will encourage all the wrath of his admirers and they will have a go at me, I will add that I find this particular piece a bit more accessible than some of his other works that I have heard in the past.


I'm not an expert on Schoenberg. I heard _Verklarte Nacht, Pelleas & Melisande _& the _Gurrelieder_ about a decade ago. What I have on CD now is the _Violin Concerto_, _Chamber Symphony No. 2_ (on a disc which also has works by Berg & Hindemith) & an excerpt from _Perriot Lunaire._

I agree that the _Chamber Symphony No. 2_ is much less interesting than say those other last two works that I mentioned. Again, there is something rather stolid, profound and serious about it - maybe too much of those things for it's own good. There are a few light touches, like at the beginning of the second (final) movement, but he gets back to the serious opening theme quite quickly. Compared to, say, works I have heard by Webern (his _String Quartet_), it is somewhat more interesting (not as intellectual as that, but getting rather close). Despite not being exactly thrilled, I don't mind it being a bit technical, but I do enjoy more, say the _Violin Concerto_, which is more emotional and dramatic, not to speak of Berg's _Lulu Suite _or _Wozzeck_. As you say, compared to these works, the _C S No.2_ has less orchestral colour and changes in rhythm. I have been aware of this repertoire for years, but I am still to discover more.


----------



## JTech82

I'll be objective here and say that Schoenberg was a pioneer, of course he was completely out of his mind, but he ushered in a new kind of music. A music that I happen to not enjoy, but I respect him for his innovations as a theorist. He is only one of a handful of composers who literally created a new genre of composition and threw the musical world upside down with his radical musical vision.

To be subjective, does this mean I enjoy his music, of course not, but to hear "Verkarte Nacht" is a thing of pure beauty. Anyone and I mean anyone who does not like this piece I think aren't really fans of classical music to begin with. It has all the essentials in music: rhythm, harmony, melody, and structure and it shows an incredible beauty that I believe anyone interested in classical music will enjoy. This piece also shows a great sense of drama and I'll even go as far to say despair.

Does anyone know the philosophical ideals behind this piece? I already know the technical origins of the piece. It had been arranged from his string quartet, but I'm anxious to know more about it philosophically.


----------



## Sid James

JTech82 said:


> To be subjective, does this mean I enjoy his music, of course not, but to hear "Verkarte Nacht" is a thing of pure beauty...Does anyone know the philosophical ideals behind this piece? I already know the technical origins of the piece. It had been arranged from his string quartet, but I'm anxious to know more about it philosophically.


I looked on Wikipedia, and it gives some info about the content of _*Verklarte Nacht*_, based on *Richard Dehmel's poem* of the same name. You might already know this, but at least this post is about Schoenberg, unlike some of the convoluted arguments we have seen above:



Wikipedia said:


> Dehmel's powerful poem is about a man and a woman walking through a dark forest on a moonlit night, wherein the woman shares a dark secret with her new lover; she bears the child of a stranger. The mood of Dehmel's poem is reflected throughout the composition in five sections, beginning with the sadness of the woman's confession; a neutral interlude wherein the man reflects upon the confession; and a finale, the man's bright acceptance (and forgiveness) of the woman: O sieh, wie klar das Weltall schimmert! Es ist ein Glanz um Alles her (see how brightly the universe gleams! There is a radiance on everything).


----------



## JTech82

Andre said:


> I looked on Wikipedia, and it gives some info about the content of _*Verklarte Nacht*_, based on *Richard Dehmel's poem* of the same name. You might already know this, but at least this post is about Schoenberg, unlike some of the convoluted arguments we have seen above:


Thanks Andre, yeah I should of looked on Wikipedia myself. I wasn't thinking.

Anyway, that makes a lot of sense. A woman and man walking through the woods at night and she shares something very dark and sinister with him, but the man forgives her. This is pretty interesting to say the least.

Now, I understand the piece even better. I enjoy knowing the philosophy of pieces of music from time to time, but this one makes a lot of sense.

I only wish more people would investigate Schoenberg more and not be so scared of him. I'm actually listening to it as we speak with Karajan and the BPO.


----------



## Sid James

JTech82 said:


> Thanks Andre, yeah I should of looked on Wikipedia myself. I wasn't thinking.
> 
> Anyway, that makes a lot of sense. A woman and man walking through the woods at night and she shares something very dark and sinister with him, but the man forgives her. This is pretty interesting to say the least.
> 
> Now, I understand the piece even better. I enjoy knowing the philosophy of pieces of music from time to time, but this one makes a lot of sense.


It would be really interesting to read the actual primary source, the poem itself. Sometimes the record companies go to an effort of actually printing this type of thing in the sleevenotes, if you are lucky. Naxos seems to be particularly good at this, as they either provide the text with the CD or online.

Apart from obvious examples (Beethoven's _Ode to Joy_, and lieder of various Germanic composers in particular) I don't know of many other works, particularly instrumental, that have been inspired by poems or works of literature. Some of R Strauss' tone poems come to mind, as does Schumann's _Manfred Overture_, Berlioz's _Harold in Italy_ (now there's a work you'd enjoy, even though the composer departed somewhat from the primary source of Byron), and of course, all of those musical masterpieces inspired by Shakespeare. & there are also many song cycles by various composers like Berlioz (_Les Nuits d'ete_) Mahler (_Das Liede von Erde), _, Ravel (_Scheherazade_), Edgard Varese (_Offrandes_) or Penderecki (_Symphony No. 8 'Songs of Transcience'_)

I think it is very interesting when different forms of art connect. They provide a resonance which lasts throughout the ages. Who can forget, for example, when the Berlin Wall came down, Bernstein conducting the Beethoven above, except the words had been changed to _Ode to Freedom_?


----------



## Herzeleide

JTech82 said:


> It had been arranged from his string quartet...


String Sextet.


----------



## Herzeleide

Andre said:


> Apart from obvious examples (Beethoven's _Ode to Joy_, and lieder of various Germanic composers in particular) I don't know of many other works, particularly instrumental, that have been inspired by poems or works of literature. Some of R Strauss' tone poems come to mind, as does Schumann's _Manfred Overture_, Berlioz's _Harold in Italy_ (now there's a work you'd enjoy, even though the composer departed somewhat from the primary source of Byron), and of course, all of those musical masterpieces inspired by Shakespeare. & there are also many song cycles by various composers like Berlioz (_Les Nuits d'ete_) Mahler (_Das Liede von Erde), _, Ravel (_Scheherazade_), Edgard Varese (_Offrandes_) or Penderecki (_Symphony No. 8 'Songs of Transcience'_)


The Symphonic Poem/Tone Poem was invented by Liszt, and greatly influenced Strauss's essays at the genre.

Liszt was the real originator of music specifically/deliberately influenced by literature. I'm surprised that this isn't more widely known.


----------



## Guest

I have a 2CD set in the Golden Classics series, I know they are not the best, but for the purpose that I wanted it for it was adequate, it contains works by Hindemith, Berg and Schoenberg, I was determined to listen to it so last night I played the 1stCD ‘all Hindemith’
1st was Symphonien Mathis, der Maler. It started ok but did not hold my interest, the 3rd mov sounded just like Film Music to me.
Next came “Pittsburgh” It did sound ‘Industrial’ to me with no discernable melody, I thought the voicing sounded a bit “Richard Strauss” at times. The 2nd mov was a great improvement with some humour at the end. The 3rd mov being Ostinato was more enjoyable. I guess I must be a minimalist. Still I enjoyed it.
The last on the CD was “Metamorphosen” The 2nd mov had a distinctly Scottish sound at times? At the 3rd mov I found I was enjoying it quite a bit. I also played his Violin Son which will probably be more acceptable on the next hearing.
I guess that I am just saying that I do try some of this music but really have to be in the mood.


----------



## msegers

*Transfigured Night (Verklärte Nacht)*

by Richard Dehmel (1863-1920, written in 1896)

Two people walk through a bare, cold grove;
The moon races along with them, they look into it. 
The moon races over tall oaks, 
No cloud obscures the light from the sky, 
Into which the black points of the boughs reach. 
A woman's voice speaks:

I'm carrying a child, and not yours, 
I walk in sin beside you. 
I have committed a great offense against myself. 
I no longer believed I could be happy
And yet I had a strong yearning
For something to fill my life, for the joys of
Motherhood
And for duty; so I committed an effrontery, 
So, shuddering, I allowed my sex
To be embraced by a strange man, 
And, on top of that, I blessed myself for it. 
Now life has taken its revenge: 
Now I have met you, oh, you.

She walks with a clumsy gait, 
She looks up; the moon is racing along. 
Her dark gaze is drowned in light. 
A man's voice speaks:

May the child you conceived
Be no burden to your soul; 
Just see how brightly the universe is gleaming! 
There's a glow around everything; 
You are floating with me on a cold ocean, 
But a special warmth flickers
From you into me, from me into you. 
It will transfigure the strange man's child. 
You will bear the child for me, as if it were mine; 
You have brought the glow into me, 
You have made me like a child myself.

He grasps her around her ample hips. 
Their breath kisses in the breeze. 
Two people walk through the lofty, bright night.

Verklärte Nacht

Zwei Menschen gehn durch kahlen, kalten Hain; 
der Mond läuft mit, sie schaun hinein. 
Der Mond läuft über hohe Eichen; 
kein Wölkchen trübt das Himmelslicht, 
in das die schwarzen Zacken reichen. 
Die Stimme eines Weibes spricht:

Ich trag ein Kind, und nit von Dir, 
ich geh in Sünde neben Dir. 
Ich hab mich schwer an mir vergangen. 
Ich glaubte nicht mehr an ein Glück

und hatte doch ein schwer Verlangen 
nach Lebensinhalt, nach Mutterglück

und Pflicht; da hab ich mich erfrecht, 
da ließ ich schaudernd mein Geschlecht 
von einem fremden Mann umfangen, 
und hab mich noch dafür gesegnet. 
Nun hat das Leben sich gerächt: 
nun bin ich Dir, o Dir, begegnet.

Sie geht mit ungelenkem Schritt. 
Sie schaut empor; der Mond läuft mit. 
Ihr dunkler Blick ertrinkt in Licht. 
Die Stimme eines Mannes spricht:

Das Kind, das Du empfangen hast, 
sei Deiner Seele keine Last, 
o sieh, wie klar das Weltall schimmert! 
Es ist ein Glanz um alles her; 
Du treibst mit mir auf kaltem Meer, 
doch eine eigne Wärme flimmert 
von Dir in mich, von mir in Dich. 
Die wird das fremde Kind verklären, 
Du wirst es mir, von mir gebären;
Du hast den Glanz in mich gebracht, 
Du hast mich selbst zum Kind gemacht.

Er faßt sie um die starken Hüften. 
Ihr Atem küßt sich in den Lüften. 
Zwei Menschen gehn durch hohe, helle Nacht.

http://oldpoetry.com/opoem/66223-Richard-Dehmel-Transfigured-Night--Verkl-rte-Nacht-


----------



## JTech82

Herzeleide said:


> The Symphonic Poem/Tone Poem was invented by Liszt, and greatly influenced Strauss's essays at the genre.
> 
> Liszt was the real originator of music specifically/deliberately influenced by literature. I'm surprised that this isn't more widely known.


What I'm surprised about is how a person can keep avoiding questions when asked directly. Again, you're credibility is in question.


----------



## Sid James

msegers said:


> *Transfigured Night (Verklärte Nacht)*
> by Richard Dehmel (1863-1920, written in 1896)


Thanks for providing the poem, msegers. I think JTech will appreciate it too, since he has been enjoying Schoenberg's work so much. It also brings this thread back to focus, as it unfortunately seems to have become a forum to air people's differences about eachother in a very unsavoury way (it was even locked down for a while, as I recall...)

Anyway, it's a very powerful poem, seems very impressionistic. I'm not that well read in poetry, but it is the best impression of night that I have ever read in a poem. It also seems to be quite radical for it's time as regards subject matter - bringing in the topic of the woman's unfaithfulness. No wonder it inspired Schoenberg. The last time I heard the music was more than a decade ago, but I remember it made an impression on me with it's painting of that nocturnal, mysterious picture. The string orchestra seems particularly well suited to this kind of thing, and Schoenberg was a master of orchestration (anyone who doubts this, listen to his orchestration of Brahms' _Piano Quintet_).

I have just remembered, anyone who likes this work will probably enjoy *Britten*'s _Serenade for Tenor, Horn & Strings_. The text comes from various English poets, from the Renaissance to the C20th, and it too has a nocturnal feel. A bit more out-there is Edgard *Varese's *_Nocturnal_, a work for soprano & orchestra based on the poetry of Anais Nin. Some very wierd text (eg. she says at one stage, "I kissed his shadow") but also a very good evocation of this type of night-time mood.


----------



## JTech82

Yes, Andre I do appreciate him providing the poem very much.  It brings a lot to the discussion at hand.

Here is my own personal take on Arnold Schoenberg and please realize these are my own views:

He started composing music as a late German Romantic, but he started disliking the Viennese musical establishment due to their very strict, conservative "our way or the highway" philosophy about composers. It turned Schoenberg against that establishment and he became disgusted with the politics involved with this establishment. He basically came to the conclusion "I'm going to compose music my own way and the hell with what they think of me."

That's my take on Schoenberg. He was a man who started out influenced by the very culture he was brought up in, but he turned his back on them when that culture demanded he make music the way they wanted instead of the way he wanted to make it, so he developed a new way of composing music and went in his own direction.

For better or for worse, he impacted classical music forever. I admire him because he made music his own way. I may not like everything he composed, but I respect that he challenged more people's ears than any other composer in history.


----------



## Sid James

JTech82 said:


> ...That's my take on Schoenberg. He was a man who started out influenced by the very culture he was brought up in, but he turned his back on them when that culture demanded he make music the way they wanted instead of the way he wanted to make it, so he developed a new way of composing music and went in his own direction.


I agree that he departed very significantly from his earlier style once he established the atonal system. But, as I said earlier, there still seems to be something stolidly Germanic in his mature works. They still sound very serious & Teutonic to me, much more than Berg, who let in a bit more light into his orchestration, or Webern, who was more technical, or Eisler, who was more concerned with left wing politics. Out of all those contemporaries (or disciples, really), it is in his works that I still hear traces of where he came from. I suppose it's still relatively slight, say, in a way a Brahms symphony sounds German. But it's still there, to my ears, anyway. I think his style was still attached to his European roots, at least somewhat more than Stravinsky or Varese.


----------



## JTech82

Andre said:


> I agree that he departed very significantly from his earlier style once he established the atonal system. But, as I said earlier, there still seems to be something stolidly Germanic in his mature works. They still sound very serious & Teutonic to me, much more than Berg, who let in a bit more light into his orchestration, or Webern, who was more technical, or Eisler, who was more concerned with left wing politics. Out of all those contemporaries (or disciples, really), it is in his works that I still hear traces of where he came from. I suppose it's still relatively slight, say, in a way a Brahms symphony sounds German. But it's still there, to my ears, anyway. I think his style was still attached to his European roots, at least somewhat more than Stravinsky or Varese.


No doubt. He is German after all, so naturally that's going to come into his music. It was there from the beginning, so it was only natural that it remained purely German.

It's sad the way people treated him during his life I think. I heard he was a man of strong character. I read that he always looked somebody right in the eyes when he was talking to them. He was respectful of history, but as I said, he didn't like the politics and phoniness of people.

As I said, I respect what he did with music. He was a genius no question about it. As I said, I'm not a fan of his 12-tone works, but if there's one piece I'll forever be grateful for and indebted to him for it's "Verklarte Nacht." That piece of music changed my whole view of him.

When you start listening and stop talking, you will learn very quickly what you like and you don't like.


----------



## Bach

He's Austrian.. and he spent much of his adult life in California.


----------



## Bach

The String Trio Op. 45 is a work of intense passion and power. Written late in his career in a strict serialist fashion - Andre says: _"I agree that he departed very significantly from his earlier style once he established the atonal system."_ but compare the Trio to Verklarte Nacht - undeniably and highly recognisably the work of the same composer.


----------



## Mirror Image

Bach said:


> The String Trio Op. 45 is a work of intense passion and power. Written late in his career in a strict serialist fashion - Andre says: _"I agree that he departed very significantly from his earlier style once he established the atonal system."_ but compare the Trio to Verklarte Nacht - undeniably and highly recognisably the work of the same composer.


I agree with this. He just changed his musical language. His musical voice was always intact in everything he wrote.

One of the interesting things about Schoenberg was the fact he was mostly a self-taught composer. He studied Beethoven scores and taught himself to read through a series of books about the sonata form. He studied all of these. Most self-taught musicians/composers develop their style very quickly, because they don't have the influence of teachers, but they do have the influence of the music they like and try to emulate.

I still love Schoenberg's orchestration of Brahms Piano Quartet No. 1. Have you heard this Bach? It's fantastic.


----------



## Bach

I haven't heard it, but I will do a search on Spotify this instant..


----------



## Polednice

*Schoenberg*

I was just wondering what all you lovely people think of Schoenberg's music.

I ask because of Daniel Barenboim's recent series of concerts in London that paired Beethoven's Piano Concertos with the music of Schoenberg (being repeated on BBC Radio 3 over the next few days).

In Barenboim's initial interview for the series, he said, "People wouldn't come if [the programme] was just Schoenberg" - that's certainly true of me! I'm not well acquainted with his music, but you probably already know what a dyed-in-the-wool Romantic I am. Still, Barenboim said that part of his responsibility as a well-renowned conductor who is bound to get large audiences is to promote music people normally steer clear of, such as that of Schoenberg. And, at least in the first performance, it kind of worked for me (it was _Pelleas und Melisande_).

Of course, I recognise that this is an early work and, though it heralds his later music, it is closer in style to the music of his immediate predecessors (Brahms and Wagner being major influences). It definitely takes a more active listen than other music, and I'm still _very_ doubtful about enjoying his later pieces, but Barenboim's performance opened up a new perspective.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Wow.. what can I say...
I regard Schoenberg up there as one of the greatest composers. His music is brilliant and genius.

Maybe serialism is a bit of a silly convention or dogma to adhere to.. but the rest... fantastic!

Try the 5 orchestral pieces or the accompaniment to a cinematographic scene.


----------



## Aramis

I'm starting to like Webern, after I become a real fan o him, then I will move to Schoenberg (he's less handsome [not handsome at all to be honest], so he must go second).


----------



## emiellucifuge




----------



## Jaime77

I like some early Schoenberg. I adore Verklarte Nacht and quite like Pelleas und Melisande. I also am drawn to works like Pierrot and Erwartung. Expressionist music is very interesting I think - intense and moving. Also the 6 little piano pieces are wonderful. This was real ground-breaking music.

I don't so much like his serial music. Well, I like the violin concerto as performed by Hilary Hahn but not so much the piano concerto.

As we are on the subject, I strongly recommend this disc of Transfigured Night and Pelleas. The string sound is so awesome that if this recording doesn't transfigure your night, then you are beyond redemption ;-)


----------



## Artemis

Polednice said:


> I was just wondering what all you lovely people of Schoenberg's music.


 I happened to listen to the two R3 broadcasts you refer to. It was mainly to hear the three Beethoven Piano Concertos played by Daniel Barenboim and the Berlin Staatskapelle. I already have most of Schoenberg's best rated works, so it was no surprise to me to hear the two that were played: Pelleas und Melisande and Five Orchestral Pieces.

I admit that I acquired most of my Schoenberg collection a while back mainly because I was getting asked about this composer, what I thought of him etc. I didn't want this to be based on second-hand reports so I decided to invest in some of his works.

My collection contains only a selection of his works but I think I have most of the best known among them. In addition to the two above-mentioned works, I have Verklarte Nact, Pierrot Lunaire, String Quartet 2, Chamber Symphony No 1, Five Piano Pieces, Moses und Aron, Gurrelieder, Violin Concerto, plus a few others.

I have come more recently to like some of his works. Verklarte Nacht is by far the best among the more accessible of them, and is is an early work from his Romantic period, as too were the two pieces played on the R3 programmes. The Violin Concerto which came much later (1935/6) is also very good, and is well inside his serial period. Not to get too carried away, overall I don't rate Schoenberg all that highly in my own hierachy of composers. He is definitely worth a listen to, and was influential, but there's a lot better on offer from earlier times.


----------



## Il Seraglio

I really enjoyed _Pelleas und Mellisande_, the Chamber Symphony and Transfigured Night. I'm not too crazy about his twelve-tone works, but don't mind _A Survivor from Warsaw_, the string quartets or the Violin Concerto.



Aramis said:


> I'm starting to like Webern, after I become a real fan o him, then I will move to Schoenberg (he's less handsome [not handsome at all to be honest], so he must go second).


It's interesting you say you'll move on to Schoenberg after Webern. It's Webern and his followers such as Boulez that I have had the most difficulty with.


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

Schoenberg created a hyperbolic and sometimes violent expressive world perhaps closer to the raw unconscious than any other music.

The harmony usually stays at a high level of dissonance, partly for expressive reasons, partly to avoid familiar chords with their tonal implications. (Nothing in the scheme requires steady dissonance, however. Some later composers used tone rows to write sweet-sounding pieces with clear tonal centers. Part of the reason for the system's later success, in fact, was that it does not dictate style but rather allows room for a composer's personality.)

Schoenberg himself said "I can't utter too many warnings against overrating these analyses of my music...my works are twelve-tone _compositions_, not _twelve-tone_ compositions." Some treat it as _the_ end, when the system is simply another tool and a means to an end.

The real problems with people having problems enjoing Schoenberg's mature music are probably not so much dissonance (gloriously dissonant pieces by Bartok have become popular) or lack of melody (much Beethoven is hardly more melodic than Schoenberg). The problem may be that Schoenberg is unpredictable: the music develops constantly, repeating almost nothing literally; the rhythm wanders, only occasionally having a steady pulse; the texture is often densely contrapuntal; and the atonal language erases the usual tonal expectations. The result is that his music, by denying us expectations about the future, forces us into the present.


----------



## Aramis

> It's interesting you say you'll move on to Schoenberg after Webern. It's Webern and his followers such as Boulez that I have had the most difficulty with.


First works by Webern are quite romantic/expressionist and not difficult to listen to, even though atonal.


----------



## Head_case

Can't say I listen to any Austrian music at all 

What am I missing then 

Well I keep on meaning to re-trial his string quartets. And it will be quite a trial....


----------



## Michael433

I thought it was interesting that Daniel Barenboim said that rather than the Five Orchestral Pieces being music for the head or for the heart they were really music for the nerves. In most of Schoenberg's twelve tone music there seems to be a tonal piece trying to get out. The opus 23 and 25 piano pieces are inspiring, as are the string quartets - but would I rather listen to Beethoven? The Schoenberg violin concerto in my view is a better piece than the Berg violin concerto, and yet everyone wants to record Berg.


----------



## TresPicos

I always thought the music of Arnold, Anton and Alban would be too difficult to get into, but Schoenbergs Drei Klavierstücke op 11 was a real ear-opener for me. It felt like it was "balanced", leaving all other music "unbalanced", if that makes any sense. I remember someone dismissing it as "just random notes", though. 

So, I will definitely listen to more of Schoenberg's works in the future.


----------



## Romantic Geek

What little tonal Schoenberg I've heard is pretty enjoyable...but after that - there isn't too much I enjoy. I remember liking the Piano Suite the first time I heard it, but really didn't care for it the second time around. 

I think Schoenberg was trying a little too hard to be controversial and cutting edge. I, for one, think that comes naturally...maybe with a little self promotion, but Schoenberg took that to a whole new level. Webern really got serialism right. Do I care for Webern? Not particularly. I prefer Berg's and Stravinsky's serialist works to both of them - but they were both non-traditionalists in different ways.

I know some people compare Schoenberg to the modern Beethoven - but Beethoven gradually developed his unique style. He didn't up and leave everything he already worked on to form his new style, essentially what Schoenberg did. So, personally, I don't think they're comparable.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

In the early-1970s Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange stunned everyone into shock and awe (and garnered an 'X' rating at the time).
Like everyone else I was fascinated, and turned to Anthony Burgess' novel of the same name.
Burgess was also a composer, and in his novel A Clockwork Orange he mentions Mozart, Beethoven, Orff, and Schönberg.
The first time I saw Schönberg's name I became very curious about him.
I obtained Karajan/BPO's reading of the Variations for Orchestra (Op.31) and on first audition I was hooked. (The dreamy Magritte-ish cover art is totally bonus as well!)

http://www.amazon.com/Arnold-Schoen...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1271294372&sr=1-1

To anyone who wants to know this composer, I would recommend the canon of five String Quartets (it's important to catch No. 0 as well as the four 'official' works).

http://www.amazon.com/Arnold-Schönb...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1271294695&sr=1-1

And then I would suggest his lieder and magnum opus, Moses und Aron:

http://www.amazon.com/Schoenberg-Li...=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1271294803&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.com/Schoenberg-Mo...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1271294905&sr=1-1

These will give the essentials of this fascinating composer's art.


----------



## Sid James

I'm the opposite of most people here, I'm not very interested in Schoenberg's earlier "tonal" works, I'm more into his "atonal" & serialist stuff. To understand Schoenberg one must get a grip on what had happended before him. Chromaticism had produced works of monstrous proportions, often with bits that had no relation to eachother. Looks at R. Strauss' _Thus Spake Zarathustra_ - everyone remembers the first two minute theme, but what of the rest? It bears little resemblance to the initial theme. As another member here has said elsewhere, in these works the composer "shoots his load" & quickly grabs the attention of the listener, and there's little point to the whole thing, it's incoherent & confusing. Compare that with Schoenberg's "atonal" & serialist works, and he's completely different - he develops themes in a rigorous, "holistic" way, it's all related. No wonder that the composers which Schoenberg admired most weren't people like R. Strauss or Wagner, but Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn, Brahms. All of these were in a way "classicists," they wrote music that was highly integrated & more compact, thematic development was well thought out. So I think Schoenberg was a traditionalist at heart, even though his style differed greatly from these composers.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I'm the opposite of most people here, I'm not very interested in Schoenberg's earlier "tonal" works, I'm more into his "atonal" & serialist stuff.

I was recently reading an article on Schoenberg in which a family member admitted that the composer was quite despondent that his music had never caught on. He was especially struck by tour buses which would stop near his Hollywood home where the tour guides would point out the home of Shirley Temple but completely ignore the home of the inventor of 12-tone music. He was greatly cheered, however, the same relative conveyed, upon hearing _Verklarte Nacht_ played over the radio at a local coffee shop. It seems the composer did not so disavow his earlier efforts.

Personally, Schoenberg has yet to really click with me. I am also enamored of Verklarte Nacht, Pelleas und Melisande, Gurrenlieder, and a few other later pieces... but most of the rest has not grabbed me... in spite of trying.

To understand Schoenberg one must get a grip on what had happended before him. Chromaticism had produced works of monstrous proportions, often with bits that had no relation to each other. Looks at R. Strauss' Thus Spake Zarathustra - everyone remembers the first two minute theme, but what of the rest? It bears little resemblance to the initial theme. As another member here has said elsewhere, in these works the composer "shoots his load" & quickly grabs the attention of the listener, and there's little point to the whole thing, it's incoherent & confusing.

Andre, that's complete nonsense. It is comments like these made by tied-in-the-wool Modernists that are part of the reason for continued animosity between those who love Romanticism and those who would champion Post-Tonal music. It is quite possible to recognize the genius of Strauss or Wagner and still listen to and enjoy later music.

Personally, I'd take one Strauss opera over Schoenberg's entire oeuvre... but he is admittedly my favorite 20th century composer. Strauss was no minor reactionary, and his early operas (Salome?) and tone-poems show him to have been just as much of an innovator. The notion that there is but one memorable tune to _Also Sprach Zarathustra_ might be leveled at any number of other musical compositions... but how many tunes from Schoenberg do you go about humming? Also Sprach Zarathustra was certainly not incoherent and confusing or unstructured and pointless. As with Beethoven's 5th, Strauss repeatedly uses the three-note motif throughout the composition as a whole. The piece as a whole is structured upon nine selected sections of Nietzsche's text of the same name.

Compare that with Schoenberg's "atonal" & serialist works, and he's completely different - he develops themes in a rigorous, "holistic" way, it's all related. No wonder that the composers which Schoenberg admired most weren't people like R. Strauss or Wagner, but Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn, Brahms. All of these were in a way "classicists," they wrote music that was highly integrated & more compact, thematic development was well thought out. So I think Schoenberg was a traditionalist at heart, even though his style differed greatly from these composers.

I'm sorry, but Strauss and Wagner are far from unstructured composers just rambling on. Perhaps, to use a phrase favored by the champions of Modernism, you just don't get it.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Andre said:


> Looks at R. Strauss' _Thus Spake Zarathustra_ - everyone remembers the first two minute theme, but what of the rest? It bears little resemblance to the initial theme. As another member here has said elsewhere, in these works the composer "shoots his load" & quickly grabs the attention of the listener, *and there's little point to the whole thing, it's incoherent & confusing*.


I would like to say the same of Schoenberg's structured sounds; little point to the whole thing, it's incoherent and confusing. He was original only in that his works sound so very different to everything else before.


----------



## Sid James

What I was trying to do SLGO, before you went on your diatribe, is to locate Schoenberg in the context from which he came. Of course, R. Strauss & Wagner were (just as) important innovators in their own time, that goes without saying. You refer to "tunes" and this brings up the point that Schoenberg's post-1908 stuff isn't laden with them, but what you get is very rigorous thematic development, often not based on "tunes" per se but on fragments of them. So the listener has to put it all together & make sense of it. I for one really enjoy this process, I find it highly engaging. But I think that ALL classical music is more than simply good "tunes." All I was trying to put across is that late chromaticism had "eroded" some of the traditions that classical music had been based on from Mozart & Haydn through to Brahms. Schoenberg admired these composers greatly & what he liked about them was their clarity, (relative) conciseness & rigour. So he was trying to re-establish some of the essentials, and cut out the extraenous "flashy" stuff. Back to basics. I think that even R. Strauss came to the same conclusion in a different way later on, his_ Metamorphosen _(1945) develops a single theme for about half an hour, and he quotes Beethoven's_ Eroica_ at the end. An interesting conclusion to the career of a man who had called Schoenberg a "lunatic" (behind his back, of course) and rubbished every aspect of the new developments...


----------



## Sid James

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I would like to say the same of Schoenberg's structured sounds; little point to the whole thing, it's incoherent and confusing. He was original only in that his works sound so very different to everything else before.


Maybe you should go back and listen, and hear the connections. Schoenberg's _Violin Concerto_, for example, takes a single theme through from beginning to end. It's the essence of thematic development, but if you only hear it once, it won't make sense. You have to be willing to devote repeated listening to this music...


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

It's important to contextualize Schönberg in his own space-time.
The development of his art was an evolution, not a revolution.
Bach used 12-tones in the b-minor Fugue at the end of WTC1.
Mozart--Beethoven--Schubert all applied various experiments.
Wagner 'liberated the dissonance' with Tristan.
Brahms explored 'developing variation' at least from the Op. 51 String Quartets onward.
Strauss was also a transitional figure, as was Mahler.

Schönberg inherited all these; furthermore, _his starting point was the furthermost point of advancement of the aformentioned._

So, it's easy to see examples of points of influence from his predecessors in his own work. For example:

Schönberg's Op. 25 Piano Suite is a Modernisitc refraction of Bach's French Suites;
his Op. 31 Orchestral Variations are a continuation of Brahms' Passacalia from the Fourth Symphony (itself a continuation from Bach's BWV 582 Passacalia);
Schönberg's String Quartets are the very emulation of Beethoven's, Schubert's and Brahms'.

Even 12-tone was in the Viennese air with the contemporaneous Joseph Hauer whom Schönberg personally knew...

(More later, gotta run!...)


----------



## Rasa

Be that as it might, interesting music isn't necesarily good music, or music anyone would want to hear


----------



## robert

Rasa said:


> Be that as it might, interesting music isn't necesarily good music, or music anyone would want to hear


Could you please site some examples.....

Robert


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Interestingly enough I was reading an article on Murray Perahia today when I came upon the following quote: "It's a very reactionary viewpoint, and I'm slightly ashamed, but I find it very difficult to access some contemporary music. I am no prejudiced, but my work in tonal music leads me to believe that nothing can be organic if it doesn't have a sense of 'home'. This idea of belonging or 'home' can't be an intellectual concept; it has to be recognizable in terms of sounds or tones and I don't see the replacement for that in atonal music."

Now I may be going out on a limb here, but I will assume that Perahia is not "ignorant" or "naive" or "close-minded" when it comes to music. Indeed, I'll go as far as to suppose he might just know more about music than anyone here... and yet he can admit to an inability to truly appreciate atonal music. Why, then, is it immediately assumed that anyone here who is admittedly not fond of atonal music... or any specific style or composer or work for that matter... must be ignorant or not have put forth the effort, etc...?


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

Well, I can honestly say that I was prepared to like Schönberg--that is, I _wanted_ to like him.
Strangely enough, most of his music I truly do like (there are a couple of pieces I care less for, however).
I have favourite pieces in all of his four artistic periods, but really I enjoy those of his first and third periods best.

FIRST Period (1894-1907): Art Nouveau/Jugendstil/late-Romanticism/early-Modernism.

SECOND Period (1908-19): Decadence/Symbolism/Orphism/Expressionism/Modernism.

THIRD Period (1920-36): Surrealism/Seralism/Cubism/Futurism/Machine Esthetic.

LATE Period (1937-51): Synthesis/Culmination.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/syltguides/byauthor/A3ULZ8Y0EQNYK9/ref=cm_aya_bb_guides

His String Quartets cover all periods; his major song-cycle Das Buch der Hängenden Garten (Op. 15) is early-Second Period; Moses und Aron is quintessential Third Period; and the Ode to Napoleon Buonaparte (Op. 41) is suitably Late.

If anyone is interested in getting to know Schönberg, the best place to start is with his 1897 D-major String Quartet (No. 0) which is very Brahmsian/Dvorákian.

Then go on to the d-minor String Quartet (Op. 7), the E-major Chamber Symphony (Op. 9) and the eb-minor Chamber Symphony (Op. 38) [both from 1906, so don't let the high opus number throw you off].

Then go with Das Buch der Hängenden Garten (Op. 15) which will segue you into his further development.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

BTW, StlukesguildOhio, though some people swear by Perahia, I've never really cottoned-on to him.
My 2 cents.


----------



## Sid James

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...Now I may be going out on a limb here, but I will assume that Perahia is not "ignorant" or "naive" or "close-minded" when it comes to music. Indeed, I'll go as far as to suppose he might just know more about music than anyone here... and yet he can admit to an inability to truly appreciate atonal music. Why, then, is it immediately assumed that anyone here who is admittedly not fond of atonal music... or any specific style or composer or work for that matter... must be ignorant or not have put forth the effort, etc...?


I haven't read anyone on these boards saying that another is ignorant (who are you quoting?) if they can't (immediately) take in 12-tone music. Yet you have a tendency to constantly harp on about it. I just think that the instant reaction that some people get from listening to this music on first instance is that it often sounds to them unintelligible. I think the reason is that this music is meant to be listened to repeatedly so the listener can discern the 'big picture.' I haven't seen others put down people for being ignorant or closed-minded, yet what are we to deduce from people's posts who say Schoenberg's music is noise, ****** music, he couldn't compose properly, etc. I actually see a bit of that often here (just read some of the entries above). Of course, these people never site specific examples, because they probably can't. I wouldn't say that they are very intelligible about Schoenberg's (or any of the other's) music. They probably have never invested in an actual cd or full download, they just hear a 5 minute clip from youtube, and that's what they base their judgement on. I'm assuming this because they rarely if never say "I just heard a cd of Schoenberg's music today, etc..." They just say something like "I think his music doesn't make any sense" or to that effect.

I think Sebastian Melmoth above has made some good points and connections regarding the context from which Schoenberg came. Schoenberg was not happy with being labelled as the destroyer of (the Austro-Germanic) tradition. He thought his music was a logical extension of what had gone before. In other words, he saw himself as adding to, and reinvigorating some of the classical traditions which had not been expanded upon since Brahms. I heard a 7-minute interview on one of the Naxos discs (Robert Craft conducting Schoenberg's transcription of a Handel concerto, etc) from 1949. Schoenberg & the interviewer mainly talk about his painting and it's connections with his music, but at the end the interviewer asks (something like) what composers have inspired you the most? Schoenberg immediately answers "Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms" to which we can probably add Handel & Haydn. Schoenberg studied these composer's works intently all throughout his life. He was just as connected to the traditions as to the latest developments. So he didn't set out to break with tradition but to enhance it. It's a pity that some of the people above don't want to see (or hear) this clearly. Only with wider exposure to Schoenberg's music and maybe even reading about what the man said, can one fully appreciate his place in the historiy of music...


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

Though I adore much of Schönberg, I have to admit that his late String Trio and Violin Fantasy--(even with my favourites Gould and Menuhin)--are pretty much endurance tests for me.

But the mention of Schönberg's orchestration of Brahms g-minor Piano Quartet begs the little-known fact that Schönberg was a remarkably fine orchestrator (in his own works and those of others).

His Variations for Orchestra (Op. 31) is a masterpiece; his magum opus Moses und Aron is a wonder; and his Violin Concerto (Op. 36) is stunningly brilliant.
His other orchestral works similarly so.

Moverover, the instrumentation in his String Quartets (and other chamber works) is ingenious in vocal deployment and use of techniques such as: *am Steg *(playing a bowed string instrument near its bridge); *sul ponticello* (to bow or sometimes to pluck very near to the bridge, producing a characteristic glassy sound, which emphasizes the higher harmonics; *col legno* (with the wood; i.e., the strings are bowed or struck with the wood of the bow; and of course extensive *pizzicato*.


----------



## Air

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Interestingly enough I was reading an article on Murray Perahia today when I came upon the following quote: "It's a very reactionary viewpoint, and I'm slightly ashamed, but I find it very difficult to access some contemporary music. I am no prejudiced, but my work in tonal music leads me to believe that nothing can be organic if it doesn't have a sense of 'home'. This idea of belonging or 'home' can't be an intellectual concept; it has to be recognizable in terms of sounds or tones and I don't see the replacement for that in atonal music."


Maurizio Pollini would disagree. And between the two, he's by far the better pianist. In fact, it wouldn't be too far-fetched to call him the greatest pianist still actively giving concerts (though of course, with some competition).


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I haven't read anyone on these boards saying that another is ignorant... if they can't (immediately) take in 12-tone music. Yet you have a tendency to constantly harp on about it...

I haven't seen others put down people for being ignorant or closed-minded, yet what are we to deduce from people's posts who say Schoenberg's music is noise, ****** music, he couldn't compose properly, etc. I actually see a bit of that often here (just read some of the entries above). Of course, these people never site specific examples, because they probably can't. I wouldn't say that they are very intelligible about Schoenberg's (or any of the other's) music. They probably have never invested in an actual cd or full download, they just hear a 5 minute clip from youtube, and that's what they base their judgement on.
I'm assuming this because they rarely if never say "I just heard a cd of Schoenberg's music today, etc..." They just say something like "I think his music doesn't make any sense" or to that effect.

Andre... you do recognize the fact that you succeed in immediately contradicting your opening statement: I haven't seen other (those who can't get into Schoenberg?) put down as ignorant... but what are we to deduce from these people who aren't very intelligible... probably have never invested in a Schoenberg CD (I own 10 by the way)... etc...?

I just think that the instant reaction that some people get from listening to this music on first instance is that it often sounds to them unintelligible. I think the reason is that this music is meant to be listened to repeatedly so the listener can discern the 'big picture.'

Some might argue that if this were true... if Schoenberg was expecting his audience to invest in repeated listenings... he may have expected too much in contrast to the aesthetic pleasure his work affords. As Puccini suggested with regard to Wagner, "One can't judge Wagner's opera Lohengrin after a first hearing, and I certainly don't intend hearing it a second time." Is it not expecting too much from an audience to demand that they put in repeated times listening to a music without offering something that seduces... intrigues... attracts? On the other hand... is it not possible that upon repeated hearings a listener understand... yet still not like a body of music? Or do we assume that understanding something inherently means liking it?

I heard a 7-minute interview on one of the Naxos discs (Robert Craft conducting Schoenberg's transcription of a Handel concerto, etc) from 1949. Schoenberg & the interviewer mainly talk about his painting and it's connections with his music, but at the end the interviewer asks (something like) what composers have inspired you the most? Schoenberg immediately answers "Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms" to which we can probably add Handel & Haydn. Schoenberg studied these composer's works intently all throughout his life. He was just as connected to the traditions as to the latest developments.

Yes... and Picasso and later DeKooning would claim to have been profoundly inspired by the tradition of the old masters... a tradition that many would most certainly claim they appeared to have shattered... for better or worse. It might be intriguing to note that the achievements of James Joyce, Ezra Pound, Picasso, Pollack, and Rothko are just as open to controversy as Schoenberg and post-tonal music.

_It's a pity that some of the people above don't want to see (or hear) this clearly._

Now once again... do you not recognize that this insinuates that all of those who dislike Schoenberg (or any composer for that matter) are close-minded?

_He'd be better off shoveling snow._--Richard Strauss

Poor pitiful Richard.

Only with wider exposure to Schoenberg's music and maybe even reading about what the man said, can one fully appreciate his place in the historiy of music... 

Certainly I agree that he should be listened to. Opinions should not be made based upon hearsay or a single unfavorable listening. Certainly Schoenberg should be recognized as a major figure within the history of music... but history has moved on. Is it not possible that the future will be made up of the music of composers who rebel against, dismiss, or simply ignore Schoenberg? In other words... at this point... is not Schoenberg and atonal music but a single possibility within the realm of music today and music to come? You can call this reactionary... but the history of the arts has repeatedly been made up of reactionary movements. By your own account Schoenberg's rejection of Romanticism and turn to earlier classicism was a reactionary movement.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

BTW, StlukesguildOhio, though some people swear by Perahia, I've never really cottoned-on to him.

Maurizio Pollini would disagree. And between the two, he's by far the better pianist.

Perahia doesn't like a composer I like... thus Perahia must be a second-rate pianist. Personally I like Pollini...and Gould as well... who was also a champion of Schoenberg, however Perahia's recordings of Bach and Mozart are especially marvelous. The "greatest pianist still actively giving concerts" is certainly arguable as one might put forth any number of pianists of equal critical stature... including but certainly not limited to Perahia.


----------



## Sid James

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Certainly I agree that he should be listened to. Opinions should not be made based upon hearsay or a single unfavorable listening. Certainly Schoenberg should be recognized as a major figure within the history of music... but history has moved on. Is it not possible that the future will be made up of the music of composers who rebel against, dismiss, or simply ignore Schoenberg? In other words... at this point... is not Schoenberg and atonal music but a single possibility within the realm of music today and music to come? You can call this reactionary... but the history of the arts has repeatedly been made up of reactionary movements. By your own account Schoenberg's rejection of Romanticism and turn to earlier classicism was a reactionary movement.


Well at least we can agree on something, and I certainly didn't mean you when I talked of people not investing money, time & effort into music like this. But I don't see art as being black & white, Schoenberg (or any other of those visual or literary artists you mentioned), have BOTH so-called reactionary/conservative AND progressive or iconoclastic elements in their art. They all make giant steps forward, whilst having a glimpse of the past. I don't have an 'either/or' approach to music of different styles, or even the same composer. I haven't really connected with Schoenberg's earlier 'tonal' efforts, but that is not to say that I won't buy & revisit them in future. Certainly, understanding some of his earlier output (& also other composers work who preceeded his development of the 12 tone system) can enrich one's understanding of his later music.

It is true, that I have little time for people who give Schoenberg (or most other so-called 'less accessible' music, be it C20th or earlier) one listen & then judge it based on that. They close all doors rather than keeping them open. They are shutting themselves off, and not allowing for a possible change of their opinion, based on more information. I myself am not highly enamoured of Baroque music, to me it sometimes all sounds the same (at this point in time). But that does not mean I close myself completely off to it, for now and for the future. The doors are always open. If I hear some Bach, Vivaldi or Handel on the radio, I don't turn it off, I listen intently. & I certainly don't make prejudgements of the music like some people do of Schoenberg. I am open to the possibility that I will connect with Baroque music more after I have some more experience with it. Right now I am focusing on Renaissance & C19th, 20th music, less the Baroque, but it doesn't mean that I don't engage with it on some level. That's how I think people should approach Schoenberg, they should maybe give it a few listens & then go away & think, possibly read about it, then come back to it once they are comfortable and more informed. Making judgements just leads you to a dead end, from which it is difficult to escape.

As for Perahia's critique of 12 tone music, this is not new. I read a similar critique (on wikipedia) by the Swiss conductor Ansermet, made at the beginning of the C20th. He simply refused to conduct this type of music. But as we know, there have been and are many musicians who do choose to engage with music of all types, including "atonal" & "serial." To shut oneself off with it is (like I said above) making a dead end for oneself, from which one cannot escape easily...


----------



## Air

StlukesguildOhio said:


> BTW, StlukesguildOhio, though some people swear by Perahia, I've never really cottoned-on to him.
> 
> Maurizio Pollini would disagree. And between the two, he's by far the better pianist.
> 
> Perahia doesn't like a composer I like... thus Perahia must be a second-rate pianist. Personally I like Pollini...and Gould as well... who was also a champion of Schoenberg, however Perahia's recordings of Bach and Mozart are especially marvelous. The "greatest pianist still actively giving concerts" is certainly arguable as one might put forth any number of pianists of equal critical stature... including but certainly not limited to Perahia.


I adore Bach and Mozart. And Schubert. These are the composers Perahia excels in. He's certainly not a second-rate pianist, but he simply doesn't have what Pollini has - an all-embracing musical culture, a front line advocation for the music of many composers, emotional strength and clarity, brilliance, and the biggest technique of our day and age.

I'd give my top five "still in concert" as Pollini, Argerich, Moravec, Hamelin, and Sokolov. Brendel has retired and Ashkenazy has dreadfully burned out. (He had so much potential back in the day...)

What I meant to do by throwing Pollini into the mix is provide a counter-example to your assertion that "Perahia knows what he's talking about when he claims that contemporary music is inferior." The greatest of the greats can disagree on certain things. Pollini is certainly a great...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Andre said:


> It is true, that I have little time for people who give Schoenberg (or most other so-called 'less accessible' music, be it C20th or earlier) one listen & then judge it based on that. They close all doors rather than keeping them open. They are shutting themselves off, and not allowing for a possible change of their opinion, based on more information. I myself am not highly enamoured of Baroque music, to me it sometimes all sounds the same (at this point in time). But that does not mean I close myself completely off to it, for now and for the future. The doors are always open. If I hear some Bach, Vivaldi or Handel on the radio, I don't turn it off, I listen intently. & I certainly don't make prejudgements of the music like some people do of Schoenberg. I am open to the possibility that I will connect with Baroque music more after I have some more experience with it. Right now I am focusing on Renaissance & C19th, 20th music, less the Baroque, but it doesn't mean that I don't engage with it on some level. That's how I think people should approach Schoenberg, they should maybe give it a few listens & then go away & think, possibly read about it, then come back to it once they are comfortable and more informed. Making judgements just leads you to a dead end, from which it is difficult to escape.


I disagree that folks, like me, are necessarily shutting the doors by ignorance.

I don't really buy into the advice of getting to know Schoenberg via many repeated listening and spending loads of time doing so, until the ear/mind clicks. I have listened to a great quantity of Baroque, Classical and early Romantic music such that my ears are indeed "open" to fine music; music that I know works for me when I listen to it. This goes too for other types of music, such as jazz.

I am of the opinion that Schoenberg's works are structured sounds that probably make the most sense/appreciated when one is reading/studying it by score, rather than by the ear. That's why only repeated listening works for many who appreciate Schoenberg's music. In fact, almost any type of music can be appreciated by repeated listening! That's actually adaptation, I think to a large degree.


----------



## Eusebius12

Poppin' Fresh said:


> Schoenberg created a hyperbolic and sometimes violent expressive world perhaps closer to the raw unconscious than any other music.
> 
> The harmony usually stays at a high level of dissonance, partly for expressive reasons, partly to avoid familiar chords with their tonal implications. (Nothing in the scheme requires steady dissonance, however. Some later composers used tone rows to write sweet-sounding pieces with clear tonal centers. Part of the reason for the system's later success, in fact, was that it does not dictate style but rather allows room for a composer's personality.)
> 
> Schoenberg himself said "I can't utter too many warnings against overrating these analyses of my music...my works are twelve-tone _compositions_, not _twelve-tone_ compositions." Some treat it as _the_ end, when the system is simply another tool and a means to an end.
> 
> The real problems with people having problems enjoing Schoenberg's mature music are probably not so much dissonance (gloriously dissonant pieces by Bartok have become popular) or lack of melody (much Beethoven is hardly more melodic than Schoenberg). The problem may be that Schoenberg is unpredictable: the music develops constantly, repeating almost nothing literally; the rhythm wanders, only occasionally having a steady pulse; the texture is often densely contrapuntal; and the atonal language erases the usual tonal expectations. The result is that his music, by denying us expectations about the future, forces us into the present.


Nice complex analysis. For me the problem with much mature Schoenberg is that it doesn't sound well. The textures are not particularly interesting in themselves; rarely does he produce sound which captivates me, or even interests me. Webern seems to have a better ear for interesting textures.


----------



## Eusebius12

Andre said:


> I'm the opposite of most people here, I'm not very interested in Schoenberg's earlier "tonal" works, I'm more into his "atonal" & serialist stuff. To understand Schoenberg one must get a grip on what had happended before him. Chromaticism had produced works of monstrous proportions, often with bits that had no relation to eachother. Looks at R. Strauss' _Thus Spake Zarathustra_ - everyone remembers the first two minute theme, but what of the rest? It bears little resemblance to the initial theme. As another member here has said elsewhere, in these works the composer "shoots his load" & quickly grabs the attention of the listener, and there's little point to the whole thing, it's incoherent & confusing. Compare that with Schoenberg's "atonal" & serialist works, and he's completely different - he develops themes in a rigorous, "holistic" way, it's all related. No wonder that the composers which Schoenberg admired most weren't people like R. Strauss or Wagner, but Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn, Brahms. All of these were in a way "classicists," they wrote music that was highly integrated & more compact, thematic development was well thought out. So I think Schoenberg was a traditionalist at heart, even though his style differed greatly from these composers.


Also Sprach Zarathustra is a consistently engaging work. I cannot say that for many Schoenberg works, including the early stuff. I mean, Verklaerte Nacht is quite nice, but it is hardly superior to Debussy. I think its the rigour of his scheme, the way he excludes, well, beauty for example, is the prime reason why all the predictions that his music would be as embraced at some point as much as Beethoven, have failed, and indeed will never come true.


----------



## robert

Bach said:


> I haven't heard it, but I will do a search on Spotify this instant..


James,

It looks like you haven't been around for quite awhile...If you peek in now and then let me know what you learned from your search..

Robert


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

Debussy surely has more humour than Schönberg, whose irony is about as close to humour at he gets.
Schönberg is generally more serious than Debussy; and not as mystical (or 'spacey') as Skryabin.
But, attend this: some Debussy is as 'far out' as Schönberg, and frequently as innervating.

Schönberg is generally very sincere, and as Oscar Wilde says, 'A little sincerity is a dangerous thing, and a great deal of it is absolutely fatal.'


----------



## Eusebius12

The problem for Messiahs is that they need to be believed in. If no-one believes in them, their Messiahship crumbles. A few decades ago, Schoenberg's status as a musical Messiah seemed assured in certain circles. Not many really believe in him anymore.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Oscar Wilde also said "The worst vice of a fanatic is his sincerity," and "All bad poetry springs from genuine feeling." I can imagine applying both of these to Schoenberg.


----------



## Sid James

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Oscar Wilde also said "The worst vice of a fanatic is his sincerity," and "All bad poetry springs from genuine feeling." I can imagine applying both of these to Schoenberg.


Maybe you're a resurrected ghost of Richard Strauss. He said the same crap about Schoenberg (behind his back, of course). Well, keep on listening to the music of your "idol." A very principled man, who got in bed with the Nazis, became the head of their music union, which basically oversaw the decimation of Jewish musical life in Germany. I don't think Schoenberg was the "fanatic" it was Richard Strauss (& no, his saying "sorry" after the war with _Metamorphosen_ doesn't make up for all the bad things his friends did. Absolutely appalling)...


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

To me Schönberg's ethos is that of an Old Testament prophet: not an weeping Jeremiah, but a righteously wrathful Habakkuk or Zephaniah; or even those New Testament 'Sons of Thunder' James and John.


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I am of the opinion that Schoenberg's works are structured sounds that probably make the most sense/appreciated when one is reading/studying it by score, rather than by the ear.


Most people that I know who enjoy Schoenberg's works, including myself, do not read/study his scores at all. I am no musicologist and have only a basic understanding of music theory, so that certainly can't be the source of his appeal. That his works are highly structured and detailed is very true, but no more true than it is for Bach or Beethoven.

To me, much of his music has a very late-Romantic flavor to it; at times sounding like an exotic Brahms. Even many of his later compositions using the twelve-tone theory, like the Piano Concerto, are full of melancholia, melody and expression.



Eusebius12 said:


> Nice complex analysis. For me the problem with much mature Schoenberg is that it doesn't sound well. The textures are not particularly interesting in themselves; rarely does he produce sound which captivates me, or even interests me. Webern seems to have a better ear for interesting textures.


I wouldn't disagree with that, and on the whole probably even prefer Webern to Schoenberg. However, I find him much more captivating than you do. I think much of it is downright beautiful.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Andre... first of all I couldn't give a **** about an artist's not artistic life excepting when it affects the art. Gesualdo murdered his wife and her lover (after first making him dress in her clothes) and then had the mutilated bodies dumped on the steps of her parents home. Still, I love his music. Secondly... you might do well to first read up a bit concerning the bio of Strauss before you start spouting some ill-informed half-truths:

Strauss never joined the Nazi party.

Strauss refused to give the Nazi salute.

In his notebooks he wrote: "I consider the Streicher-Goebbels Jew-baiting as a disgrace to German honour, as evidence of incompetence - the basest weapon of untalented, lazy mediocrity against a higher intelligence and greater talent."

In November 1933 Joseph Goebbels appointed him to the post of president of the Reichsmusikkammer, the State Music Bureau. Strauss decided to keep his post but to remain apolitical, a decision which (as it turned out) became untenable. He was drawn into cooperating with the regime (much like the conductor, Furtwangler) in the hope of preserving German art and culture. Apparently some artists and composers loved their nation and culture and hoped that it might be saved from the barbarism of the Nazis. Ultimately, they were wrong... but somehow I don't find their attempts at maintaining a culture the loved to be inherently inferior to scarpering off to the comfort of the Hollywood hills and a comfy university teaching position.

Part of his motivation during this period, was to protect his daughter-in-law Alice (who was Jewish) and his grandchildren from persecution. Both his grandsons were mocked and bullied at school but Strauss used his considerable influence to prevent the boys or their mother from being deported.

Strauss was forced to resign his position as Reichsmusikkammer president, after refusing to remove from the playbill for Die schweigsame Frau the name of the Jewish librettist, his friend Stefan Zweig. He had written Zweig a supportive letter, insulting to the Nazis, which was intercepted by the Gestapo.

His decision to produce Friedenstag in 1938, a one-act opera set in a besieged fortress during the Thirty Years' War - essentially a hymn to peace and a thinly veiled criticism of the Third Reich - during a time when an entire nation was preparing for war, was hardly the work of a Nazi composer.

When his daughter-in-law Alice was placed under house arrest in Garmisch-Partenkirchen in 1938, Strauss used his connections in Berlin, for example the Berlin intendant Heinz Tietjen, to secure her safety; he even drove to the concentration camp at Theresienstadt in order to argue (unsuccessfully) for the release of his son Franz's Jewish mother in law, Marie von Grab and wrote several letters to the SS pleading for the release of her children who were also held in camps.

In 1942, Strauss moved with his family back to Vienna, where Alice and her children could be protected by Baldur von Schirach, the Gauleiter of Vienna. Unfortunately, even Strauss was unable to protect his Jewish relatives completely; in early 1944, while Strauss was away, Alice and the composer's son were abducted by the Gestapo and imprisoned for two nights. Only Strauss's personal intervention at this point was able to save them and he was able to take the two of them back to Garmisch where they remained under house arrest until the end of the war.

Strauss completed the composition of Metamorphosen, a work for 23 solo strings, in 1945. The title comes from a profoundly self-examining poem by Goethe which Strauss had considered setting as a choral work[12]. Generally regarded as one of the masterpieces of the string repertoire, Metamorphosen contains Strauss's most sustained outpouring of tragic emotion. The work provoked controversy when it was published because Strauss had written the words "In Memoriam" over a quotation from the slow movement of Beethoven's Eroica Symphony. Because Beethoven had originally dedicated his funeral march to Napoleon, questions were asked about whether Strauss had written the work as a threnody for Hitler.[13] In actual fact, it was the destruction of German culture (including the bombing of Strauss's favorite opera house, the Hoftheater in Munich) which Strauss was morning. At the end of war, Strauss wrote in his private diary:

_The most terrible period of human history (is at) an end, the twelve year reign of bestiality, ignorance and anti-culture under the greatest criminals, during which Germany's 2000 years of cultural evolution met its doom._

Perhaps Strauss should have abandon his nation, his culture, and his family to go live in the comfort of the Hollywood hills where he would have undoubtedly en far more successful than Schoenberg churning out scores for B-movies until McCarthyism resulted in his being deported.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I wouldn't disagree with that, and on the whole probably even prefer Webern to Schoenberg.

I can't offer much by way of criticism one way or the other for Webern or Berg having listened to little by either. I am quite fond of Webern lush _Passacaglia for Orchestra_ (which contrary to his reputation for intimate chamber works) is as lush and sensuous as anything by Strauss or Wagner. It reminds be, in some ways, of Ravel's _La Valse_... with the world of lush Romanticism slipping into decadence and collapse. With Berg, I quite like his _Four Pieces for Clarinet and Piano_, his _Lyric Suite_, and _Three Pieces for Orchestra Op. 6_. Honestly, however, when looking to Modernism, I am far more versed (and far more enamored) with the works of Stravinsky, Bartok, Prokofiev, Shostakovitch, Debussy, Strauss, Messiaen, Hindemith, Dutilleux... among others.


----------



## Sid James

I agree 100% with Poppin' Fresh - Schoenberg's music does owe much to the music of earlier times, whether it be the late Romantic context from which he came, or earlier periods like the Classical & Baroque. I can only speak for myself when I say that I enjoy his music, exactly for what goes on _beneath_ the surface. It's no use listening to this music in a 'superficial' way, because you probably won't get anything out of it. The listener has to probe deep beneath the surface to 'see' the music's beauty, drama, gracefulness & so on.

I have the highest respect for Schoenberg, musically and in terms of how he ran his life. Of course, he was Jewish, but I think that he would have left Europe anyway, because he was not the type of person to compromise & cooperate with such an evil regime as that of the Nazis. As for Richard Strauss (or Furtwangler), I think we too easily let them off the hook, like Stlukesguildohio. It doesn't matter that they didn't join the party, that is irrelevant. I don't even care if they gave the Nazi salute or not, it's immaterial. Hindemith was said to have signed the oath that all academics had to in order to keep their jobs, but the Nazis still banned his music, and then he left. Hartmann didn't compose a single note of music during the war, although he stayed in Germany, this was his way of protesting. Webern was said to be sympathetic towards the Nazis, but even his music was banned. & Toscanini refused to conduct in Nazi Germany (or in Mussolini's Italy). Guess who filled his shoes at Bayreuth? None other than Richard Strauss. The man clearly had few qualms in working in this context. It might have been too much to ask for him to leave like the others because of his advanced age, but at least he could have not taken part in any way in the music scene. This would have given him some dignity. Schoenberg had relatives that were murdered by the Nazis in the death camps, pity he couldn't use his 'reputation' to save them, like Strauss.

Obviously, I get very upset when people degrade Schoenberg in a primitive manner. He already had to put up with alot of crap during his life - prinicipally from moral vacuums like Richard Strauss. In fact, when he was asked to send a note of congratulations to Strauss on his eightieth birthday, Schoenberg politely declined. He basically said that he no longer had any respect for the man, probably for not only musical differences and what Strauss had said behind his back about him, but also (this is strictly my opinion & deductions, not hard facts) because of Strauss' cosying up with the regime in Germany...


----------



## Guest

What seems odd to me about this conversation is when it is taking place. Imagine the year is 1810. Are we talking about how we like some early works by Handel or Bach but we just don't like the late works? Have many of us not even heard any symphonies by Haydn or Mozart? Is Beethoven not even part of the conversation yet?

Or even 1910. Are we talking about how we like some early Beethoven, when he still sounded like Mozart, but that from the 3rd symphony on it's just all too much. Too extreme, too radical, not even really listenable (except maybe for studying from a score). I wonder.

But here we are in 2010, still wrangling over Schoenberg, still perplexed by or antagonistic towards or defensive of music that's getting on to being a hundred years old or more.

Of course, the easy rejoiner is that neither Bach nor Beethoven were nearly so radical or so unlistenable as Schoenberg. Too easy?

There is certainly one difference between 1810 and now. In 1810 there was not two hundred years of antagonism towards new music to color every conversation. In 1810, there was not the same worship of the past as there is in 2010. There would not have been anything like the numerous conversations about struggling with Webern or Mahler or Bruckner or Wagner or Berlioz or Beethoven's _Grosse Fuge_ that still get going in online music forums.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assert that _no one_ in 2010 should be having any sort of trouble at all with Schoenberg, either musically or philosophically. Of course, there will be people who don't particularly like his music. I don't particularly like Chopin. But I don't go around on Chopin threads talking about how ugly his music is. How ear-rending his dissonances are, how repugnant his melodies and rhythms are, how generally bizarre and strange and unnatural and preposterous everything is. That may have been appropriate for 1833 (when those things were written about him), but certainly not by 1910. And yet it doesn't seem to surprise anyone that in 2010 (twenty ten!!), we still struggle with Schoenberg, lyrical, romantic, listenable Schoenberg (and I'm referring to things like the _Variations_ for orchestra, not _Pelleas und Melisande_).

And, what's more, there is no sort of conversation (not on classical music forums) about Helmut Lachenmann or Luc Ferrari or Martin Tetreault. A few living or recently deceased people show up from time to time. Some to be struggled with (Cage, Stockhausen, Boulez) and some to be praised for managing to write "tonal but still modern" music (Higdon, Adams, Tavener). But what about the people who are writing with something other than the techniques of the past, who are writing things that are truly new (and not just recent)?

Those people are by and large not even known. For every thousand people who've heard the names Boulez or Carter, there are apparently zero who have heard of Christian Marclay or Francis Dhomont or even György Kurtág. Natasha Barrett anyone? Christine Groult? Lyn Goeringer? eRikm? Martin Tétreault? And no, I'm not just throwing out some obscure names that no one knows but a tiny clique of avant gardists. That is, you are free to make that accusation, but I'll just deny it. What I'm pointing out is that in 2010, listeners are not as current as they were even in 1910. Certainly not as much as they were in 1810 or 1710.

Something's happened. That's clear. And since it's been going on for about two hundred years, I'm going to also claim that it's nothing to do with any putative difficulties with "atonality" or whatever other contentless generality anyone cares to proffer.

In short, let's start listening to music by our contemporaries, why not, and not just the ones who pander to this very peculiar desire for everything to sound largely like it was written over a hundred years ago or more. How 'bout it?


----------



## Sid James

I also agree with Some Guy. Our opinion of Schoenberg, or any other post WW2 music in particular, is often coloured by what we know of or what we like from the times before that. I also think that the history of C20th classical should be rewritten to include not only those who made an impact straight away (like Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Bartok, etc.), but also many others who were initially working in less mainstream styles that became more recognised later on (Ives, Varese, Cowell, etc.). & there's also those who were literally blacklisted by Communist regimes, like Roslavets, whose music is only being 'rehabilitated' now.

I think people should make themselves aware of some of the major trends in C20th music so they can better understand where composers like Schoenberg fit into the picture. It's better to develop a 'big picture' approach to the music of the last 100 years, not just narrow it down to what grabs us straight away. Music of all periods works on us on so many levels, and I disagree with people who single out the last 100 years or so as producing music that is less engaging, emotional or ordered than that of previous centuries...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I have the highest respect for Schoenberg, musically and in terms of how he ran his life. Of course, he was Jewish, but I think that he would have left Europe anyway, because he was not the type of person to compromise & cooperate with such an evil regime as that of the Nazis. As for Richard Strauss (or Furtwangler), I think we too easily let them off the hook, like Stlukesguildohio. It doesn't matter that they didn't join the party, that is irrelevant. I don't even care if they gave the Nazi salute or not, it's immaterial. Hindemith was said to have signed the oath that all academics had to in order to keep their jobs, but the Nazis still banned his music, and then he left. Hartmann didn't compose a single note of music during the war, although he stayed in Germany, this was his way of protesting. Webern was said to be sympathetic towards the Nazis, but even his music was banned. & Toscanini refused to conduct in Nazi Germany (or in Mussolini's Italy). Guess who filled his shoes at Bayreuth? None other than Richard Strauss. The man clearly had few qualms in working in this context. It might have been too much to ask for him to leave like the others because of his advanced age, but at least he could have not taken part in any way in the music scene. This would have given him some dignity. Schoenberg had relatives that were murdered by the Nazis in the death camps, pity he couldn't use his 'reputation' to save them, like Strauss.

How naive are you Andre? How many artists throughout the whole of history were employed by patrons as bloodthirsty and rapacious as Hitler? Or perchance you imagine that the Borgias, the Medici, the Gonzagas, the Doges of Venice, the Kings of France, England, and Spain, the Samarai warriors of Japan, Peter the Great and Ivan the Terrible were all just a bunch of swell guys? What is the difference with Hitler? Perhaps you imagine that the scale of their destruction and manslaughter changes things. So where is your cut off point? How many murders must a patron commit before any artist employed by him is irrevocably tainted? Or perhaps the Nazis are too near to us in history. So where is your statute of limitations? How many years must a tyrant be dead before we are allowed to appreciate any of the art created under his regime? And how does Stalin play into this equation? Do you also dismiss Shostakovitch, Prokofiev, the great Russian film-makers, and poets who worked under Stalinism... or is there some double standard here? And what of the double-standard with Schoenberg and Strauss. You question Strauss' morality while holding up Schoenberg as some paragon... yet who ran off to the safety of the US allowing family members to stay behind and perish in the camps? Which took greater moral position? It would seem impossible to say.

The reality is that to second guess what Strauss or Schoenberg SHOULD have done from the cushy safety of our present is pretentious and ignores the reality of what these men were facing at that time. Should Strauss have packed up his bags and moved... where? To England or the US where he would have faced a strange culture, a strange language, and no guarantee of employment? How many today would be willing to turn their back on their homeland in spite of disagreeing with the actions of the current leaders? And what of his family? What is the chance he might have safely got them all out? Barring this, however, you suggest he should have abandoned his efforts as an artist in protest. How many artists are willing to do this? Their art is not only their profession... but in many ways, their _raison d'etre_. Should all the artists in the US have refused to make art during the Vietnam War in protest? Or perhaps they should do so now in protest of the on-going war in the Middle-East? That Damn Philip Glass! How dare he continue to create art under a regime bringing terror to the lives of innocent Iraqis and Afghans.

Of course morality has nothing to do with this entire discussion. It is but a sad pretext for you to dismiss those artists whom you dislike. Wagner, most likely would be in there as well. Hitler, after all, loved him... but then again, so did Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism. Personally, I don't need to vilify Schoenberg. I simply am not all that enthralled with much of his music. I quite like Verklarte Nacht, the Gurrelieder, and a few others... but the work doesn't engage me. End of story. Just because I don't like his music does not mean I need to question his importance as a composer... the history books have already been written. Nor do I need to paint him as some monster. Perhaps my opinion will change at some point in time... but I somewhat question the notion that I must invest endless repeated hearing and then I'll appreciate it (that would seem little more than Pavlovian conditioning... and isn't far from why most teens love Lady Gaga). Nor does it mean I just don't "get it". Surprising as it may seem, one may understand a work of art and still dislike it... or simply be unmoved. The latter is far closer to my response. I'm in no way shocked or horrified by Schoenberg. There are medieval works and works of Indian and Japanese music I listen to that are far more removed from the tradition of Western classical/Romanticism than anything Schoenberg ever did. Hell... I might argue that Shostakovitch opera, _The Nose_, is far more outrageous than Schoenberg. He simply doesn't click for me. Sorry.


----------



## starry

I agree, I prefer politics left out of the appreciation music. The individual circumstances of someone who happened to be born in a particular country/society and their relation to the politics there are quite complex often. Best to look at the art as art and judge it on that level, because that is the only level where we can have full information and therefore understanding. Otherwise it is guesswork and has the risk of people using music as a platform for other things instead of just looking at it for itself.


----------



## Argus

I agree with starry and StlukesguildOhio. The actions of the artist have no conscious influence on my appraisal of their work. That was quite a weird tangent to take this thread, with regards to Strauss. For me, the only thing I don't like about Strauss is that I wish he would have carried on doing more wonderful tone poems in the 20th century as opposed to bloody opera.



some guy said:


> In short, let's start listening to music by our contemporaries, why not, and not just the ones who pander to this very peculiar desire for everything to sound largely like it was written over a hundred years ago or more. How 'bout it?


People do listen to music by contemporary artists, just not necessarily in the 'classical' realm anymore.

It's pointless to compare the music listeners habits from over a hundred years ago with the music of today. In the 19th century there were only basically two kinds of music. Classical and folk. Other forms like ragtime were only just beginning to emerge. Classical composers could gain international recognition whereas folk musicians were very much a local phenomenon. Therefore music listeners only had to stay current with the vanguard of classical composers. Now cut to modern day. With mass media, the internet etc there is such a massive and varied amount of music available to the listener, that its harder to know who and where to listen to. There's a vastly bigger coffee pot and a much smaller filter than there was a hundred years ago.

I know lots of people that like to keep up to date with the latest pop and rock groups and most of those don't sound like the music could have been written over a hundred years ago. So people are as current in 2010 with regards to new musical artists, it's just that the artists that are popular are less interested in expanding the musical vocabulary.

I agree with your sentiments , however, that it would be nice for people to accept the direction music has took in the last century and not constantly hark back to a previous time, but it's not that big of a deal. As long as enough people enjoy experimental or contemporary music to make it worthwhile to the artists producing, then what does it matter what the majority of people listen to. If anything it sorts the wheat from the chaff, the artists who produce for love or necessity and those for other rewards.

Also, I've only heard of some of those names you listed because you've mentioned them before.

As for Schoenberg, one word: bad-***


----------



## Guest

Argus said:


> It's pointless to compare the music listeners habits from over a hundred years ago with the music of today.


You don't think it's interesting to compare listening habits and how they have changed (and _why_ they have changed) over time?



Argus said:


> In the 19th century there were only basically two kinds of music. Classical and folk.


You'd be surprised. (No, really. There was just as much variety as there is today. Not so much ghetto-ization, but just as much variety.) In any case, my point was really about comparing the listening habits of concert-goers--people who listened to what we have come to call "classical music." (And why the ghetto-ization happened.)



Argus said:


> Also, I've only heard of some of those names you listed because you've mentioned them before.


Hahaha, of course!!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

What seems odd to me about this conversation is when it is taking place. Imagine the year is 1810. Are we talking about how we like some early works by Handel or Bach but we just don't like the late works? Have many of us not even heard any symphonies by Haydn or Mozart? Is Beethoven not even part of the conversation yet?

Or even 1910. Are we talking about how we like some early Beethoven, when he still sounded like Mozart, but that from the 3rd symphony on it's just all too much. Too extreme, too radical, not even really listenable (except maybe for studying from a score). I wonder.

But here we are in 2010, still wrangling over Schoenberg, still perplexed by or antagonistic towards or defensive of music that's getting on to being a hundred years old or more.

But let's face it... just how open has the musical world been to anything beyond certain composers from Bach onward until recently? Is Schoenberg really any more ignored than Perotin or Gesualdo... or than most Baroque composers beyond Bach, Handel, and Vivaldi... until only recently? Indeed, one might argue that what we speak of as "classical music" is in reality a collection of sub-genre each with their own audiences. There are some who enjoy music across a broad spectrum... but it seems far more common to come across the Medievalist or "Early Music" fan, the Baroque specialist, the chamber music nut, the opera fanatic, the lover of Modernism... all of whom may not listen to one genre to the exclusion of all others... but certainly listen predominantly to one genre. Romanticism, for any number of reasons, seems to be the most popular genre with the largest audience. One doesn't often read of the Medievalists or Baroque nuts bemoaning this fact. Schoenberg and his brand of Modernism is but one voice in the history of music. I can't see how disliking his music makes one inherently close-minded either as a listener or as a composer.

Of course, there will be people who don't particularly like his music. I don't particularly like Chopin. But I don't go around on Chopin threads talking about how ugly his music is...

That is the key point... you don't go around antagonizing those who do like Chopin by suggesting that they are close-minded or the composer whose work they admire is a "moral vacuum" "in bed with the Nazis".

How ear-rending his dissonances are, how repugnant his melodies and rhythms are, how generally bizarre and strange and unnatural and preposterous everything is.

I'm not certain that such isn't fair game. I can't count the number of times I've read comments suggesting that Mozart produced nothing but light-weight and superficial music... mere frilly entertainments for the aristocracy... while Baroque music "all sounds the same". To those who dislike Schoenberg, I would suppose his music does sound ear-rending and bizarre.

And, what's more, there is no sort of conversation (not on classical music forums) about Helmut Lachenmann or Luc Ferrari or Martin Tetreault. A few living or recently deceased people show up from time to time. Some to be struggled with (Cage, Stockhausen, Boulez) and some to be praised for managing to write "tonal but still modern" music (Higdon, Adams, Tavener). But what about the people who are writing with something other than the techniques of the past, who are writing things that are truly new (and not just recent)?

Obviously, those who find such music to be so marvelous are limited in numbers or simply don't post that much. I guess that leaves the field wide open for you. Seriously... how many posts do you come upon here about composers of the Classical era beyond Mozart and Haydn? How many discussions of the less-well-known Baroque or Renaissance composers?

One might also point out that you (and others who embrace Modernism) are far from encouraging any who do make an effort to explore the music of living composers through your continual comments suggesting that it is only certain more experimental composers who represent the best of what is happening in music today... it is only they who are writing something that is truly new. Of course just who and what among the art and artists of today are the most relevant is something always open to dispute. Some contemporary composers have elected to employ elements and techniques of the past? So what? Do you imagine that immediately disqualifies them from the ranks of important composers? Art movements have repeatedly been founded upon the rejection of the art of the immediate past. Modernism is just as much a part of history at this point as Romanticism or Classicism. It may just be that those who continue to cling to the Modernist concept of continual novelty are the reactionaries... or will be seen as such by future generations.

Those people are by and large not even known. For every thousand people who've heard the names Boulez or Carter, there are apparently zero who have heard of Christian Marclay or Francis Dhomont or even György Kurtág. Natasha Barrett anyone? Christine Groult? Lyn Goeringer? eRikm? Martin Tétreault? And no, I'm not just throwing out some obscure names that no one knows but a tiny clique of avant gardists. 

Many would beg to differ.

In short, let's start listening to music by our contemporaries, why not, and not just the ones who pander to this very peculiar desire for everything to sound largely like it was written over a hundred years ago or more. How 'bout it?

Or how about we listen to what we enjoy... what gives us a certain aesthetic pleasure... without being made to feel that somehow we are being looked down upon if we do not embrace the work of a list of certain acceptable and appropriate composers.


----------



## Sid James

Stlukesguildohio: I was probably wrong to bring R. Strauss' politics into this, but with your quotes of O. Wilde used to belittle Schoenberg, you hit a raw nerve. All I'll say is, why do you think so negatively of Schoenberg's post 1908 works? Do you think that he should have continued to compose as he had, in the late Romantic manner? R. Strauss, Zemlinsky & Korngold continued to compose in that way, the last right through until the 1950's, but you have to be honest & say that their efforts were not as significant in terms of the development of C20th music as those of Schoenberg post 1908. Not that there's anything wrong with composing in an "outdated" style or old idiom, I'm just asking you whether you expect Schoenberg to have continued composing in that way like the other guys. It's like I'm reversing what you're saying to Some Guy, is it wrong to enjoy the more "experimental" or "groundbreaking" music? & can't one enjoy both but still see the big picture (eg. I really enjoy Myaskovsky, but in no way was he as significant as say Prokofiev or Shostakovich). But I think that Schoenberg really respected the past, he just thought that he was injecting new life into the old forms & ideas. & what  do you say of others, all around the world in the early 1900's, who came to similar conclusions regarding tonality & thematic development, etc. as Schoenberg but independent of him. I'm talking about Ives, Roslavets, Scriabin earlier on, & probably a few others who are not as well known as those. Where these guys all "fanatics" & "bad poets" as well? By rubbishing Schoenberg you are also dismissing other composers like this, who were also building upon the old traditions in new ways. Is this wise?

Some Guy: Thanks also for dropping those names of contemporary composers, I will investigate those further when I have the chance (although I looked on Amazon & these things aren't cheap, aren't they?)...


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

One thing about Schönberg is that he established a school (The Second Viennese).
He was a great teacher, and then his pupils also taught others so that there are several generations of Second Viennese.
Stravinsky didn't teach.
Hindemith taught, but his harmonic style was too individualistic and it didn't catch on.

Another thing about Schönberg is that he was a man of faith: he converted as a young man to Protestantism--a very unpopular move in staunchly Catholic Austria.
And he converted out of true belief, not as Mahler did to help his career.
In 1933 when he fled Germany he re-identified with the Jewish people, but I would suggest that he was essentially a Messianic Jew.
This matter of faith enters into much of his thinking and art, viz. Moses und Aron, Jacob's Ladder, the Kol Nidre, etc.

Now, he did put up with a lot of **** in Vienna and Berlin. He grew up in the Jewish Ghetto in Vienna and struggled with financial solvency all his life to support two families. (Two children by his first wife who died in the 1920s; three children by his second wife.)
His first wife was Zemlinsky's daughter, and apparently she was rather hot stuff: she later eloped with a painter who eventually became a suicide when she returned to Schönberg!
All this was in 1907, and no doubt had its effects on Schönberg's worldview.

And then the hostile critics in Vienna always gave him a bad time. (The report of one of his concerts [1913] was entered under the 'Police Blotter' section of a newspaper!)
When on the one occasion he was cheered by the public at the première of the Gurre-Lieder he turned his back on the audience.

Well. Back to the music: I would urge enthusiasts to check out his song-cycle The Book of the Hanging Gardens (fifteen settings of poems by German Symbolist Stephan George). When he completed this work (1908) he said that this was what he had been working towards up to that time. So it represents his art and ethos very well; plus it's an exquisite work and very listenable. I don't think it's harder on the ear than Debussy.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Stlukesguildohio: I was probably wrong to bring R. Strauss' politics into this, but with your quotes of O. Wilde used to belittle Schoenberg, you hit a raw nerve. All I'll say is, why do you think so negatively of Schoenberg's post 1908 works? 


As I stated above, I don't hate Schoenberg. I'm not shocked or repulsed my his music. It simply doesn't work for me. I wouldn't even place his earlier tonal works among my favorites. Certainly they don't resonate with me anywhere near as well as any of the major orchestral works of Debussy, Strauss, Mahler, etc...

Do you think that he should have continued to compose as he had, in the late Romantic manner?

Personally, I would never think to suggest what an artist should do or should have done. He or she can only follow his or her own vision. Certainly, Schoenberg must have been aware that what he had brought to music was going to have a limited audience, just as a I can't imagine James Joyce seriously thought that _Finnegan's Wake_ would ever be as popular as _A Tale of Two Cities_. To my thinking, an artist can only make that which he or she believes in and then seek out the audience for that work with the full recognition that nearly every work of art has an audience... but not every work of art is for everybody... not everybody is going to be receptive to every work of art. I think that it is a stretch to continually blame the audience, the program directors, the recording companies, or the performers if a work of music or a given composer fails to resonate with a larger audience.

R. Strauss, Zemlinsky & Korngold continued to compose in that way, the last right through until the 1950's, but you have to be honest & say that their efforts were not as significant in terms of the development of C20th music as those of Schoenberg post 1908.

Of course influence may change over time. Most would have put Bach's sons, or Lully, or Rameau, or Gluck well above old Johann Sebastian for influence during and immediately following his lifetime. At the same time, it must be admitted that innovation is but one measure of an artist's merit. There will always be those who achieve something quite magnificent within an already accepted artistic language. By the way... I wouldn't underestimate Strauss' own innovations... especially within the form of the tone poem, and even more with regard to his earlier Expressionistic operas.

Not that there's anything wrong with composing in an "outdated" style or old idiom, I'm just asking you whether you expect Schoenberg to have continued composing in that way like the other guys. It's like I'm reversing what you're saying to Some Guy, is it wrong to enjoy the more "experimental" or "groundbreaking" music? & can't one enjoy both but still see the big picture... 

Again, I won't second-guess the direction taken by Schoenberg. It would seem to me that an artist is not made by something as simple as discovering of developing a novel approach to art. Picasso was already a great artist before Cubism... and one can certainly imagine that he would have continued to grow and develop even had he remained working in a more traditional style. Of course he wouldn't have been as central to the narrative of art history... a narrative based largely on such innovations. One might point out that the late paintings of Monet and Degas were produced in the 1920s... well after Post-Impressionism, Fauvism, Cubism, Futurism, Orphism, Constructivism, Expressionism, Dada, and Surrealism... but they completely ignored any and all of these developments... yet the resulting works are among their greatest and in some ways may have a more lasting influence than many of the more avant garde works of the time.

Personally, I see the whole picture. I have listened to the works of the Second Viennese School and their followers... but I am not moved. I know about Pop Art and Color Field painting... and I am equally unimpressed. What Warhol brought to art is not something I feel pointed art in the right direction. Certainly it would seem that the direction that art or music should be headed toward is always on ongoing debate. The idea that one group holds the high ground in this debate is absurd. Thinking on this discussion I am reminded of some of what I've been recently reading on the development of opera and the push by certain composers such as Gluck to turn away from Baroque ornamentation toward a simpler form. This does not strike me as inherently different from the move by certain composers to turn away from the more radical forms of experimentation toward a Neo-Romanticism... or by others (such as the Minimalists) to turn away from both camps and seek inspiration in even older musical forms... and even in non-Western forms.

I really enjoy Myaskovsky, but in no way was he as significant as say Prokofiev or Shostakovich.

Our old buddy, MI, highly recommended Myaskovsky... but he has yet to really grab me... but then again... I must admit to a certain prejudice against Russian music. I guess I need that Germanic clarity of form. That should make me a natural lover of Schoenberg and his ilk, eh?

But I think that Schoenberg really respected the past, he just thought that he was injecting new life into the old forms & ideas. & what do you say of others, all around the world in the early 1900's, who came to similar conclusions regarding tonality & thematic development, etc. as Schoenberg but independent of him. I'm talking about Ives, Roslavets, Scriabin earlier on, & probably a few others who are not as well known as those. Where these guys all "fanatics" & "bad poets" as well? By rubbishing Schoenberg you are also dismissing other composers like this, who were also building upon the old traditions in new ways. Is this wise?

I haven't heard enough of Roslavets... although I quite liked what I have heard. With Scriabin I am somewhat versed in his piano compositions... which again I admire. And of course there's Debussy. In all of these there's a sort of slipping in and out of tonality... so that passages of sheer beauty suddenly turn "sour" or "wrong". To me this strikes me as highly effective... conveying a sort of decadence or a collapse of the traditional concepts of beauty. Schoenberg seems to make this break complete... offering up a new atonal system for the old. Somehow it doesn't work for me. And I wonder how much is just him. Listening last night to this disc:










I found that I quite enjoyed the Webern and Berg pieces... but again Schoenberg just irritated me.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Back to the music: I would urge enthusiasts to check out his song-cycle The Book of the Hanging Gardens (fifteen settings of poems by German Symbolist Stephan George). When he completed this work (1908) he said that this was what he had been working towards up to that time. So it represents his art and ethos very well; plus it's an exquisite work and very listenable. I don't think it's harder on the ear than Debussy.

I did indeed look into these... and while they never approach the lyricism and shimmering poetry of Debussy, they do indeed strike me as promising. This disc, with Glenn Gould, makes clear that Schoenberg owed far more to Romanticism... and Strauss... than some may wish to admit:










If I end up picking up this set that will take me to 13 Schoenberg discs... that's more than a number of composers who I really like!


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Why don't we all simply say (for simple minded folks like me) that Schoenberg's music is an acquired taste, even amongst classical music lovers in general like most of us here?


----------



## Sid James

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...To my thinking, an artist can only make that which he or she believes in and then seek out the audience for that work with the full recognition that nearly every work of art has an audience... but not every work of art is for everybody... not everybody is going to be receptive to every work of art. I think that it is a stretch to continually blame the audience, the program directors, the recording companies, or the performers if a work of music or a given composer fails to resonate with a larger audience...


It is true, people are all different. As others have pointed out, with Schoenberg post 1908, perhaps we are 'too close,' even more than 100 years later, and about 60 years after his death. Perhaps we can't see the forest for the trees?



> ...At the same time, it must be admitted that innovation is but one measure of an artist's merit. There will always be those who achieve something quite magnificent within an already accepted artistic language...


Yes this is true. This is why I don't subscribe to the views propounded by Pierre Boulez (decades ago), when he suggested that all music that was not serial was a waste of time. This type of 'grand narrative' view of the supposedly inevitable development of classical music towards atonality/serialism is outdated. I think that it is definitely okay to compose in whatever way one wishes, as long as the music is engaging on some level. I personally find Schoenberg's post 1908 works more engaging, as I do Penderecki's earlier more 'experimental' stuff, but that is just my taste, and does not negate their other works in the more 'established' styles.



> Personally, I see the whole picture. I have listened to the works of the Second Viennese School and their followers... but I am not moved...Certainly it would seem that the direction that art or music should be headed toward is always on ongoing debate. The idea that one group holds the high ground in this debate is absurd. Thinking on this discussion I am reminded of some of what I've been recently reading on the development of opera and the push by certain composers such as Gluck to turn away from Baroque ornamentation toward a simpler form. This does not strike me as inherently different from the move by certain composers to turn away from the more radical forms of experimentation toward a Neo-Romanticism... or by others (such as the Minimalists) to turn away from both camps and seek inspiration in even older musical forms... and even in non-Western forms.


I think that it is good that you have listened to some of this music & at least given it a go. Some people are not aware of these developments at all. I was talking to a friend yesterday who is into classical, and I mentioned the names of Philip Glass, Steve Reich, John Adams - it drew a blank. I had to talk further about Glass' score for _Powaquattsi_ for her to make the connections. I'm not saying this is wrong, I'm just saying this is a fact. Many people don't know C20th music (post 1945 especially), so they are vulnerable to misconceptions & half-truths. I think that people should just listen to the music on it's own terms and then make up their minds whether it has engaged them on some level or not, and how/why? Of course, not everyone has the time to do this, but in a perfect world...


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

I misspoke earlier: Schönberg's first wife was Zemlinsky's *SISTER* (not his daughter).

Schönberg's romance with Mathilde in 1899, together with the influence of Richard Dehmel's poetry, stimulated the production of the d-minor String Sextet _Verklärte Nacht_--which is in fact very representative of Schönberg's first period, and quite a fine work itself.

Schönberg's facial features weren't bad, but he went very bald in his early 20s, and so Mathilde's attentions and accessibility (shall we say?) meant much to him as a young man. (Do any of you know anything about passionate young love/lust?)

To put others in context, Zemlinsky was Alma Schindler's teacher (and probably also her lover), Alma, who also was the lover of Gustav Klimt, and eventually married Mahler.

Mahler, not long before died (of streptococcal blood infection, as Berg and Skryabin) of Schönberg's Expressionistic development in his pantonal second period said something to the effect that 'I don't understand it, but he may be right.'


----------



## Sid James

Sebastien Melmoth said:


> ...His Variations for Orchestra (Op. 31) is a masterpiece; his magum opus Moses und Aron is a wonder; and his Violin Concerto (Op. 36) is stunningly brilliant. His other orchestral works similarly so...


Yes I love _Moses und Aron _as well (but don't yet fully 'understand' it), the _Violin Concerto_ (Hahn's performance is so engaging for me), but I don't remember hearing the _Variations_.

I'm in the process of reading a few books on classical music, borrowed from my local library. Both of the ones I have read so far emphasize that Schoenberg saw himself as a kind of traditionalist, part of the Austro-German tradition that stretched way back to Bach & Handel, on to Haydn & Mozart, then to Beethoven, Mendelssohn & Brahms. He thought that his explorations of the outer realms of tonality and thematic development were natural extensions of what those guys were doing. I think that this is a very interesting thesis, which was probably out of step with the people who (in at least one case in the 1910's) prevented a concert of his & his pupils works from finishing, due to the situation degenerating into a near riot. His critics thought his music was a total break away from tradition, a subversion of the past. But Schoenberg always emphasised his musical roots, they could not be separated from the Baroque & Classical eras especially.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

I see Schönberg as an artist with an individual voice.
Some like that voice; some do not.
But with an open mind, admiration may develop.

After all, who liked the taste of beer first time?
(An inelegant but apt analogy...)

I suggest to all the best way to get to know Schönberg is via his five string quartets.

Or, as some folk care less for chamber music, then via his orchestral works:

First & Second Chamber Symphonies Opp. 9 & 38,
Five Orchestral Pieces Op. 16,
Orchestral Variations Op. 31
Violin Concerto Op. Op. 36
and
Moses und Aron.


----------



## PoliteNewYorker

Big Schoenberg/Second Viennese School fan here. I agree with Sebastien Melmoth that the chamber music is an easier point of entry for Schoenberg, especially Verklaerte Nacht. Five Pieces... is another good one, if you want to go the orchestral route. As for recordings, it's hard to go wrong with anything Boulez does, although I've also always loved Solti's Moses und Aron.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

Malcolm MacDonald's book on Schönberg (2nd Ed.) is probably the best book currently available in terms of bio, criticism, musical explication, etc.

http://www.amazon.com/Schoenberg-Ma...=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272810023&sr=1-7

Also it appears a new Cambridge Companion will soon appear:

http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272810023&sr=1-1


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

There's to be a new reissue of a classic Schönberg recording, the old Melos of London's reading of his *Serenade* (Op. 24).
Had it on LP years ago...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003F1WGWQ/ref=ord_cart_shr?ie=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER


----------



## Il Seraglio

Although I rarely enjoy his music, I always find it interesting, especially the string quartets, and far more listener-friendly than the more abrasive Webern and Boulez.


----------



## Weston

I have only a vague idea of what serialism is about. So if I want to explore it with an open mind and without arguing, where should I really begin? Schoenberg's string quartets? Are those 12 tone? Serial? Atonal?

How should I approach the listening experience? The same as any other listening session? What exactly am I supposed to be noticing? Should I attempt to memorize a piece to the point of being able to hear it in my mind in order to finally get it? If so, are there any short enough serial pieces so I could do that reasonably quickly?

I am ready to make a serious effort if anyone is ready to seriously sell me the ideas.


----------



## Guest

Weston,

Serialism is a way of organizing tones.

Tonality is a way of organizing tones.

The tonal way has been going on for long enough that no one thinks twice about any of its complexities. I personally think that serialism has been around long enough that no one should have any troubles with its complexities. But that's just me. Obviously, many people continue to struggle with it.

I don't know that I'd suggest this as "the way," but I just listened to all sorts of different musics without worrying too much about how they had been put together. I found, early on, that twelve tone music was a bit tiring, possibly because I was trying to make it make the same kind of sense that tonal music did. Hah! When, after many years of electroacoustic and minimalism and experimental musics, I revisited the serial world, I found that it sounded quite naturally like tonal musics. Not exactly the same, of course, but the emphasis on tones was the same. Tones and relationships between tones.

Serial music sounds to me now quite old fashioned and traditional. 

But enough about me. I hate to recommend specific pieces because that seems to be about me, not about the music. I don't know where it would be good to start for you. Probably not the same places I started. I'd just listen to a bunch of stuff with the thought always present in your mind that if you aren't getting something right now that doesn't mean that there's not something to get, that there will eventually come a time when you do get it.

The idea, since you wanted that, is that if I can listen to it and like it, then other people who are not me can also listen to it and like it. Not that everyone will, but that the possibility is there. There. That's my idea!


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

Weston said:


> _Schoenberg's string quartets? What exactly am I supposed to be noticing?_


Some Guy's points are well taken.

I offer this, Weston: Schönberg disliked the term 'atonal' because it is oxymoronic; he preferred the descriptive term 'pantonal' meaning all tones.
Serial (12-tone) is simply a more rigid organizational method of ordering all the tones.
But Schönberg's point was always (to paraphrase), 'that's just one method of making music; the important thing is to have inspiration and make music.'
So, bottom line to simply listen and enjoy it for what it is.
And what is it?
Well, certainly free pantonal and serial pantonal works have more dissonance which may be a means of expressing highly emotional content, or sometimes highly ironic sarcasm--both of which are frequently found in Schönberg's music.

His String Quartets are a good place to begin, but noting that only his *Third Quartet (Op. 30)* is strictly 12-tone--(it's also one of his masterpieces!).

What to listen for? Melody, of course. There are melodies (singing lines) even though they're more dissonant than traditional older music.
Also note the marvellous string writing and use of string technique.

Schönberg's *Fourth Quartet (Op. 37)* utilizes a later evolution of various 12-tone methodology (i.e., instead of 12 single notes in a series, he may use sets of 6-tones in pairs of chords, etc.); moreover, he melds tonal elements (i.e., the 12 tones he uses may have consonant relationships), incorporating suggestions of Hebrew melody.
The string techne is also fantastic utilizing a battery of colourful techniques: col legno (bowing or striking the strings with the wood of the bow), sul ponticello (bowing or plucking the strings very near to the bridge, producing a characteristic glassy sound), etc.

So, if you really want to go pure hardcore 12-tone, his *Third Quartet* would be the place to start.

-----------------------

Just to fill out the record:
his 
*No. 0* Quartet is a fine tonal work in the vein of Schubert, Brahms, and Dvorák.

*No. 1* Quartet is in the thick'n'rich style of the late-Beethoven Quartets, it's very long, expressive with Debussean whole tones.

*No. 2* Quartet partially reverts to the Schubert-Brahms model and then segues into a Mahlerian mode of free tonality including a soprano (like Mahler's Fourth Symphony).


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

There's a new remastered reissue of two of *Schönberg*'s best *12-tone* chamberworks:

http://www.amazon.com/Schoenberg-4-...F1WGWQ/ref=cm_cr-mr-title/192-0706540-8223531

.


----------



## djpeters

I've just ordered 2 books by Schoenberg: "fudamentals of musical composition" and the score of Pelleas und Melissande"
P&M really does seem a great example of late romantic harmony, on a par with Rachmaninov.

I'm hoping to improve my compositional theory/technique.

Any Budding Composers here?


----------



## Km7

I am not sure I can find words to express my admiration of Arnold Schoenberg - as composer, theorist, teacher and musical thought in general. I like both his early works (from his extended tonality period) and his serial works. Verklaerte Nacht, Pelleas und Melisande, lots of his piano works, his string quartets, Wind Quintet op. 26, etc. Not did he only write great music and revolutionalized musical thought with his 12-tone method, but he also wrote some of the best theoretical books to date, which surpass many of today's large, pretentious and expensive textbooks, written by purely academical heads who has nothing to do with actual composition.


----------



## Argus

djpeters said:


> I've just ordered 2 books by Schoenberg: "fudamentals of musical composition" and the score of Pelleas und Melissande"
> P&M really does seem a great example of late romantic harmony, on a par with Rachmaninov.
> 
> I'm hoping to improve my compositional theory/technique.
> 
> Any Budding Composers here?


I've read his 3 books on music theory and found the 'Fundamentals of Musical Composition' one to be the least useful. In fact I can't really remember much of it and I only read it less than 2 years ago. It might have sunk in subconsciously but most of it I found not especially useful for my style of writing. If you are interested in writing in a more traditional form then you might get more use out of it.

His 'Harmonielehre' or 'Theory of Harmony' I found to be the best of the 3. It looks at every concept in tonal harmony up to the point when it was written (early 1910s) and gives a really detailed explanation of each. It's also interesting as it often alludes to his twelve tone system which he had yet to fully realise at that time. However, nearly all examples are four voice harmony in half notes with few real world examples. THis is good in a way as it allows you to concentrate on the ideas at hand, but it makes it difficult to relate them to real music.

The 'Structural Functions of Harmony' is pretty good but feels a bit chock full of examples from the repertoire with not enough explanation in between. I do like how he shows the inter-relationship of keys and how the masters used modulations.


----------



## Km7

_Structural Functions of Harmony_ is basically the next step after _Theory of Harmony_ - a kind of extension, so they should be read in this sequence. Much of the explanations are already given in the first book.


----------



## Comus

I sensed correctly that this thread would be a veritable battlefield.


----------



## Bbarbara

I'm new here...just came from that thread over there where the guy doesn't "get" Brahms. I don't understand that guy at all...but I can tell you I don't "get" Berg or Schonberg. See, I believe that one of the qualities that defines music is the sound. There has to be an aural relationship amongst the tones and that relationship must be apparent through the ears, not on a sheet of music. So 12-tone and aleatoric and any other kind of modern music, to me, isn't music at all, any more than RAP is. I know that I must be wrong in my judgments, because everything I thought was "The Emperor's New Clothes" when I was a kid (abstract art, 12 tone music, Picasso, Allen Ginsberg)....all still around and admired. It's true that most audiences STILL don't like modern music, thogh.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

Kudos on Naxos' newest Schönberg release: String Quartets Nos. 3 & 4, and the Fantasy for Violin & Piano.

Superb readings of fantastic music.

http://www.amazon.com/String-Quartets-Nos-3-4/dp/B003EVPNIG/ref=cm_cr-mr-title/180-4248540-9936329

(Babs: if you want to 'get' Schönberg, you could do worse than start with these pieces.)


----------



## Argus

Bbarbara said:


> See, I believe that one of the qualities that defines music is the sound.


_One_ of the qualities? I'm racking my brain, but still can't think of any other qualities.



> There has to be an aural relationship amongst the tones and that relationship must be apparent through the ears, not on a sheet of music.


Any sound is apparent through the ears. A note and a tone are not the same. You used the word 'tone' which suggests an ordered, actual sound that has existed. A note is a mark on a piece of paper or computer screen, a sound waiting to happen but not necessarily destined to become music.



> So 12-tone and aleatoric and any other kind of modern music, to me, isn't music at all, any more than RAP is


If those genres aren't music, then what are they?

I can understand people calling music they don't like 'bad' or 'crap', but why not call it music?



> It's true that most audiences STILL don't like modern music, thogh.


Any evidence to back up that claim?

For Schoenberg try his Transfigured Night Op 4. It still retains the vestiges of Romanticism.


----------



## Aramis

By the way, was Schoenberg born bald? Eeee... wrong question. I mean: did he ever have hair on top of his head when he was younger? I once did my best to search oldest existing photos of him and even on those that show him in his 30's he had bare mountain.


----------



## Comus

:lol:
Good question.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Aramis said:


> By the way, was Schoenberg born bald? Eeee... wrong question. I mean: did he ever have hair on top of his head when he was younger? I once did my best to search oldest existing photos of him and even on those that show him in his 30's he had bare mountain.


He was pulling his hair out trying to figure out how to write all that atonal stuff.


----------



## Sid James

Bbarbara said:


> I'm new here...just came from that thread over there where the guy doesn't "get" Brahms. I don't understand that guy at all...but I can tell you I don't "get" Berg or Schonberg. See, I believe that one of the qualities that defines music is the sound. There has to be an aural relationship amongst the tones and that relationship must be apparent through the ears, not on a sheet of music. So 12-tone and aleatoric and any other kind of modern music, to me, isn't music at all, any more than RAP is. I know that I must be wrong in my judgments, because everything I thought was "The Emperor's New Clothes" when I was a kid (abstract art, 12 tone music, Picasso, Allen Ginsberg)....all still around and admired. It's true that most audiences STILL don't like modern music, thogh.


I think that you have to listen with a new set of ears to the "atonal" and serial composer's music. In many "atonal" pieces that I have heard, there is a strong theme - although it might be fragmented, it's still there. I'd stop trying to listen for tunes that you can whistle and listen for themes in this type of music, if that makes sense. In terms of serial music, the thing you have to listen out for is the dynamics. In many serial pieces by Webern, for example, there are certain chords and colours (but they are never repeated, as the rules of serialism dictate, so this makes it a bit hard for listeners new to this type of music). If you listen for tunes, all you will hear is morse code like blips and bleeps, but if you listen for the dynamic contrasts, a whole new world can open out for you in this type of music.

Enjoying new music is all about flexibility. If you are able to develop new ways of hearing this type of music, then you will be able to (more) fully perceive it. If you are closed off and inflexible, then you will not be able to even scratch the surface with this type of music...


----------



## jurianbai

Actually in Schoenberg's string quartet, eventhough he is trying atonality on it, I found it is nicely done. The piece politely "sing" from the beginning, eventhough so said there is no center tonal (or whatever) in music theory term. I have listen to Schoenberg's couple of months ago in my risen interest of 20th century music, and I approved the pieces being more easily grasps musically, compared to Bartok's which sometimes I really not sure why he need to sound a particular note on a particular passage. 

I proposed we leave the music theory behind and solely using ears to enjoy the music.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Andre said:


> I think that you have to listen with a new set of ears to the "atonal" and serial composer's music. In many "atonal" pieces that I have heard, there is a strong theme - although it might be fragmented, it's still there. I'd stop trying to listen for tunes that you can whistle and listen for themes in this type of music, if that makes sense. In terms of serial music, the thing you have to listen out for is the dynamics. In many serial pieces by Webern, for example, there are certain chords and colours (but they are never repeated, as the rules of serialism dictate, so this makes it a bit hard for listeners new to this type of music). If you listen for tunes, all you will hear is morse code like blips and bleeps, but if you listen for the dynamic contrasts, a whole new world can open out for you in this type of music.
> 
> Enjoying new music is all about flexibility. If you are able to develop new ways of hearing this type of music, then you will be able to (more) fully perceive it. If you are closed off and inflexible, then you will not be able to even scratch the surface with this type of music...


Now I know why you find opera as your least listened to genre, precisely because you won't find this approach suitable in 99% of opera out there! The type of dynamics and serial pieces work for instrumental, whereas for opera - usually human characters expressing their emotions - ain't necessariy going to "work".

I think Schoenberg wrote a few operas, and I would be interested to know how well his atonal stuff can manage to express human emotions (assuming he wrote his operas that way, which I maybe wrong as I have not listened to any of his operas). I have his smaller "vocal" pieces that came with the Naxos/R. Craft violin concerto CD. _A Survivor from Warsaw_ and others like it on the CD were more narrative/descriptive pieces, which funny enough, Schoneberg wrote for a narrator instead of a sung voice.


----------



## Webernite

I always thought the String Quartets were some of the more _difficult_ pieces to start with. String instruments can be so shrill and unpleasant. Why not try Schoenberg's Wind Quintet instead. Being a twelve-tone work, it is still of course pretty demanding, but on the whole it sounds far less fraught with anger than many of his other pieces. On hearing it, Stravinsky is supposed to have remarked, "This has to be the finest work for this combination ever written."

Here's the first half of the first movement:


----------



## Comus




----------



## haydnguy

Andre said:


> I think that you have to listen with a new set of ears to the "atonal" and serial composer's music. In many "atonal" pieces that I have heard, there is a strong theme - although it might be fragmented, it's still there. I'd stop trying to listen for tunes that you can whistle and listen for themes in this type of music, if that makes sense. In terms of serial music, the thing you have to listen out for is the dynamics. In many serial pieces by Webern, for example, there are certain chords and colours (but they are never repeated, as the rules of serialism dictate, so this makes it a bit hard for listeners new to this type of music). If you listen for tunes, all you will hear is morse code like blips and bleeps, but if you listen for the dynamic contrasts, a whole new world can open out for you in this type of music.
> 
> Enjoying new music is all about flexibility. If you are able to develop new ways of hearing this type of music, then you will be able to (more) fully perceive it. If you are closed off and inflexible, then you will not be able to even scratch the surface with this type of music...


Andre, you are correct. One thing I have to do is to really focus my listening (which we all should do anyway), but it's particularly important in "atonal" works. The second thing is that you have to let the music come to you instead of allowing your ears to anticipate what's coming. That's what I found helped me.


----------



## Sid James

@ Harpsichord

I've got the Naxos recording of Schoenberg's _*Moses und Aron *_(I picked it up on special, otherwise I probably wouldn't have bought it which would have been a pity, imo! ). I think there is definitely drama and some passion in this work (although there is no main female character!). It may also surprise you that Moses' brother Aron is really the main character, with Moses being gone up the mountain for most of the (final) second act. It's actually that second act that grabs me the most, with the chorus at first asking "Where has Moses gone?" in a hushed way (he left them to go up to the mountain). This "interlude" is very powerful, especially because it is so understated. Then towards the middle of the act the 10 minute or so orchestral interlude where the Israelites are worshipping the golden calf - I had previously thought that Schoenberg's orchestration somewhat lacked colour, but listening to this forced me to totally change that wrong assumption. His use of all manner of percussion and winds is nothing but colourful. Then, to conclude the act, the conflict between Moses and Aron when the former comes down from the mountain, sees what's been happening, and he shatters the tablets of the law (on the recording it definitely sounds like balsa wood!). They have an argument, and everyone leaves Moses, he is left alone in the wilderness. We don't know what Schoenberg would have done in the projected third act (Schoenberg had been working on the opera for almost two decades, but it was still left unfinished at his death). Of course, you won't get a tune from Schoenberg (goes without saying in works like this), but I still think that you can clearly experience the drama and conflict of the situations he depicts. If you want to get this, maybe it's not a good idea to get the Naxos because it doesn't include a translated libretto, only a detailed synopsis for each scene. The performance and recording are top-notch, but unfortunately to cut costs, they didn't include a libretto.

@ haydnguy

Yes, I agree. With traditional music, we have a tendency to "anticipate," but with much of the serial stuff it's simply fruitless to even attempt to do this if one is a lay listener. Musicians reading the score whilst listening to the music are a different kettle of fish, so I won't go there. But for most of us "lay" listeners, we just have to experience the music as we hear it, and take (for example) those non-repeated chords that Webern throws at us in his _Variations for Piano _as it comes to us...


----------



## bachbabe

I understand that he was a numerology buff. Here's to you Mr. Schoenberg on 10/10/10!


----------



## Charon

I've recently listened to his Brettl-Lieder. Very neat stuff! I believe it was one of his early compositions, something written around the time of Verklarte Nacht, another piece that I enjoy a lot. I'd love to attend a performance of his Brettl-Lieder!


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

There's a really good version of Verklärte Nacht for piano trio:
http://www.amazon.com/Schönberg-Ver...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1286882852&sr=1-1

Kudos, Webernite, on S's great Wind Quintet--a superb work of symphonic proportions:
http://www.amazon.com/Schoenberg-Ch...=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1286882956&sr=1-2

(This disc also has the Second Chamber Symphony of S's First Period Style.)

Been listening to the Sherry Quartet's readings of Quartets Nos. 3-4: excellent!
http://www.amazon.com/String-Quartets-Nos-3-4/dp/B003EVPNIG/ref=cm_cr-mr-title


----------



## myaskovsky2002

I misspoke earlier: Schönberg's first wife was Zemlinsky's SISTER (not his daughter).
=====================================================

Of course and if she was as ugly as Alexandre we can understand why Arnold...

Martin


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*I love Schönberg*

More in the middle...Not the beginning nor the end...






it is awesome!

Martin


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*awkward text*

The reason people don't "get" Schoenberg is because there's nothing to "get." He composed terrible music that had no kind of lyrical or emotional qualities whatsoever. It was too modern for it's own good. It lacked heartbreak, soul, and most important beauty. However, Pierrot Lunaire is one of the few pieces of his (of his atonal phase) that I find expressive. Again, it still can only paint a 'grotesque' expression, whether on top of beauty or not, but that grotesque expression pervades the beauty.

Innovator/pioneer he may be, but I don't see how anyone in their right mind could enjoy him. Totally inaccessible to my ear. 
==============================================
This is your opinion...my friend. I love Schönberg, I can understand Schönberg, I can even sing it! LOL.

My old ears are young ears....My open mind give me the power to understand his music.

Martin


----------



## Edward Elgar

His music contains many qualities present in tonal music such as structure, canons, sequences, unity and coherence. It's only the melody and harmony that people seem to take issue with. A minor 2nd is just as pretty as a major 3rd.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

I agree with Elgar. A work I still don't understand completely is Pierrot Lunaire...

Martin, confused.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

Pierrot requires multiple auditions. But its structure becomes more clear if you see that it's 3x7 poems--i.e., three distinct sections of seven lieder a section.
*Section 1: descent into the darkness
Section 2: night and madness
Section 3: return to the light*


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Pierrot requires multiple auditions. But its structure becomes more clear if you see that it's 3x7 poems--i.e., three distinct sections of seven lieder a section.
Section 1: descent into the darkness
Section 2: night and madness
Section 3: return to the light 
==================================================
Thank you, I'll try again...discrete LOL .

Martin


----------



## starthrower

I'm a fan. I love Verklarte Nacht, the violin concerto, Chamber Symphony no.1, and the Five Pieces For Orchestra. 

His music contains plenty of lyricism to my ears. He's been described as a romantic, and I agree.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

you like easy stuff.

I love his violin concerto as I love Berg's violin concerto....

I also like his Chamber symphony no.2...I love his 6 string quartets...especially the second (sung, it is awesome!

Martin


----------



## Webernite

I thought there were only five quartets? Unless you're including sketches?


----------



## Sid James

I wrote this review of the following Schoenberg disd on current listening, and thought I'd post a copy here:










I bought this excellent disc of three of Schoenberg's great vocal works last week, primariliy because I wanted to get to know _Pierrot Lunaire _before I hear/see it live here in Sydney in April. I haven't heard this work since I borrowed the Simon Rattle recording on Chandos from my local library more than 10 years back. I was a bit shocked then by it's intensity, but the Chandos disc doesn't have a libretto, so I didn't really know what was going on (I don't speak German). All three of these works are quite different, Pierrot is freely atonal and the Ode is serial (they both employ speech-song), while Herzgewachse is also freely atonal but similar to my ears to the world of Debussy or Ravel (here the soprano just sings, there is no speech-song).

*Pierrot Lunaire*, a set of 21 songs based on the work of Belgian poet Giraud, will be well known to some listeners here. The feeling here is decisively expressionistic and Schoenberg borrowed the technique of speech-song from the world of cabaret. Here you have a heady mix of high drama and the grotesque, with much tenderness and lyricism thrown in between. There is much references to a moonlit world in the text, as well as sacrificial and religious imagery (blood and the wine is contrasted in one very vivid song, Red Mass, for example). Some of it is just bizarre - eg. the song Atrocity has Pierrot the clown slice off the top of the cranium of his adversary Cassander, scoop out the brain, drill a hole & attach a tube, put Turkish tobacco in the cavity and smoke it. I'm amazed how the censors didn't pounce on this work in 1912 (but there was the inevitable riot at it's premiere). Cassander gets back at Pierrot in Serenade, stringing him up in the strings of a giant viola. This is perhaps the most beautiful music that I have heard where a person is being strung up! The final two songs are quite serene, with Pierrot going back on a boat to his home in Bergamo, and thinking of old memories of his youth. This work was originally commissioned by an actress, and in the original performances the musicians (a chamber ensemble comprising piano, clarinet, and string quartet) where hidden behind a screen while she spoke/sang and acted out the songs. After premiering it in Vienna in 1912, Schoenberg took the work all over Europe and it proved very influential on a diverse array of composers, from Webern, Stravinsky & Ravel to Peter Maxwell-Davies and Britten in later decades.

*Herzgewachse*, sounds quite impressionistic, which is quite appropriate as it is based on a poem by Maeterlinck (who I think Debussy and definitely Zemlinsky also set songs to). This work was described by an amazon reviewer as being like rich, dark chocolate, and I think that's an apt description. Here the soprano sings in a more traditional way, and is accompanied by a trio of harmonium, celesta and harp.

The final work on the disc is the _*Ode to Napoleon Bonaparte*_, for baritone speaker, piano and string quartet. This was based on the poem by Lord Byron (1814) and composed in 1942. The poem describes Napoleon as a pathetic figure, who had half conquered Europe and dreamt of conquering the world, but ended up living like an animal in a cell on the island of St. Helena. The old poem, combined with this very intense music, seems to me to be an attack on despotisim, tyranny and the oppression of people by such people who become corrupted by power. If you would describe this as an ugly and harsh work, I'd probably agree, but the fact is that there is no nice way to express the emotions that Schoenberg was here trying to get out. Perhaps it was a commentary on what was going on in the world in 1942, with the world plunged into yet another world war, initiated by Hitler. I find it no less relevant now than it must have been then, having had several decades of such horrible rulers all across the world since then. Dictators like Mao, Mobutu, Soeharto, Pol Pot, Galtieri, Idi Amin, Papa Doc (& currently that horrible Mugabe) have abused their powers in unacceptable ways with horrendous results.

I feel that the performances on this disc stay true to Schoenberg's vision, but there is also much lusciousness here. Not that it smooths over the intensity of these works, but there is also a focus on some of the harmonies in Schoenberg's music, which can be amazing. The recording is also excellent, it's basically as good as being in a concert hall hearing these works. I don't usually "rate" things, but I'd give this 5 stars...


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

The Boulez-Schäfer disc is an 100% Schönberg winner.


----------



## Comus

Perhaps this has been posted already. If it hasn't, it should be.










Schoenberg said, "My music is not modern, it is merely badly played." Brendel and company fix this problem.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

I was including two more:

http://www.amazon.com/Arnold-Schönb...=sr_1_5?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1295046297&sr=1-5

and another rone.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

¡Huy!--the Prazák's new Schönberg Third Quartet is out!

http://www.amazon.com/Schonberg-String-Quartet-No-3-Prazak/dp/B0046IGO7U/ref=cm_cr-mr-img


----------



## Sid James

I just listened to a disc with soprano Jessye Norman featured in two of Schoenberg's vocal works, the operatic _Erwartung_ & the _*Cabaret Songs* _(_Brettl-lieder_). The _Cabaret Songs_ were really interesting, unlike anything by him that I'd heard before.

Here are two of the eight _Cabaret Songs_ from that exact recording - the second one sung on this clip, _Arie aus dem Spiegel von Arcadien_ (No.7 in the cycle) sounds like a lot of fun to me.






The 8th (final) song (not here, couldn't find it) was also a favourite, it had a kind of cabaret-J. Strauss Jnr.-circusy/fairground feel about it.

Below is the review I posted earlier on the "current listening" thread.

*SCHOENBERG*
Erwartung (Expectation), Monodrama in one act, Op. 17
Brettl-Lieder (Cabaret Songs)

Jessye Norman, soprano
Metropolitan Opera Orch.
James Levine, cond. & piano (in songs)
(Philips)

This was my first listen to this Schoenberg disc._ Erwartung _sounds to me very Wagnerian, of whose music Schoenberg was a huge fan (he saw all the operas several times each during his life). A work too dramatic & heavy for my tastes, but Ms Norman's vocal agility was quite thrilling to hear. But the set of _Cabaret Songs _grabbed me much more. These were written between 1901-3, when Schoenberg was working as conductor in the Uberbrettl Cabaret in Berlin, a kind of intellectual cabaret place. I particularly liked the last two (there are 8 songs in this set in all), which were quite fun, had a strong sense of rhythm, and spoke to the composer's love of J. Strauss Jnr's light music. Who knows, had he continued on this trajectory, Schoenberg may well have composed an operetta? In the last song, the piano accompanist is joined by other instruments like a drum, as well as flute & trumpet (if I can remember correctly), which can be a bit of a shock to the first-time listener as all the earlier songs are with piano only. There's definitely a sense of fun in this music, a thing not always associated with this composer.


----------



## nosmelc

i was trying to respond to an earlier post but as my reply appeared here i deleted it.


----------



## nosmelc

what is the opus number of the cabaret songs? i am unfamiliar with them.


----------



## Webernite

I don't think they have an opus number. They were written in 1901.


----------



## 4'33"

*Lol!*



JTech82 said:


> The reason people don't "get" Schoenberg is because there's nothing to "get." He composed terrible music that had no kind of lyrical or emotional qualities whatsoever. It was too modern for it's own good. It lacked heartbreak, soul, and most important beauty.
> 
> Innovator/pioneer he may be, but I don't see how anyone in their right mind could enjoy him. Totally inaccessible to my ear.


Did you try both ears! lol...


----------



## Guest

*@ 4'33,* JTech82 was banned but was very knowledgeable on classical and jazz and in this case I have to agree with him, and I am not going to get into an argument about this type of music.


----------



## Headache

Don't really want to get into any arguments on taste, which is subjective anyway, but for my subjective tastes Schoenberg is the cat's pyamas-eg probably my favorite composer. Tough on the ears sometimes, sure, but usually rewarding in the long run, and even pieces that I have little affinity with, for instance the Ode To Napoleon, have parts that keep me coming back. 
It's easy to say how 'difficult' his music is, and I'm sure Schoenberg fans might relish the fact that some consider his music 'unlistenable', but listening to say Verklarte Nacht is not the same achievement as climbing the Mount Everest and I responded to his music straightaway the first time I heard a piece of his. It wasn't difficult or hard listening at all-just really exciting and exhilarating and all those other things.


----------



## starthrower

I like his music. There's nothing ugly about it for this listener. I suppose it's not pretty enough, or silky lush for all of the wimpy ears in this world. 

I can't see what anyone could have against Verklarte Nacht, especially the arrangement for the larger ensemble? Ravishing music!


----------



## violadude

starthrower said:


> I like his music. There's nothing ugly about it for this listener. I suppose it's not pretty enough, or silky lush for all of the wimpy ears in this world.
> 
> I can't see what anyone could have against Verklarte Nacht, especially the arrangement for the larger ensemble? Ravishing music!


Actually, I like the sextet version better. But it seems as though everyone around here prefers the orchestrated version.


----------



## starthrower

violadude said:


> Actually, I like the sextet version better. But it seems as though everyone around here prefers the orchestrated version.


I could go either way, depending on my preference at the moment.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

World Violist said:


> I've absolutely never understand 12-tone stuff; that said, I haven't found any of Schoenberg's earlier music either, so I can't say anything definite about the earlier Schoenberg.
> 
> Apart from the early works I have not yet heard, I'm afraid I agree totally with Tapkaara.


Dodecaphonic music? You get used to it, like anything else...But in my point of view, it requires listening to it MANY times in order to discover beauty. It is like a "not very hot" woman...At the beginning, she's just unactractive, you start talking to her and her image changes...you see her less and less ugly and finally you see her beauty...Every woman is beautiful ("Faking it", Elisa Lorello).

Be patient and listen to the work many many times...Every time you will discover new details calling your attention...and finally you would appreciate the whole work...This is my humble opinion.

Martin


----------



## Guest

myaskovsky2002 said:


> It is like a "not very hot" woman...At the beginning, she's just unactractive, you start talking to her and her image changes...you see her less and less ugly and finally you see her beauty...Every woman is beautiful ("Faking it", Elisa Lorello).
> 
> Martin


Not the ones I have come across, Ugly is ugly! give me a good looking woman any day. PLEASE


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Andante said:


> Not the ones I have come across, Ugly is ugly! give me a good looking woman any day. PLEASE


Big LOL

Martin


----------



## Manxfeeder

Andante said:


> Not the ones I have come across, Ugly is ugly! give me a good looking woman any day. PLEASE


Funny, I have come across very attractive women who get less attractive as I speak with them. And there are some women who just have something which makes them attractive and I can't figure out why.


----------



## starthrower

That's called chemistry, baby! All the right ingredients, like Schoenberg's music!


----------



## Weston

Does anyone know which Bach piece is Schoenberg's Transcription for orchestra of Bach's Prelude & Fugue in E flat major?

Obviously it's a prelude and fugue in Eb, but which? For organ? WTC? If anyone knows offhand the BWV # I'd be much obliged.

(These Bach Transcriptions are great fun by the way. I love this sort of thing.)


----------



## jalex

Weston said:


> Does anyone know which Bach piece is Schoenberg's Transcription for orchestra of Bach's Prelude & Fugue in E flat major?
> 
> Obviously it's a prelude and fugue in Eb, but which? For organ? WTC? If anyone knows offhand the BWV # I'd be much obliged.
> 
> (These Bach Transcriptions are great fun by the way. I love this sort of thing.)


It's BWV 552, the titanic prelude and fugue which open and close respectively Clavier-Ubung III:











One of my favourite Bach pieces, I must listen to that orchestration.


----------



## Moira

It is the centenary of Pierrot Lunaire in 2012. 

There will be a performance of this work at the South African National Arts Festival in July. 

The organisers are checking this, but there is reason to believe it might be a South African premiere.


----------



## Cnote11

Schoenberg's music is a temple to be worshiped at, towering high above the rest of the music surrounding it. Pierrot Lunaire is one of my favorite pieces and I am envious of your opportunity, Moira.


----------



## Moira

Cnote11 said:


> Schoenberg's music is a temple to be worshiped at, towering high above the rest of the music surrounding it. Pierrot Lunaire is one of my favorite pieces and I am envious of your opportunity, Moira.


Now I could weep. I will probably not be at the National Arts Festival. Too far, too expensive. I have been hoping that I'd be invited to work on the Festival paper, but I understand the invitations are out and I did not crack one.


----------



## Classicallystrained

If you want to see a fun Schoenberg parody video....


----------



## rrudolph

violadude said:


> Actually, I like the sextet version better. But it seems as though everyone around here prefers the orchestrated version.


+1 on the sextet version.


----------



## KenOC

Classicallystrained said:


> If you want to see a fun Schoenberg parody video....


Can we assume from your user name that you're pumping your own YouTube effort on mutiple threads? If so, here's a lot funnier one.


----------



## violadude

Classicallystrained said:


> If you want to see a fun Schoenberg parody video....


This was ok...but there were some inaccuracies that bugged me.

For example, Veklarte Nacht is not an atonal piece but the video implies that it is. Plus, that "fake Schoenberg" piece wasn't clever enough to actually pass as a parody of a Schoenberg piece....


----------



## Mahlerian

violadude said:


> This was ok...but there were some inaccuracies that bugged me.
> 
> For example, Veklarte Nacht is not an atonal piece but the video implies that it is. Plus, that "fake Schoenberg" piece wasn't clever enough to actually pass as a parody of a Schoenberg piece....


Yeah, the "fake Schoenberg" could only pass as Schoenberg to people who don't know a single thing about Schoenberg. It's like a lot of internet parody videos produced by people who don't understand that parody works best (for everybody) when you appreciate and enjoy whatever it is you're parodying. Parody that exists only to ridicule without any love for its subject doesn't work very well, because it only gets the surface of its subject. Things like this aren't really offensive to those of us who love Schoenberg, they're just a little baffling.

It's absolutely bizarre to hear Schoenberg described as being the expression of the horrors of Post-WWII Germany when

a) He was born and lived in Austria.
b) He left Germany before WWII.
c) All of the music featured was written significantly before WWII, and some of it before WWI.
d) There's a lot more to Schoenberg than horror and bleakness, even in the works selectively sampled.


----------



## niv

His Piano Concerto played by Glenn Gould is amazing.
Maybe 12-tone is not for everybody. It's harder to find "meaning" there than in a Beethoven symphony. But it is there, and it's a different kind of meaning & expression.

The claims that this music is "soulless" are as insightful as the claims that "classical music is boring". Just because you don't connect to the music it does not mean that it is meaningless, it is akin to picking up a book in language you don't understand and bashing it for not making any sense of it.


----------



## Neo Romanza

I like a good bit of Schoenberg and don't have any problems with his 12-tone music, but there are works, even within that style, that I don't particularly care for just like there's music written in a more consonant harmony that I don't enjoy. I really love Schoenberg's early works _Verklarte Nacht_, _Pelleas und Melisande_, _Gurre-Lieder_, but from his atonal/12-tone period I love both _Chamber Symphonies_, _Five Pieces for Orchestra_ (really a mesmerizing work from start to finish), the concerti for piano and violin, _Die glückliche Hand_, and _Erwartung_. I don't think Schoenberg was really 'a slave to his methods' as many think as he was constantly in development and experimenting with music throughout his composing career.


----------



## schuberkovich

I was really enjoying the first movement of his 2nd string quartet - it seemed so creative, and the tonality stretched to breaking point gave it a kind of fragility. However, the later movements, as they became more atonal, I found to lose that "something".


----------



## Mahlerian

schuberkovich said:


> I was really enjoying the first movement of his 2nd string quartet - it seemed so creative, and the tonality stretched to breaking point gave it a kind of fragility. However, the later movements, as they became more atonal, I found to lose that "something".


How about the 3rd movement, wherein the first movement's theme becomes a lamenting song? I personally think the quartet is one of those works where each movement builds on and supersedes the last, and the last movement, breaking out of the thick German Romanticism, is the most stunningly beautiful, by turns terrifying and ravishing.



Neo Romanza said:


> Chamber Symphonies


These are tonal. Also, none of the works you mentioned are from his post 1923 12-tone style. What is your opinion on Moses und Aron or the Concertos?


----------



## Neo Romanza

Mahlerian said:


> These are tonal. Also, none of the works you mentioned are from his post 1923 12-tone style. What is your opinion on Moses und Aron or the Concertos?


I don't consider the _Chamber Symphonies_ strictly tonal as they weave in and out of highly dissonant passages. Their outlook, however, is quite Neoclassical. I did mention the concerti in my list by the way. I don't think much of _Moses und Aron_ right now but that could change upon more listens. I own both of Boulez's recordings of it on Sony and DG. Need to revisit it at some point. Have you heard Solti's performance? I wonder how that one compares to both of Boulez's?


----------



## Mahlerian

Neo Romanza said:


> I did mention the concerti in my list by the way.


So you did. My fault! Those are specifically 12-tone works, so my question is, more or less, retracted.



Neo Romanza said:


> I don't consider the _Chamber Symphonies_ strictly tonal as they weave in and out of highly dissonant passages. Their outlook, however, is quite Neoclassical. I don't think much of _Moses und Aron_ right now but that could change upon more listens. I own both of Boulez's recordings of it on Sony and DG. Need to revisit it at some point. Have you heard Solti's performance? I wonder how that one compares to both of Boulez's?


There are some things about the Chamber Symphonies that burst at the edges of tonality (such as chords of stacked fourths), but dissonance is not the deciding factor in whether something is considered tonal or atonal. I haven't heard Solti's Moses, but I am familiar with Boulez's recordings, which I enjoy. I also enjoy the one on Berlin Classics, but not the one on Naxos, which has a lousy Aron.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Mahlerian said:


> There are some things about the Chamber Symphonies that burst at the edges of tonality (such as chords of stacked fourths), but dissonance is not the deciding factor in whether something is considered tonal or atonal. I haven't heard Solti's Moses, but I am familiar with Boulez's recordings, which I enjoy. I also enjoy the one on Berlin Classics, but not the one on Naxos.


I suppose this is true but I really don't like looking at music as whether it's tonal/atonal. What matters most is whether we respond to it or not, which I can say there's a good bit of Schoenberg I do respond to and there's also some of it that does nothing for me. By the way, Berg is my favorite _Second Viennese School_ composer. Rattle once called Berg 'the humanizing force of the Second Viennese School.'


----------



## Mahlerian

Neo Romanza said:


> I suppose this is true but I really don't like looking at music as whether it's tonal/atonal.


Agreed.



> What matters most is whether we respond to it or not, which I can say there's a good bit of Schoenberg I do respond to and there's also some of it that does nothing for me. By the way, Berg is my favorite _Second Viennese School_ composer. Rattle once called Berg 'the humanizing force of the Second Viennese School.'


I love Berg as well; he wrote two of the 20th century's greatest operas among many other masterpieces. I wish he had lived longer. In my book, I count Schoenberg higher partially because of his versatility (writing well in all major genres except the symphony) and because of the greater development of his career, but I would not give up Berg's Piano Sonata, the Three Orchestral Pieces, Wozzeck, the Lyric Suite, or the Violin Concerto for anything.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Mahlerian said:


> I love Berg as well; he wrote two of the 20th century's greatest operas among many other masterpieces. I wish he had lived longer. In my book, I count Schoenberg higher partially because of his versatility (writing well in all major genres except the symphony) and because of the greater development of his career, but I would not give up Berg's Piano Sonata, the Three Orchestral Pieces, Wozzeck, the Lyric Suite, or the Violin Concerto for anything.


There's only one work of Berg's that gives me problems and it's the _Chamber Concerto_. For the life of me I tried and tried to like the work, but I can't. I guess I have a bit of a sentimental spot for Berg as his music, particularly the _Violin Concerto_, gave me my first dosage of _The Second Viennese School_. My opinion of these composers before I heard Berg's VC was quite negative and derogatory, but I owe Berg a lot for 'opening my ears' to this sound-world, because it was his music that gave me the courage to proceed with Hartmann who I consider a successor of Berg's Expressionism.


----------



## schuberkovich

Mahlerian said:


> How about the 3rd movement, wherein the first movement's theme becomes a lamenting song? I personally think the quartet is one of those works where each movement builds on and supersedes the last, and the last movement, breaking out of the thick German Romanticism, is the most stunningly beautiful, by turns terrifying and ravishing.


You are right the 3rd movement is extraordinary, yet I still find the more chromatic 2nd and 4th movements difficult to appreciate. I don't what to be one of those guys, but more 12-tone/atonal music makes me feel restless/agitated. I can't "lose expectations" and go in not expecting tonal music. Is it a taste which is acquired over time?


----------



## Mahlerian

Neo Romanza said:


> There's only one work of Berg's that gives me problems and it's the Chamber Concerto. For the life of me I tried and tried to like the work, but I can't.


It's in some ways his most Schoenbergian work, but it's very playful at its core. The first movement has a concertante piano part, the second a concertante violin part, and the third opens with a cadenza for both instruments. I find it kind of Jazzy in a way (more so than Der Wein...).



schuberkovich said:


> You are right the 3rd movement is extraordinary, yet I still find the more chromatic 2nd and 4th movements difficult to appreciate. I don't what to be one of those guys, but more 12-tone/atonal music makes me feel restless/agitated. I can't "lose expectations" and go in not expecting tonal music. Is it a taste which is acquired over time?


I think it's not unlikely that your expectations are not quite as strong as you think. Listen to the song cycle "Book of the Hanging Gardens", which has some similarities in style to the 3rd and 4th movements of this quartet (written around the same time).

The main barrier against understanding Schoenberg is, I think, the density of the music, the fast rate of change combined with complex counterpoint and motivic saturation. The fact that you can follow the first movement of the 2nd quartet means that you're closer than most people.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Mahlerian said:


> It's in some ways his most Schoenbergian work, but it's very playful at its core. The first movement has a concertante piano part, the second a concertante violin part, and the third opens with a cadenza for both instruments. I find it kind of Jazzy in a way (more so than Der Wein...).


Yes, the Schoenberg influence in the _Chamber Concerto_ is quite apparent, but I don't know I just can't dig it. Getting back to Schoenberg, any favorite performances of _Five Pieces for Orchestra_?


----------



## Mahlerian

Neo Romanza said:


> Getting back to Schoenberg, any favorite performances of _Five Pieces for Orchestra_?


Levine on DG and Boulez on Sony are the ones I'm most familiar with.


----------



## schuberkovich

Mahlerian said:


> I think it's not unlikely that your expectations are not quite as strong as you think. Listen to the song cycle "Book of the Hanging Gardens", which has some similarities in style to the 3rd and 4th movements of this quartet (written around the same time).
> 
> The main barrier against understanding Schoenberg is, I think, the density of the music, the fast rate of change combined with complex counterpoint and motivic saturation. The fact that you can follow the first movement of the 2nd quartet means that you're closer than most people.


You're right, it is very dense (following the score in this case is especially rewarding) and I think this is another reason why his more chromatic music is harder, because with atonal music, it doesn't feel as much like the separate parts are as related, so you get 4 separate lines playing very different things with little surface connection between them (harmony and melody). I will try the song cycle.
On a separate, another 2nd viennese piece I enjoy is Berg's piano sonata, which I know is not "true" 2nd viennese school music but I think it is incredible. However, I find it difficult to appreciate any Webern


----------



## Neo Romanza

schuberkovich said:


> However, I find it difficult to appreciate any Webern


Same here but I do love the _Passacaglia_, which is a relatively early work for Webern.


----------



## Mahlerian

schuberkovich said:


> You're right, it is very dense (following the score in this case is especially rewarding) and I think this is another reason why his more chromatic music is harder, because with atonal music, it doesn't feel as much like the separate parts are as related, so you get 4 separate lines playing very different things with little surface connection between them (harmony and melody). I will try the song cycle.


There are connections, and one of the amazing things about Schoenberg's music is how integrated it all is. The parts are all very individual, true, but they're constantly responding to and echoing each other.



> On a separate, another 2nd viennese piece I enjoy is Berg's piano sonata, which I know is not "true" 2nd viennese school music but I think it is incredible.


I consider it true 2nd Vienna music. It was composed under Schoenberg's tutelage and bears the stamp of his influence (based on a single theme, compact and chromatically daring). It's not atonal, but neither are Schoenberg's or Webern's works from the same time.



> However, I find it difficult to appreciate any Webern


Webern is kind of like a haiku, presenting a single vivid image in as few words as possible. It's hard to describe the effect of it, but it's certainly farther removed from the Romantic aesthetic than Schoenberg or Berg (hence his attraction to the post-WWII avant-garde).


----------



## Manxfeeder

Neo Romanza said:


> Any favorite performances of _Five Pieces for Orchestra_?


My personal favorite, at least as of now, is Rattle's.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Manxfeeder said:


> My personal favorite, at least as of now, is Rattle's.


That's a good one! I forgot about that one. That one was when Rattle was still with the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra I believe. Rattle made his best recordings with this orchestra IMHO. He also was able to champion more 20th Century music. Recorded a lot of Szymanowski and Britten during this time.


----------



## schuberkovich

Well after a few more listens with score, I have realised just how extraordinary Schoenberg's SQ 2 is! I still have a bit of trouble with the 4th movement, as it doesn't feel as coherent as the previous 3, but I am getting there. Understanding the 2nd movement was like a revelation.
I am thinking of purchasing this (as my previous listens were on Youtube): http://www.amazon.co.uk/Schoenberg-Berg-Webern-String-Quartets/dp/B001MUJSXW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1368374180&sr=8-1&keywords=schoenberg+string+quartet and this http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B000058BGZ/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=A39ICD481JU15Y
Are they worth it? They seem very good value


----------



## Mahlerian

schuberkovich said:


> Well after a few more listens with score, I have realised just how extraordinary Schoenberg's SQ 2 is! I still have a bit of trouble with the 4th movement, as it doesn't feel as coherent as the previous 3, but I am getting there. Understanding the 2nd movement was like a revelation.
> I am thinking of purchasing this (as my previous listens were on Youtube): http://www.amazon.co.uk/Schoenberg-Berg-Webern-String-Quartets/dp/B001MUJSXW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1368374180&sr=8-1&keywords=schoenberg+string+quartet and this http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B000058BGZ/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=A39ICD481JU15Y
> Are they worth it? They seem very good value


Yes and yes. Excellent recordings, all.

Glad to hear that the piece is coming together more for you. As for the final movement, have you tried listening together with a text/translation of the poem he's setting? The music is at most points a reflection of the words. If I may ask, what group played the Youtube version you've been listening to?


----------



## schuberkovich

Mahlerian said:


> Yes and yes. Excellent recordings, all.
> 
> Glad to hear that the piece is coming together more for you. As for the final movement, have you tried listening together with a text/translation of the poem he's setting? The music is at most points a reflection of the words. If I may ask, what group played the Youtube version you've been listening to?


The Aron Quartet, as a Youtuber very kindly uploaded with score. 



I did listen with the text translation, which certainly added to it. The poems themselves are extraordinary - however, I find it difficult to both appreciate the text and the music simultaneously. For example, when I listened with the translation, I felt that I was treating the music like film-score music, a backdrop for the words. I generally prefer "absolute music".


----------



## schuberkovich

I forgot to mention though that the way the quartet ends is extraordinary. The way it shifts from atonality into an F-sharp major chord like a final breath is incredible.


----------



## senza sordino

I am a wee bit confused about Verklarte Nacht, Transfigured Night. Schoenberg originally wrote this for a string sextet, and then rewrote it for chamber orchestra. Is there a more definitive version? Is one version better? I would like to get a recording, but I often find the chamber orchestra version on CD. Is the chamber version, strings only or the entire orchestra, winds and brass as well? 

Can anyone recommend a version? 

As I am currently reading The Rest is Noise, listening to the 20th Century by Alex Ross, it makes me want to listen to these pieces. So I thought I would resurrect this Schoenberg thread. Any thing else to listen for? 5 pieces for orchestra was also mentioned in the book.


----------



## dgee

Originally composed for sextet and then Schoenberg arranged it for string orchestra. I prefer the string orchestra version, possibly because I've heard it more and possibly because richer, bigger textures appeal to me. I remember enjoying a Karajan recording with Berlin but the Ensemble Intercomparain sextet version with Boulez would also be worth checking out


----------



## Mahlerian

senza sordino said:


> I am a wee bit confused about Verklarte Nacht, Transfigured Night. Schoenberg originally wrote this for a string sextet, and then rewrote it for chamber orchestra. Is there a more definitive version? Is one version better? I would like to get a recording, but I often find the chamber orchestra version on CD. Is the chamber version, strings only or the entire orchestra, winds and brass as well?
> 
> Can anyone recommend a version?


I prefer the intimacy of the chamber version myself, but the composition is just as good either way. Whichever texture appeals to you more, that's the one you should choose.

I second the Boulez/Ensemble intercontemporain recording of the sextet version.



senza sordino said:


> As I am currently reading The Rest is Noise, listening to the 20th Century by Alex Ross, it makes me want to listen to these pieces. So I thought I would resurrect this Schoenberg thread. Any thing else to listen for? 5 pieces for orchestra was also mentioned in the book.


5 Pieces for Orchestra is a great choice. Also the Second String Quartet, which is a transitional work, stylistically (all of the string quartets are excellent, though). Among his early 12-tone works, Moses und Aron is one that tends to resonate with people, because the words help to provide context. The best recordings I know are Boulez's (both of them) and the Kegel one on Berlin Classics. The worst I know is the Naxos recording (Aron is entirely wrong for the role). Among his later works, the concertos are gaining a good deal of popularity, thanks in no small part to the advocacy of star performers like Ax, Uchida, and Hahn (whose rendition of the Violin Concerto surpasses all of the competition).


----------



## starthrower

I plucked this CD out of the B&N bargain bin yesterday, but I'm not sure I want to open it. I just realized I already have a recording of Erwartung on a EMI 2 disc set. I blow hot and cold on Schoenberg's and Webern's vocal music, although I like a lot of stuff on the Schoenberg II 6 disc Sony box.


----------



## Blake

Anyone enjoy the Schoenberg Quartet's set? I'm still pretty new to the understanding of this style, but I'm really into this.

http://www.amazon.com/Arnold-Schoenberg-Quartet/dp/B00005NVG9/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1388344218&sr=8-1&keywords=schoenberg+quartet


----------



## shangoyal

I wonder if this has been posted here before, but it's interesting. Quite interesting.

Schoenberg's superstitious nature may have triggered his death. The composer had triskaidekaphobia (the fear of the number 13), and according to friend Katia Mann, he feared he would die during a year that was a multiple of 13 (quoted in Lebrecht 1985, 294). He dreaded his sixty-fifth birthday in 1939 so much that a friend asked the composer and astrologer Dane Rudhyar to prepare Schoenberg's horoscope. Rudhyar did this and told Schoenberg that the year was dangerous, but not fatal.

But in 1950, on his seventy-sixth birthday, his friend, mentor, and fellow composer and musician, Oskar Adler wrote Schoenberg a note warning him that the year was a critical one: 7 + 6 = 13 (Nuria Schoenberg-Nono, quoted in Lebrecht 1985, 295). This stunned and depressed the composer, for up to that point he had only been wary of multiples of 13 and never considered adding the digits of his age. He died on Friday, 13 July 1951, shortly before midnight. Schoenberg stayed in bed-sick, anxious and depressed all day. In a letter to Schoenberg's sister Ottilie, dated 4 August 1951, his wife Gertrud reported, "About a quarter to twelve I looked at the clock and said to myself: another quarter of an hour and then the worst is over. Then the doctor called me. Arnold's throat rattled twice, his heart gave a powerful beat and that was the end"

_(taken from Wikipedia)_


----------



## PetrB

shangoyal said:


> I wonder if this has been posted here before, but it's interesting. Quite interesting.
> 
> Schoenberg's superstitious nature may have triggered his death. The composer had triskaidekaphobia (the fear of the number 13), and according to friend Katia Mann, he feared he would die during a year that was a multiple of 13 (quoted in Lebrecht 1985, 294). He dreaded his sixty-fifth birthday in 1939 so much that a friend asked the composer and astrologer Dane Rudhyar to prepare Schoenberg's horoscope. Rudhyar did this and told Schoenberg that the year was dangerous, but not fatal.
> 
> But in 1950, on his seventy-sixth birthday, his friend, mentor, and fellow composer and musician, Oskar Adler wrote Schoenberg a note warning him that the year was a critical one: 7 + 6 = 13 (Nuria Schoenberg-Nono, quoted in Lebrecht 1985, 295). This stunned and depressed the composer, for up to that point he had only been wary of multiples of 13 and never considered adding the digits of his age. He died on Friday, 13 July 1951, shortly before midnight. Schoenberg stayed in bed-sick, anxious and depressed all day. In a letter to Schoenberg's sister Ottilie, dated 4 August 1951, his wife Gertrud reported, "About a quarter to twelve I looked at the clock and said to myself: another quarter of an hour and then the worst is over. Then the doctor called me. Arnold's throat rattled twice, his heart gave a powerful beat and that was the end"
> 
> _(taken from Wikipedia)_


He deliberately misspelled "Moses und Aron" (it should be Moses und Aaron) because the correct spelling has a total of thirteen letters!

Just imagine the man's anxiety level if our chromatic scale had thirteen, and not twelve, pitches.... 
Though, I'm thinking 
_*trisdecaphonic music*_ doesn't roll of the tongue any easier than _*dodecaphonic music*_:lol:


----------



## shangoyal

"You are joking, right?"


----------



## Mahlerian

He was also very careful about the number 13 while composing. He was sure that whenever he encountered the 13th measure of a piece, he would run into difficulties (of course, this did happen once in a while), and it's surely notable that for his opus 13, he simply used an already-existing piece rather than write something new.


----------



## PetrB

Mahlerian said:


> He was also very careful about the number 13 while composing. He was sure that whenever he encountered the 13th measure of a piece, he would run into difficulties (of course, this did happen once in a while), and it's surely notable that for his opus 13, he simply used an already-existing piece rather than write something new.


Schoenberg's triskaidekaphobia was _was truly a phobia._


----------



## PetrB

shangoyal said:


> "You are joking, right?"
> 
> View attachment 35797


No, Arnie, there _are_ thirteen chromatic pitches, and you overlooked one.

Deal with it: back to the drafting board, then, for you.


----------



## hpowders

Yup..Shows he's not too sharp tonight. His post was a wee bit flat.


----------



## User in F minor

What recording of Gurre-Lieder do you recommend?


----------



## ptr

User in F minor said:


> What recording of Gurre-Lieder do you recommend?


Kubelik on DG if You can find it, secondary I prefer Salonen on Signum with the Philharmonia!

Kubelik because of the supreme German female soloists (Inge Borkh & Hertha Töpper) and the Bavarian radio orchestra, no matter what the jury says, is at least as good as the Berliners of the period!

/ptr


----------



## Dutchman

You can enjoy it. It just takes some time to figuring it out. Here's an article which might help you http://www.mtosmt.org/issues/mto.03.9.2/mto.03.9.2.cramer.html


----------



## JakeBloch

I picked up the Naxos 5-disk sets 1 and 2 of Schoenberg, more as a duty than a pleasure, plus the Piano works by Gould, plus the original sextet version of VNacht and a piano trio with Isaac Stern.

Every once and I while and steel myself and dig in, trying to get with his program. It is very hard to do - maybe I need sedatives to reduce my expectations. We all agree, the stuff when he was young is great ... but The Book of the Hanging Gardens and onward are very trying. (Gurrelieder is great, of course ... he started it before the switch, then finished it way afterwards.)

About his later, non-tonally-centered works...
First, he is long-winded often. Whatever he is saying, he is not often succinct about it - polar opposite of his bud Webern. 

He has some lovely chords - the sounds themselves are great, but they way they are put together can hurt.

2nd String Quartet is a great place to start - he gently guides into his new world in the last movement, as least from my perspective.


----------



## Mahlerian

JakeBloch said:


> First, he is long-winded often. Whatever he is saying, he is not often succinct about it - polar opposite of his bud Webern.


Then why are you citing his least succinct works as his best (especially Gurrelieder)?

The later works are far more succinct. The "atonal" works are usually far more compact than the tonal works, and for good reason: they don't require some of the functional "linking" material that was part and parcel of the late romantic style.

The Six Little Pieces for Piano, Op. 19, the Five Orchestral Pieces, and other works of that era tended to be extremely compact, and there is some evidence that Schoenberg's first pieces in this mold preceded Webern's (the unpublished, unfinished Three Chamber Pieces). His longer works of that period are successions of shorter movements based on texts (Pierrot lunaire, Hanging Gardens, even Die Glucklische Hand). It is probably pretty significant that Der Jakobsleiter was left unfinished. It was only with the 12-tone method that he was able to structure anything longer to his own satisfaction, so the movements of the 3rd and 4th quartets, the Wind Quintet, the Serenade, and so forth are longer than before and make use of traditional forms. With Moses und Aron he composed his longest non-tonal work, and it is still somewhat shorter than Gurrelieder.

Anyway, I agree that Schoenberg's harmonies can sound wonderful in isolation (their voicing alone often defines or contributes significantly to their coloration), but the contrasts he discovers are beautiful as well. I'm thinking in particular of that moment in the Op. 23 piano pieces (near the end of no. 3) when two lines that had been moving against each other split apart into chords turning inwards onto two pivot notes.

Also, I would hesitate to recommend those Naxos discs as a good introduction. There are far better performers of Schoenberg's music out there than Craft. A different view of the piano works other than Gould's may help as well (though his is certainly intriguing).

Just as an aside (i.e. not as a response to the above post), this motivic analysis I came across on Youtube is quite well done. The different motives are highlighted on the score as the piece plays.


----------



## millionrainbows

Also, note that most of his opus numbers match-up to the year they were published. I think this obsession with number has something to with his ethnic/religious roots, where letters represent numbers.


----------



## User in F minor

I never noticed that. Interestingly, the opus numbers start lining up with years immediately following his long hiatus from publishing.



> Four Orchestral Songs, Op. 22 (1913/16)
> 5 Stücke [5 Pieces] for Piano, Op. 23 (1920/23)


----------



## deprofundis

Gurrelieder introduction by Schoenberg's is probably my favorite introduction ever , it's magical perhaps Schoenberg gem among is works, love it , i Wonder if Schoenberg actually top this , in term of melody, full of joy and glory. i never heard something has pretty has gurrelieder, i did a post on it a while ago sutch a brilliant piece of work .


----------



## hpowders

After listening to the Mitsuko Uchida/Pierre Boulez performance of the Schoenberg Piano Concerto for months now, I can finally say I am familiar with the score. A work of haunting beauty and of incredible genius!


----------



## millionrainbows

There is a slightly different variant of the Schoenberg death-bed story, by *Joan Peyser* in *The New Music.* It might also be in the extended re-write of that book, *To Boulez and Beyond.*


----------



## Vaneyes

millionrainbows said:


> There is a slightly different variant of the Schoenberg death-bed story, by *Joan Peyser* in *The New Music.* It might also be in the extended re-write of that book, *To Boulez and Beyond.*


Well, tell us. 

Related:

https://mysendoff.com/2013/05/can-you-predict-your-own-death-these-people-have/


----------



## millionrainbows

Vaneyes said:


> Well, tell us.


I'll do it when I have the book with me. It's just a slightly different account.


----------



## deprofundis

I seen Karajan conduct Schoenberg, and since i only heard the naxos version of Schoenberg works, im curieous to here these version of Karajan , are they far superiors to the rest.Ockay here the thing im not a Karajan hater but some of his works is tame even if he is one of the best conductor , so what is your view on the subject.Does Karajan deliver the good whit Schoenberg
music?


----------



## deprofundis

I would like to point out im gonna order zubin mehta conducting Schoenberg gurrelieder its quite possibly the best version ever , and its costy too like nearly 60$(canadian $).But its Worth it its a real gem among the gem of this world, like raining emerald falling from the sky.This is the best Schoenberg rendition of gurrelieder so far,its the philharmonic of israel.


----------



## Weston

If the Suite for 2 Clarinets, etc, and Piano, Op. 29 completely floored me when it first occurred to me I was getting it, that I was really into it . . . 

And if I sort of like the violin concerto and the piano concerto . . . 

But I sort of don't care for Verklärte Nacht and I am ambivalent about Pelleas und Melisande . . . 

But I can not be in the same county as Pierrot lunaire . . . 

Where should I turn next? I would love to get the same kind of sensation I got from the Suite Op. 29 again. Should I look into his string quartets?


----------



## Mahlerian

How about the Serenade, the Variations for Orchestra, or the Wind Quintet? Those are all from around the same time as the Suite and share its hyperactive spicy nature. The Chamber Symphonies might appeal as well.

I'd recommend _all_ of the String Quartets just as a general matter, as they are likely the second-best cycle of the 20th century after Bartok's.

Is your problem with Pierrot related mostly to the style of declamation/singing? Perhaps a different recording might work, because the delivery can make a big difference.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

Did Schoenberg write any freely atonal works? That's probably a stupid question, but oh well.


----------



## dgee

MoonlightSonata said:


> Did Schoenberg write any freely atonal works? That's probably a stupid question, but oh well.


Did you google it first? If no, then yes it probably is a stupid question


----------



## Mahlerian

MoonlightSonata said:


> Did Schoenberg write any freely atonal works? That's probably a stupid question, but oh well.


Of course.

All of his music from op. 11 through op. 23 (movements 1-4), with the exceptions of 13 and 12, which are tonal, as well as Die Jakobsleiter. Many of Schoenberg's most famous pieces are from this period.

I honestly think that most people can't tell the difference between "freely atonal" and 12-tone, though. Both ways sound like Schoenberg.


----------



## starthrower

If I could get the Arditti recordings, I'd buy the string quartets. Until they get reissued, I'll listen to them on YouTube. The Chandos box looks great, but a bit on the expensive side. But why is the world's greatest string quartet performing these great quartets not in print? No justice!


----------



## violadude

MoonlightSonata said:


> Did Schoenberg write any freely atonal works? That's probably a stupid question, but oh well.


Most works he wrote between the first three movements of the 2nd string quartet and the 5 piano pieces op. 23 (not including those pieces) are considered freely atonal works. Even though they are considered freely atonal though, they are still written using proto-twelve tone ideas, if that makes sense.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

dgee said:


> Did you google it first? If no, then yes it probably is a stupid question


Oops.......................


----------



## Mahlerian

violadude said:


> Even though they are considered freely atonal though, they are still written using proto-twelve tone ideas, if that makes sense.


True, but if one considers the integration of vertical and horizontal the key element of the 12-tone method, you can trace this back as far as the String Quartet No. 1. It's very prominent in the Chamber Symphony as well, with its constant emphasis on fourths.


----------



## starthrower

starthrower said:


> I plucked this CD out of the B&N bargain bin yesterday, but I'm not sure I want to open it. I just realized I already have a recording of Erwartung on a EMI 2 disc set. I blow hot and cold on Schoenberg's and Webern's vocal music, although I like a lot of stuff on the Schoenberg II 6 disc Sony box.


Boy! I must have been in wimp mode that day? I opened it, and it's great!


----------



## Weston

Mahlerian said:


> How about the Serenade, the Variations for Orchestra, or the Wind Quintet? Those are all from around the same time as the Suite and share its hyperactive spicy nature. The Chamber Symphonies might appeal as well.
> 
> I'd recommend _all_ of the String Quartets just as a general matter, as they are likely the second-best cycle of the 20th century after Bartok's.
> 
> Is your problem with Pierrot related mostly to the style of declamation/singing? Perhaps a different recording might work, because the delivery can make a big difference.


Yes, it's the sighing exaggerated storytelling /singing that puts me off. It reminds me way too much of a Lerner and Loewe or Rodgers and Hammerstein musical. My favorite non-classical musician, Ian Anderson, has on occasion taken to doing something similar. I find it cringe-worthy even in him. I will try a few different recordings however -- in private.

Turning my keel toward the Serenade, Wind quintet and String Quartets next on the voyage then, and queuing up the Variations which I already have in my collection.


----------



## Mahlerian

Weston said:


> Yes, it's the sighing exaggerated storytelling /singing that puts me off. It reminds me way too much of a Lerner and Loewe or Rodgers and Hammerstein musical. My favorite non-classical musician, Ian Anderson, has on occasion taken to doing something similar. I find it cringe-worthy even in him. I will try a few different recordings however -- in private.
> 
> Turning my keel toward the Serenade, Wind quintet and String Quartets next on the voyage then, and queuing up the Variations which I already have in my collection.


Pierrot lunaire was written for a non-classically trained singer as a kind of cubist cabaret work. It's a bit of an outlier in Schoenberg's output. I liken it to Rite of Spring in that it's the piece that put him on the international stage, got him accolades and recognition from fellow composers (including Puccini and Ravel!), and ended up being among his most influential, despite being unlike anything else he wrote.

There's something playful about Pierrot, a kind of gleeful madness or manic absurdity, and audiences have actually tended to find it pretty accessible from the get-go.


----------



## nightscape

Bought the Boulez box set. Was never a fan of Schoenberg before, but that had more to do with my ignorance of his music than anything else, although I admit a certain uninformed prejudice based on a faulty perception of him.

Music is too important to me to be so absolutely disregarding of a particular composer, so I decided to buy it on the cheap. I could do worse than spend under $20 on 11 CDs, so it seemed like a low risk/high reward type of plunge. I haven't read through this thread, and I haven't even come close to listening to it all, but here are my passing impressions:

- There is much more vocal music than I anticipated. 
- While I heard what sounded like free tonality on display, it didn't register as atonal or unpleasant. It is certainly challenging music, but not declamatory or brash.

So ultimately, while I don't doubt that there's crazier Schoenberg out there than what is represented in this set, my broad viewpoint of him was definitely way off.


----------



## starthrower

Yeah! Arnie was one crazy guy!


----------



## Dim7

He sure doesn't leave me cold - I find most of his music either repulsive or totally awesome.


----------



## Manxfeeder

nightscape said:


> Bought the Boulez box set. Was never a fan of Schoenberg before, but that had more to do with my ignorance of his music than anything else, although I admit a certain uninformed prejudice based on a faulty perception of him.
> 
> Music is too important to me to be so absolutely disregarding of a particular composer, so I decided to buy it on the cheap. I could do worse than spend under $20 on 11 CDs, so it seemed like a low risk/high reward type of plunge.


I wasn't aware of that one, but it's a great price. Are there any opinions on that set?


----------



## Albert7

I miss hearing Schoenberg a lot from my Feldman month. I promise to return to checking your Piano Concerto with Glenn Gould next month.

And yes, Gould with Craft should be a fascinating combination. Although perhaps Bernstein should have recorded it with Gould instead.


----------



## Bluecrab

Here's a description of a performance of _Pierrot Lunaire_ that I saw in 2006 at Montclair State University. It was an outstanding performance, even though I suspect Schoenberg would have felt that the two sopranos "sang" too much ("_Pierrot Lunaire_ is not to be sung!"-Schoenberg). Note who the conductor was.

My CD version of this work is by the Ensemble Musique Oblique, with Marianne Pousseur doing the _Sprechstimme_. I absolutely love it. That seven-note introduction on the piano just seems to set the mood for the entire work.


----------



## elgar's ghost

I've got this on order and looking forward to it. I have a disc of Schoenbergs's choral music already (on the Arte Nova label) but this seems a much more attractive, not to say comprehensive package (and it didn't cost much, either).


----------



## Mahlerian

elgars ghost said:


> I've got this on order and looking forward to it. I have a disc of Schoenbergs's choral music already (on the Arte Nova label) but this seems a much more attractive, not to say comprehensive package (and it didn't cost much, either).


That's a wonderful set. Friede auf Erden seems to have become a rather popular work in recent years, judging from the frequency of performances and the proliferation of videos on Youtube, and the late Op. 50 choral works are in my opinion among the best of Schoenberg.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Mahlerian said:


> That's a wonderful set. Friede auf Erden seems to have become a rather popular work in recent years, judging from the frequency of performances and the proliferation of videos on Youtube, and the late Op. 50 choral works are in my opinion among the best of Schoenberg.


I'm also fond of the 3 Satires. As the Arte Nova recording is without texts and fairly bare notes I felt that I could gain additional pleasure from a set that had better documentation.


----------



## Bluecrab

elgars ghost said:


> I've got this on order and looking forward to it...


I hope you like it. I got a similar Sony box set a couple of years ago of Boulez doing the complete works of Webern - 3 CDs and a lengthy booklet. Got it new for the absurdly low price of $9.99, and from a legit source (Amazon). I'd invite you to check it out if you haven't already.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Bluecrab said:


> I hope you like it. I got a similar Sony box set a couple of years ago of Boulez doing the complete works of Webern - 3 CDs and a lengthy booklet. Got it new for the absurdly low price of $9.99, and from a legit source (Amazon). I'd invite you to check it out if you haven't already.


Thanks, Bluecrab. I have the DG set with Boulez already but you are right, at that price the Sony is highly desirable. Boulez and the 2VS make a fantastic combination.


----------



## Albert7

Bluecrab said:


> I hope you like it. I got a similar Sony box set a couple of years ago of Boulez doing the complete works of Webern - 3 CDs and a lengthy booklet. Got it new for the absurdly low price of $9.99, and from a legit source (Amazon). I'd invite you to check it out if you haven't already.


Isn't the DG box set for Webern more extensive than that of the Sony version. I know that I heard all of the Sony version already back in college when I got a chance.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Albert7 said:


> Isn't the DG box set for Webern more extensive than that of the Sony version. I know that I heard all of the Sony version already back in college when I got a chance.


The Sony set contains all the compositions that were officially acknowledged by the composer - ops. 1-31. The DG set contains all these plus three more discs of material which primarily consist of early songs, mature compositions rejected for publication plus other bits of flotsam and jetsam abandoned in various stages of completion (plus there are three pieces which are makeovers of material by Bach and Schubert).


----------



## hpowders

I just got finished listening to Schoenberg's Violin Concerto for the first time. Hilary Hahn is the soloist.

I am reminded of Jascha Heifetz refusing to play it, deeming it "unplayable."

What was he really saying? "It's not showy enough for me". Or perhaps "I'm not interested in putting in the extra work required to learn an atonal concerto".

But unplayable for Heifetz? Heck no!


----------



## Dim7

LOL I'm not sure whether I should call Schoenberg's Piano Concerto "Kidnapped Ballerina" or "Unicorn shot by a hunter" from now on


----------



## Andreas

Dim7 said:


> LOL I'm not sure whether I should call Schoenberg's Piano Concerto "Kidnapped Ballerina" or "Unicorn shot by a hunter" from now on


All the kids associated shooting, bombing, kidnapping, dying. Except for the black girl, she thought of tic tac toe. I think she's not allowed to watch TV much.


----------



## Dim7

atonal/chromatic/12-tone/whatever = something dark, dangerous (like kidnapping)
waltz = related to dance, thus "ballerina"

Makes perfect sense


----------



## Vaneyes

hpowders said:


> I just got finished listening to Schoenberg's Violin Concerto for the first time. Hilary Hahn is the soloist.
> 
> I am reminded of Jascha Heifetz refusing to play it, deeming it "unplayable."
> 
> What was he really saying? "It's not showy enough for me". Or perhaps "I'm not interested in putting in the extra work required to learn an atonal concerto".
> 
> But unplayable for Heifetz? Heck no!


Fortunately, others would forward march by playing and commissioning. :tiphat:


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I just got finished listening to Schoenberg's Violin Concerto for the first time. Hilary Hahn is the soloist.

I am reminded of Jascha Heifetz refusing to play it, deeming it "unplayable."

What was he really saying? "It's not showy enough for me". Or perhaps "I'm not interested in putting in the extra work required to learn an atonal concerto".

But unplayable for Heifetz? Heck no!

Or perhaps he just didn't like it. Sounds like a good enough reason not to play to me. That's my reason for not listening much to Schoenberg.


----------



## hpowders

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I just got finished listening to Schoenberg's Violin Concerto for the first time. Hilary Hahn is the soloist.
> 
> I am reminded of Jascha Heifetz refusing to play it, deeming it "unplayable."
> 
> What was he really saying? "It's not showy enough for me". Or perhaps "I'm not interested in putting in the extra work required to learn an atonal concerto".
> 
> But unplayable for Heifetz? Heck no!
> 
> Or perhaps he just didn't like it. Sounds like a good enough reason not to play to me. That's my reason for not listening much to Schoenberg.


So Heifetz was just being tactful and polite? There's always a first time for Heifetz I guess.


----------



## Polyphemus

Something unplayable for Heifetz ? Methinks someone is having someone on. They didn't call this guy 'God's Fiddler' for nothing.
:tiphat: :angel:


----------



## MoonlightSonata

I must confess I didn't know Schoenberg even wrote a violin concerto.
Any recommendations? Is the Hahn one good?


----------



## Mahlerian

MoonlightSonata said:


> I must confess I didn't know Schoenberg even wrote a violin concerto.
> Any recommendations? Is the Hahn one good?


The Hahn recording is one of the discs that has convinced many people who are positive that they hate Schoenberg that they just might love him. She plays the work beautifully and with dramatic power.

In reference to the discussion above about Heifetz, a few things must be mentioned. The difficulties of the work are absurdly high and also abnormal. The cadenzas require quadruple stops, frequent and extreme changes of tempo and register, strings of harmonics, and so forth. Added to the unusual technique, the work is in an idiom that would have been unfamiliar to Heifetz, which would have made it more difficult for him to absorb and internalize.

Hilary Hahn's liner notes comment on the challenges of the piece:

"to play certain passages, I had to adopt positions completely new to me....My first performances were still a couple of years away; it took me all that time to be able to play the piece comfortably up to Schoenberg's tempi"

All of that said, it's not unlikely that Heifetz was unwilling to learn a work that he may likely not have liked much, but his remark about six-fingered violinists does show a trepidation at seeing the formidable solo.


----------



## Rapide

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I just got finished listening to Schoenberg's Violin Concerto for the first time. Hilary Hahn is the soloist.
> 
> I am reminded of Jascha Heifetz refusing to play it, deeming it "unplayable."
> 
> What was he really saying? "It's not showy enough for me". Or perhaps "I'm not interested in putting in the extra work required to learn an atonal concerto".
> 
> But unplayable for Heifetz? Heck no!
> 
> Or perhaps he just didn't like it. Sounds like a good enough reason not to play to me. That's my reason for not listening much to Schoenberg.


Likewise, Schoenberg is seriously overrated. More impressive as a theoretician to study the twelve tone on paper than listening to the music.


----------



## Dim7

Rapide said:


> Likewise, Schoenberg is seriously overrated. More impressive as a theoretician to study the twelve tone on paper than listening to the music.


When I read about how 12-tone music is constructed I was less than impressed: to me it seemed like a bad idea. But then an actual piece of music (Schoenberg's piano concerto) convinced me than you can make good results with the system. So for me it's more like the other way around.


----------



## dgee

Dim7 said:


> When I read about how 12-tone music is constructed I was less than impressed: to me it seemed like a bad idea. But then an actual piece of music (Schoenberg's piano concerto) convinced me than you can make good results with the system. So for me it's more like the other way around.


Do you think you were you in a good position to judge the 12 tone method? My conservatory music education and extra reading and score analysis when I later became interested in Schoenberg still leaves me unable to clearly describe how it happens - except to say it's beholden to overriding expressive concerns

If someone were to describe to you the way way Haydn constructed music or Bach or even Tchaik in the same language (i.e. with numbers. NUMBERS!) you'd probably be less than impressed by how algorithmic it all is

Just open your ears - stop worrying about rigid, preordainded phrase lengths and tonal heirarchies that characterise the classical and romantic periods and just listen to the music!


----------



## Andreas

Interestingly enough, even Glenn Gould, one of the biggest advocates of Schoenberg, called the twelve-tone system as such "silly" and "childish". Yet, he said, it somehow allowed Schoenberg to write his greatest music.


----------



## dgee

Andreas said:


> Interestingly enough, even Glenn Gould, one of the biggest advocates of Schoenberg, called the twelve-tone system as such "silly" and "childish". Yet, he said, it somehow allowed Schoenberg to write his greatest music.


I shouldn't think the highly eccentric Gould is the best person to comment on anything - even composers he championed


----------



## Marschallin Blair

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I just got finished listening to Schoenberg's Violin Concerto for the first time. Hilary Hahn is the soloist.
> 
> I am reminded of Jascha Heifetz refusing to play it, deeming it "unplayable."
> 
> What was he really saying? "It's not showy enough for me". Or perhaps "I'm not interested in putting in the extra work required to learn an atonal concerto".
> 
> But unplayable for Heifetz? Heck no!
> 
> Or perhaps he just didn't like it. Sounds like a good enough reason not to play to me. That's my reason for not listening much to Schoenberg.







































Its alright to have taste.

Beauty beats _ennui _every time.


----------



## Mahlerian

Marschallin Blair said:


> Its alright to have taste.
> 
> Beauty beats _ennui _every time.


Indeed. I would far rather hear Hahn's beautiful performance of Schoenberg's Violin Concerto than what would likely have been an ennui-inducing performance from Heifetz.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Mahlerian said:


> Indeed. I would far rather hear Hahn's beautiful performance of Schoenberg's Violin Concerto than what would likely have been an ennui-inducing performance from Heifetz.


Well, I'd just ask the waiter for a different _menu_, myself.


----------



## Mahlerian

Marschallin Blair said:


> Well, I'd just ask the waiter for a different _menu_, myself.


Well, I'd have to disagree with your taste, then.

I am more in line with Stokowski, who declared the concerto a masterpiece. You may say that his taste is bad if you wish.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Mahlerian said:


> Well, I'd have to disagree with your taste, then.
> 
> I am more in line with Stokowski, who declared the concerto a masterpiece. You may say that his taste is bad if you wish.


I'd rather take Schoenberg at his word:

"My music is not lovely."

- Theodor Adorno quoting Schoenberg in "Art and the Arts"


----------



## Mahlerian

Marschallin Blair said:


> I'd rather take Schoenberg at his word:
> 
> "My music is not lovely."
> 
> - Theodor Adorno quoting Schoenberg in "Art and the Arts"




Ah yes, it may not be superficially lovely, but it is deeply beautiful.


----------



## Dim7

dgee said:


> Do you think you were you in a good position to judge the 12 tone method? My conservatory music education and extra reading and score analysis when I later became interested in Schoenberg still leaves me unable to clearly describe how it happens - except to say it's beholden to overriding expressive concerns.


I was talking about the basic rules of 12-tone music, they are not that difficult to understand, which is not to say any particular 12-tone composers pieces are easy to analyze (the same works for diatonic-tonal composers as well). I'm not necessarily the best person to judge the method but I just wanted to say that my experience was quite opposite to the "looks interesting on paper but sounds bad as music".



dgee said:


> Just open your ears - stop worrying about rigid, preordainded phrase lengths and tonal heirarchies that characterise the classical and romantic periods and just listen to the music!


What makes you think I'm not doing just that?


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Mahlerian said:


> Ah yes, it may not be superficially lovely, but it is deeply beautiful.


Or perhaps its a deeply-structured syntax that's only superficially lovely.


----------



## hpowders

Polyphemus said:


> Something unplayable for Heifetz ? Methinks someone is having someone on. They didn't call this guy 'God's Fiddler' for nothing.
> :tiphat: :angel:


Heifetz played conservative violin music. The furthest out on a limb for him seemed to be the Prokofiev Second Violin Concerto (My favorite performance of this underrated concerto, by the way with Munch/Boston Symphony). He never recorded the Bartok No. 2 or Berg Concertos; staples of the repertoire.

Heifetz and Schoenberg were both on staff at the UCLA music department at the same time. I'm sure he didn't want to ruffle Schoenberg's feathers by telling him, "this stuff sounds like crap" to his conservative ears; so he told him it was "unplayable"; an obvious lie, since Heifetz could wipe the floor with Hilary Hahn's violin technique and the latter seems to play the Schoenberg effortlessly.


----------



## KenOC

hpowders said:


> Heifetz played conservative violin music. The furthest out on a limb for him seemed to be the Prokofiev Second Violin Concerto (My favorite performance of this underrated concerto, by the way with Munch/Boston Symphony). He never recorded the Bartok No. 2 or Berg Concertos; staples of the repertoire.


Heifetz does seem to have been a tad conservative. A quote: "I occasionally play works by contemporary composers for two reasons. First to discourage the composer from writing any more and secondly to remind myself how much I appreciate Beethoven."


----------



## hpowders

KenOC said:


> Heifetz does seem to have been a tad conservative. A quote: "I occasionally play works by contemporary composers for two reasons. First to discourage the composer from writing any more and secondly to remind myself how much I appreciate Beethoven."


Nothing says "conservative" better then that quote. Too bad Heifetz didn't grow with the times. In later life, his Beethoven, Brahms and Tchaikovsky seemed played by rote. Bartok 2, Berg and Schoenberg may have been just the prescription he needed to rejuvenate his playing.


----------



## Dim7

Nice Schoenberg quote about Bizet, Stravinsky and Ravel:

“Now comes the reckoning! Now we will throw these mediocre kitschmongers into slavery, and teach them to venerate the German spirit and to worship the German God."


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

In retrospect 'kitschmongers' makes me think of Poulenc and his pals.


----------



## KenOC

Another Schoenberg quote, to a pupil in 1921: “Today I have discovered something which will assure the supremacy of German music for the next 100 years.” (Britannica)


----------



## brotagonist

KenOC said:


> Another Schoenberg quote, to a pupil in 1921: "Today I have discovered something which will assure the supremacy of German music for the next 100 years." (Britannica)


That's at least 75% true


----------



## Vaneyes

FWIW Arnold's son Ronald and grandson Randol became successful LA attorneys. I link Alex Ross' 2002 article, which discusses the Schoenberg Center and other stuff. :tiphat:

"On a recent trip to Los Angeles, I visited Judge Ronald Schoenberg, now
retired, at his home in Brentwood, which is the same house in which the
composer spent the last years of his life. The younger Schoenberg, who has
his father's keen, bulging eyes, recalled that a tour bus used to come up
the street, and a guide's amplified voice would point out the house of
Shirley Temple, who lived nearby. The announcer always neglected to add 
that the inventor of twelve-tone music lived a few houses away."

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2002/02/18/whistling-in-the-dark-2


----------



## Cosmos

Vaneyes said:


> FWIW Arnold's son Ronald and grandson Randol became successful LA attorneys. I link Alex Ross' 2002 article, which discusses the Schoenberg Center and other stuff. :tiphat:
> 
> "On a recent trip to Los Angeles, I visited Judge Ronald Schoenberg, now
> retired, at his home in Brentwood, which is the same house in which the
> composer spent the last years of his life. The younger Schoenberg, who has
> his father's keen, bulging eyes, recalled that a tour bus used to come up
> the street, and a guide's amplified voice would point out the house of
> Shirley Temple, who lived nearby. The announcer always neglected to add
> that the inventor of twelve-tone music lived a few houses away."
> 
> http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2002/02/18/whistling-in-the-dark-2


That's kind of sad :/

There was a similar passage in Ross' The Rest is Noise, where one of Schoenberg's sons described him as being upset that no one appreciated his music, and one day, his Transfigured Night was being played on the radio and that put a smile on his face


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

brotagonist said:


> That's at least 75% true


So you imagine German music remained supreme for the next 100 years?


----------



## Mahlerian

StlukesguildOhio said:


> So you imagine German music remained supreme for the next 100 years?


Schoenberg's music is still influential today. True, it's not exclusively his influence, and it's often mixed with Stravinsky and others who've come since, but let's be clear, no one writes today the way they would have without Schoenberg (much as the same could be said about Wagner 60 or so years ago).


----------



## brotagonist

StlukesguildOhio said:


> So you imagine German music remained supreme for the next 100 years?


I'd say so, pretty much. Schoenberg's ideas led to serialism and this was probably the dominant musical direction that informed the music of most of the century.


----------



## millionrainbows

elgars ghost said:


> Thanks, Bluecrab. I have the DG set with Boulez already but you are right, at that price the Sony is highly desirable. Boulez and the 2VS make a fantastic combination.


In fact, there are things about the singing and recording on the SONY box that I like better. They're both must-haves.

Speaking of choral music, this is interesting:










Check out what they sing:

Track Listings 

 1. Peace on Earth (Friede auf Erden), for chorus & instruments ad lib, Op. 13  *2. Pieces (5) for orchestra, Op. 16: No. 3. Farben *
 3. Folksongs (3) for chorus: Schein uns, du liebe sonne  4. Folksongs (3) for chorus: Es gingen zwei gespielen gut  5. Folksongs (3) for chorus: Herzlieblich lieb, durch scheiden  6. Peace on Earth (Friede auf Erden), for chorus & instruments ad lib, Op. 13  *7. Chamber Symphony No. 1 in E major, Op. 9 *
 8. Pieces (6) for male chorus, Op. 35: No. 6. Verbundenheit  9. Dreimal tausend Jahre, for chorus, Op. 50a  10. De Profundis, for chorus, Op. 50b

Wow, that's a trip! Orchestral pieces for chorus!


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Mahlerian said:


> Schoenberg's music is still influential today. True, it's not exclusively his influence, and it's often mixed with Stravinsky and others who've come since, but let's be clear, no one writes today the way they would have without Schoenberg (much as the same could be said about Wagner 60 or so years ago).


I don't hear any film score composers borrowing from Schoenberg, but I do hear then borrowing from Wagner, Holst, Stravinsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, and Debussy.

Bernard Herrmann always thought the most original composer of the twentieth century was Debussy.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

brotagonist said:


> I'd say so, pretty much. Schoenberg's ideas led to serialism and this was probably the dominant musical direction that informed the music of most of the century.


Outside of academe I find that to be a very specious claim.


----------



## Mahlerian

Marschallin Blair said:


> I don't hear any film score composers borrowing from Schoenberg, but I do hear then borrowing from Wagner, Holst, Stravinsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, and Debussy.
> 
> Bernard Herrmann always thought the most original composer of the twentieth century was Debussy.


Yes, but his music still has a lot of Schoenbergian influence in it. So do North, Williams, Goldsmith, Rosenmann, and so forth.

The only reason that one can deny the Schoenbergian strain running throughout film scores of the 40s-70s is that one doesn't recognize it as such.

That's not surprising, because the main things they took from Schoenberg are perhaps less noticeable than the fact that their music isn't nearly as contrapuntally and motivically dense. They may employ Schoenberg's melody and harmony and orchestration, because the emotional and dramatic power of his language lends itself to action, suspense, and mystery scenes, but their music doesn't have the same level of constant activity and development that Schoenberg's does.

Speaking of Holst, you are aware that his Planets suite was originally titled Seven Pieces for Large Orchestra, and that after a performance of Schoenberg's Five Pieces for Orchestra he went out and bought the score, right? The very powerful orchestration of the work owes a debt to both Schoenberg and Debussy.



Marschallin Blair said:


> Outside of academe I find that to be a very specious claim.


Only if one uses an extremely tenuous definition of academia that includes such composers as Carter and Boulez who were not primarily teachers and spurned so-called academic composers...


----------



## Marschallin Blair

> Mahlerian: Yes, but his music still has a lot of Schoenbergian influence in it. So do North, Williams, Goldsmith, Rosenmann, and so forth.
> 
> The only reason that one can deny the Schoenbergian strain running throughout film scores of the 40s-70s is that one doesn't recognize it as such.


No, not really. Herrmann expressly acknowledged his debt to Debussy's use of the half-diminished seventh chord and how it influenced his film music. The article below catalogues Herrmann's extensive Debussy influence, naming the films where Debussy's fingerprints are markedly present.

http://www.filmscorerundowns.net/herrmann/herrmannchord.pdf

Can you name one film of Herrmann's where the Schoenberg influence is discernible? How about a half-dozen?


----------



## Marschallin Blair

> Mahlerian: Only if one uses an extremely tenuous definition of academia that includes such composers as Carter and Boulez who were not primarily teachers and spurned so-called academic composers...


I was referring to the concert hall and the to cloistered environs of academe and not the world of film music.


----------



## Mahlerian

Marschallin Blair said:


> No, not really. Herrmann expressly acknowledged his debt to Debussy's use of the half-diminished seventh chord and how it influenced his film music. The article below catalogues Herrmann's extensive Debussy influence, naming the films where Debussy's fingerprints are markedly present.
> 
> http://www.filmscorerundowns.net/herrmann/herrmannchord.pdf
> 
> Can you name one film of Herrmann's where the Schoenberg influence is discernible? How about a half-dozen?


Psycho - both Schoenberg and Debussy with a bit of Stravinsky

Vertigo - I recall that you denied it, but the harmony that pervades the love theme of this score is not the half-diminished seventh, but the "Viennese trichord," so named because of its frequent and prominent use by the Second Viennese School.

Cape Fear


----------



## Andreas

Marschallin Blair said:


> I don't hear any film score composers borrowing from Schoenberg, but I do hear then borrowing from Wagner, Holst, Stravinsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, and Debussy.


Examples are few, but the soundtrack to _Planet of the Apes_ by Jerry Goldsmith is twelve-tone.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Mahlerian said:


> Psycho - both Schoenberg and Debussy with a bit of Stravinsky
> 
> Vertigo - I recall that you denied it, but the harmony that pervades the love theme of this score is not the half-diminished seventh, but the "Viennese trichord," so named because of its frequent and prominent use by the Second Viennese School.
> 
> Cape Fear


Um. . . 'yeah'- would you care to furnish the proof on that? . . .

So, a total of three films out of the myriad that Herrmann scored.

So how does that make Schoenberg a 'major' influence on him?

Especially since the lion's share of the evidence in the link below shows with specificity all of the films where Debussy's influence was paramount.

http://www.filmscorerundowns.net/her...rmannchord.pdf


----------



## violadude

Sorry, I never got the memo that said the barometer for "great composer" is now whether or not film composers use your ideas.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Andreas said:


> Examples are few, but the soundtrack to _Planet of the Apes_ by Jerry Goldsmith is twelve-tone.


True- but then that's 'Jerry' and not 'Benny.' _;D_


----------



## Marschallin Blair

violadude said:


> Sorry, I never got the memo that said the barometer for "great composer" is now whether or not film composers use your ideas.


I never got the memo that said Schoenberg was mellifluous- so we can chide both our secretaries.


----------



## hpowders

Anybody recognize the musical quote about half-way through the third movement of Schoenberg's Violin Concerto?
It's driving me nuts. So familiar...


----------



## violadude

Marschallin Blair said:


> I never got the memo that said Schoenberg was mellifluous- so we can chide both our secretaries.




That memo was posted over a century ago, sorry you missed it.


----------



## Mahlerian

Marschallin Blair said:


> Um. . . 'yeah'- would you care to furnish the proof on that? . . .


The proof is in the links. You can keep denying it, but I'm sure that's only because you just don't know Schoenberg well enough to recognize his influence. It's obvious.



Marschallin Blair said:


> So, a total of three films out of the myriad that Herrmann scored.
> 
> So how does that make Schoenberg a 'major' influence on him?
> 
> Especially since the lion's share of the evidence in the link below shows with specificity all of the films where Debussy's influence was paramount.
> 
> http://www.filmscorerundowns.net/her...rmannchord.pdf


It's a paper that catalogues the use of the half-diminished seventh chord in Herrmann. The half-diminished seventh chord is hardly exclusive to Debussy; Wagner's use of it is probably more famous, and it's prominent in Sibelius and Schoenberg as well. The _ENTIRE_ Song of the Wooddove from Gurrelieder is based on that chord, and it was written before Schoenberg had any contact with Debussy's music.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

violadude said:


> That memo was posted over a century ago, sorry you missed it.


That's so moribund and 'yester-century.'


----------



## violadude

Marschallin Blair said:


> That's so moribund and 'yester-century.'


Uh-huh, it's true though. I mean, how many people need to find Schoenberg's music likeable before it becomes "truly" likeable?


----------



## KenOC

This was quoted elsewhere, from a NY Times review of Philip Glass's auto-biography:

When Philip Glass was 15, his father, who owned a record store in Baltimore, put him in charge of buying classical albums...When he learned of a new recording of the complete Schoenberg string quartets played by the Juilliard String Quartet, he ordered four copies. Aghast, his father asked if he was trying to put him out of business. To teach his son a lesson, he told him to put the recordings of these atonal chamber works on the shelves with the more mainstream classical records and report back when the last copy had been sold. That took seven years. The lesson Mr. Glass learned? "I can sell anything if I have enough time."

(Sorry Mahlerian, it was hard to resist!)


----------



## DiesIraeCX

A funny story, but I have to question its veracity merely considering the sheer amount of Schoenberg purchases in the 'Latest Purchases' thread of this site _alone_, since I've been a member (not even a year).


----------



## violadude

DiesIraeVIX said:


> A funny story, but I have to question its veracity merely considering the sheer amount of Schoenberg purchases in the 'Latest Purchases' thread of this site _alone_, since I've been a member (not even a year).


If Phillip Glass was 15 years old, the story would have taken place in 1952, a year after Schoenberg's death. He wasn't as popular or well known then as he is now.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

violadude said:


> If Phillip Glass was 15 years old, the story would have taken place in 1952, a year after Schoenberg's death. He wasn't as popular or well known then as he is now.


Thanks, violadude! Out of curiosity, out of the modern "difficult" composers of his time, who was the most accepted or popular? Berg, perhaps?


----------



## violadude

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Thanks, violadude! Out of curiosity, out of the modern "difficult" composers of his time, who was the most accepted or popular? Berg, perhaps?


I have no clue, actually lol. I think the internet and the utility it brings makes it so that almost any 20th century composer back then wasn't quite as well known as they are today.

Stravinsky, maybe?

Edit: Nvm Mahlerian gave a good answer.


----------



## Mahlerian

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Thanks, violadude! Out of curiosity, out of the modern "difficult" composers of his time, who was the most accepted or popular? Berg, perhaps?


Hindemith was more popular than anyone in the Second Viennese School. Berg's opera Wozzeck had been an immediate success in Europe, but that was cut short when the Nazis came to power. In the US, certain of Schoenberg's works had met with some popular (not usually critical) success, such as A Survivor from Warsaw and Pierrot lunaire, but although he had champions such as Stokowski and Mitropolous, his music wasn't performed often enough for audiences to come to really know it well.


----------



## KenOC

DiesIraeVIX said:


> A funny story, but I have to question its veracity merely considering the sheer amount of Schoenberg purchases in the 'Latest Purchases' thread of this site _alone_, since I've been a member (not even a year).


To test the veracity of the story, somebody might check to see if the Juilliard people had indeed issued a "complete Schoenberg string quartets" set in or prior to 1952. I'm a bit suspicious.


----------



## Mahlerian

KenOC said:


> To test the veracity of the story, somebody might check to see if the Juilliard people had indeed issued a "complete Schoenberg string quartets" set in or prior to 1952. I'm a bit suspicious.












It was the first commercial recording of the set, I believe. There had been an earlier recording, originally created for private distribution and recorded on a Hollywood sound stage with funding directly out of the studio producer's pocket.










This had been later licensed for a commercial release, but it possibly shouldn't have been, because the recording was almost nothing more than a run-through and not very polished.


----------



## KenOC

Mahlerian said:


> It was the first commercial recording of the set, I believe.


Gotcha! At the price people want for that set ($210 new) it must be pretty darned good!


----------



## Mandryka

KenOC said:


> Gotcha! At the price people want for that set ($210 new) it must be pretty darned good!


It is. But it's very easily available for peanuts as a download in the UK at least.


----------



## hpowders

For those here, so opposed to Schönberg, I wonder how many have actually put in the required work needed to fully grasp his music-the Piano Concerto? The Violin Concerto?

Are these really educated condemnations or is this more like trashing a book without actually having read it?


----------



## Weston

^I too had gone by the reputation that preceded him in my prior judgements, and maybe also on the basis of having heard a piano piece or two that are quite difficult. It's an easy opinion to slip into. Fortunately immersion did wonders for me.


----------



## hpowders

During my current study of the Schönberg Violin Concerto, half-way through movement 3, I was astonished to hear a pretty famous tribute quote played by the solo violin. My memory bank says Haydn!....Haydn! Through all that dissonance!

One great Austrian composer paying tribute to another.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

> Mahlerian: The proof is in the links. You can keep denying it, but I'm sure that's only because you just don't know Schoenberg well enough to recognize his influence. It's obvious.


No, no. Tell the truth, shame the devil. Post the alleged link where I putatively said this.

You won't post it because it doesn't exist.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

> Mahlerian: It's a paper that catalogues the use of the half-diminished seventh chord in Herrmann. The half-diminished seventh chord is hardly exclusive to Debussy; Wagner's use of it is probably more famous, and it's prominent in Sibelius and Schoenberg as well.


This is really a very trivial point. Herrmann was a huge admirer of Debussy's music and said so on record. He considered Debussy the most original composer of the twentieth century and not Schoenberg.

Debussy makes extensive use of a musical tool that greatly influenced Herrmann's own scoring in so many scores- the same cannot be said for Schoenberg and his 'tone row.'


----------



## hpowders

Bach said:


> Such an intellectual composer - the only composer that frightens more or less all western society fifty years after his death.


"Frightens" because a lot of folks are too lazy to put in the needed repetitious listening of his music to have their brains get accustomed to the new sound patterns.

It takes work!! If you aren't ready to provide it, don't condemn the composer based on just skimming the surface.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

hpowders said:


> "Frightens" because a lot of folks are too lazy to put in the needed repetitious listening of his music to have their brains get accustomed to the new sound patterns.
> 
> It takes work!! If you aren't ready to provide it, don't condemn the composer based on just skimming the surface.


That's the joy of Schoenberg - finally understanding one of his works and realising how good it is.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

hpowders said:


> "Frightens" because a lot of folks are too lazy to put in the needed repetitious listening of his music to have their brains get accustomed to the new sound patterns.
> 
> It takes work!! If you aren't ready to provide it, don't condemn the composer based on just skimming the surface.


I wouldn't say the Emperor has 'no' clothes, merely that he is badly dressed- of course, some courtiers are too timid to 'say' this.


----------



## Mahlerian

Marschallin Blair said:


> No, no. Tell the truth, shame the devil. Post the alleged link where I putatively said this.
> 
> You won't post it because it doesn't exist.


http://www.talkclassical.com/34751-did-weakening-tonality-causethe-post753119.html#post753119

In this post you already ignored my pointing to Vertigo as saturated with the Viennese Trichord.

http://www.talkclassical.com/34751-did-weakening-tonality-causethe-post753160.html#post753160

In this post I explained the chord directly.

It is also the first chord in this song:





You did not respond to it, but you also ignored it as the discussion continued, and brought the same topic up again today. I take this as confirmation that you did not agree with my point, although you did not say so explicitly.



Marschallin Blair said:


> This is really a very trivial point. Herrmann was a huge admirer of Debussy's music and said so on record. He considered Debussy the most original composer of the twentieth century and not Schoenberg.
> 
> Debussy makes extensive use of a musical tool that greatly influenced Herrmann's own scoring in so many scores- the same cannot be said for Schoenberg and his 'tone row.'


Herrmann was also a huge admirer of Schoenberg.

It's not trivial at all. The half-diminished chord is not only not Debussy's invention, it is also not particularly associated with him (unlike, say, the whole-tone scale, which was also not his invention but which is associated with him, because he used it more often and more consistently than anyone else had before).

Tone rows are not at issue. They never were. The point is that Herrmann's music audibly takes elements of the Schoenbergian style.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

Marschallin Blair said:


> I wouldn't say the Emperor has 'no' clothes, merely that he is badly dressed- of course, some courtiers are too timid to 'say' this.


Have you, as hpowders suggests, put time into Schoenberg's music? It is well worth it.


----------



## hpowders

MoonlightSonata said:


> That's the joy of Schoenberg - finally understanding one of his works and realising how good it is.


That epiphany occurred after about 8 listenings of the Piano Concerto.

I respected the opinions of TC posters who were always praising it; so I thought that it had to be good. So I bought the Uchida performance without ever having heard the work before.

Instead of bitching about how "awful" it was, I put in the required time and my reward is I found a lilting, hauntingly beautiful, nostalgic piece reminiscent of a Vienna that Schönberg was remembering in this concerto.

One of my favorite piano concertos! Not at first. But I'm glad I stayed with it.

What a genius!


----------



## MoonlightSonata

hpowders said:


> That epiphany occurred after about 8 listenings of the Piano Concerto.
> 
> I respected the opinions of TC posters who were always praising it; that it had to be good. So I bought the Uchida performance without ever having heard the work before.
> 
> Instead of bitching about how "awful" it was, I put in the required time and my reward is I found a lilting, hauntingly beautiful, nostalgic piece reminiscent of a Vienna that Schönberg remembered.
> 
> One of my favorite piano concertos!


That's one I have yet to work out. No spoilers please!


----------



## hpowders

MoonlightSonata said:


> That's one I have yet to work out. No spoilers please!


It's a terrific work.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

> Mahlerian,_ infra _at post #447:
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/34751-d...tml#post753119
> 
> In this post you already ignored my pointing to Vertigo as saturated with the Viennese Trichord.
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/34751-d...tml#post753160


Do you think that people won't actually _check_ this stuff?

How could I 'ignore' you back at my original post at post #162 if you didn't bring up the Viennese trichord until post #170? . . .

Okay, so you mentioned three scores with some Schoenbergian influence (whether deliberately or un-) in all of Herrmann's mammoth _oeuvre _of film scores: _Vertigo_, _Cape Fear_, and _Psycho_.

I wouldn't call this a 'decisive' victory or a 'Pyrrhic' victory- or any kind of victory at all, really.

I however would call it the unremarkable logical fallacy of taking the exception for the rule.


----------



## Mahlerian

Marschallin Blair said:


> Do you think that people won't actually _check_ this stuff?
> 
> How could I 'ignore' you back at my original post at post #162 if you didn't bring up the Viennese trichord until post #170? . . .


http://www.talkclassical.com/34751-did-weakening-tonality-causethe-post752848.html#post752848

No, I already mentioned it in #152, as can be easily verified.



> Schoenberg's Five Orchestral Pieces would make a pretty good substitute, especially No. 2, *with its emphasis on the "Viennese Trichord"*, just like Vertigo, I believe.*





Marschallin Blair said:


> Okay, so you mentioned three scores with some Schoenbergian influence (whether deliberately or un-) in all of Herrmann's mammoth oeuvre of film scores: Vertigo, Cape Fear, and Psycho.
> 
> I wouldn't call this a 'decisive' victory or a 'Pyrrhic' victory- or any kind of victory at all, really.
> 
> I however would call it the unremarkable logical fallacy of taking the exception for the rule.


I am not particularly familiar with all of Herrmann's music. I just chose the first examples that came to me off the top of my head, and the title themes for each all display the influence I spoke of. If you want me to keep looking, I know I will find more.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

MoonlightSonata said:


> Have you, as hpowders suggests, put time into Schoenberg's music? It is well worth it.


_Absolutely._

I own quite a bit of Schoenberg- just not his over-the-top stringent stuff.

I love parts of _Pierrot Lunaire_ (especially the Shafer/Boulez recording), and of course I have multiple _Gurrelieders_, _Pelleas und Melissandes,_ and_ Verklärte Nachts_.

I agree with Furtwangler that Schoenberg just drove a theory into the ground.

I think its a better idea to go with what intuitively sounds good to the ear than to rigidly and doctrinairely adhere to a musical theory- irrespective of how it actually 'sounds.'


----------



## Weston

Y'all behave while I'm off to try to hear a Haydn quote in the violin concerto.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Yes, you did indeed mention it _en passant_ near the very bottom of your post:



> Mahlerian: Schoenberg's Five Orchestral Pieces would make a pretty good substitute, especially No. 2, with its emphasis on the "Viennese Trichord", just like Vertigo, I believe.*


but then _you_ continued to add at the _very bottom_ of your post that it was a:



> "**Pedantic and useless theory comment.*"


 (bold face type my own)

- "Useless"- your word not mine.

"Useless," as in 'it has no argumentative relevance to what you said in your post above.'

So if 'you' were not going to press the issue, why would 'I' in subsequent exchanges?


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Weston said:


> Y'all behave while I'm off to try to hear a Haydn quote in the violin concerto.


I'm playing nice, Weston. I like Mahlerian.


----------



## Mahlerian

The pedantic and useless theory comment was what followed that in white text, not that part of the main body of the post. Which is why I separated it apart from the rest.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Mahlerian said:


> The pedantic and useless theory comment was what followed that in white text, not that part of the main body of the post. Which is why I separated it apart from the rest.


Is this lawyering, sophistry, or the _Glass Bead Game_? _;D_


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Bernard Herrmann in his own words on what influences him. . . and what doesn't:

_"As a composer I might class myself as a Neo-Romantic, inasmuch as I have always regarded music as a highly personal and emotional form of expression. I like to write music which takes its inspiration from poetry, art and nature. I do not care for purely decorative music. *Although I am in sympathy with modern idioms, I abhor music which attempts nothing more than the illustration of a stylistic fad. And in using modern techniques, I have tried at all times to subjugate them to a larger idea or a grander human feeling.*_"

- Edward Johnson, "Bernard Herrmann: Hollywood's Music-Dramatist"

_"*My feelings and yearnings are those of a composer of the 19th century. I am completely out of step with the present.*"_

-Steven C. Smith, _A Heart at Fire's Center_, p. 137


----------



## violadude

Marschallin Blair said:


> _Absolutely._
> 
> I own quite a bit of Schoenberg- just not his over-the-top stringent stuff.
> 
> I love parts of _Pierrot Lunaire_ (especially the Shafer/Boulez recording), and of course I have multiple _Gurrelieders_, _Pelleas und Melissandes,_ and_ Verklärte Nachts_.
> 
> I agree with Furtwangler that Schoenberg just drove a theory into the ground.
> 
> I think its a better idea to go with what intuitively sounds good to the ear than to rigidly and doctrinairely adhere to a musical theory- irrespective of how it actually 'sounds.'




Who says Schoenberg didn't compose using his ear according to what sounded good to him? To suggest otherwise, in my opinion, is preposterous. If Beethoven had followed your advice the way you are suggesting, I don't think we would have ever gotten the Grosse Fugue, at least not with a bunch of early 19th century citizens yelling at him that he needed to use his ear to "compose what sounded good". Using theory and your ears are not two distinct methods. They are two sides of the same coin.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

violadude said:


> Who says Schoenberg didn't compose using his ear according to what sounded good to him? To suggest otherwise, in my opinion, is preposterous. If Beethoven had followed your advice the way you are suggesting, I don't think we would have ever gotten the Grosse Fugue, at least not with a bunch of early 19th century citizens yelling at him that he needed to use his ear to "compose what sounded good". Using theory and your ears are not two distinct methods. They are two sides of the same coin.


And one which I'm in deeply moved agreement- but the tools should serve the music and not vice versa.


----------



## Guest

The beauty of the twelve-tone row is that you can fiddle with it to your heart's content for maximum pleasure. I can't imagine anyone ever having to settle for something that didn't sound good to them.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

nathanb said:


> The beauty of the twelve-tone row is that you can fiddle with it to your heart's content for maximum pleasure. I can't imagine anyone ever having to settle for something that didn't sound good to them.


Is it possible to write twelve-tone music that sounds bad?


----------



## Guest

Marschallin Blair said:


> Is it possible to write twelve-tone music that sounds bad?


Of course it is possible to write any music that sounds bad to any listener.

We're talking about composers and how they hear their own works. If it sounds bad to THEM, it probably ends up in the trash.


----------



## Becca

Forgive me if I am displaying my ignorance but in what way does a twelve-tone composition vary from a supposedly tonal composition where the key is frequently changing and there are lots of accidentals? I get that the latter does not have a total equivalence of all twelve tones but, over some stretch of bars, isn't the result effectively the same? And to* really* stretch it, doesn't Nielsen's concept of progressive tonality imply some period of atonality?


----------



## Guest

Becca said:


> Forgive me if I am displaying my ignorance but in what way does a twelve-tone composition vary from a supposedly tonal composition where the key is frequently changing and there are lots of accidentals? I get that the latter does not have a total equivalence of all twelve tones but, over some stretch of bars, isn't the result effectively the same? And to* really* stretch it, doesn't Nielsen's concept of progressive tonality imply some period of atonality?


The only difference is that each note is given equal weight (each one simply treated as one of twelve) so that tonal centers are a little harder to detect.

Note: Equal weight as in frequency of occurrence... of course dynamics, register, etc will give preference to certain notes still.


----------



## violadude

Marschallin Blair said:


> And one which I'm in deeply moved agreement- but the tools should serve the music and not vice versa.


Who says they don't?


----------



## Marschallin Blair

nathanb said:


> Of course it is possible to write any music that sounds bad to any listener.
> 
> We're talking about composers and how they hear their own works. If it sounds bad to THEM, it probably ends up in the trash.


Not necessarily.

The godfather 'himself' said that his music was not beautiful ('to him').



> "My music is not lovely."
> 
> - Theodor Adorno quoting Schoenberg in "Art and the Arts"


----------



## Mahlerian

Marschallin Blair said:


> Not necessarily.
> 
> The godfather 'himself' said that his music was not beautiful ('to him').




He said it was not "lovely."

He did not say it was not "beautiful."

He also elsewhere said that "the new is never beautiful in its own time," by which it is clear that he meant something different by the term "lovely."



Becca said:


> Forgive me if I am displaying my ignorance but in what way does a twelve-tone composition vary from a supposedly tonal composition where the key is frequently changing and there are lots of accidentals? I get that the latter does not have a total equivalence of all twelve tones but, over some stretch of bars, isn't the result effectively the same? And to* really* stretch it, doesn't Nielsen's concept of progressive tonality imply some period of atonality?


In auditory terms, there isn't too much difference between a very chromatic post-tonal work such as Schoenberg's Five Pieces for Orchestra and a 12-tone one such as the Variations for Orchestra. Both of these differ from extended tonality in not taking triads (common major and minor chords) as fundamental and instead focusing on non-triadic harmony.


----------



## Guest

Specifically, I see the word "lovely" - which I do not consider to be perfectly synonymous with "beautiful". Neither word is perfectly synonymous with "good" either.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

violadude said:


> Who says they don't?


'I' don't.

Why should I play by Schoenberg's aesthetic?

- and since Schoenberg wrote to Alma Mahler during W.W. I that, "Now we will throw these mediocre kitschmongers into slavery, and teach them to venerate the German spirit and to worship the German God."- he can fall to his knees and worship the Marschallin's mini skirt while I blast _Rosenkavalier_.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Mahlerian said:


> He said it was not "lovely."
> 
> He did not say it was not "beautiful."
> 
> He also elsewhere said that "the new is never beautiful in its own time," by which it is clear that he meant something different by the term "lovely."
> 
> In auditory terms, there isn't too much difference between a very chromatic post-tonal work such as Schoenberg's Five Pieces for Orchestra and a 12-tone one such as the Variations for Orchestra. Both of these differ from extended tonality in not taking triads (common major and minor chords) as fundamental and instead focusing on non-triadic harmony.


Fair shooting- but I think we knew what he meant within the context of the interview_ itself_, where, if he wanted to he could have amply canvassed and clarified what he meant as far as why he carefully chose the word 'lovely' and did not say 'beautiful.'

But he didn't.


----------



## violadude

Marschallin Blair said:


> 'I' don't.


You're entitled to that opinion. But you are speaking as though there is something inherently bad about the way Schoenberg composed. This is obviously not true as he is rated very highly by, I would wager, the majority of classical musicians and a very high number of listeners. If his methods were such that "the tools didn't serve the music" as you claim, no one would be interested in him.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

violadude said:


> You're entitled to that opinion. But you are speaking as though there is something inherently bad about the way Schoenberg composed. This is obviously not true as he is rated very highly by, I would wager, the majority of classical musicians and a very high number of listeners. If his methods were such that "the tools didn't serve the music" as you claim, no one would be interested in him.


There's nothing inherently bad about _any artist _expressing her or his self- I'm for total freedom of artistic expression. . . hold on, I have to turn down this Callas. . . sorry about that.

Some musicians and musicologists have a fervent inclination to Schoenberg's angst and ennui- true. And some musicians and musicologists have a highly qualified acceptance of Schoenberg's aesthetic- while of course appreciating his talents and innovations as a composer- like Berkeley musicologist Richard Taruskin, for instance.

One can say that Schoenberg is a great composer and still say that some of his art is incorrigibly ugly. Just like one can say that Vladimir Nabokov is a brilliant stylist and artist but that his sense of life is depraved. Or say that Swiss surrealist painter H.R. Giger is a great artist but that some of his art is pure nihilism.

Aesthetic beauty and technical proficiency don't always go hand in hand- certainly not in my world.


----------



## Mahlerian

Marschallin Blair said:


> There's nothing inherently bad about _any artist _expressing her or his self- I'm for total freedom of artistic expression. . . hold on, I have to turn down this Callas. . . sorry about that.
> 
> Some musicians and musicologists have a fervent inclination to Schoenberg's angst and ennui- true. And some musicians and musicologists have a highly qualified acceptance of Schoenberg's aesthetic- while of course appreciating his talents and innovations as a composer- like Berkeley musicologist Richard Taruskin, for instance.
> 
> One can say that Schoenberg is a great composer and still say that some of his art is incorrigibly ugly. Just like one can say that Vladimir Nabokov is a brilliant stylist and artist but that his sense of life is depraved. Or say that Swiss surrealist painter H.R. Giger is a great artist but that some of his art is pure nihilism.
> 
> Aesthetic beauty and technical proficiency don't always go hand in hand- certainly not in my world.




But you see, the thing is not that we who love Schoenberg find it ugly but think that's good anyways because of the technical aspects of the music, or because we hate beauty.

No, it's actually aurally beautiful to (at least some of) us.

For me, I love Schoenberg's sense of otherworldliness, the way every part is in dialogue with the others, the active life in his scores. I love the richness of his harmony, his use of quartal and other unusual chords as an integral part of a work, not simply as an effect. I also love his melodies, the way they are fluid and morph into new shapes, the way they glide and jump and sing together.

I don't feel this music is pure depression or angst; it encompasses any number of moods and emotions.

If you want expressionist violence, you can turn to Erwartung, for passion and sensuality, to the Book of the Hanging Gardens, for sparkling wit, to the Suite for piano, for playful banter, to the Serenade, for Beethovenian seriousness of purpose, to the Fourth String Quartet, for dramatic thrust, to the Violin Concerto, for nostalgia, to the Piano Concerto, and so on.

Harder to describe succinctly are the delicate poetry of the Six Little Pieces for Piano, the powerful narrative of Moses und Aron, and the tragicomedy, black humor, and nocturnal atmosphere of Pierrot lunaire.


----------



## Becca

Marschallin Blair;857021
Aesthetic beauty and technical proficiency don't always go hand in hand- certainly not in my world.[/QUOTE said:


> Isn't there actually a triad here (if you will excuse my using a dirty word in an atonal thread :lol: ), i.e. aesthetic beauty, technical proficiency and artistic creativity? Which of them can you get away without and still be interesting? [and that will probably set off a firestorm in certain quarters of TC]


----------



## DavidA

Marschallin Blair said:


> There's nothing inherently bad about _any artist _expressing her or his self.




Agreed! As long as I'm not expected to like or listen to it!


----------



## Dim7

DavidA said:


> Agreed! As long as I'm not expected to like or listen to it!


And has somebody "expected you to like or listen to" Schoenberg's music or something else..?


----------



## violadude

Mahlerian said:


> But you see, the thing is not that we who love Schoenberg find it ugly but think that's good anyways because of the technical aspects of the music, or because we hate beauty.
> 
> No, it's actually aurally beautiful to (at least some of) us.
> 
> For me, I love Schoenberg's sense of otherworldliness, the way every part is in dialogue with the others, the active life in his scores. I love the richness of his harmony, his use of quartal and other unusual chords as an integral part of a work, not simply as an effect. I also love his melodies, the way they are fluid and morph into new shapes, the way they glide and jump and sing together.
> 
> I don't feel this music is pure depression or angst; it encompasses any number of moods and emotions.
> 
> If you want expressionist violence, you can turn to Erwartung, for passion and sensuality, to the Book of the Hanging Gardens, for sparkling wit, to the Suite for piano, for playful banter, to the Serenade, for Beethovenian seriousness of purpose, to the Fourth String Quartet, for dramatic thrust, to the Violin Concerto, for nostalgia, to the Piano Concerto, and so on.
> 
> Harder to describe succinctly are the delicate poetry of the Six Little Pieces for Piano, the powerful narrative of Moses und Aron, and the tragicomedy, black humor, and nocturnal atmosphere of Pierrot lunaire.


Wow, this is so poetic! I think I feel a tear welling up in my eyes! 

But seriously man, awesome post. This should be like, pinned as the first thing people see when they open this thread.


----------



## Guest

I do listen to some music to be a tad bit revolted or unsettled (see: Throbbing Gristle, Nurse With Wound, perhaps, in a way, Ligeti's Requiem). 

Schoenberg, however, is pure beauty in my ears. I believe Blair likes the phrase "high adventure". I don't consume cannabis, but I assume it fits.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DavidA said:


> Agreed! As long as I'm not expected to like or listen to it!


. . . or to 'bow down and worship the German God.'

Hey Arnold, why don't you try _winning_ two world wars before you start one on a cultural front?

Seriously though, Schoenberg's harmless.

Its just some of his fans that I'm worried about.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

nathanb said:


> I do listen to some music to be a tad bit revolted or unsettled (see: Throbbing Gristle, Nurse With Wound, perhaps, in a way, Ligeti's Requiem).
> 
> Schoenberg, however, is pure beauty in my ears. I believe Blair likes the phrase "high adventure". I don't consume cannabis, but I assume it fits.


SSRI's? Thorazine?- I have my suspicions.


----------



## ptr

I always get that faintly annoying feeling







that them folks that say that Schönberg wrote ugly music must be living very sheltered life's! They must never have heard any "rap" or Yanni or any of Richard Nanes compositions! 

/ptr


----------



## Dim7

hpowders said:


> "Frightens" because a lot of folks are too lazy to put in the needed repetitious listening of his music to have their brains get accustomed to the new sound patterns.
> 
> It takes work!! If you aren't ready to provide it, don't condemn the composer based on just skimming the surface.


That said, if a Schoenberg piece sounds like "total gibberish" to someone, I don't think it's a terribly good idea to just stubbornly listen to it over and over again - better expand one's listening abilities by listening something "easier" first.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

ptr said:


> I always get that faintly annoying feeling
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that them folks that say that Schönberg wrote ugly music must be living very sheltered life's! They must never have heard any "rap" or Yanni or any of Richard Nanes compositions!
> 
> /ptr


Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.

Thank you for that, ptr.

I have to say before a candid Forum: I used to be a buyer at Tower Records when I was younger- rave, hard techno, gangster rap, reggae, dark wave, dub, fetish music, punk, hardcore, queer core, metal, death metal, the lot- I've heard it _all_.

That said, I rather get the 'opposite' impression that some Schoenberg's more starry-eyed devotees haven't lived much in the real world. . . or even away from their parents, seeing as how they can't stomach intelligent criticism of their musical tastes and preferences.


----------



## violadude

Marschallin Blair said:


> That said, I rather get the 'opposite' impression that some Schoenberg's more starry-eyed devotees haven't lived much in the real world. . . or even away from their parents, seeing as how they can't stomach intelligent criticism of their musical tastes and preferences.




On the contrary, I could handle intelligent criticism of Schoenberg's music if any was ever offered.

I've probably seen some elsewhere, not here.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

violadude said:


> On the contrary, I could handle intelligent criticism of Schoenberg's music if any was ever offered.
> 
> I've probably seen some elsewhere, not here.


_Si monumentum requiris, circumspice._

Open thine eyes.

My Schoenberg posts are all over. _;D_


----------



## violadude

Marschallin Blair said:


> _Si monumentum requiris, circumspice._
> 
> Open thine eyes.
> 
> My Schoenberg posts are all over. _;D_




Yes..indeed they are. Still haven't seen an *intelligent* criticism of Schoenberg's music in this conversation.


----------



## hpowders

Dim7 said:


> That said, if a Schoenberg piece sounds like "total gibberish" to someone, I don't think it's a terribly good idea to just stubbornly listen to it over and over again - better expand one's listening abilities by listening something "easier" first.


I disagree. Our brains are not naturally wired to comprehend Schönberg's sound patterns as demonstrated in the Piano and Violin Concertos.

One must put in some serious repetitious listening to "get" it and retrain one's brain.

I offer myself as proof.

The Piano Concerto sounded like random noise, yes, total gibberish, as you put it, to me on first hearing. I did not like it; hated it in fact.

Now, it's one of my favorite Piano Concertos.

I simply used logic. If many TC'ers like it; if Mitsuko Uchida recorded it; it must be good.

It's not good. I was wrong. It's great!!

Sometimes one must discipline oneself to do things one doesn't like.

In this case the tough repetitious work paid off for me.

At the current time, I'm in the process of doing the exact same thing with Schönberg's Violin Concerto.

Over and over. I'm hearing more detail with every listen. Another couple of weeks and I should be ready to make an educated pronouncement of the work's merit.

One final point-if I can do it-make sense out of Schönberg's music, anyone else on TC should be able to do it too.

Just do not condemn works you are not familiar with based on what you've heard from others or read.

Give these pieces a sincere open-minded assessment.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

violadude said:


> Yes..indeed they are. Still haven't seen an *intelligent* criticism of Schoenberg's music in this conversation.


'I' haven't seen an intelligent defense of how cacophonously-sounding musical arcana can profoundly move people to the emotional level, say, of "_Der Abschied_" from_ Das Lied von der Erde_. . .

Eyes Wide Shut. . . 'squared.'


----------



## violadude

Marschallin Blair said:


> Eyes Wide Shut. . . 'squared.'
> 
> After all, one is what one is.




So, are you claiming that I am being willfully ignorant by saying that your argument that Schoenberg's compositional tools don't serve the music isn't very valid or convincing. How would you go about demonstrating your argument then? Please, open my eyes.


----------



## Dim7

To hpowders:

In my experience the tune in the beginning of the Piano Concerto was immediately rather appealing and the piece was full of quite obvious patterns. I also liked that impressionistic sounding passage in the end of the third movement. Sure, I didn't get everything at the first listening and some parts sounded rather chaotic but that's pretty normal for me even for romantic era classical music. 

Now in your case stubborn repeated listening worked despite your initial dislike, but there's a good chance that repeating listening of something you find nothing appealing about will be just a huge waste of time. Expanding one's comfort zone can be a good thing but I think it would be more ideal to do it more gradually, or at least that's how I would do it.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

hpowders said:


> I disagree. Our brains are not naturally wired to comprehend Schönberg's sound patterns as demonstrated in the Piano and Violin Concertos.
> 
> One must put in some serious repetitious listening to "get" it and retrain one's brain.
> 
> I offer myself as proof.
> 
> The Piano Concerto sounded like random noise, yes, total gibberish, as you put it, to me on first hearing. I did not like it; hated it in fact.
> 
> Now, it's one of my favorite Piano Concertos.
> 
> I simply used logic. If many TC'ers like it; if Mitsuko Uchida recorded it; it must be good.
> 
> It's not good. I was wrong. It's great!!
> 
> Sometimes one must discipline oneself to do things one doesn't like.
> 
> In this case the tough repetitious work paid off for me.
> 
> At the current time, I'm in the process of doing the exact same thing with Schönberg's Violin Concerto.
> 
> Over and over. I'm hearing more detail with every listen. Another couple of weeks and I should be ready to make an educated pronouncement of the work's merit.
> 
> One final point-if I can do it-make sense out of Schönberg's music, anyone else on TC should be able to do it to.
> 
> Just do not condemn works you are not familiar with based on what you've heard or read.
> 
> Give these pieces a sincere assessment.


One can use repetition and Skinnerian operant conditioning to make people like _anything_- just ask the CIA.

But its hardly a persuasive argument for the truth or falsity of a proposition though.

Even a dog can learn to like rolling around and doing tricks.


----------



## Dim7

Marschallin Blair said:


> One can use repetition and Skinnerian operant conditioning to make people like _anything_- just ask the CIA.


That's a good point.



Marschallin Blair said:


> But its hardly a persuasive argument for the truth or falsity of a proposition.


I'm not sure we are arguing about truth or falsity of anything here. Or what's the proposition?


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Dim7 said:


> To hpowders:
> 
> In my experience the tune in the beginning of the Piano Concerto was immediately rather appealing and the piece was full of quite obvious patterns. I also liked that impressionistic sounding passage in the end of the third movement. Sure, I didn't get everything at the first listening and some parts sounded rather chaotic but that's pretty normal for me even for romantic era classical music.
> 
> Now in your case stubborn repeated listening worked despite your initial dislike, but there's a good chance that repeating listening of something you find nothing appealing about will be just a huge waste of time. Expanding one's comfort zone can be a good thing but I think it would be more ideal to do it more gradually, or at least that's how I would do it.


Right.

Perhaps one can intelligently weigh and assay a piece of music- and just not 'like' it.

It is in the cards after all.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Dim7 said:


> That's a good point.
> 
> I'm not sure we are arguing about truth or falsity of anything here. Or what's the proposition?


_"That if one just 'listens' to some of Schoenberg's more astringent pieces enough times, then its profoundly beautiful and emotionally affecting in the deepest, most piercing, and sublimest of ways." _


----------



## Guest

Marschallin Blair said:


> 'I' haven't seen an intelligent defense of how cacophonously-sounding musical arcana can profoundly move people to the emotional level, say, of "_Der Abschied_" from_ Das Lied von der Erde_. . .
> 
> Eyes Wide Shut. . . 'squared.'




We're not talking about anything cacophonous here. We're talking about Schoenberg. Please stay on topic.


----------



## violadude

Marschallin Blair said:


> _"That if one just 'listens' to some of Schoenberg's more astringent pieces enough times, then its profoundly beautiful and emotionally affecting in the deepest, most piercing, and sublimest of ways." _




It happens though, so you can't say it's not true. The most you can say is that it hasn't happened for you (not implying that it will, just saying it hasn't).


----------



## Guest

violadude said:


> It happens though, so you can't say it's not true. The most you can say is that it hasn't happened for you (not implying that it will, just saying it hasn't).


Exactly. The same logic applies to Maria Callas, of course. Just because the hyperbole sickens me a bit doesn't mean she doesn't move other people to tears. No point denying reality here.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

nathanb said:


> We're not talking about anything cacophonous here. We're talking about Schoenberg. Please stay on topic.


_
Tu quoque_. . . in spades.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

nathanb said:


> Exactly. The same logic applies to Maria Callas, of course. Just because the hyperbole sickens me a bit doesn't mean she doesn't move other people to tears. No point denying reality here.


"In opera, passion without intellect is no good; you will be a wild animal and not an artist,"- Maria Callas said that once in one of her master classes at Julliard.

There's never 'melodrama' with Callas, only 'drama'- which only goes to show how ignorant some people are. . .

Anyway, Callas is off topic, please stick to the putative ""beauties"" of Schoenberg's more astringent works.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

violadude said:


> It happens though, so you can't say it's not true. The most you can say is that it hasn't happened for you (not implying that it will, just saying it hasn't).


I quite agree: no one can presume to speak for others- not even starry-eyed Schoenberg devotees.


----------



## Andreas

hpowders cited what he apparently felt were good reasons to give Schoenberg's Piano Concerto a shot even though he didn't like it at first. It wasn't forced onto him, he, it seems, merely tried to find out what it might be that merited listening to it.

There might be a kind of unlocking-the-secret thing about this, and intellectual vanity, too, why not, or the joy of conquering a challenge others don't even bother to take up. All perfectly good reasons. There is enjoyment in all of these, though a different one from that which is transmitted via soundwaves.


----------



## hpowders

By the way, the Schönberg Violin Concerto opens with haunting tonal phrases for the violin that are easily singable/hummable.


----------



## Dim7

Andreas said:


> hpowders cited what he apparently felt were good reasons to give Schoenberg's Piano Concerto a shot even though he didn't like it at first. It wasn't forced onto him, he, it seems, merely tried to find out what it might be that merited listening to it.
> 
> There might be a kind of unlocking-the-secret thing about this, and intellectual vanity, too, why not, or the joy of conquering a challenge others don't even bother to take up. All perfectly good reasons. There is enjoyment in all of these, though a different one from that which is transmitted via soundwaves.


Each to their own, but I personally I want to make sure that I like a piece on its own merits rather than simply by a force of habit. That's why I try to avoid something that goes completely over my head and don't like at all - which is not to say I avoid everything that's challenging in the least.


----------



## Dim7

hpowders said:


> By the way, the Schönberg Violin Concerto opens with haunting tonal phrases for the violin that are easily singable/hummable.


While those phrases might actually sort of imply some kind of traditional key or something, it also might be that you think of them as "tonal" simply because they are so easily comprehensible/singable.


----------



## hpowders

Dim7 said:


> While it might actually sort of imply somekind of traditional key or something, it also might be that you think of it as "tonal" simply because it's so easily comprehensible/singable.


No. It is tonal and easily singable. And I can't sing my way out of a paper bag. Here I am singing it.

Bring on Bach's B minor Mass!!

Hosanna! Hosanna!! :trp:


----------



## Dim7

Well it can be argued that all music is tonal, except something without definite pitches, but let's not go there...


----------



## Blancrocher

hpowders said:


> By the way, the Schönberg Violin Concerto opens with haunting tonal phrases for the violin that are easily singable/hummable.


And they're easily audible throughout the concerto, despite their transformations (including, very dramatically, at the end of the movement). This is one of my favorite works by Schoenberg--I'll be interested to hear about how your views of it evolve, hpowders.


----------



## hpowders

Blancrocher said:


> And they're easily audible throughout the concerto, despite their transformations (including, very dramatically, at the end of the movement). This is one of my favorite works by Schoenberg--I'll be interested to hear about how your views of it evolve, hpowders.


May I also make this observation:

There are many more hummable phrases throughout the Schönberg Violin Concerto than in the Berg Violin Concerto.

I love the Berg, but hummable? No way!!

So then, is the Schönberg Violin Concerto considered a step forward or a step backward from the Berg Concerto?


----------



## Dim7

hpowders said:


> May I also make this observation:
> 
> There are many more hummable phrases throughout the Schönberg Violin Concerto than in the Berg Violin Concerto.
> 
> I love the Berg, but hummable? No way!!
> 
> So then, is the Schönberg Violin Concerto considered a step forward or a step backward from the Berg Concerto?


This blogger made the same point. I think Berg's Violin Concerto is a bit overrated as a gateway to the Second Viennese School.


----------



## hpowders

Blancrocher said:


> And they're easily audible throughout the concerto, despite their transformations (including, very dramatically, at the end of the movement). This is one of my favorite works by Schoenberg--I'll be interested to hear about how your views of it evolve, hpowders.


After several days of playing nothing but this violin concerto, I can now say that I really like the first two movements and I am amazed at how my brain has transformed what at first was random noise into something profound and meaningful. This is exactly the same thing I experienced when I put a lot of time in with the Schönberg Piano Concerto.

The third movement of the Violin Concerto is a bit more sophisticated and I will be listening to that movement exclusively for a while-a lot of accompanied cadenzas in there.


----------



## hpowders

Dim7 said:


> This blogger made the same point. I think Berg's Violin Concerto is a bit overrated as a gateway to the Second Viennese School.


The Berg, overrated? It's one of the most emotionally profound works I've ever heard. The opening is so hauntingly beautiful and the ending, devastating in its emotional impact.

Hard to believe an "atonal" work could be so deeply profound.


----------



## hpowders

Andreas said:


> hpowders cited what he apparently felt were good reasons to give Schoenberg's Piano Concerto a shot even though he didn't like it at first. It wasn't forced onto him, he, it seems, merely tried to find out what it might be that merited listening to it.
> 
> There might be a kind of unlocking-the-secret thing about this, and intellectual vanity, too, why not, or the joy of conquering a challenge others don't even bother to take up. All perfectly good reasons. There is enjoyment in all of these, though a different one from that which is transmitted via soundwaves.


I did what Spock would have done; used impeccable logic. If so many on TC praise it and a mainstream pianist like Mitsuko Uchida recorded it, then it has to be good.

A no-brainer.


----------



## Dim7

hpowders said:


> The Berg, overrated? It's one of the most emotionally profound works I've ever heard. The opening is so hauntingly beautiful and the ending, devastating in its emotional impact.
> 
> Hard to believe an "atonal" work could be so deeply profound.


While I'm not a huge fan of the Berg Violin Concerto (so far), that was not really my point, I meant specifically that it is slightly overrated as a gateway to the Second Viennese School - I think Schoenberg's Piano Concerto, maybe even the Violin Concerto are about equally accessible (in my case more, in fact). Both are more "hummable" at least, I think.

"Accessibility" is of course quite subjective, but I think Schoenberg has this bad reputation, possibly because of his more complex/dissonant pieces, possibly because of misinformation/misconceptions, that affects even those pieces that wouldn't be without this "Schoenberg is difficult, Berg is easier" attitude more difficult than Berg's music for people in general to understand.


----------



## violadude

Dim7 said:


> "Accessibility" is of course quite subjective, but I think Schoenberg has this bad reputation, possibly because of his more complex/dissonant pieces, possibly because of misinformation/misconceptions, that affects even those pieces that wouldn't be without this "Schoenberg is difficult, Berg is easier" attitude more difficult than Berg's music for people in general to understand.


It depends on the piece. I definitely would be more comfortable recommending Schoenberg's Septet to a beginner than, say, Wozzeck.

I guess it also depends on whether or not they like opera in general.


----------



## hpowders

Dim7 said:


> While I'm not a huge fan of the Berg Violin Concerto (so far), that was not really my point, I meant specifically that it is slightly overrated as a gateway to the Second Viennese School - I think Schoenberg's Piano Concerto, maybe even the Violin Concerto are about equally accessible (in my case more, in fact). Both are more "hummable" at least, I think.
> 
> "Accessibility" is of course quite subjective, but I think Schoenberg has this bad reputation, possibly because of his more complex/dissonant pieces, possibly because of misinformation/misconceptions, that affects even those pieces that wouldn't be without this "Schoenberg is difficult, Berg is easier" attitude more difficult than Berg's music for people in general to understand.


Okay...........


----------



## Dim7

I wish the happy part of Verklärte Nacht was shorter and the angsty part longer. Or maybe have more short "bright" parts in the darkness. But from a dramatical perspective I find it rather ineffective to have most of the angst have been resolved in the middle of the piece, and can't help feeling a bit bored in the second half. Mahler's 5th has similar dramatic structure in that the two first movements are the darkest, then we have the long major key scherzo, a major key slow movment, and a major key rondo. I've always found that rather wierd, imagine you had a movie like that where most of the drama and conflict is right in the beginning.



violadude said:


> It depends on the piece. I definitely would be more comfortable recommending Schoenberg's Septet to a beginner than, say, Wozzeck.


Septet, as in the Suite Op. 29? I find that work very difficult to understand. And on the other hand Wozzeck was well received in its day I recall?


----------



## Weston

The Suite, Op. 29 was my breakthrough piece for Schoenberg, maybe because of its rhythmic drive.


----------



## Mahlerian

Dim7 said:


> Septet, as in the Suite Op. 29? I find that work very difficult to understand. And on the other hand Wozzeck was well received in its day I recall?


Wozzeck was a huge success until the Nazis stepped in and Berg became a circumscribed composer.


----------



## Dim7

Okay, given that I really like: 

Piano Concerto, Verklärte Nacht, Pelleas und Melisande, String Quartet No. 1

and like:

Violin Concerto, String Quartet no.2, First Movement of Second Chamber Symphony (second mov is meh), Fourth movement of Piano Suite (rest of the suite is not bad, but a bit confusing)

and dislike: 

Suite Op. 29, String Quartets 3-4, First Chamber Symphony

any recommendations where should I go next?


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

I don't know... 

Have you listened to Serenade op.24 or Wind Quintet Op.26?


----------



## Dim7

I haven't listened to them "properly"... but based on my absent-minded listening of parts of them, my impression was negative, though less with the wind quintet.


----------



## brotagonist

The Wind Quintet is incredible. The Serenade has that fabulous middle movement with a text by Petrarch. The rhythms are almost singsong. Simply marvellous.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Have you listened to the very first string quartet in D Major, sometimes numbered as "0" or unnumbered? I really like it.

I also enjoy the _String Trio_, no guarantee that you'll like that one, though. _Pierrot Lunaire_ is currently my favorite Schoenberg work. You said you're a late romantic guy, how about _Gurrelieder_?


----------



## hpowders

Regarding the Schoenberg Violin Concerto:

The new Michael Barenboim performance clocks in at 35 minutes vs Hahn's 30.

That's a HUGE difference for a relatively short work.

I love Hahn's performance and I'm marking the new Barenboim "avoid", probably because I can't spell the word "ludicrous".


----------



## Dim7

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Have you listened to the very first string quartet in D Major, sometimes numbered as "0" or unnumbered? I really like it.
> 
> I also enjoy the _String Trio_, no guarantee that you'll like that one, though. _Pierrot Lunaire_ is currently my favorite Schoenberg work. You said you're a late romantic guy, how about _Gurrelieder_?


I'm not a huge fan of vocal music so that's why I have yet to bother with Pierrot Lunaire and Gurrelieder. String Trio didn't leave a particularly positive impression on me. I guess what I'm looking for is 12-tone/post-tonal (or day I say it, atonal) that is otherwise fairly traditional, easy to understand and "Romantic" (or even Classicist?), something like the Violin and Piano concertos of Schoenberg. Maybe I'd be better off exploring other composers at this point.... like Berg (duh).


----------



## Mahlerian

Dim7 said:


> I'm not a huge fan of vocal music so that's why I have yet to bother with Pierrot Lunaire and Gurrelieder. String Trio didn't leave a particularly positive impression on me. I guess what I'm looking for is 12-tone/post-tonal (or day I say it, atonal) that is otherwise fairly traditional, easy to understand and "Romantic" (or even Classicist?), something like the Violin and Piano concertos of Schoenberg. Maybe I'd be better off exploring other composers at this point.... like Berg (duh).


Begleitmusik and the Variations for Orchestra might be what's left. I'd recommend giving different performances of the later string quartets a go again as well; they're both masterpieces in every sense.


----------



## Dim7

Piano Suite op 25 is cool!


----------



## millionrainbows

I'm starting to re-assess Schoenberg, in terms of his aesthetic goals. I see how he was using the 12-tone method to simply further his tonal-style approach to composition, and seeing what a traditionalist he was. Certain key works are emerging in this light: The fourth string quartet, the suite op. 25, and Ode to Napoleon, in terms of how he was using the method.

It's making me see Webern as much more "progressive" in terms of branching away from tonality, and tonal thinking.


----------



## Albert7

I think that Schoenberg's opera Moses is probably his most radical break from traditional composition that he ever got.


----------



## Mandryka

millionrainbows said:


> I'm starting to re-assess Schoenberg, in terms of his aesthetic goals. I see how he was using the 12-tone method to simply further his tonal-style approach to composition, and seeing what a traditionalist he was. Certain key works are emerging in this light: The fourth string quartet, the suite op. 25, and Ode to Napoleon, in terms of how he was using the method.
> 
> It's making me see Webern as much more "progressive" in terms of branching away from tonality, and tonal thinking.


Some of these pieces are things I like, especially the 4th quartet, so I'd be interested if you ever get round to spelling out what you're getting at.

The largo of the 4th quartet always makes me think of Shostakovich. I much prefer it to Shostakovich's slow movements in the quartets.


----------



## violadude

So, I believe that my Schoenberg collection is pretty close to being complete. I'm pretty sure I have most of his major works now, but I want to check with everyone to make sure. 

This is my Schoenberg collection:

2 Gesang op. 1
4 lieder op. 2
Veklarte Nacht
6 Lieder op. 3
Pelieas Und Melisande
8 Lieder op. 6
String Quartet #1 in d minor
2 Balladen
Chamber Symphony #1
Friede Auf Erden
2 Lieder op. 14
String Quartet #2
Book of Hanging Gardens
Five Pieces for Orchestra
3 Piano Pieces
Erwartung
Gurrelieder
6 little piano pieces
Herzegewasche
Pierrot Lunaire
Die Glucklieche Hand
Die Jakobsleiter
Serenade
5 Piano Pieces
Suite for Piano
Woodwind Quintet
5 pieces for Choir
Suite for Septet 
3 Satires for Choir
String Quartet #3
Variations for Orchestra
Piano Piece op. 33a
3 German Folksongs for choir
Accompaniment to a Cinematographic Scene
6 Pieces for Choir
Piano Piece op. 33b
Moses Und Aron
3 Lieder Op. 48
Violin Concerto
String Quartet #4
Kol Nidre
Chamber Symphony #2
Ode to Napolean
Piano Concerto
String Trio
A Survivor from Warsaw
3 folk songs for Choir
Dreimal Tausend Jahre
De Profundis
Moderner Psalm
2 Lieder Posthumus

I am aware that Von Heute Auf Morgen and Fantasy for violin and Piano are missing from the list. I am planning on getting these two works eventually. Is there any other piece that you guys would recommend to make my Schoenberg collection more complete?


----------



## Mahlerian

Besides Von Heute auf Morgen (which I've never quite warmed to) and the Phantasy, the only major omissions I see are the following:

- String Quartet in D major
- Six Orchestral Songs Op. 8
- Four Orchestral Songs Op. 22
- Suite for Strings in G
- Variations on a Recitative for organ Op. 40
- Theme and Variations for band Op. 43a (43b is the arrangement for orchestra)


----------



## Morimur

What this world needs is a complete works Schoenberg box-set.

World peace? I'll take the box-set, thank you.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> Besides Von Heute auf Morgen (which I've never quite warmed to) and the Phantasy, the only major omissions I see are the following:
> 
> - String Quartet in D major
> - Six Orchestral Songs Op. 8
> - Four Orchestral Songs Op. 22
> - Suite for Strings in G
> - Variations on a Recitative for organ Op. 40
> - Theme and Variations for band Op. 43a (43b is the arrangement for orchestra)


What about the cabaret songs?


----------



## Vaneyes

Morimur said:


> What this world needs is a complete works Schoenberg box-set.
> 
> World peace? I'll take the box-set, thank you.


There can be both, though probably not via the overly-optimistic Omega Point.


----------



## Dim7

Dim7 said:


> Piano Suite op 25 is cool!


With this piece some parts sounded random to me at first, but then I started hearing how they were related to other parts that were clearly not random.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

I've never been much fond of the Variations for Orchestra for some reason. I guess the writing there is just too square for my expectations on those harmonies. I love the 5 pieces though!


----------



## Avey

I remember first hearing the Chamber Symphony 1 at a concert about a year ago. I really liked it, but being new to it, I don't know if I fully enjoyed it.

I just heard it again recently, several times over. What an amazing piece of music. So fantastic.


----------



## millionrainbows

Avey: I bet you'd like Webern's I'm Sommerwind.

~I've been listening to Variations for Orchestra op. 31, Wind Quintet op. 26, and the Suite op. 29 for septet. Mainjly because I aquired the Atherton disc relatively recently, on the London label which has the wind pieces. I also pull out the Serenade op. 26 periodically, because it is such a pleasure to hear. I love wind instruments. There is an Atherton disc with this on it, a good companion to the other, but I seem to prefer the live Marlboro Festival version


----------



## Dim7

About Fantasy for violin and piano, some guy named John Palmer has to say:

"it represents the height of the composer's twelve-tone complexity and the *complete subordination of aural concerns to those of rigorous order and derivation*. "

Trolo lolo lollolo lollolo looo...


----------



## Mahlerian

Dim7 said:


> About Fantasy for violin and piano, some guy named John Palmer has to say:
> 
> "it represents the height of the composer's twelve-tone complexity and the *complete subordination of aural concerns to those of rigorous order and derivation*. "
> 
> Trolo lolo lollolo lollolo looo...


It's completely, absolutely wrong, and this is easily proven by looking at the composer's own statements on the piece, or hell, just listening to the thing. Do they not hear how beautiful these works can be if sensitively performed?

Why does this kind of nonsense still pass for commentary on Schoenberg's works after all these years?

Also, I've never seen that supposed remark by Schoenberg, and it may be a mistaken version of his "my music is not lovely," because I know of many other occasions on which the composer said he found his own works beautiful.

This article seems to be the source for the quote used. If so, it got garbled to mean pretty much the opposite of what it says.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1941/10/24/the-music-box-pthe-recordings-made/

"I will not show you that my music is beautiful. You know it not . . . I know it."


----------



## Sir Redcrosse

Dear Mr. Schoenberg,
Thank you so very much for your opera Moses und Aron, which gave me a new love for 12-tone music and for the avant-garde in general, even if that was not your intention. It's just a pity you never finished Akt III. 
At least you finished Verklarte Nacht. Gives me chills every time. 
With deepest sincerity, 
V


----------



## brotagonist

^ The one he really should have finished is Totentanz der Prinzipien


----------



## Dim7

Any examples of Schoenberg's music being used in movies? Obviously there must be some...


----------



## Weston

Hey, look what I just found!










I thought I had obtained most of Schoenberg's instrumental works by now, but this album contains the Wind Quintet, Op. 26 along with some works by Schoenberg student Hanns Eisler.

The Wind Quintet is rumored to be _very_ difficult and seldom performed, so I don't know about the quality of this rather inexpensive volume, but I had not run across this piece before. Let's see how long it takes me to "get" it. (It took about twelve listens for the piano concerto and about four for the violin concerto, if I've truly ever grasped those works -- but I enjoy them.)


----------



## science

Mahlerian said:


> It's completely, absolutely wrong, and this is easily proven by looking at the composer's own statements on the piece, or hell, just listening to the thing. Do they not hear how beautiful these works can be if sensitively performed?
> 
> Why does this kind of nonsense still pass for commentary on Schoenberg's works after all these years?
> 
> Also, I've never seen that supposed remark by Schoenberg, and it may be a mistaken version of his "my music is not lovely," because I know of many other occasions on which the composer said he found his own works beautiful.
> 
> This article seems to be the source for the quote used. If so, it got garbled to mean pretty much the opposite of what it says.
> http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1941/10/24/the-music-box-pthe-recordings-made/
> 
> "I will not show you that my music is beautiful. You know it not . . . I know it."


However wrongheaded you consider it, I think that comment was meant as a compliment.


----------



## Mahlerian

science said:


> However wrongheaded you consider it, I think that comment was meant as a compliment.


It's not merely wrongheaded, it's factually incorrect (though shockingly common) to say that Schoenberg ever considered the workings of the method to be more important than the sound of the result.

I don't understand in what context it could be construed as a compliment, either.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Weston said:


> Hey, look what I just found!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought I had obtained most of Schoenberg's instrumental works by now, but this album contains the Wind Quintet, Op. 26 along with some works by Schoenberg student Hanns Eisler.
> 
> The Wind Quintet is rumored to be _very_ difficult and seldom performed, so I don't know about the quality of this rather inexpensive volume, but I had not run across this piece before. Let's see how long it takes me to "get" it. (It took about twelve listens for the piano concerto and about four for the violin concerto, if I've truly ever grasped those works -- but I enjoy them.)


It's a good album - the Quintet was a hitherto annoying gap in my Schoenberg collection and the two works by Eisler are rarities.


----------



## science

Mahlerian said:


> I don't understand in what context it could be construed as a compliment, either.


Really? That's pretty obvious to me. The idea would be that any old fool can hear the music, but only the true cognoscenti understand the deeper structure.


----------



## Mahlerian

science said:


> Really? That's pretty obvious to me. The idea would be that any old fool can hear the music, but only the true cognoscenti understand the deeper structure.


Sorry, that's not something I'm interested in, nor would ever use as a criterion for evaluation, and Schoenberg himself agreed.


----------



## science

Mahlerian said:


> Sorry, that's not something I'm interested in, nor would ever use as a criterion for evaluation, and Schoenberg himself agreed.


Yeah, but I think those ideas are (or have been) out there, and I don't see anything wrong with them. It's analogous to pure mathematics that may not ever find a practical application but so what? It doesn't hurt anyone, so we can all enjoy whatever we want to enjoy - the one who enjoys the music because of the ideas behind the score rather than the sound of the music is as "right" as the one who enjoys the sound of the music with no concern for the ideas behind the score. Room enough for everyone, as long as we all agree to let the others be other.


----------



## Mahlerian

science said:


> Yeah, but I think those ideas are (or have been) out there, and I don't see anything wrong with them. It's analogous to pure mathematics that may not ever find a practical application but so what? It doesn't hurt anyone, so we can all enjoy whatever we want to enjoy - the one who enjoys the music because of the ideas behind the score rather than the sound of the music is as "right" as the one who enjoys the sound of the music with no concern for the ideas behind the score. Room enough for everyone, as long as we all agree to let the others be other.


The problem is not their reasons for enjoyment (or lack threreof) so much as their propagation of the false idea.

But besides the fact that it's false as a statement of the composer's intent, it harms Schoenberg. The idea that the sound of the music didn't matter to him makes others hear his music in a certain way, possibly (and in many cases very likely) preventing them from enjoying it.

He wanted to be understood by the wider audience, and even now, where the potential for familiarity with his works in excellent performances is there for anyone, these damaging ideas that hinder that very understanding persist.


----------



## science

Mahlerian said:


> The problem is not their reasons for enjoyment (or lack threreof) so much as their propagation of the false idea.
> 
> But besides the fact that it's false as a statement of the composer's intent, it harms Schoenberg. The idea that the sound of the music didn't matter to him makes others hear his music in a certain way, possibly (and in many cases very likely) preventing them from enjoying it.
> 
> He wanted to be understood by the wider audience, and even now, where the potential for familiarity with his works in excellent performances is there for anyone, these damaging ideas that hinder that very understanding persist.


Yes, I think that ideas that really came from a later generation, especially the '50s or so, and perhaps attributable more to audiences than to composers, are being projected back onto Schoenberg.

No matter how wrong the attribution to Schoenberg is, I think the ideas themselves can and should be defended. It's basically Babbitt's argument in "Who Cares if You Listen?"


----------



## Mahlerian

science said:


> Yes, I think that ideas that really came from a later generation, especially the '50s or so, and perhaps attributable more to audiences than to composers, are being projected back onto Schoenberg.
> 
> No matter how wrong the attribution to Schoenberg is, I think the ideas themselves can and should be defended. It's basically Babbitt's argument in "Who Cares if You Listen?"


No it is not. Babbitt also never agreed with the idea that how a work sounds does not matter, nor did he write an essay called "Who Cares if You Listen." He wrote a widely misinterpreted essay called "The Composer as Specialist."


----------



## science

Mahlerian said:


> No it is not. Babbitt also never agreed with the idea that how a work sounds does not matter, nor did he write an essay called "Who Cares if You Listen." He wrote a widely misinterpreted essay called "The Composer as Specialist."


Well, even if he didn't supply the title, that's the title it is known by, and it was good enough for us to communicate. Anyway, who cares if it gives offense to a few people? I'd bet that to most of them Babbitt's ideas and music would smell the same by any other name.

I think you're taking "how it sounds" too literally. Of course it literally sounds according to the structure, but the rhetoric of not caring about how it sounds simply means that the ideas in the structure (i.e. the "complexity"), known only to the experts or those who "get it" somehow, are taken to be more important than how ordinary people feel about the music. Analogous ideas pervade all the modern arts. And, as long as "the ordinary people" are allowed to be true to their own tastes without suffering scorn (taking a postmodern approach to modern art), there really is nothing with them.

And that, I suspect, is the essence of our disagreement: I would give people permission not to like Schoenberg, Babbitt, whatever, without suffering in anyone's esteem. It's a fantasy world no less than a world in which everyone would freely enjoy and respect the highest culture. We're choosing different fantasies.


----------



## Mahlerian

science said:


> Well, even if he didn't supply the title, that's the title it is known by, and it was good enough for us to communicate. Anyway, who cares if it gives offense to a few people? I'd bet that to most of them Babbitt's ideas and music would smell the same by any other name.


You don't think there are some or many among those people who dislike Babbitt in large part because of the elitism he supposedly represents, rather than for the music he wrote or the ideas he actually communicated in his writings?



science said:


> And that, I suspect, is the essence of our disagreement: I would give people permission not to like Schoenberg, Babbitt, whatever, without suffering in anyone's esteem. It's a fantasy world no less than a world in which everyone would freely enjoy and respect the highest culture. We're choosing different fantasies.


I never said that I didn't esteem people or think less of them because of their tastes in music. I do not respect the inane arguments many make against some music. That is all.


----------



## isorhythm

^It's a distortion of Babbitt's argument to some extent, but not a complete misunderstanding.

Babbitt's central premise in that essay, which he makes very explicit, is that there is such a thing as progress in music that is somehow analogous to progress in math and science. I suspect everyone here rejects that view, so we don't need to defend that essay. It was and remains basically wrong-headed.


----------



## Mahlerian

isorhythm said:


> ^It's a distortion of Babbitt's argument to some extent, but not a complete misunderstanding.
> 
> Babbitt's central premise in that essay, which he makes very explicit, is that there is such a thing as progress in music that is somehow analogous to progress in math and science. I suspect everyone here rejects that view, so we don't need to defend that essay. It was and remains basically wrong-headed.


I do disagree with that view, and yes, it was wrong-headed in that regard, but not in the way that many people think.


----------



## science

Mahlerian said:


> You don't think there are some or many among those people who dislike Babbitt in large part because of the elitism he supposedly represents, rather than for the music he wrote or the ideas he actually communicated in his writings?


No, I believe they use these things as explanations (or excuses). How much do most of them know about Bach's, Beethoven's, Wagner's, or Cardew's ideas? Ignorance or misunderstanding doesn't stand in the way of music they enjoy. But if they don't enjoy it, no amount of information or understanding is going to make a difference.



Mahlerian said:


> I never said that I didn't esteem people or think less of them because of their tastes in music. I do not respect the inane arguments many make against some music. That is all.


Well, in your case, I think this is true. You seem to be a good postmodernist in that sense. (Was unnecessarily "correcting" me about the supposed title of Babbitt's essay entirely without scorn?) But people who don't like Schoenberg, Babbitt, and so on have been subjected to that kind of scorn for a very long time by many other people. They, like the people who scorn them, are stuck in a modernist worldview. So a large part of their response (the inane arguments you object to) is self-exculpatory. They want to be seen as legitimately highbrow even though they don't like the music that they know they're supposed to.


----------



## science

isorhythm said:


> ^It's a distortion of Babbitt's argument to some extent, but not a complete misunderstanding.
> 
> Babbitt's central premise in that essay, which he makes very explicit, is that there is such a thing as progress in music that is somehow analogous to progress in math and science. I suspect everyone here rejects that view, so we don't need to defend that essay. It was and remains basically wrong-headed.


Even if people would explicitly disavow that view, I think we could catch some of us in it. I've seen the old language about having the "courage" to innovate, to push music "forward," etc.


----------



## isorhythm

science said:


> Even if people would explicitly disavow that view, I think we could catch some of us in it. I've seen the old language about having the "courage" to innovate, to push music "forward," etc.


Yes, though I think valuing innovation and believing in progress are not quite the same thing.


----------



## science

isorhythm said:


> Yes, though I think valuing innovation and believing in progress are not quite the same thing.


That's a good point. It's the courage/fear language that alerts me to the old ideology at work.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

I think that when someone says:

Statement A: "Schoenberg doesn't care about the sound, and only someone with a musicologist background could like it."

Mahlerian and science interpret that person's statement in different ways. This has been the cause of long term confusion and disagreement.

Mahlerian interprets statement A literally. In this case statement A is wrong as a fact.

However, science interprets statement A figuratively. This means that statement A is, more or less, a statement of taste/preference and simply a statement of dislike of the music. I.e. "I can't imagine anybody liking this awful Schoenberg, therefore it must be only intellectuals that like it."

I think if one took these statements literally, then they are factually wrong as Mahlerian says. But if one took these statements figuratively, then they are just fine as science says.

So how should we take these statements (like statement A)?

I think that if a professional critic says them, we should take them as Mahlerian does. In that case, the critic should be called out for stating misinformation.

However, if a beginner on TalkClassical says them, then we should be much more nicer. We should interpret the statements as science would, only figuratively. Perhaps they can be gently corrected and told that there are people without musicological knowledge that do like them, and maybe they can be pointed to more "accessible" works like Verklarte Nacht or whatever.

I do think that sometimes the experts on TC take the beginners too literally. Some beginner once said (paraphrasing) "Boulez is completely without theme" and the expert said "Why in the world do people still believe this?" The expert should not have taken this so literally. It's not like the beginner was trying to make an academic point... he was merely expressing his lack of perceiving melodic and thematic groundedness in the music. I know the beginner, with his literal words, said "Boulez is without themes" but stuff like this, in my opinion, if said by beginners, should not be taken so literally. They are more figurative statements of dislike, and beginners shouldn't be faulted for using the wrong words.


----------



## Mahlerian

Septimal, how would you interpret statements such as the following?

1) Schoenberg's music is objectively bad because it has no melodies.
2) Boulez's music is objectively bad because it is indistinguishable from random gibberish.
3) Mozart's music is objectively bad because it is the expression of an elite aristocracy.
4) Mahler's music is objectively bad because it is without form.

In what sense would you take these as figurative? In my experience, people very often mean just this kind of thing (and not infrequently use these kinds of phrases) when they criticize music they dislike for one reason or another.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Mahlerian said:


> Septimal, how would you interpret statements such as the following?
> 
> 1) Schoenberg's music is objectively bad because it has no melodies.
> 2) Boulez's music is objectively bad because it is indistinguishable from random gibberish.
> 3) Mozart's music is objectively bad because it is the expression of an elite aristocracy.
> 4) Mahler's music is objectively bad because it is without form.
> 
> In what sense would you take these as figurative? In my experience, people very often mean just this kind of thing (and not infrequently use these kinds of phrases) when they criticize music they dislike for one reason or another.


I know, they usually mean it literally and objectively. However, I would say they don't have the experience to realize that it's their subjectivity rather than their objectivity. In other words, as a certain crucified dude said, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

And remember, when I heard Boulez the first few times I thought it was random gibberish. I really did think that only a really smart and educated person could derive any enjoyment out of the abstract intellectual ice cube glass. I think that a lot of people, not knowing any better, would think this if they didn't like their initial encounter with Boulez's music, especially since a lot of other modern music tends to be quite difficult on first listen. Of course, some people get it the first time, but many don't. I certainly didn't.

I remember being scared as hell my first few months on TC because I was not aware of these things. I felt not smart enough for getting Webern or Cage.

Some neophytes, instead of being scared as hell, tend to instead (depending on their personality) take the "wrong road" and say that "Schoenberg is objectively bad because it's mathematical." Instead of debating them, give suggestions for how to approach or listen to the music. A lot of people need guidance on this sort of music appreciation, especially for those (like me) who couldn't figure it out themselves how to connect with it.


----------



## science

SeptimalTritone said:


> I think that when someone says:
> 
> Statement A: "Schoenberg doesn't care about the sound, and only someone with a musicologist background could like it."
> 
> Mahlerian and science interpret that person's statement in different ways. This has been the cause of long term confusion and disagreement.
> 
> Mahlerian interprets statement A literally. In this case statement A is wrong as a fact.
> 
> However, science interprets statement A figuratively. This means that statement A is, more or less, a statement of taste/preference and simply a statement of dislike of the music. I.e. "I can't imagine anybody liking this awful Schoenberg, therefore it must be only intellectuals that like it."
> 
> I think if one took these statements literally, then they are factually wrong as Mahlerian says. But if one took these statements figuratively, then they are just fine as science says.
> 
> So how should we take these statements (like statement A)?
> 
> I think that if a professional critic says them, we should take them as Mahlerian does. In that case, the critic should be called out for stating misinformation.
> 
> However, if a beginner on TalkClassical says them, then we should be much more nicer. We should interpret the statements as science would, only figuratively. Perhaps they can be gently corrected and told that there are people without musicological knowledge that do like them, and maybe they can be pointed to more "accessible" works like Verklarte Nacht or whatever.
> 
> I do think that sometimes the experts on TC take the beginners too literally. Some beginner once said (paraphrasing) "Boulez is completely without theme" and the expert said "Why in the world do people still believe this?" The expert should not have taken this so literally. It's not like the beginner was trying to make an academic point... he was merely expressing his lack of perceiving melodic and thematic groundedness in the music. I know the beginner, with his literal words, said "Boulez is without themes" but stuff like this, in my opinion, if said by beginners, should not be taken so literally. They are more figurative statements of dislike, and beginners shouldn't be faulted for using the wrong words.


I just want to be clear: I think John Palmer (the critic who said that quote) meant to _praise_ the music.


----------



## science

For my part, I enjoy the music of Schoenberg/Boulez/Babbitt/Cage/Mozart/Mahler, and therefore I don't care whether it has no melodies, is supposedly indistinguishable from random gibberish, is the expression of an elite aristocracy, or is without form. 

Why would we care so much about the opinions of people who would care about that or see those things as criticism?


----------



## Mahlerian

SeptimalTritone said:


> I know, they usually mean it literally and objectively. However, I would say they don't have the experience to realize that it's their subjectivity rather than their objectivity. In other words, as a certain crucified dude said, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
> 
> And remember, when I heard Boulez the first few times I thought it was random gibberish. I really did think that only a really smart and educated person could derive any enjoyment out of the abstract intellectual ice cube glass. I think that a lot of people, not knowing any better, would think this if they didn't like their initial encounter with Boulez's music, especially since a lot of other modern music tends to be quite difficult on first listen. Of course, some people get it the first time, but many don't. I certainly didn't.


The first time I heard Mahler's Ninth, I thought he had gone mad. It was so dissonant and disjointed, and lacked the beauty of the earlier works which I had come to love.

The first time I heard Debussy's Images for Orchestra, I remember thinking to myself "_This_ is why I hate modern music." (Something which I was not the least bit consistent about then, happily listening to Stravinsky's ballets with all of their Debussy influence.)

I can sympathize with not understanding works the first time one hears them. I can even sympathize with feeling some level of antagonism towards them, as in, why was this created in this way?



SeptimalTritone said:


> Some neophytes, instead of being scared as hell, tend to instead (depending on their personality) take the "wrong road" and say that "Schoenberg is objectively bad because it's mathematical." Instead of debating them, give suggestions for how to approach or listen to the music. A lot of people need guidance on this sort of music appreciation, especially for those (like me) who couldn't figure it out themselves how to connect with it.


In many cases, wouldn't that seem to just confirm their view that there's something wrong with it? The process for understanding Schoenberg (whose music I was interested in, even attracted to, from the beginning, though understanding was certainly not instantaneous) was like for any other unfamiliar music: find the threads you can grab onto at first and you can eventually come to grasp the whole tapestry.


----------



## KenOC

Mahlerian said:


> The first time I heard Mahler's Ninth, I thought he had gone mad. It was so dissonant and disjointed, and lacked the beauty of the earlier works which I had come to love.


Very odd. From the beginning Mahler's 9th was, to me, perfectly coherent and straightforward. Even today, it's my favorite Mahler symphony and one of the few I regularly listen to. Mahler has curbed his excesses and stays on message. And he has something to say that seems important.


----------



## science

SeptimalTritone said:


> I do think that sometimes the experts on TC take the beginners too literally.


That is just about the heart of the matter. Many, perhaps most, of the people who decide to insert themselves into a place like talkclassical are looking to prove or assert themselves somehow. The claim underlying most of their posts is, "I deserve recognition and respect." They want to show how clever they are, or how insightful, or whatever. Fundamentally, they want to show that they're one of us.

And they are. Their terminology will be wrong, they'll say ignorant things, if we were in person we'd hear them mispronounce "Debussy" and "Dvorak" and "Milhaud" and "Kodály." And that was all of us at some point, whether it was when we were eight and it was cute or when we were sixteen and it was a little pathetic. And it still is all of us. Sid James likes to quote the Andre Previn line about not knowing about most of the world's music.

People's knowledge grows; sometimes their tastes develop. If we just accept each other without so much judgement, there wouldn't be any music that we're supposed to like or not supposed to like (my fantasy world again), and we wouldn't have to see so many poorly-informed excuses for not liking the music that we're supposed to like (Mahlerian's fantasy world) or for liking the music that we're not supposed to like. (Many of us would probably lose interest in such a community!)


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Mahlerian said:


> The process for understanding Schoenberg (whose music I was interested in, even attracted to, from the beginning, though understanding was certainly not instantaneous) was like for any other unfamiliar music: find the threads you can grab onto at first and you can eventually come to grasp the whole tapestry.


I agree! Just be sure that to the beginners that is made clear.


----------



## Mahlerian

KenOC said:


> Very odd. From the beginning Mahler's 9th was, to me, perfectly coherent and straightforward. Even today, it's my favorite Mahler symphony and one of the few I regularly listen to. Mahler has curbed his excesses and stays on message. And he has something to say that seems important.


I would describe Mahler's Ninth in many ways. Straightforward would never be among them. As amazing as it is, it's a bizarre work on many levels.


----------



## Weston

Interesting documentary I did not see posted in this forum yet on a cursory glance.






It might appeal to Alexander Goehr and Pierre Boulez fans as well. (I am fortunate to be both.) I am in mid stream, not having seen the whole thing yet. There are some eye opening quotes from contemporary composers! Some of them surprisingly hateful, lowering my esteem for them I'm afraid.


----------



## starthrower

Bax called Schoenberg a decadent Jew? I'm tossing my Bax CDs!


----------



## Guest

science said:


> Why would we care so much about the opinions of people who would care about that or see those things as criticism?


It is worth noting that opinions DO have some value depending on their setting. If someone said an ignorant opinion to me in person... well I'd roll my eyes and move on with my life.

In an open forum, when the ignorant opinion has proven itself capable of being perpetuated for a century? I'd be careful about saying that opinion has no effect. Whether *I'm* impervious to the ignorance or not is irrelevant, when ignorance is allowed an audience.


----------



## science

nathanb said:


> It is worth noting that opinions DO have some value depending on their setting. If someone said an ignorant opinion to me in person... well I'd roll my eyes and move on with my life.
> 
> In an open forum, when the ignorant opinion has proven itself capable of being perpetuated for a century? I'd be careful about saying that opinion has no effect. Whether *I'm* impervious to the ignorance or not is irrelevant, when ignorance is allowed an audience.


Yeah, but...

It's the internet, where no idea is too ridiculous to thrive.


----------



## Dim7

"Schoenberg is getting better!"

-Somebody to Boulez


----------



## isorhythm

Why did all the anti-Semites think Berg and Webern were Jewish?


----------



## Mahlerian

isorhythm said:


> Why did all the anti-Semites think Berg and Webern were Jewish?


For the same reason anti-modernists are convinced that Schoenberg's Chamber Symphonies are not tonal works.


----------



## rsikora

My favorite moments of Schoenberg are when he goes on these "big tantrums" (the orchestra gets loud and aggressive and dissonant). This can be heard in:

Gluckliche Hand
Variations for Orchestra (the end especially)
Five Pieces for Orchestra (1st and 4th movements)
Moses und Aron

You guys know of any other composers who do this like Schoenberg does?


----------



## brotagonist

I think a piece I listened to last night and am about to hear again as soon as this disc finishes:

Carter Concerto for Orchestra

Boy, that's a tangle of heart-racing dissonance. I'm getting in a sweat just thinking about it


----------



## rsikora

That's a good one. Now that I think about it, carter does sound a lot like schoenberg at times.


----------



## Chordalrock

rsikora said:


> My favorite moments of Schoenberg are when he goes on these "big tantrums" (the orchestra gets loud and aggressive and dissonant). This can be heard in:
> 
> Gluckliche Hand
> Variations for Orchestra (the end especially)
> Five Pieces for Orchestra (1st and 4th movements)
> Moses und Aron
> 
> You guys know of any other composers who do this like Schoenberg does?


Roger Sessions (Symphonies 3-9, Concerto for Orchestra, Divertimento at least).


----------



## Weston

Hello. I haven't been around for a while, but I just had to ask. 

I heard a strange instrumental sound near the end of one of Schoenberg's Variations for Orchestra, almost something you would expect to hear as a cartoon sound effect. I do not know which variation. The iPod thing doesn't let the entire title scroll past for most classical works. Could the sound have been an Agogô bell?


----------



## Mahlerian

Weston said:


> Hello. I haven't been around for a while, but I just had to ask.
> 
> I heard a strange instrumental sound near the end of one of Schoenberg's Variations for Orchestra, almost something you would expect to hear as a cartoon sound effect. I do not know which variation. The iPod thing doesn't let the entire title scroll past for most classical works. Could the sound have been an Agogô bell?


You're almost certainly referring to the flexatone, which has indeed become more famous for its use in cartoon sound effects than in orchestral music (though a number of composers, including Shostakovich and Schnittke, also employed it). Schoenberg also used it in Moses und Aron.


----------



## violadude

Weston said:


> Hello. I haven't been around for a while, but I just had to ask.
> 
> I heard a strange instrumental sound near the end of one of Schoenberg's Variations for Orchestra, almost something you would expect to hear as a cartoon sound effect. I do not know which variation. The iPod thing doesn't let the entire title scroll past for most classical works. Could the sound have been an Agogô bell?


You can see the flexatone in action in this video of Schnittke's viola concerto, at 8:07.


----------



## Weston

I'm having a feeling of deja vu. Sorry if I asked that before a few years back. It's that the General Midi setting for Agogo on one of my old sound cards sort of sounds like that


----------



## Dim7

SQ No. 3 is so Classical.

Also fans of Scriabin's piano music should hear Schoenberg's Op. 11.


----------



## Bayreuth

Dim7 said:


> SQ No. 3 is so Classical.
> 
> Also fans of Scriabin's piano music should hear Schoenbeg's Op. 11.


Just did. Thank you very much!


----------



## Janspe

I've been listening to quite a lot of Schoenberg recently, mostly instrumental works (concertos, string quartets, piano music), plus the _Pierrot lunaire_. But the work I've grown very fond of is the short fantasy for violin and piano, op. 47. It's such a strange piece - I can't really explain in what way, exactly - but I keep returning to it and discovering new things as I listen to it. There's a great recording of it by Jennifer Koh and Reiko Uchida, I warmly recommend it!


----------



## Pugg

Janspe said:


> I've been listening to quite a lot of Schoenberg recently, mostly instrumental works (concertos, string quartets, piano music), plus the _Pierrot lunaire_. But the work I've grown very fond of is the short fantasy for violin and piano, op. 47. It's such a strange piece - I can't really explain in what way, exactly - but I keep returning to it and discovering new things as I listen to it. There's a great recording of it by Jennifer Koh and Reiko Uchida, I warmly recommend it!


Whit such a review one has to try it.:tiphat:


----------



## chesapeake bay

I looked this up and came across this video 



 Gould and Menuhin discussing Schoenbergs op 47, fascinating.


----------



## Janspe

chesapeake bay said:


> I looked this up and came across this video
> 
> 
> 
> Gould and Menuhin discussing Schoenbergs op 47, fascinating.


Yes, that is a very interesting video indeed! My favourite bit is the one where Menuhin admits, after being directly questioned by Gould, not to liking the piece very much - but immediately following that by saying:

_"Well, Glenn, I was very anxious to take you up on the invitation to play it because I admire you, and know that you know more about Schoenberg and have a genuine understanding on Schoenberg perhaps than anyone else; and I'm always interested in learning about something through the eyes of someone who understands and loves it; cause I've always had the motto in my life that anyone who liked something knew more about it than one who didn't. _

That's the sort of curious musicianship that I appreciate beyond words!


----------



## Mahlerian

I agree that the interview is fascinating, but I think that unfortunately, Menhuin's lack of understanding of the piece comes through in his performance. More recent violinists have a better feel for its singing lines and dramatic contrasts.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> I agree that the interview is fascinating, but I think that unfortunately, Menhuin's lack of understanding of the piece comes through in his performance. More recent violinists have a better feel for its singing lines and dramatic contrasts.


Menhuin didn't say he didn't understand it, just that he didn't like it. This reaction to Menhuin demonstrates the typical assumption of modern elitist thinking, that people who don't like it "don't understand it." I'm a modernist, but I give people slack who don't like modern music, especially hard-core atonal music.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

millionrainbows said:


> Menhuin didn't say he didn't understand it, just that he didn't like it. This reaction to Menhuin demonstrates the typical assumption of modern elitist thinking, that people who don't like it "don't understand it." I'm a modernist, but I give people slack who don't like modern music, especially hard-core atonal music.


I disagree on two fronts. First of all, if a performer doesn't understand a work and it comes through in the playing, then well, the fault is all on the performer no matter what the reason. Whether the performer's lack of understanding stems from not liking the piece, or from liking the piece but having bad expressive understanding, the performer still is at fault equally. Mahlerian is not being an elitist here: performers always should be held to a high standard.

Second, Second Vienese music is tonal, just non - triadically and non - diatonically tonal, and you know, with Debussy pieces having beginnings and endings in entirely whole tone scales, like this that ends on the notes C-E in a much more, well, modal rather than hierarchical or goal-based manner, I would say that from a perspective of note hierarchy and note goal, that even late Webern has a stronger sense of (non-common practice) tonality than some of Debussy, although this is a note-by-note rather than chord-by-chord kind of tonality, and one with several note-by-note tonal links in parallel.

Finally, I give people complete slack for not liking modern music and/or second Viennese music. It's just when false charges are brought on it where I need to express disagreement.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

It's "tuneless" music that people find difficult, I think, as opposed to "atonal" music in the strict technical sense.


----------



## Mahlerian

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> It's "tuneless" music that people find difficult, I think, as opposed to "atonal" music in the strict technical sense.


There is no strict technical sense of atonal. It's a catch-all term for many kinds of music that have just about nothing in common, much if not all of which isn't atonal if the term is taken literally.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Mahlerian said:


> There is no strict technical sense of atonal. It's a catch-all term for many kinds of music that have just about nothing in common, much if not all of which isn't atonal if the term is taken literally.


I'll rephrase. It's "tuneless" music that people find difficult, period. Whatever "tuneless" means...


----------



## mmsbls

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> I'll rephrase. It's "tuneless" music that people find difficult, period. Whatever "tuneless" means...


I agree with the rough sense of this statement, but I would probably state it differently. Schoenberg wrote music that many people (probably the vast majority) find tuneless because the "language" or style used is unfamiliar to them.


----------



## Xenakiboy

All I have to say in this discussion is that I have *never* found Schoenberg difficult or challenging for me, which means for me; I'll never understand the sadly quite common attitude people have towards his music 

His music fits the same glove that Debussy, Ravel, (late) Mahler, Scriabin and Stravinsky have.. :tiphat:


----------



## dieter

Xenakiboy said:


> All I have to say in this discussion is that I have *never* found Schoenberg difficult or challenging for me, which means for me; I'll never understand the sadly quite common attitude people have towards his music
> 
> His music fits the same glove that Debussy, Ravel, Scriabin and Stravinsky have.. :tiphat:


That's an interesting comment. I've never had problems 'getting' the music of the 4 composers you mention, but there's always been an aspect of Schoenberg's music that simply grates. I find the early stuff too chromatic, like being served a 3 course meal based on cream, the the rest of his output - with a few exceptions - just note-spinning.
I'm convinced that this is a matter of one's personal temperament. I have friends who adore Schoenberg but I just don't 'get' it.
Interestingly, there is an interview with the pianist Uchida published in Gramophone in the early 2000's. She had just recorded Schoenberg's Piano Concerto with Boulez. In the interview she recounts how she had discussed Schoenberg's music with one of her favorite conductors, Kurt Sanderling. Now, I have always found Sanderling's music making makes sense to me. I usually hear orchestral detail I've not heard from other conductors, the detail never at the expense of the total structure - an issue I've always had with Rattle's conducting. Sanderling, according to Uchida could not abide Schoenberg's music.


----------



## Mahlerian

dieter said:


> That's an interesting comment. I've never had problems 'getting' the music of the 4 composers you mention, but there's always been an aspect of Schoenberg's music that simply grates. I find the early stuff too chromatic, like being served a 3 course meal based on cream, the the rest of his output - with a few exceptions - just note-spinning.


It's like Brahms or Beethoven or Mahler in that it is based on constant development of simple motifs into grand edifices. To me, Schoenberg's music combines the rigor of Bach with the lyricism and drama of Mahler. Every little detail adds to the whole, and the rhythmic grace and brilliant use of timbre add to the dialogue without becoming the focus.

Schoenberg may be the last in the line of the German/Austrian tradition stretching back to Bach, and he was the 20th century's truest equivalent to Beethoven both in temperament and influence.


----------



## Xenakiboy

Mahlerian said:


> It's like Brahms or Beethoven or Mahler in that it is based on constant development of simple motifs into grand edifices. To me, Schoenberg's music combines the rigor of Bach with the lyricism and drama of Mahler. Every little detail adds to the whole, and the rhythmic grace and brilliant use of timbre add to the dialogue without becoming the focus.


That's quite an accurate description! :tiphat:


----------



## dieter

Mahlerian said:


> It's like Brahms or Beethoven or Mahler in that it is based on constant development of simple motifs into grand edifices. To me, Schoenberg's music combines the rigor of Bach with the lyricism and drama of Mahler. Every little detail adds to the whole, and the rhythmic grace and brilliant use of timbre add to the dialogue without becoming the focus.
> 
> Schoenberg may be the last in the line of the German/Austrian tradition stretching back to Bach, and he was the 20th century's truest equivalent to Beethoven both in temperament and influence.


That's the case for you but I'm too 'thick' to get all the stuff you mention. I just don't 'hear' it, do you know what I mean?


----------



## SeptimalTritone

dieter said:


> That's the case for you but I'm too 'thick' to get all the stuff you mention. I just don't 'hear' it, do you know what I mean?


The first few months that I listened to Schoenberg, I also thought that his music simply grated too much.

I have three suggestions for listening.

The first suggestion is to focus on the linear lines. Schoenberg is much more linear, motif, and melody oriented. In music like this 



 focus on the linear patterns, the dialogue between the right and left hand of the piano.

Second, one needs to realize that a lot of these lines have generally wider leaps than other early 20th century music. Following the lines takes a bit of getting used to. Major seventh and minor ninth melodic leaps are very common bread and butter, and even wider leaps of over an octave and a half or even over two octaves are done too.

Third, one needs to be comfortable with the harmony. The harmony is generally non-tertian and non-diatonic. The chords and harmonies are shadows of the lines. They are shadows of the lines in both Schoenberg's 12 tone and non-12 tone music. There should be a feeling of regularity that, yet, is hard to pinpoint verbally because the melodies, lines, and harmonies are played in such varying ways. This was the point of the tone row: to unify melody and harmony throughout a piece, not the technological, mechanical, methodological, and industrial heartlessness that some people on this forum think. Why cannot a broken chord, a melodic line, and a simultaneous-sounded chord be grammatically treated in the same way in order to better organize post-tertian music? At big moments, rhythmic bass line and progressions of lines/chords can provide for cadences that feel similar to phrase endings in romantic and classical music.

One last thing: even after a long time, one may still not like Schoenberg, and that's okay. And that is also no fault of yours, if you feel you put in a sincere effort that's more than enough. There are great composers like Bach, Wagner, and certain early 20th century neoclassical stuff that I do not enjoy, although I respect what they did and acknowledge that they are the "meat and potatoes" for other people.


----------



## dieter

SeptimalTritone said:


> The first few months that I listened to Schoenberg, I also thought that his music simply grated too much.
> 
> I have three suggestions for listening.
> 
> The first suggestion is to focus on the linear lines. Schoenberg is much more linear, motif, and melody oriented. In music like this
> 
> 
> 
> focus on the linear patterns, the dialogue between the right and left hand of the piano.
> 
> Second, one needs to realize that a lot of these lines have generally wider leaps than other early 20th century music. Following the lines takes a bit of getting used to. Major seventh and minor ninth melodic leaps are very common bread and butter, and even wider leaps of over an octave and a half or even over two octaves are done too.
> 
> Third, one needs to be comfortable with the harmony. The harmony is generally non-tertian and non-diatonic. The chords and harmonies are shadows of the lines. They are shadows of the lines in both Schoenberg's 12 tone and non-12 tone music. There should be a feeling of regularity that, yet, is hard to pinpoint verbally because the melodies, lines, and harmonies are played in such varying ways. This was the point of the tone row: to unify melody and harmony throughout a piece, not the technological, mechanical, methodological, and industrial heartlessness that some people on this forum think. Why cannot a broken chord, a melodic line, and a simultaneous-sounded chord be grammatically treated in the same way in order to better organize post-tertian music? At big moments, rhythmic bass line and progressions of lines/chords can provide for cadences that feel similar to phrase endings in romantic and classical music.
> 
> One last thing: even after a long time, one may still not like Schoenberg, and that's okay. And that is also no fault of yours, if you feel you put in a sincere effort that's more than enough. There are great composers like Bach, Wagner, and certain early 20th century neoclassical stuff that I do not enjoy, although I respect what they did and acknowledge that they are the "meat and potatoes" for other people.


Thanks for your reply. What fascinates me is that I really like Webern's music, ditto Berg...


----------



## Scopitone

I listened to _Ode to Napoleon_ three times in a row just now.

The Beats would have been perfectly comfortable with this rendition. I feel like I should have snapped my applause after.  Also, the screeching violins wouldn't be out of place in that orchestral transcription of _Metal Machine Music._ I got the bright idea towards the end to pull up the Byron poem and follow along. Now that I also have the poem, I need to spend some more time with it.

Good times.


----------



## Scopitone

Last night, I listened to the first few Schoenberg string quartets. (Maybe the first 3) I thought they were lovely.

Did I hear correctly that the SQ No 2 has a soprano singer, too? That was unexpected.


----------



## Mahlerian

Scopitone said:


> Last night, I listened to the first few Schoenberg string quartets. (Maybe the first 3) I thought they were lovely.
> 
> Did I hear correctly that the SQ No 2 has a soprano singer, too? That was unexpected.


Yes. Some believe that this was due to the influence of Mahler, who had introduced soloists into a symphony (even if Beethoven had done it first).


----------



## Scopitone

Mahlerian said:


> Yes. Some believe that this was due to the influence of Mahler, who had introduced soloists into a symphony (even if Beethoven had done it first).


I liked it. It caught me off guard, and I had to check that I had not mis-que'd my playlist. I am re-visiting the piece this morning, from a different recording. It just started as I type this note.


----------



## millionrainbows

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> It's "tuneless" music that people find difficult, I think, as opposed to "atonal" music in the strict technical sense.


Some of the themes in Schoenberg are so angular and leaping (this is not a criticism) that they might just as well be 'tuneless' to many. Melody can be 'atonal' as well, if it doesn't outline a triad or suggest tonality, which 12-tone works are not required to. I accept and enjoy Schoenberg's 12-tone music for what it is.

But if you extracted some of these Schoenberg "themes" and played them in isolation, it's no wonder that many people find them puzzling. Some of the leaps are ridiculous.

I agree, listen to it linearly, and that is where you will get the most meaning. The harmony just happens, is strange, and does not suggest tonality to me at all. Rather, the harmonic coincidences are what make it appeal to my "left brain" or unconscious, non-rational side.

I must admit that his conservative phrasing and rhythmic rhetoric sounds old-fashioned, especially compared to Webern, but he was a classicist, after all. Roger Sessions' second string quartet owes a debt to Schoenberg.


----------



## millionrainbows

SeptimalTritone said:


> I disagree on two fronts. First of all, if a performer doesn't understand a work and it comes through in the playing, then well, the fault is all on the performer no matter what the reason. Whether the performer's lack of understanding stems from not liking the piece, or from liking the piece but having bad expressive understanding, the performer still is at fault equally.


I disagree; I don't think that Menhuin's playing shows a "lack" in any sense.



> Mahlerian is not being an elitist here: performers always should be held to a high standard.


I don't think Mahlerian's reaction has anything to do with Menhuin's playing.



> Second, Second Vienese music is tonal, just non - triadically and non - diatonically tonal, and you know, with Debussy pieces having beginnings and endings in entirely whole tone scales, like this that ends on the notes C-E in a much more, well, modal rather than hierarchical or goal-based manner, I would say that from a perspective of note hierarchy and note goal, that even late Webern has a stronger sense of (non-common practice) tonality than some of Debussy, although this is a note-by-note rather than chord-by-chord kind of tonality, and one with several note-by-note tonal links in parallel.


I think that by "note-by-note" you mean "listen polyphonically," but I do that, and it doesn't make Webern sound 'tonal.' This kind of atonality does have musical meaning if you listen to it linearly; the 'harmony' or simultaneity of the lines has 'meaning' to me as well, but it is not 'tonal meaning.' It is something I can't really define.



> Finally, I give people complete slack for not liking modern music and/or second Viennese music. It's just when false charges are brought on it where I need to express disagreement.


Hey, Mahlerian is the one making false charges about Menuhin. I disagree with your disagreement.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> There is no strict technical sense of atonal. It's a catch-all term for many kinds of music that have just about nothing in common, much if not all of which isn't atonal if the term is taken literally.


No, 'atonal' is a very specific term which means "not tonal." Since 99% of music all over the world is generally tonal, including CP, then 'atonal" is a very specific term, not applied to most Bartok, Stravinsky Debussy, etc., unless they have specified that they are using the 12-tone method (like Agon, or that violin/piano sonata by Bartok).

Of course, tonality comes in different strengths and varieties. It is a inclusionary term, which does not need to identify all the different varieties and kinds of tonalities.

"Atonality" is either a yes or no proposition. That makes it easy to identify. It's an exclusionary term.


----------



## millionrainbows

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> I'll rephrase. It's "tuneless" music that people find difficult, period. Whatever "tuneless" means...


I know what it means. It means the melody or "tune" does not suggest tonality. It leaps, it has no gentle contour, and it does not outline triads, for starters.


----------



## millionrainbows

mmsbls said:


> I agree with the rough sense of this statement, but I would probably state it differently. Schoenberg wrote music that many people (probably the vast majority) find tuneless because the "language" or style used is unfamiliar to them.


Yes, I agree. Schoenberg was using a different musical system. Still, it can be appealing if one can overcome past tonal conditioning and listening habits, and knows what is going on to some degree.


----------



## millionrainbows

Xenakiboy said:


> All I have to say in this discussion is that I have *never* found Schoenberg difficult or challenging for me, which means for me; I'll never understand the sadly quite common attitude people have towards his music …


I am man enough to admit that I went through a process of accumulating knowledge and further appreciation of 12-tone Schoenberg; but I always liked it, and I always listened, and I always had faith that I would find the treasure which I now enjoy.
[/QUOTE]His music fits the same glove that Debussy, Ravel, (late) Mahler, Scriabin and Stravinsky have...[/QUOTE]

To the extent that all modernist musical thinking shares in its approach to 12 notes, chromaticism, octave division, local cells, linear themes, and structural considerations, that can be said to be true.

There are crucial differences, however, in music that is composed according to the 12-tone method; but we'd rather not talk about that elephant, would we? _God,_ I can smell those peanuts on his breath...


----------



## millionrainbows

dieter said:


> That's an interesting comment. I've never had problems 'getting' the music of the 4 composers you mention, but there's always been an aspect of Schoenberg's music that simply grates. I find the early stuff too chromatic, like being served a 3 course meal based on cream, the the rest of his output - with a few exceptions - just note-spinning.


At least dieter is brave enough to say what he hears. And admittedly, much of it is almost "too dense" and rich with chromaticism.



> I'm convinced that this is a matter of one's personal temperament. I have friends who adore Schoenberg but I just don't 'get' it.


I agree, but I'm an omnivore. It goes by my moods. There are times I am much happier listening to Philip Glass.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> It's like Brahms or Beethoven or Mahler in that it is based on constant development of simple motifs into grand edifices. To me, Schoenberg's music combines the rigor of Bach with the lyricism and drama of Mahler. Every little detail adds to the whole, and the rhythmic grace and brilliant use of timbre add to the dialogue without becoming the focus.
> 
> Schoenberg may be the last in the line of the German/Austrian tradition stretching back to Bach, and he was the 20th century's truest equivalent to Beethoven both in temperament and influence.





Xenakiboy said:


> That's quite an accurate description! :tiphat:


I think that is accurate, as well, and a reminder to listeners to listen to this stuff linearly and thematically, and don't try to identify any tonality. The Brahmsian rhetoric is there for your dramatic enjoyment.


----------



## millionrainbows

dieter said:


> That's the case for you but I'm too 'thick' to get all the stuff you mention. I just don't 'hear' it, do you know what I mean?


I think dieter's admission is revealing of the fact that most of this Second Viennese music is rather 'dense' fare, and not for 'musical vegetarians.' It takes a degree of intellection and brain-involvement which comes more naturally to some, not so for others.
On the other hand, there are many things in life which we 'don't get' immediately, but if we _have faith, and believe_ in what we are doing, then it will eventually come to you.


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> At least dieter is brave enough to say what he hears. And admittedly, much of it is almost "too dense" and rich with chromaticism.


You don't have privileged access into my mind, but just this once I'll let you in on something that you seemingly don't know.

*I tell people exactly how I hear Schoenberg, as music.*

I've never heard atonality, and agree with the composer that it has nothing to do with what he was doing. Using *your own definitions*, I hear this music as tonal, not because I make an effort to do so or because it fits my preconceived notions better, but because I can't possibly hear it in any other way. It's how it is.


----------



## millionrainbows

SeptimalTritone said:


> ...I have three suggestions for listening.
> 
> The first suggestion is to focus on the linear lines. Schoenberg is much more linear, motif, and melody oriented.
> 
> Second, one needs to realize that a lot of these lines have generally wider leaps than other early 20th century music. Following the lines takes a bit of getting used to. Major seventh and minor ninth melodic leaps are very common bread and butter, and even wider leaps of over an octave and a half or even over two octaves are done too.


I agree with all that; listen to the lines and the polyphony. And once you identify these 'themes,' you will feel much better about any reticence, because they are rather bizarre. That's Expressionism.



> Third, one needs to be comfortable with the harmony. The harmony is generally non-tertian and non-diatonic. The chords and harmonies are shadows of the lines. They are shadows of the lines in both Schoenberg's 12 tone and non-12 tone music. There should be a feeling of regularity that, yet, is hard to pinpoint verbally because the melodies, lines, and harmonies are played in such varying ways. This was the point of the tone row: to unify melody and harmony throughout a piece, not the technological, mechanical, methodological, and industrial heartlessness that some people on this forum think. Why cannot a broken chord, a melodic line, and a simultaneous-sounded chord be grammatically treated in the same way in order to better organize post-tertian music? At big moments, rhythmic bass line and progressions of lines/chords can provide for cadences that feel similar to phrase endings in romantic and classical music.


I agree to an extent, but I hesitate to call it harmony in any meaningful sense; and the tone row does not 'unify' the vertical aspect at all; this is the whim of the composer working in conjunction with serendipity. To me, this is the 'unconscious' or surrealist aspect of the 12-tone art.


----------



## millionrainbows

dieter said:


> Thanks for your reply. What fascinates me is that I really like Webern's music, ditto Berg...


I concur. Berg is half-tonal anyway, and just seemed to use the method for his own ends. It's quite expressive and emotional.

Webern was honest and straightforward in his modernist use of the system. Mostly linear, not as concerned with the vertical.


----------



## millionrainbows

Scopitone said:


> Last night, I listened to the first few Schoenberg string quartets. (Maybe the first 3) I thought they were lovely.
> 
> Did I hear correctly that the SQ No 2 has a soprano singer, too? That was unexpected.


The soprano is lovely. My least favorite is the Third; and most favorite is the Fourth.


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> I concur. *Berg is half-tonal anyway*, and just seemed to use the method for his own ends. It's quite expressive and emotional.


What does that even mean?????


----------



## millionrainbows

Scopitone said:


> Last night, I listened to the first few Schoenberg string quartets. (Maybe the first 3) I thought they were lovely.
> 
> Did I hear correctly that the SQ No 2 has a soprano singer, too? That was unexpected.





Mahlerian said:


> Yes. Some believe that this was due to the influence of Mahler, who had introduced soloists into a symphony (even if Beethoven had done it first).


Wagner did something very similar to that as well. I believe the Second String Quartet, the last mvt of which is 12-tone, shows Schoenberg heeding the voice of God, and the consequences that would entail.


----------



## Scopitone

millionrainbows said:


> The soprano is lovely. My least favorite is the Third; and most favorite is the Fourth.


Good to know about the 3rd and 4th. I haven't given the 3rd a proper listen yet, and I haven't touched the 4th. I'll keep it in mind.

I have listened to the 2nd SQ a couple of times now, and I dig it.


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> Wagner did something very similar to that as well. I believe the Second String Quartet, *the last mvt of which is 12-tone*, shows Schoenberg heeding the voice of God, and the consequences that would entail.


It is not. The 12-tone method was still over a decade off.


----------



## millionrainbows

Originally Posted by *millionrainbows* 
_Wagner did something very similar to that as well. I believe the Second String Quartet, *the last mvt of which is 12-tone*, shows Schoenberg heeding the voice of God, and the consequences that would entail._


Mahlerian said:


> It is not. The 12-tone method was still over a decade off.


That was a trick, to see if you could distinguish between 'free atonality' and 12-tone. You took the bait, and apparently, you can. I'm glad you've joined us.

Besides, God had already told Schoenberg what he must do; he just hadn't formalized it yet.


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> That was a trick, to see if you could distinguish between 'free atonality' and 12-tone. You took the bait, and apparently, you can. I'm glad you've joined us.
> 
> Besides, God had already told Schoenberg what he must do; he just hadn't formalized it yet.


....????

It's very famously the first of his works not using a key signature. How would I not be aware of that, or the fact that the 12-tone method wasn't formally used until op.23/5?


----------



## millionrainbows

Scopitone said:


> Good to know about the 3rd and 4th. I haven't given the 3rd a proper listen yet, and I haven't touched the 4th. I'll keep it in mind.
> 
> I have listened to the 2nd SQ a couple of times now, and I dig it.


There is a great, majestic single-line that opens the Fourth. His handling of the 12-tone method had gotten much better by this time.

The Third has an irritating opening movement to me. Rhythmically, it repeats this inane da-da figure incessantly. Some of the other phrasing elsewhere sounds awkward to me, as well.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> ....????
> 
> It's very famously the first of his works not using a key signature. How would I not be aware of that, or the fact that the 12-tone method wasn't formally used until op.23/5?


I know that, Mahlerian; I have total confidence in your knowledge.

It's just that I also know that the converse is not true; you have no confidence in my knowledge. That was what made the bait effective!


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> There is a great, majestic single-line that opens the Fourth. His handling of the 12-tone method had gotten much better by this time.
> 
> The Third has an irritating opening movement to me. Rhythmically, it repeats this inane da-da figure incessantly. Some of the other phrasing elsewhere sounds awkward to me, as well.


I think that the Third is a masterpiece and, like the Variations for Orchestra and Moses und Aron, marks the early climax of his 12-tone period. The figure you're referring to is employed ingeniously, coming to the fore at one point, receding into the background at another, forming the accompaniment to the many expressive and lyrical themes throughout.


----------



## Xenakiboy

Millionrainbows, what are your thoughts on Stockhausen and his practices? I'm fascinated after what you've said about Schoenberg and "12 tone music" :tiphat:


----------



## Scopitone

Mahlerian and millionrainbows, you are very entertaining -- and educational -- to watch debate. (maybe not so much as Woodduck vs DavidA, though, which is car crash TV)

:tiphat:


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> I think that the Third is a masterpiece and, like the Variations for Orchestra and Moses und Aron, marks the early climax of his 12-tone period.


His "12-tone period?" I thought that you made no distinctions like that. It's odd that you should identify any period of his as his "12-tone period" if it's all tonal to you. I guess that's just a 'formality' you are observing.
What makes that period "12-tone" to you personally? The sound of it?



> The figure you're referring to is employed ingeniously, coming to the fore at one point, receding into the background at another, forming the accompaniment to the many expressive and lyrical themes throughout.


Oh, you mean that little 'da-da…da-da…da-da…da-da…? It sounds like a video game to me. Of course, that's just an opinion. I love the Fourth.


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> His "12-tone period?" I thought that you made no distinctions like that. It's odd that you should identify any period of his as his "12-tone period" if it's all tonal to you. I guess that's just a 'formality' you are observing.
> What makes that period "12-tone" to you personally? The sound of it?


The fact that the pieces are written using the 12-tone technique, obviously. Why should there be a contradiction between 12-tone and tonal, if tonal isn't limited to triadic harmony and common practice?

I'm very aware of the differences in technique and sound between his periods, just that the distinction has nothing to do with the idiotic concept of atonality.

12-tone technique doesn't have a particular sound; it sounds like the composer who wrote it. There's a vast gulf between the spiky, jazz-inflected sound of Milton Babbitt, the lush Romantic sonority of Berg, and the austere choral works of the late Stravinsky.


----------



## millionrainbows

Xenakiboy said:


> Millionrainbows, what are your thoughts on Stockhausen and his practices? I'm fascinated after what you've said about Schoenberg and "12 tone music" :tiphat:


We've all read our history, haven't we? As far as comparisons to Schoenberg and serialism, all the post-war Darmstadt composers were less encumbered with tradition than Schoenberg was, and they looked to Webern for their direction. 
Babbitt was, as well, more concerned with systematizing the 12-tone method into an integrated syntax in itself, than he was with Brahmsian rhetoric. Elliott Carter is the proof of that; even Roger Sessions sounds more progressive to me sometimes.

Schoenberg sometimes hits me like watching an old film from the 1930s that's been speeded-up, sort of old hat. But it is what it is, and I love the man and his music. He was no doubt a genius. I have his Harmonielehre in hardback.

I love Schoenberg, all of it, but sometimes it strikes me as awkward; his rhythmic phrasing, etc.

He invented the idea itself, yet he did not use it to its fullest advantage, but only rarely, as in the String Trio and the Fourth.

Stockhausen, on the other hand, could be too "Germanically precise." After all, who could distinguish (besides maybe David Tudor on a good day) between 10 different dynamics in the space of 2 measures?

His use of chance, or indeterminacy, when his hand was actually on it, was remarkable, the use of intuition in Kontakte. I value his works (and Cage's) when their presence is there, in the ensemble. Cage's Fontana Mix tape, that he actually assembled. Yet, he wanted to remove his personality. It's a contradiction in ways...

Get this and read the liner notes.


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> I love Schoenberg, all of it, but sometimes it strikes me as awkward; his rhythmic phrasing, etc.


Really? To me it's so graceful and full of life. You have the individual parts with their own rhythmic impulse, all contributing to an ensemble rhythm that moves the music forward, the pulse shifting from place to place.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> Really? To me it's so graceful and full of life. You have the individual parts with their own rhythmic impulse, all contributing to an ensemble rhythm that moves the music forward, the pulse shifting from place to place.


Actually, some of the simplistic phrasing can be quite endearing, as in the Serenade. 

I mean, listen to it and picture Arnie in a powdered wig.


----------



## Xenakiboy

Oddly enough for me, when talking about composers, I like to remove theory completely because I believe their is a greater meaning in how they affect us. I can talk about the theoretical side, as a composer I've already done mountains of that.
But Schoenberg, much like Webern, frequently gives me a very personal, and in the case of Webern gives me a very inamate and almost zen-like quality. Webern's music, I equate to a similar musical area as Feldman (and sometimes Cage in that regard too).
Schoenberg's Pierrot Lunaire to name a piece, makes me feel euphoric, somewhat like Scriabin. The theoretical side is genius and Schoenberg's idea of development (much like Bartok, Messiaen and Xenakis too), is highly influential on my own Compositional style, nethertheless.
Stockhausen's music is almost always mindblowing to me, I never think about theory when listening to it because it's not relevant to me when experiencing it. Stockhausen's music is highly entrancing to me and immerses me inside the incredible musical world he's created.


----------



## Xenakiboy

Actually, just writing that now has inspired me to write a related article!


----------



## Guest

Xenakiboy said:


> Oddly enough for me, when talking about composers, I like to remove theory completely because I believe their is a greater meaning in how they affect us. I can talk about the theoretical side, as a composer I've already done mountains of that.
> 
> A discription is never a substitute for the real thing.:tiphat:


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> Actually, some of the simplistic phrasing can be quite endearing, as in the Serenade.
> 
> I mean, listen to it and picture Arnie in a powdered wig.


What do you mean by "simplistic"? Schoenberg customarily had multiple voices with separate phrasing moving simultaneously. Like in the Serenade, for instance:









There are 3-4 rhythmically separate voices in every single bar here.


----------



## Xenakiboy

Traverso said:


> A discription is never a substitute for the real thing.:tiphat:


Of course if I'm analysing a composer I'm not going to say "in bar 33 he goes all radical, then in bar 34 he's all emotional" :lol:
Analysing and understanding how their music works shouldn't substitute the aural enjoyment of their creations though. :tiphat:


----------



## Pugg

Scopitone said:


> Mahlerian and millionrainbows, you are very entertaining -- and educational -- to watch debate. (maybe not so much as Woodduck vs DavidA, though, which is car crash TV)
> 
> :tiphat:


You've settled in very well and good I see .


----------



## millionrainbows

I love knowing more about modern music, and the more I know, the more it increases my pleasure in listening to it; but there will always be an element of mystery to it. I don't need to 'dumb down' to delve into modern music, or turn my intellect or knowledge off, or set it aside, or sink into the music as one might slip into a hot bubble bath. Modern music and art demands more of the listener. The idea of confronting or challenging the audience is a modernist idea. I wish to engage the art full-on, without apologizing for my intelligence.

With Schoenberg and company, I see their art as being dualistic. The 12-tone method, because of its intrinsically non-tonal, linear, non-vertical tendencies, sets up a dialectic, i.e. a contradiction that serves as the determining factor in the interaction.

The opposites are linear elements vs. vertical or harmonic elements; this can be posed as the rational vs. the irrational, the conscious vs. the unconscious, mind/brain vs. senses/body, light vs. dark, or the known vs. the unknown. Nietszche and Freud had espoused their idea of the unconscious, derived from earlier ideas of Schopenhauer.

Therefore, as in much art, in 12-tone music there will be an element of mystery, or the unexplained.

In tonality, pitch/harmonic material is intuitively and intrinsically grasped because of the pervasive, system-saturated, and totally integrated nature of all the tonal elements, including horizontal elements which change in time. All elements can be derived from tonality's original tone-centric nature.

With Schoenberg's 12-tone, the method is not axiomatic, by any means. Devices must be used and strategies must be devised in order to create vertical, harmonic elements, none of which are provided for in the method or its row material. Thus, we see Milton Babbitt and Elliot Carter's interest in 'all-interval rows' and rows with special qualities.

Just in listening to Schoenberg, we are confronted with strange, non-functioning verticalities which nonetheless evoke emotional tensions, feelings, and strange 'states of being' in us. This is the non-rational side, the unconscious side of our psyche, which is beyond the purview of our rational mind.


----------



## Scopitone

Pugg said:


> You've settled in very well and good I see .




Like with any forum, it's helpful to start getting a feel for who's entertaining, who's knowledgable, who's a troll, who's a complainer, etc.

These things should come with maps.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> What do you mean by "simplistic"?


This is a well-recognized consensus historical view. The post-war serialists wanted to create a new musical language, using aspects of 12-tone method, but found Schoenberg's rhythmic phrasing much too simplistic and evocative of the past.



> Schoenberg customarily had multiple voices with separate phrasing moving simultaneously. Like in the Serenade, for instance…there are 3-4 rhythmically separate voices in every single bar…


Yes, it gets more complex if you keep adding separate parts, but one of his 'melodies' in isolation is simplistic rhythmically.

So let's change that to "Like in the Serenade, for instance…there are 3-4 rhythmically simplistic separate voices in every single bar…"

Damn! These mosquitos sure are pesky this year...


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> This is a well-recognized consensus historical view. The post-war serialists wanted to create a new musical language, using aspects of 12-tone method, but found Schoenberg's rhythmic phrasing much too simplistic and evocative of the past.


Too evocative of the past, yes. As Boulez would have been very happy to tell you, his music is rhythmically difficult in a way that lacks the overt complexities of subdivisions that you find in Stravinsky or Messiaen, but is fiendishly complex in other ways.

Do you find the use of rhythm in Brahms and Mahler simplistic as well? Or Mozart, whom Schoenberg took as an inspiration particularly in his treatment of rhythm?



millionrainbows said:


> Yes, it gets more complex if you keep adding separate parts, but one of his 'melodies' in isolation is simplistic rhythmically.
> 
> So let's change that to "Like in the Serenade, for instance…there are 3-4 rhythmically simplistic separate voices in every single bar…"


Let's not. Not unless you start considering constant syncopations and tricky changes of emphasis simplistic. Putting melody in air quotes is unjustified. This work is filled with melodies, not 'melodies.'

Also, since when has rhythmic complexity been determined by the content of an individual part??? I guess the famous procession in Rite of Spring is simplistic because each part just repeats a single rhythm incessantly. Heck, lots of those rhythms are just quarter and eighth notes!


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> Too evocative of the past, yes. As Boulez would have been very happy to tell you, his music is rhythmically difficult in a way that lacks the overt complexities of subdivisions that you find in Stravinsky or Messiaen, but is fiendishly complex in other ways.


Yeah, but I'm not emphasizing whatever complexities you might see in all his work; but the Serenade is a good example of how Schoenberg was trying to create comprehensible meaning by using rhythm; there really was no comparable meaning pitch-wise. He recognized that 12-tone 'melodies' and 'themes' needed some sort of help in being comprehensible, since they had no meaning tonally.

_Yes, it gets more complex if you keep adding separate parts, but one of his 'melodies' in isolation is simplistic rhythmically. _

_So let's change that to "Like in the Serenade, for instance…there are 3-4 rhythmically simplistic separate voices in every single bar…"_



> Let's not. Not unless you start considering constant syncopations and tricky changes of emphasis simplistic. Putting melody in air quotes is unjustified. This work is filled with melodies, not 'melodies.'


They aren't melodies; that's a tonal term.



> Also, since when has rhythmic complexity been determined by the content of an individual part??? I guess the famous procession in Rite of Spring is simplistic because each part just repeats a single rhythm incessantly. Heck, lots of those rhythms are just quarter and eighth notes!


If you stack it high enough, it gets complex, of course.


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> They aren't melodies; that's a tonal term.


So, Schoenberg was wrong in calling them melodies, along with every commentator on the music who followed him?

Also, you're begging the question in assuming that the music is not tonal.

I'm not even going to bother with the rest, because you didn't even address anything I said about rhythm in the piece.


----------



## Lenny

It seems to me you are just splitting hair about what word "tonal" means. Mahlerian, can you describe in some other words what is the real difference between for example Schoenberg and Wagner? I'm sure there is some objectively identifiable difference.


----------



## Mahlerian

Lenny said:


> It seems to me you are just splitting hair about what word "tonal" means. Mahlerian, can you describe in some other words what is the real difference between for example Schoenberg and Wagner? I'm sure there is some objectively identifiable difference.


Sure.

Wagner's music is based on root progressions of triadic and tertian harmony guided by functional harmony, emphasizing the dominant-tonic relationship (V-I) as normative. Even when chromatic, the music refers to or implies, however temporarily, a diatonic scale through which the above relationships are understood.

Schoenberg's (later) music is based on harmonies that are non-triadic and often non-tertian, the progressions of which are not guided by functional harmony. Relationships do not (usually) reference an underlying diatonic scale, and are irreducibly tied to the chromatic scale as a basis, often but not always through the use of rows including all of the notes of the chromatic scale.

If you understand tonal to mean music that is based on triadic harmony and functional relationships (and therefore to mean the music of the common practice era), then sure, Schoenberg's music isn't tonal. But lots of other things don't fit that description either, lacking one or both of those factors that are what makes common practice harmony completely unique in the history of music from anywhere in the world.

What I'm saying is that he's trying to argue that Schoenberg's music and the other music called atonal has some other distinction which makes it different from _all other music in the history of the universe_, which just isn't true at all, other than perhaps the idea of taking the chromatic scale as normative.


----------



## Abraham Lincoln

I think we can all agree that Schoenberg was kinda creepy looking.


----------



## Xenakiboy

Abraham Lincoln said:


> I think we can all agree that Schoenberg was kinda creepy looking.


Wasn't he like....atonal....like dude, What kind of sick person would want to listen to *THAT!* 

mathematicians


----------



## violadude

Abraham Lincoln said:


> I think we can all agree that Schoenberg was kinda creepy looking.


What did you say??


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

eek .


----------



## EdwardBast

Mahlerian said:


> Schoenberg's (later) music is based on harmonies that are non-triadic and often non-tertian, the progressions of which are not guided by functional harmony. Relationships do not (usually) reference an underlying diatonic scale, and are irreducibly tied to the chromatic scale as a basis, often but not always through the use of rows including all of the notes of the chromatic scale.
> 
> If you understand tonal to mean music that is based on triadic harmony and functional relationships (and therefore to mean the music of the common practice era), then sure, Schoenberg's music isn't tonal. But lots of other things don't fit that description either, lacking one or both of those factors that are what makes common practice harmony completely unique in the history of music from anywhere in the world.
> 
> What I'm saying is that he's trying to argue that Schoenberg's music and the other music called atonal has some other distinction which makes it different from _all other music in the history of the universe_, which just isn't true at all, other than perhaps the idea of taking the chromatic scale as normative.


Some factual and logical errors, ones you repeat incessantly:
Tonal music based on triadic harmony and functional relationships is not confined to the common-practice era. It is heard in Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Barber, Schnittke, among many others. You continue to repeat this despite being shown examples (like Prokofiev 5/i a while back) and having the functions demonstrated to you. Neo-Riemannian theory deals extensively with the analysis of triadic functional relationships in music beyond the common practice era.

Once again, claiming Schoenberg's 12-tone music is tied to the chromatic scale is meaningless and devoid of content. It adds nothing beyond describing the music as 12-tone, since the chromatic scale is never used as a scale and because none of the notes assume systematic functions with respect to one another. You seem to repeat this because using the term scale suggests a connection to other music that actually uses scales in a meaningful sense. This is a transparent rhetorical trick.


----------



## Mahlerian

EdwardBast said:


> Some factual and logical errors, ones you repeat incessantly:
> Tonal music based on triadic harmony and functional relationships is not confined to the common-practice era. It is heard in Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Barber, Schnittke, among many others. You continue to repeat this despite being shown examples (like Prokofiev 5/i a while back) and having the functions demonstrated to you.


You only were able to tease out a functional analysis of the beginning of Prokofiev 5/i by ignoring the surface of the music, the music as heard. I am not disagreeing that the music is primarily triadic or that it's primarily diatonic, just that it's tied to functional harmony in the sense that Wagner's music is tied to functional harmony. Progressions are guided by other things entirely, as described in this discussion, where you contributed:

http://www.talkclassical.com/43749-what-going-here-prokofiev.html

Although you do refer to the relations as "strong quasi-tonal functions," the point is that in common practice theory these kinds of relationships are non-functional, and you don't even seem to be denying that.

Functional harmony is the single defining characteristic of the common practice period, and it baffles me that, against any and all sources I've ever read, people on this site want to extend the notion of harmonic function so that we lose that important distinction.

http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2692

This thesis on Neo-Riemann Theory states explicitly several times that the theory is a way of dealing with *non-functional* triadic progressions. Is the writer misinformed?



EdwardBast said:


> Once again, claiming Schoenberg's 12-tone music is tied to the chromatic scale is meaningless and devoid of content. It adds nothing beyond describing the music as 12-tone, since the chromatic scale is never used as a scale and because none of the notes assume systematic functions with respect to one another. You seem to repeat this because using the term scale suggests a connection to other music that actually uses scales in a meaningful sense. This is a transparent rhetorical trick.


It's not a trick, and your bad faith interpretation is frustrating. I repeat it because it's true: the music is related to the chromatic scale as a basis for pitch materials. Surely you understand that what is happening is not that I'm trying to dupe anyone into believing something false or misleading, but that we have different conceptions of what a scale is?

What is using a scale "as a scale"?
What are the "systematic functions" of scales such as the whole tone or octatonic scale, or the evenly spaced scales of Bali?


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> So, Schoenberg was wrong in calling them melodies, along with every commentator on the music who followed him?


Yes, if they are 12-tone, they are not really melodies in the same sense as tonal melodies. A tonal melody has all sorts of context which gives it meaning. A semitone which relieves a suspension means a great deal in tonality, and carries considerable weight. A semitone in 12-tone has no such weight. Generally speaking, in 12-tone and serial music, larger intervals have more impact. Not 4ths and 5ths, but larger ones like 6ths, 7ths, and 9ths.
Melodies don't exist in 12-tone; they are better described as 'linear constructs,' the same way 'triads' and 'chords' don't exist in 12-tone.
I don't see why this is giving you such trouble; you have no problem in maintaining that Renaissance polyphony has no triads.


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, if they are 12-tone, they are not really melodies in the same sense as tonal melodies. A tonal melody has all sorts of context which gives it meaning. A semitone which relieves a suspension means a great deal in tonality, and carries considerable weight. A semitone in 12-tone has no such weight. Generally speaking, in 12-tone and serial music, larger intervals have more impact. Not 4ths and 5ths, but larger ones like 6ths, 7ths, and 9ths.
> Melodies don't exist in 12-tone; they are better described as 'linear constructs,' the same way 'triads' and 'chords' don't exist in 12-tone.
> I don't see why this is giving you such trouble; you have no problem in maintaining that Renaissance polyphony has no triads.


That is not what I said. I said that the music was not constructed with triads in mind and that the composers didn't have anything like the modern conception of a triad. The analogy is poor because Schoenberg both had the same conception of melody as the rest of us and wrote his music with melodies in mind. All of those "linear constructs" started life as melodies, not the other way around.

In 1908, he answered an interview question about melody as follows:

"One could find the answer [to whether melodies are a thing of the past] by looking at my recent works. They are still melodic throughout."

I disagree that larger intervals are more important in Schoenberg's music than smaller ones. Look at the opening of the Violin Concerto, for instance. The rising and falling semitones are an important motif for the entire work.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> Sure.
> 
> Wagner's music is based on root progressions of triadic and tertian harmony guided by functional harmony, emphasizing the dominant-tonic relationship (V-I) as normative. Even when chromatic, the music refers to or implies, however temporarily, a diatonic scale through which the above relationships are understood.
> 
> Schoenberg's (later) music is based on harmonies that are non-triadic and often non-tertian, the progressions of which are not guided by functional harmony. Relationships do not (usually) reference an underlying diatonic scale, and are irreducibly tied to the chromatic scale as a basis, often but not always through the use of rows including all of the notes of the chromatic scale.


I agree with that as far as it goes, but it is misleading because it doesn't go far enough. You always do this; you stick to external CP tonal elements, as if those defined tonality, which they do not. CP tonal elements are the result of a deeper, more general sense of tonality, as Woodduck and I keep reiterating.



> If you understand tonal to mean music that is based on triadic harmony and functional relationships (and therefore to mean the music of the common practice era), then sure, Schoenberg's music isn't tonal.


It's not common practice tonal, no, but it is also not tonal for more basic, general reasons: it has no tone-centricity which is based on a harmonic hierarchy.



> ...But lots of other things don't fit that description either, lacking one or both of those factors that are what makes common practice harmony completely unique in the history of music from anywhere in the world.


This is misleading, because CP tonality is not unique from other forms of tone-centric tonal musics; they are all derived from this same source of tonal centricity. Yes, CP tonal music _is _unique in the way it _developed_ those qualities.



> What I'm saying is that he's trying to argue that Schoenberg's music and the other music called atonal has some other distinction which makes it different from _all other music in the history of the universe…_


_

That is true;_ in the sense that 12-tone music _is different_ from all other tonal and tone-centric music in the history of Man, because it is not based on a harmonic hierarchy of tonal centricity.



> ...which just isn't true at all, other than perhaps the idea of taking the chromatic scale as normative.


Even totally chromatic music is tonal if it is in a tonal context. What really makes music begin to lose its tonality is when _root movement_ (synonymous with function) becomes chromatic. This was Schoenberg's starting premise.

But the 12-tone method, although it uses 12 notes, is not really chromatic in this sense. It has dispensed with root movement and function, even in a chromatic form. It is melodic, like modal music. It has no 'harmony' of functions due to triads. It is like linear polyphony in this regard.


----------



## Mahlerian

Like I said, in the sense that you're using tonal to mean any kind of hierarchical harmonic relationship, Schoenberg's music is in fact tonal. If it weren't, his pieces would just come to a stop rather than ending, but in my experience they usually feel fully resolved harmonically, and where they don't it is no different than similar cases in Debussy where a piece ends on a question mark, metaphorically speaking.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> ...I am not disagreeing that the music is primarily triadic or that it's primarily diatonic, just that it's (not) tied to functional harmony in the sense that Wagner's music is tied to functional harmony.


CP functional harmony is defined narrowly. Like tonality, _the notion of function can be expanded to include any harmonic hierarchy defined by any scale or octave division._



> Although you do refer to the relations as "strong quasi-tonal functions," the point is that _in common practice theory these kinds of relationships are non-functional__…_


You constantly let your narrow definition of CP function blind to (or deafen you) to the fact that 'function' is a notion which can be abstracted-out of _any harmonic hierarchy._



> Functional harmony is the single defining characteristic of the common practice period…


"Function" existed before this, if not in practice, then as a principle of harmonic hierarchies. Modernism discovered this, and used it, even if Aborigines did not. True, CP tonality had it first, named it and developed it; but it is not a principle that CP tonality "invented."



> ...and it baffles me that, against any and all sources I've ever read, people on this site want to _*extend the notion of harmonic function *_so that we lose that important distinction.


Why should this baffle you, unless you want to 'defend' CP tonality to the bitter end? Modernism has already moved on with this notion of 'function' being non-exclusive to CP, but a principle to be used.



> This thesis on Neo-Riemann Theory states explicitly several times that the theory is a way of dealing with *non-functional* triadic progressions. Is the writer misinformed?


*Non-functional *only as CP tonal conventions define 'function.'



> It's not a trick, and your bad faith interpretation is frustrating. I repeat it because it's true: the music is related to the chromatic scale as a basis for pitch materials. Surely you understand that what is happening is not that I'm trying to dupe anyone into believing something false or misleading, but that we have different conceptions of what a scale is?


"Root movement" is quite different from scales. The 12-tone method did away with root movement, as well as 'scales.'



> What is using a scale "as a scale"?


Using a scale "as a scale" is using the scale with a starting point (1:1), to which all scale steps relate as ratios of that, and which are given functions as root-movements of triads based on these scale-steps.



> What are the "systematic functions" of scales such as the whole tone or octatonic scale, or the evenly spaced scales of Bali?


Bali is basically a melodic-based music, so that's like asking what the "systematic functions" of modes are.

Function is an inherent characteristic of any harmonically-derived scale, even the WT scale,_* if one decides to use it as such.*_ I've already listed the possibility of such an approach:

Whole Tone scale: C-D-D-F#-G#-A#

C - 1:1
D -8:9
E -4:5
F#- 45:32
G# - 8:5
A# - 16:9

Whether or not you attach Roman numerals to the above is optional; but by the numbers, one can see a ranking:

C - 1:1
E -4:5
G# - 8:5
D -8:9
A# - 16:9
F#- 45:32


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> Like I said, in the sense that you're using tonal to mean any kind of hierarchical harmonic relationship, Schoenberg's music is in fact tonal. If it weren't, his pieces would just come to a stop rather than ending, but in my experience they usually feel fully resolved harmonically, and where they don't it is no different than similar cases in Debussy where a piece ends on a question mark, metaphorically speaking.


If you'd read Reginald Smith Brindle's book on Serial Composition, you'd see that "harmonic tension" does indeed exist in 12-tone and serial music constructs. This is what you are hearing, but it is not tonal in nature. These tensions exist relatively, only in relation to each other, not as an hierarchy which can be traced to a tonic 1:1.

As to Debussy, his music is still tied to tonality for reasons I have already repeatedly stated. We can go into this in more detail if you wish.


----------



## Mahlerian

You don't even seem to understand what I'm talking about when I say function. Your use of the word is completely removed from any notion I've ever seen in discussions of the term. You're just using it in such a broad form as to encompass any kind of relationship among tones, when it's conventionally defined as a specific set of relationships among triads, employed in a certain way in the common practice era. I can't tell if you even know what I'm talking about, because your answers are so unrelated to what I'm saying as to not bear any resemblance to a response.

My understanding of harmonic function is that of conventional common practice theory, as described here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatonic_function#Functional_harmony

Note that functional use of diatonic harmony is contrasted with nonfunctional harmony, for which the works of Stravinsky, Debussy, and so on serve as good examples in the realm of diatonicism.


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> If you'd read Reginald Smith Brindle's book on Serial Composition, you'd see that "harmonic tension" does indeed exist in 12-tone and serial music constructs. This is what you are hearing, but it is not tonal in nature. These tensions exist relatively, only in relation to each other, not as an hierarchy which can be traced to a tonic 1:1.
> 
> As to Debussy, his music is still tied to tonality for reasons I have already repeatedly stated. We can go into this in more detail if you wish.


Yes, yes, I know. He didn't use ordered sets. You still haven't explained what property of ordered sets makes them non-harmonic. Like I said, I could create a contrived ordered set that produced the entirety of Bach's Air in D major, and it would still be an ordered set. Somehow, it would lose its harmonic properties, I suppose.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> You don't even seem to understand what I'm talking about when I say function. Your use of the word is completely removed from any notion I've ever seen in discussions of the term. You're just using it in such a broad form as to encompass any kind of relationship among tones, when it's conventionally defined as a specific set of relationships among triads, employed in a certain way in the common practice era.


That's why we disagree, and why we will always disagree. That is also the difference between us, ironically recalling something that Schoenberg said: I see the underlying principles behind things.



> I can't tell if you even know what I'm talking about, because your answers are so unrelated to what I'm saying as to not bear any resemblance to a response.


You're like most of the music teachers I have encountered: hopelessly restrained in your understanding by acceptance of academic norms, which do not really embody a penetrating understanding of music itself; only 'common practices.'



> My understanding of harmonic function is that of conventional common practice theory, as described here:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatonic_function#Functional_harmony
> 
> Note that functional use of diatonic harmony is contrasted with nonfunctional harmony, for which the works of Stravinsky, Debussy, and so on serve as good examples in the realm of diatonicism.


Well, that concept of 'diatonic function' excludes any other possible, more modern concept of function as 'non-functional.'

As such, 'diatonic function' is an _exclusionary _term. My idea of function is an _inclusionary_ term; it is more of a universal principle of proposed function which can accommodate any scale or any octave division.

If you are holding so tightly to such rigid concepts, it's no wonder that hardly anyone here, including Woodduck and EdwardBast, are unable to communicate productively with you.

The other caveat is that you don't have a flexible enough idea of tonality to see that it includes Debussy, Bartok, Stravinsky, etc., and that it is all based on a harmonic hierarchy, even if it isn't as tone-centric as CP tonality.

But the bottom line, beyond all of the above, is that you don't want to acknowledge that the difference between 12-tone/serial music and other forms of modernism is immediately audible. We all hear it, instantly.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> Yes, yes, I know. He didn't use ordered sets. You still haven't explained what property of ordered sets makes them non-harmonic.


You do not seem to be paying attention. I explained this in great detail in my post #164 in the "I want to learn non-tonal theory?" thread: it's called interval vector analysis.



> Like I said, I could create a contrived ordered set that produced the entirety of Bach's Air in D major, and it would still be an ordered set. Somehow, it would lose its harmonic properties, I suppose.


That's a ridiculous, unusable metaphor. When you are ready to discuss this seriously, let me know.


----------



## Woodduck

Mahlerian said:


> Like I said, in the sense that you're using tonal to mean any kind of hierarchical harmonic relationship, Schoenberg's music is in fact tonal. If it weren't, his pieces would just come to a stop rather than ending, but in my experience they usually feel fully resolved harmonically, and where they don't it is no different than similar cases in Debussy where a piece ends on a question mark, metaphorically speaking.


Seems to me you're touching on a lot of issues here.

Since tonality is not (and hasn't been defined by anyone here as) "_any_ kind of hierarchical harmonic relationship," the question of how a non-tonal work can "feel resolved harmonically" seems to come down to the question of how non-tonal music can be structured so as to create a feeling of resolution, if indeed it can and still be non-tonal. Does a hierarchy of harmonic relationships - _any_ hierarchy - have to be tonal? Can a composer create a hierarchy ad hoc - using certain tones or chords in certain fixed proportions, or at certain consistent locations, in a particular work - yet still not have a system, or convey an effect, of _tonality?_ My answer to this last would be "yes."

I've been listening to the endings of some of Schoenberg's 12-tone works with this in mind: i.e., in search of tonality. The Piano Concerto, which is not in C-major, ends on a C-major 7 chord. This could be rationalized as a "resolution" on the basis of a previous emphatic pause on a C-major 7 chord in the final stretto, and what might (or might not) be heard as some "hinting around" in a texture which cannot remotely be conceived as being "in" C. But this hardly makes a C-major(ish) chord a necessary "resolution" to the harmonic construction of the whole work, and initially I couldn't see why he ended with it. It was only after repeated listening and seeing the score that I realized what was going on. I believe that what we have here is not systematic tonality, but, at best, a pseudo-tonal ending, a gesture toward tonality, perhaps a calculated reminiscence of it or tribute to it (who knows why the piece ends this way?) which is not the real deal.

The same sort of thing happens at the end of the Violin Concerto; a particular note asserts itself prominently as a sort of preparation for the final triadic chord with its "pseudo-tonic" in the bass. Similarly, the "Praeludium" of the Piano Suite ends on a bass note which feels like the right choice, but why does it? Listening to the piece with that note in mind reveals that it is prominent throughout. But even that is not enough to make it a "tonal center," since it isn't the center of a tonal system in which the other eleven tones in use have specific relationships to it and to each other. This same "pseudo-tonal" idea underlies the use of the insistent "G" in the "Musette" of the suite. Repeat anything - any note, rhythmic figure or pattern - often enough, and we naturally expect it to continue, and we may assume it is somehow "important." But if it doesn't relate in expected - or unexpected - ways to what's around it, we have, not tonality, but only a similacrum.

A composer can't create tonality by such means. He most especially can't create it when he employs a technique which sets out to prevent tonal hierarchy from arising, but then contrives to end his pieces with sequences of harmonies which hint at tonicity. A tonal system is not "created" ad hoc. It doesn't result from the "logic" of a tone row. It's a product of cultural evolution. It's already there when a composer begins to write. It's a set of expectations regarding the way tones relate to each other, expectations which listeners in a particular musical culture bring to the piece they're hearing based on their general experience, and which composers share, understand intuitively, and play off of in their musical choices. It's a common language, not a made-up one whose laws don't arise from a pre-existing substrate of meaning but are imposed from without and then might be used so as to result in a few familiar phonemes, in order to convey a semblance of recognized meaning.

The works cited above "hint" at tonality in the context of music which is fundamentally not tonal. Debussy is the opposite, and so Schoenberg's intentionally contra-tonal syntax is different from Debussy's whole-tone experiments. The whole tone scale is itself tonally suggestive, and there is no systematic attempt to thwart tonal expectations or replace tonality with something else. In his playing with ambiguity Debussy is well aware that ambiguity is possible, and meaningful, only with reference to definiteness, and he exploits this fact. It's in fundamentally, if loosely, tonal territory that his music teasingly and atmospherically dwells. If anyone wants to call his more extreme, un-tonally-anchored moments "atonal," it doesn't really matter. But let's not use him to try to say that what Schoenberg did to harmony is not a radically new thing under the sun.

(There are ways other than tonal resolution to make a piece sound as if it ends, rather than merely stops. Rhythm and melodic contour are at least as important as harmony in conveying structure, including the sense of closure. In fact, tonal coherence itself is highly dependent on rhythm; where a note or chord is placed and how it's stressed is as important to its identity as its place in an abstracted scale or its interval content. We often talk about harmony with too little reference to its articulation in time, on which "function" critically depends.)


----------



## Abraham Lincoln

Schoenberg's artwork:




























No Mendelssohn by far, but he does capture the atmosphere of his own music pretty well if you ask me.


----------



## Mahlerian

How about his other paintings?



















None of them really capture the elegance of his melodies and rhythms or the beauty of his harmonies, though, because he didn't have the same excellence of technique in painting that he did in composition or even in writing.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> ...Since tonality is not (and hasn't been defined by anyone here as) "_any_ kind of hierarchical harmonic relationship," the question of how a non-tonal work can "feel resolved harmonically" seems to come down to the question of how non-tonal music can be structured so as to create a feeling of resolution, if indeed it can and still be non-tonal. Does a hierarchy of harmonic relationships - _any_ hierarchy - have to be tonal? Can a composer create a hierarchy ad hoc - using certain tones or chords in certain fixed proportions, or at certain consistent locations, in a particular work - yet still not have a system, or convey an effect, of _tonality?_ My answer to this last would be "yes."


I agree, to an extent. An hierarchy of harmonic relationships does not necessarily have to be tonal in the sense of resolution; but if there is a harmonic hierarchy, our ears will detect it as a unifying set of relations with varying degrees of tension and resolution. Example is the whole tone scale, and the set of harmonic relations it embodies. Any tertial triad constructed on any of its steps will not have a stable fifth, but a tritone: C-E-G#, etc. Thus, it will never resolve, or sound stable, yet it will have a harmonic set of relations which will give it unity.

To go further, if we consider the chromatic scale (as a tonal scale):

If you make a harmonic chart of the "tonal" chromatic scale, using the closest-equivalent just ratios, we get the following:

tonic 1:1
minor second 16:15
major second 9:8
minor third 6:5
major third 5:4
fourth 4:3
tritone 7:5
fifth 3:2
minor sixth 8:5
major sixth 5:3
minor seventh 16:9
major seventh 15:8
octave 2:1

By by this time, since we are using all 12 notes, the notion of 'tonality' becomes more and more irrelevant. we have entered a continuum of chromatic notes in which any 'start point' is almost irrelevant. This is not a scale made for establishing a tonic. Still, any major triad constructed on these degrees can be considered to have more, or less, tension, if compared to a starting note of 1:1, and that basically defines a tonality to me. The notion of 'root movement' in a chromatic continuum becomes less important than the sonance of each scale-triad in relation to a tonic. Thus, we have come full circle; the tonal chromatic scale is more useful as a coloristic device in relation to a drone, like Miles Davis used it. The notion of "tonal function" or "diatonic function" or "root movement" has become obliterated by the over-abundance and redundancy of the total chromatic.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Does a hierarchy of harmonic relationships - _any_ hierarchy - have to be tonal?


Yes, to me it does, if we want to call it tonal. The subservient relationships (scale degrees, subdivisions of the 1:1 octave) don't have to resolve, or be stable, except as they are derived from that 1:1 tonic relation. If this tonic station is obscured, like in the whole-tone, diminished, or chromatic scales, then you will not get the same sense of resolution; but you are in an unstable scale anyway. These are counter-intuitive to 'establishing a tonality.' Now that we've got that out of the way...



> Can a composer create a hierarchy ad hoc - using certain tones or chords in certain fixed proportions, or at certain consistent locations, in a particular work - yet still not have a system, or convey an effect, of _tonality?_ My answer to this last would be "yes."


My answer would have to be "yes."

There can be an hierarchy of tensions and resolutions which are referenced "only to each other" as the great one said. Is this a tonality? No, since there is not a 1:1, but this is chromatic music: why should it matter?

Mahlerian is mistakenly and misleadingly calling this hierarchy of harmonic tensions that Schoenberg creates anew in each work "tonal," but it is not tonal but a self-referential system of harmonic tensions.



> I've been listening to the endings of some of Schoenberg's 12-tone works with this in mind: i.e., in search of tonality. The Piano Concerto, which is not in C-major, ends on a C-major 7 chord. This could be rationalized as a "resolution" on the basis of a previous emphatic pause on a C-major 7 chord in the final stretto, and what might (or might not) be heard as some "hinting around" in a texture which cannot remotely be conceived as being "in" C. But this hardly makes a C-major(ish) chord a necessary "resolution" to the harmonic construction of the whole work, and initially I couldn't see why he ended with it. It was only after repeated listening and seeing the score that I realized what was going on. I believe that what we have here is not systematic tonality, but, at best, a pseudo-tonal ending, a gesture toward tonality, perhaps a calculated reminiscence of it or tribute to it (who knows why the piece ends this way?) which is not the real deal.


I agree that it is not 'the real deal' in terms of being tone-centric to a single 1:1, but why does this matter in a totally chromatic environment? When even tonal music has become highly chromatic, as in R. Strauss' Metamorphosen, then tonality is less and less relevant or possible, and harmonic tension becomes more important.



> The same sort of thing happens at the end of the Violin Concerto; a particular note asserts itself prominently as a sort of preparation for the final triadic chord with its "pseudo-tonic" in the bass. Similarly, the "Praeludium" of the Piano Suite ends on a bass note which feels like the right choice, but why does it? Listening to the piece with that note in mind reveals that it is prominent throughout. But even that is not enough to make it a "tonal center," since it isn't the center of a tonal system in which the other eleven tones in use have specific relationships to it and to each other. This same "pseudo-tonal" idea underlies the use of the insistent "G" in the "Musette" of the suite. Repeat anything - any note, rhythmic figure or pattern - often enough, and we naturally expect it to continue, and we may assume it is somehow "important." But if it doesn't relate in expected - or unexpected - ways to what's around it, we have, not tonality, but only a simulacrum.


Yes, but as I keep reiterating, in music this chromatic, that 'tonal center' becomes less important, and we must begin to approach these harmonic entities as simply colors, in a floating world of non-resolution.



> A composer can't create tonality by such means. He most especially can't create it when he employs a technique which sets out to prevent tonal hierarchy from arising, but then contrives to end his pieces with sequences of harmonies which hint at tonicity.


Yes, but by the time we have arrived at the total chromatic set of pitches, the notion of tonality is already irrelevant. Tonality depends on being distinguishable by what is left out of the 12 notes. It all is an idea that started with diatonic seven note scales. It seems that trying to deal with tonality in a 12-note continuum is like, as I am so fond of saying, "trying to stuff a horse into a suitcase."



> A tonal system is not "created" ad hoc. It doesn't result from the "logic" of a tone row. It's a product of cultural evolution. It's already there when a composer begins to write. It's a set of expectations regarding the way tones relate to each other, expectations which listeners in a particular musical culture bring to the piece they're hearing based on their general experience, and which composers share, understand intuitively, and play off of in their musical choices. It's a common language, not a made-up one whose laws don't arise from a pre-existing substrate of meaning but are imposed from without and then might be used so as to result in a few familiar phonemes, in order to convey a semblance of recognized meaning.


Welcome to the modern world. As I said, tonality is God, and God is dead, insofar as composers have created music outside of that cultural continuum, shared general experience, common language, or substrate of meaning. This is the "Second Viennese" cult, started by the charismatic figure Arnold Schoenberg, who thought he was simply carrying out God's will.



> The works cited above "hint" at tonality in the context of music which is fundamentally not tonal. Debussy is the opposite, and so Schoenberg's intentionally contra-tonal syntax is different from Debussy's whole-tone experiments. The whole tone scale is itself tonally suggestive, and there is no systematic attempt to thwart tonal expectations or replace tonality with something else. In his playing with ambiguity Debussy is well aware that ambiguity is possible, and meaningful, only with reference to definiteness, and he exploits this fact. It's in fundamentally, if loosely, tonal territory that his music teasingly and atmospherically dwells. If anyone wants to call his more extreme, un-tonally-anchored moments "atonal," it doesn't really matter. But let's not use him to try to say that what Schoenberg did to harmony is not a radically new thing under the sun.


Yes, exactly. In fact, I feel sorry for Mahlerian, in that he is missing out on the simply exquisite radicalness of Schoenberg.



> (There are ways other than tonal resolution to make a piece sound as if it ends, rather than merely stops. Rhythm and melodic contour are at least as important as harmony in conveying structure, including the sense of closure. In fact, tonal coherence itself is highly dependent on rhythm; where a note or chord is placed and how it's stressed is as important to its identity as its place in an abstracted scale or its interval content. We often talk about harmony with too little reference to its articulation in time, on which "function" critically depends.)


Yes, and the rhythmic aspects of Schoenberg, along with his bag of tonal illusions, is why the Post-war generation of serial composers criticized him, and went to Webern as the inspiration.


----------



## millionrainbows

I think you have to think about totally chromatic music in this way, because if it uses all 12 notes, it's not going to be very tonal, if at all, since the more notes you add, the less tonally defined the music gets. You have to listen to it in terms of harmonic tensions. This will help in listening to Elliott Carter and Roger Sessions. Doesn't that free you up? It did me.

Of course, there is music like John Cage or Henry Cowell's tone -cluster piano music, or Messiaen, or Varese, or Boulez, which is really not engaged with the ideas of tonality and pitch in that way. It wants to be 'just sound' or in Messiaen's case, sonority and color.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Abraham Lincoln said:


>


There's a story behind that painting...

*Schoenberg:* For some time now, doctor, I've had this recurring nightmare that I'm turning into a corn-flake.

*Psychiatrist:* You're a serialist. What do you expect?


----------



## millionrainbows

to change the subject, I think this is a good portrait of him. Ironically, it was by Richard Gerstl, the guy who had an affair with his wife.











Gerstl was a weird dude. Here's his 'laughing portrait.'
and Schoenberg's wife and baby. It's been said that he made the baby look like Schoenberg.​


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

A true Romantic, Schoenberg made an opera out of the experience. Opera which is unsurprisingly obscure.


----------



## millionrainbows

Richannes Wrahms said:


> A true Romantic, Schoenberg made an opera out of the experience. Opera which is unsurprisingly obscure.


What are you talking about?


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> What are you talking about?


I think he's referring to the 1-act opera Das gluckliche Hand, about an artist who is laughed at, searches after a woman, achieves his aims, loses the woman, and is met once again with derision. Schoenberg described the action as the events of years compressed into a handful of moments, as opposed to Erwartung, which portrays the heightened emotion of mere moments in half an hour.


----------



## millionrainbows

Oh, OK, I get it now. It's about the Gerstl affair. I always thought it was a drama with music. Same thing, I take it.


----------



## Janspe

I just listened to the _Gurre-Lieder_ for the first time - what an astonishing piece of music!

I'm falling in love with Schoenberg's music more and more as I listen to it. From the haunting, post-romantic early pieces (_Verklärte Nacht_ obviously comes to mind) to the beautiful masterpieces of his late period like the piano concerto and _Moses und Aron_ - my appreciation of him as a composer grows all the time. And yet, there's still so very much to discover... Can't complain!

_Pierrot lunaire_, the three piano pieces of op. 11, the violin concerto, the string trio, _Die Jakobsleiter_... I just want to listen to it all again and again!


----------



## starthrower

^^^

You sir, have exquisite taste!


----------



## msegers

Janspe said:


> I just listened to the _Gurre-Lieder_ for the first time - what an astonishing piece of music!
> 
> I'm falling in love with Schoenberg's music more and more as I listen to it. From the haunting, post-romantic early pieces (_Verklärte Nacht_ obviously comes to mind) to the beautiful masterpieces of his late period like the piano concerto and _Moses und Aron_ - my appreciation of him as a composer grows all the time. And yet, there's still so very much to discover... Can't complain!
> 
> _Pierrot lunaire_, the three piano pieces of op. 11, the violin concerto, the string trio, _Die Jakobsleiter_... I just want to listen to it all again and again!


Thank you for your response to Schoenberg's music... because it is my response, even to the specific pieces... and yet, so often I have been greeted with disbelief or outright scorn when I express that response. Yes, we can find ourselves "falling in love" with his music, and I am so glad you used those words.


----------



## ahinton

I've only just seen this thread and must spend some time going thought it, especially if the most recent posts are typical (I've only recently joined this forum).

What I would say at this point, though, is that what Schönberg did in his early years was less to "loosen the bonds" of tonality but to expand what it was capable of expressing. Maybe that view has arisen from finding rather more tonal allusions and refeences in Schönberg's later music than some other listeners do (or than I'm perhaps supposed to!), but it's one that I cannot shake off. There seems to me, for example, to be more "tonality" (at least in quantative and tonal relationship terms) in his first chamber symphony than in anything by his hero Brahms!


----------



## Vaneyes

'Do not approach with caution'

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2...-do-not-approach-with-caution-pina-napolitano


----------



## millionrainbows

ahinton said:


> I've only just seen this thread and must spend some time going thought it, especially if the most recent posts are typical (I've only recently joined this forum)...What I would say at this point, though, is that what Schönberg did in his early years was less to "loosen the bonds" of tonality but to expand what it was capable of expressing. Maybe that view has arisen from finding rather more tonal allusions and refeences in Schönberg's later music than some other listeners do (or than I'm perhaps supposed to!), but it's one that I cannot shake off. There seems to me, for example, to be more "tonality" (at least in quantative and tonal relationship terms) in his first chamber symphony than in anything by his hero Brahms!


Yes, early Schoenberg is definitely tonal. But as he goes more 12-tone, it becomes a music of harmonic tensions, which give and take, ebb and flow, but it is not…tonal.


----------



## Lucas A

Been listening to _Erwartung_ for the first time. I feel like this got lost in the shuffle because it wasn't premiered until 1924. Written in 1909, it's actually the first large scale free atonal piece he wrote, and rebukes the view that atonality took baby steps (i.e. gradually more dissonance leading up, and then miniatures like the _Klavierstucke_ and _Hanging Gardens._


----------



## hpowders

Come on now. Parts of the Schoenberg Piano and Violin Concerto are tonal. I can easily hum the opening motto for violin of the Violin Concerto as well as for piano at the opening of the Piano Concerto. Similarly, parts of the Berg Violin Concerto are tonal too.


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit

I was just visiting my sister in LA and I decided to explore UCLA where I discovered "Schoenberg Hall"! (After *the* Schoenberg). Around that time while I was in the car (lots of driving) I heard Schoenberg's orchestration of a MASSIVE toccata and fugue (or something) by Bach....yikes was it long, but it 100% kept my attention which Bach does not often do. I was transfixed.


----------



## millionrainbows

hpowders said:


> Come on now. Parts of the Schoenberg Piano and Violin Concerto are tonal. I can easily hum the opening motto for violin of the Violin Concerto as well as for piano at the opening of the Piano Concerto.


You'll have to do more than merely hum it to prove to me that it is "tonal."



> Similarly, parts of the Berg Violin Concerto are tonal too.


It is confusing the issue to use Berg as proof of tonality, since he was known for quoting Bach, etc, and mixing tonality with 12-tone atonality.

Anyway, what good is it to "prove" that the Second Viennese School was supposedly "tonal?" Does it give them more "classical cred?"



> I can easily hum the opening motto for violin of the Violin Concerto…


What are you, a milkman? :lol:


----------



## hpowders

millionrainbows said:


> You'll have to do more than merely hum it to prove to me that it is "tonal."
> 
> It is confusing the issue to use Berg as proof of tonality, since he was known for quoting Bach, etc, and mixing tonality with 12-tone atonality.
> 
> Anyway, what good is it to "prove" that the Second Viennese School was supposedly "tonal?" Does it give them more "classical cred?"
> 
> What are you, a milkman? :lol:


I didn't mean these works were predominantly tonal, but there are small parts of each concerto that are. Much easier to hum than Berg's Piano Sonata.

They will never have classical cred with the majority of listeners. You want to hear coughing? Schedule either of the Schoenberg Concertos for an orchestra's subscription audience.


----------



## Judith

Just watched the film "woman in gold" which is a true story of a woman fighting for paintings looted by the Nazis from her family! Never knew the lawyer fighting the case is Arnold Schoenberg's grandson!!


----------



## fluteman

Lucas A said:


> Been listening to _Erwartung_ for the first time. I feel like this got lost in the shuffle because it wasn't premiered until 1924. Written in 1909, it's actually the first large scale free atonal piece he wrote, and rebukes the view that atonality took baby steps (i.e. gradually more dissonance leading up, and then miniatures like the _Klavierstucke_ and _Hanging Gardens._


Yes, written at around the same time as Stravinsky's Firebird and Bartok's first string quartet, both of which premiered in 1910. Yet Schoenberg is the one who abandoned tonality, ruined music and is responsible for the loss of interest in classical music and the economic problems of today's symphony orchestras, according to some here.


----------



## Sloe

Judith said:


> Just watched the film "woman in gold" which is a true story of a woman fighting for paintings looted by the Nazis from her family! Never knew the lawyer fighting the case is Arnold Schoenberg's grandson!!


If he only had chosen to write music instead like his grandfather.


----------



## millionrainbows

hpowders said:


> Come on now. Parts of the Schoenberg Piano and Violin Concerto are tonal. I can easily hum the opening motto for violin of the Violin Concerto as well as for piano at the opening of the Piano Concerto. Similarly, parts of the Berg Violin Concerto are tonal too.


Just because you can hum it doesn't mean it's tonal.


----------



## millionrainbows

fluteman said:


> ...Yet Schoenberg is the one who abandoned tonality, ruined music and is responsible for the loss of interest in classical music and the economic problems of today's symphony orchestras, according to some here.


That's hearsay, and is inadmissible.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Janspe said:


> I just listened to the _Gurre-Lieder_ for the first time - what an astonishing piece of music!
> 
> I'm falling in love with Schoenberg's music more and more as I listen to it.


Very much the same here!


----------



## Janspe

I'm so happy that this recording...









...is available on Spotify again! It was nowhere to be found for quite a long time. It pairs one of Schoenberg's masterpieces, the Erwartung Op. 17, with his curiously strange Brettllieder from an earlier part in his career. The contrast between the two works is interesting indeed! But most importantly, Jessye Norman's fantastic voice fits this music amazingly well, and she's gorgeously supported by the Metropolitan Opera Orchestra under James Levine. Warmly recommended!


----------



## Guest

This little arrangement by Schoenberg is just delightful:


----------



## ST4

One of the great romantic composers. His 5 Pieces For Orchestra, Variations for Orchestra, Pierrot Lunaire, Wind Quintet, Serenade and Piano Concerto are some of the best works at the height of chromatic romanticism. 

He does have a thing about him (like Mahler and Brahms) where I don't feel in the mood for his often quite emotionally concentrated style all the time. BUT, whenever I put a Schoenberg work on (not a really early one though, can't stand those), I always feel blown away.

He wasn't a big player in the scheme of things in the 20th century (despite founding the 12 tone system) but he sure wrote some amazing works! :cheers:


----------



## ST4

This is a perfect visual of what Schoenberg's feels like:










There is something peculiar about the emotional resonance in his work, it's very striking (like electricity). Kind of like in an opera about love and romance with beautiful melodies, one of the main characters breaks character realizes there is an electrical field between the audience and him in the theater. Suddenly the conceptions about everything gets shaken up, then they continue with the romantic love aria with beautiful melodies but something feels euphoric all of a sudden.

There's a crack at it :tiphat:


----------



## Bachtrack

Schoenberg fans will be interested to know that on 31st August, Bachtrack are holding a free online event based around Schoenberg's early work.

The At Home Concert Club is a regular event in which like-minded music fans can get together to enjoy the fantastic concert videos on the Bachtrack At Home archive.

In this event, we will be watching:

The first 3 songs in Bergen Philharmonic's performance of Gurrelieder.

Osiris Trio performing a piano trio arrangement of Verklarte Nacht.

Members of the Royal Stockholm Phil performing Pierrot Lunaire.

If you're on Twitter, you can use #concertclub2 to add to the conversation.

Tune in at 19:30 UK time (20:30 CEST)!

https://bachtrack.com/at-home-conce...naire-verklarte-nacht-gurrelieder-august-2017


----------



## Janspe

I've been really into Schoenberg's piano music recently, especially Op. 25. Too bad he didn't write more for the instrument... Nevertheless, his contributions are immensely important! I might attempt to learn the suite at some point, although I don't know if I dare touch it, it's so good.

Pollini and Uchida have been my go-to Schoenberg pianists - Gould is an interesting one too! - but I'm now listening to Florent Boffard's recordings and they are pretty impressive.


----------



## Guest

Had some vague thoughts after listening to Schoenberg's Chamber Concerto No 1. For all the talk of tonality, functional harmony and resolved dissonance and how Schoenberg nullified it with his 12-tone "atonal" technique, I don't think that is entirely right. The Chamber Symphony No 1 is a nominally "tonal" work. It even has a key signature. But when I listen to it, I'm not hearing a lot of functional harmony, Certainly there is a harmonic structure, but it mostly sounds to me like free counterpoint, where the balance between harmony and melody has been shifted strongly towards melody. (The main theme is famously based on 4ths.)

It gives me the impression that there is no strong tonal/atonal dividing line in Schoenberg's thinking, just a search for a way to find a space for melodic and contrapuntal invention in a musical tradition that had been driving toward more and more tortured diatonic harmony. It strikes me that Mahler also struggled (and succeeded) in finding a space for counterpoint in music through the development of his compositional technique.


----------



## millionrainbows

I agree w/what *Baron *said about counterpoint and melody, because ultimately, that's what the 'method' is best at...and the more chromatic music gets, both melodically and in terms of 'root movement' (if there is any...I am reminded of Strauss' Metamprphosen), the more it seems like a morass of interlocking lines.

But I like it when Schoenberg applied the method to harmony, like in the Wind Quintet Op. 26. Is it just me, or does this piece sound like he's being more harmonic than melodic?


----------



## Sid James

An opera about Schoenberg's life has recently premiered in Boston:

https://www.wbur.org/artery/2018/11...oser-tod-machover-evolves-tradition-with-tech

The composer is Tod Machover who is part of the Opera of the Future team at MIT, Cambridge Massachusetts.

https://operaofthefuture.com/

I have no interest in opera but came across this while reading about MIT.


----------



## Red Terror

Sid James said:


> An opera about Schoenberg's life has recently premiered in Boston:
> 
> https://www.wbur.org/artery/2018/11...oser-tod-machover-evolves-tradition-with-tech
> 
> The composer is Tod Machover who is part of the Opera of the Future team at MIT, Cambridge Massachusetts.
> 
> https://operaofthefuture.com/
> 
> I have no interest in opera but came across this while reading about MIT.


They'll make operas about anything these days.


----------



## starthrower

Red Terror said:


> They'll make operas about anything these days.


Could be more interesting than operas about snow maidens or vikings.


----------



## Sid James

The issues covered in the opera are certainly topical, including on this forum. The challenging nature of Schoenberg's music, the relationship between art, politics and identity:

_"When I heard about that story and meeting, it just seemed to crystallize all of these contrasts," Machover recalled, "of serious art and commercialism, and reaching a large public, and being true to yourself, and finding your identity, and being political and changing the world. So I wanted to make an opera about this story."_


----------



## millionrainbows

It sounds fascinating. I've always been interested in Schoenberg's life, and that whole Vienna scene. Here's an excellent reference:


----------



## Andrei

Red Terror said:


> They'll make operas about anything these days.


Hopefully not about Oprah


----------



## flamencosketches

Schoenberg is the only "Second Viennese school" composer whose music I haven't grown a big affinity for. The most important of them sure; but the toughest nut to crack, perhaps? He writes in longer form than do his two students (Berg's operas notwithstanding) and possibly with more subtlety.

I like some of the piano music and Verklärte Nacht well enough, but what else that I've heard loses me (the violin concerto, the string quartets). Haven't really heard any of the "big" major works like Pierrot Lunaire. I will keep exploring his music further, as I'm a big fan of both of his big name students, especially Webern.


----------



## joen_cph

The Naxos recording of the Violin Concerto has a rather grand and romantic tone to it.


----------



## Mandryka

flamencosketches said:


> Schoenberg is the only "Second Viennese school" composer whose music I haven't grown a big affinity for. The most important of them sure; but the toughest nut to crack, perhaps? He writes in longer form than do his two students (Berg's operas notwithstanding) and possibly with more subtlety.
> 
> I like some of the piano music and Verklärte Nacht well enough, but what else that I've heard loses me (the violin concerto, the string quartets). Haven't really heard any of the "big" major works like Pierrot Lunaire. I will keep exploring his music further, as I'm a big fan of both of his big name students, especially Webern.


If I were you I'd persist with the quartets, maybe focus on the 4th to start with, or 3. A couple of other people I know found the Diotima Quartet particularly easy to get into, though I haven't heard it myself.

Of Berg, Webern and Schoenberg, I feel most interested in Schoenberg. I've enjoyed the Berg operas live, but never explored the music much beyond that; I hardly know anything about Webern.


----------



## flamencosketches

To me, Webern's pared down, minimalistic style (I've heard some refer to it as "pointillistic", which I think is apt) really suits his sharp harmonic language. Some of his pieces are jagged and ultra-violent, some are peaceful, mournful, etc. He really gets a lot of information across in a short span of time, and it's something you don't see in a lot of composers before or since. Berg I like because his harmonic language is so rich and interesting, even if it is not always strictly atonal. I have not however heard either of his operas. 

Schoenberg is of course interesting because he was a major revolutionary (whether or not he wanted to be :lol: ) but I haven't quite pinpointed the touchstones of his style. It's still kind of "just noise" to me. But I'll heed your advice and continue listening to the quartets. I'll pull up the scores next time and read along; it took that for me to begin to appreciate Beethoven's quartets even.


----------



## flamencosketches

Still have to get back around to those quartets, but I'm currently listening to the violin concerto and liking it a lot. I need to open up one of his scores so I can really understand how these "tone rows" work in action.


----------



## violadude

flamencosketches said:


> To me, Webern's pared down, minimalistic style (I've heard some refer to it as "pointillistic", which I think is apt) really suits his sharp harmonic language. Some of his pieces are jagged and ultra-violent, some are peaceful, mournful, etc. He really gets a lot of information across in a short span of time, and it's something you don't see in a lot of composers before or since. Berg I like because his harmonic language is so rich and interesting, even if it is not always strictly atonal. I have not however heard either of his operas.
> 
> Schoenberg is of course interesting because he was a major revolutionary (whether or not he wanted to be :lol: ) but I haven't quite pinpointed the touchstones of his style. It's still kind of "just noise" to me. But I'll heed your advice and continue listening to the quartets. I'll pull up the scores next time and read along; it took that for me to begin to appreciate Beethoven's quartets even.


For Schoenberg's early style..think "progressive Strauss + Brahms"

For his atonal period...think dark psychological depths being plunged

For his twelve tone period...think stravinky-ish neo-classicism filtered through a heavy Germanic palette

For his late period...think, like, all those other qualities earlier + Jewish spiritualism.


----------



## joen_cph

violadude said:


> For Schoenberg's early style..think "progressive Strauss + Brahms"
> 
> For his atonal period...think dark psychological depths being plunged
> 
> For his twelve tone period...think stravinky-ish neo-classicism filtered through a heavy Germanic palette
> 
> For his late period...think, like, all those other qualities earlier + Jewish spiritualism.


Welcome back, Violadude - hasn't it been quite a while


----------



## flamencosketches

joen_cph said:


> Welcome back, Violadude - hasn't it been quite a while


I was thinking the same thing. I'm new here, but I've seen you around many an older thread, violadude. I definitely appreciate the breakdown.

I like what I've heard of the early works (Verklärte Nacht for instance) and Strauss + Brahms is as great description. But as one more quick question for clarification, where does the atonal period end and the 12-tone begin, in terms of opus numbers? My ears are not yet developed enough to hear the technical differences. And then where does the late period begin? All I know of is Moses und Aron...

Clearly a multifaceted artist... excited to explore his works further.


----------



## violadude

joen_cph said:


> Welcome back, Violadude - hasn't it been quite a while





flamencosketches said:


> I was thinking the same thing. I'm new here, but I've seen you around many an older thread, violadude. I definitely appreciate the breakdown.
> 
> I like what I've heard of the early works (Verklärte Nacht for instance) and Strauss + Brahms is as great description. But as one more quick question for clarification, where does the atonal period end and the 12-tone begin, in terms of opus numbers? My ears are not yet developed enough to hear the technical differences. And then where does the late period begin? All I know of is Moses und Aron...
> 
> Clearly a multifaceted artist... excited to explore his works further.


Thanks guys! Ya, it's been a while. I've been lurking though. It's hard to find time + energy to make a bunch of posts here like I used to when I was an unemployed college kid unfortunately 

As to your question, flamencosketches, Schoenberg's atonal period starts with his second string quartet, or more specifically, the last movement of that quartet, Op. 10. Then his twelve tone period starts generally at his 5 pieces for piano op. 23 and Serenade for 8 instrumentalists, op. 24. There's about a ten year period between those pieces and Pierrot Lunaire where he spent devising his 12 tone method and wrote almost nothing except 4 orchestral songs.


----------



## flamencosketches

Ah, OK. In that case, I'm really not familiar with any of his "free atonal" music then, only the early works and then the 12-tone.


----------



## Mandryka

The op 24 serenade. I just found a recording with Rosbaud/SWR on Qobuz, very good indeed.









I also have a recording of Rosbaud playing the op 31 variations for orchestra, which I remember liking very much.


----------



## violadude

flamencosketches said:


> Ah, OK. In that case, I'm really not familiar with any of his "free atonal" music then, only the early works and then the 12-tone.


I would check some stuff out from that period. It has some of that large scale post-Romantic aesthetic that Berg has but the harmonies are usually not as immediately rich like like the latter's. Try Erwartung or 5 Orchestral Pieces.


----------



## millionrainbows

From what I recall, Flamenco has not heard Pierrot Lunaire. I suggest the Ensemble Modern with Phyllis Bryn-Julson..
WIK:
The twelve-tone technique was preceded by Schoenberg's freely atonal pieces of 1908-1923, which, though free, often have as an "integrative element...a minute intervallic cell" that in addition to expansion may be transformed as with a tone row, and in which individual notes may "function as pivotal elements, to permit overlapping statements of a basic cell or the linking of two or more basic cells." 
The twelve-tone technique was also preceded by nondodecaphonic serial composition used independently in the works of Alexander Scriabin, Igor Stravinsky, Béla Bartók, Carl Ruggles, and others. "Essentially, Schoenberg and Hauer systematized and defined for their own dodecaphonic purposes a pervasive technical feature of 'modern' musical practice, the ostinato."


2 Lieder [2 Songs], Op. 14 (1907/08)
15 Gedichte aus Das Buch der hängenden Gärten (15 Poems from The Book of the Hanging Gardens) by Stefan George, Op. 15 (1908/09)
Fünf Orchesterstücke [5 Pieces for Orchestra], Op. 16 (1909)
Erwartung [Expectation], monodrama in one act, [for soprano and orchestra], Op. 17 (1909)
Die glückliche Hand [The lucky hand], drama with music, for voices and orchestra, Op. 18 (1910/13)
Sechs kleine Klavierstücke [6 Little piano pieces], Op. 19 (1911)
Herzgewächse [Foliage of the heart] for soprano, celesta, harmonium, harp, Op. 20 (1911)
Pierrot Lunaire, Op. 21 (1912)
Four Orchestral Songs, Op. 22 (1913/16)
5 Stücke [5 Pieces] for Piano, Op. 23 (1920/23)


----------



## flamencosketches

You recall correctly sir, I will look into that recording. Still really enjoying the piano pieces (Pollini) and the violin concerto (Hahn/Salonen/Swedish Radio Symphony).


----------



## paulbest

I love Schoenberg's VC, I bought the Hillary Hahn the other day, but the cd inside was some trash. I did not send it back, as it was sold cheap, I will just buy another.
I just received a recording on Berlin Classics, with Michael Erxleben violin, Claus Flor conducting the Berlin/Berlin Classics, Its a fine recording. paired with the Stravinsky, which I am not at all interested in.
Schoenberg's SQ's are interesting, every recording offers something different, its neo romantic at times, yet inter laced with new ideas. 
More later.....


----------



## flamencosketches

Who do we like in Schoenberg's string quartets? I think the versions I have heard is from the New Vienna Quartet. Should I stick with that one or is there a better choice? I looked into the Diotima that Mandryka recommended. Alas the CD is $99. I don't want to listen to it and get hooked on their interpretation only to have to shell out that much for the CD.


----------



## paulbest

flamencosketches said:


> Who do we like in Schoenberg's string quartets? I think the versions I have heard is from the New Vienna Quartet. Should I stick with that one or is there a better choice? I looked into the Diotima that Mandryka recommended. Alas the CD is $99. I don't want to listen to it and get hooked on their interpretation only to have to shell out that much for the CD.


No do not go Diotima, I just received a cd from this group in Webern/Berg/Schoenberg, bought based on some 5 star amazon reviewers, *dud*.

I saw that $99 listing, glad I held off.
The one to get, and you can read automoneus comments in the listing, that guy knows his music.
I have this group ;s recordings of Berg and Webern, Outstanding. the price used stays high, as no one is willing to part with this set. I saw a bid listing on amazon, I stopped at $35, someone got it for $38+ shop.

$60 is a fiar price considering the high quality of these performances. Ck YT vids before you purchase any cd. Do not buy based on any ones opinion. 
I have several recordings of the Schoenberg, but all are in packed moving boxes, can't recall the performances at the moment.

https://www.amazon.com/Arnold-Schoenberg-Quartet/dp/B00005NVG9


----------



## flamencosketches

I've heard great things about their cycle. Who would have guessed that the Schoenberg Quartet excels in Schoenberg. 

I listened to the New Vienna account of the 2nd quartet. Pretty good, especially the soprano Evelyn Lear sounded great on the last movement. The first two movements kind of lost me, even following along with the score. I'll keep trying though


----------



## starthrower

I have the Asasello Quartett, and the Schoenberg Quartet 5 disc set. I'm happy with these.


----------



## paulbest

starthrower said:


> I have the Asasello Quartett, and the Schoenberg Quartet 5 disc set. I'm happy with these.


I enjoy having multiple recordings in composers I love.
Its simply magic that musicians can play such difficult works, with finesse and beauty. As long as the quartet can meet the challenge the cd stays in my collection. 
The LeSalle may not be what I am looking for. I know the SQ's have shades of the neo romantic, but I'm preferring more modern edge to the performances.


----------



## flamencosketches

I just listened to a handful of the songs from Gurrelieder... that was kind of mind blowing. To borrow the concept of my other recent thread, Schoenberg could have easily "beaten Mahler (maybe even Wagner, for that matter) at his own game" but he chose to go an entirely different route. Regardless, this huge early oratorio/cantata is a great work in its own right. Why had I never heard of it until recently...?

My respect for Schoenberg grows.


----------



## paulbest

flamencosketches said:


> I just listened to a handful of the songs from Gurrelieder... that was kind of mind blowing. To borrow the concept of my other recent thread, Schoenberg could have easily "beaten Mahler (maybe even Wagner, for that matter) at his own game" but he chose to go an entirely different route. Regardless, this huge early oratorio/cantata is a great work in its own right. Why had I never heard of it until recently...?
> 
> My respect for Schoenberg grows.


Its a beautiful work, I have 2 or 3 recordings. 
Though I prefer his atonal masterpieces, his Gurrelieder is enchanting , hauntingly beautiful.


----------



## flamencosketches

It's fascinating that he could have excelled in such vastly different styles. From what I can tell, it's a great work, and a worthy entry into the Wagner/Strauss/Mahler tradition. 

Like his music or not (for me, I'm still getting there) he was a masterful craftsman and holds a well-deserved elite place in the pantheon of the Modern era. 

As a quick note, I think it's interesting that as for his atonal and 12-tone music, what has captured me the most to this point is the piano music. It is the same way for me with Brahms, one of Schoenberg's idols (the chamber music and small scale orchestral music of each composer is growing on me too). Both are responsible for some of the most rich, dense, lush music in the modern repertoire. Both were acutely aware of their place in musical history, to their strength and detriment. Does anyone else see obvious parallels between the two? Just a little interesting to think about. Obviously, they are each wholly original; their own composer.


----------



## Mandryka

Today I listened to Pierrot, Sinopoli, with great pleasure


----------



## flamencosketches

Mandryka said:


> Today I listened to Pierrot, Sinopoli, with great pleasure
> 
> View attachment 116994


Going to look into this recording.


----------



## Mandryka

flamencosketches said:


> Going to look into this recording.


The music is a bit like Elektra I think. This performance by Sinopoli is very beautiful, too beautiful possibly.


----------



## flamencosketches

Mandryka said:


> The music is a bit like Elektra I think. This performance by Sinopoli is very beautiful, too beautiful possibly.


Excellent... if you remember our conversation from the Strauss thread, I've been obsessed with Elektra lately.

I wonder if Schoenberg found it to be an inspiration? I certainly hear what sounds like shades of Strauss all over his early work (Verklärte Nacht, Gurre-Lieder, etc.)


----------



## Mandryka

I’ve only heard Gurre Lieder once, a concert with Hans Hotter I remember (his last in London, he wasn’t singing, he was the sprecher!) I remember thinking that it sounded rather French. varklärter Nacht is a piece I haven’t heard for over 30 years so I’ll not make any comments.


----------



## flamencosketches

Give it a listen next time you have 2 hours to spare :lol: I like the Ozawa recording with Jessye Norman and James McCracken (not sure if that last name is right, I'm not really up on singers). But I've heard good things about Chailly's recording too. It is a major work.

Some of the orchestral textures sound a bit like Debussy to my ears, but aside from that, it strikes me as Germanic to the bone. But I'll defer to you on that judgment. Sounds like you have 30+ years of classical music experience on me


----------



## millionrainbows

Not quite on topic, but this is another good Sinopoli recording:


----------



## flamencosketches

millionrainbows said:


> Not quite on topic, but this is another good Sinopoli recording:
> 
> View attachment 117539


You've sold me, I want this. Webern's orchestral music is quite versatile (if hard to pull off) and I'd love to see how this conductor takes it. I really like what I've heard of his Pierrot Lunaire.

Speaking of Pierrot... Did it take anyone else time to get over the borderline silly vocals style utilized in just about every interpretation?


----------



## millionrainbows

flamencosketches said:


> You've sold me, I want this. Webern's orchestral music is quite versatile (if hard to pull off) and I'd love to see how this conductor takes it. I really like what I've heard of his Pierrot Lunaire.
> 
> Speaking of Pierrot... Did it take anyone else time to get over the borderline silly vocals style utilized in just about every interpretation?


I'm still exploring that. I await delivery of my Marni Nixon version. She is a great singer, with perfect pitch, and has a very distinctive clarity using little to no vibrato. She worked in Hollywood as a voice-over singer for several big stars, and her Webern lieder with Robert Craft are still my favorite; a pity this mono Columbia special Products 4-LP box set has not been released on CD yet. Neither have Craft's later Schoenberg box sets. This must have something to do with some legal issue between Craft and Columbia Masterworks.

I also await my order of the Sinopoli that Mandryka listed above.

​











​


----------



## Mandryka

millionrainbows said:


> Not quite on topic, but this is another good Sinopoli recording:
> 
> View attachment 117539


I hadn't heard this and I must say, I like it very much in op 10.


----------



## Mandryka

millionrainbows said:


> I'm still exploring that. I await delivery of my Marni Nixon version. She is a great singer, with perfect pitch, and has a very distinctive clarity using little to no vibrato. She worked in Hollywood as a voice-over singer for several big stars, and her Webern lieder with Robert Craft are still my favorite; a pity this mono Columbia special Products 4-LP box set has not been released on CD yet. Neither have Craft's later Schoenberg box sets. This must have something to do with some legal issue between Craft and Columbia Masterworks.
> 
> I also await my order of the Sinopoli that Mandryka listed above.
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​


I like the Marni Nixon recording very much, but I suspect that flamencosketches may find the vocals a bit silly. Another one, of course, who was rather inspired in expresiionist singing is Bethany Beardsley here









I'm not sure if this was ever commercially transferred, if anyone wants the transfer I have (which is excellent!! really excellent) then send me a PM.

In general, with Schoenberg, I've always found it fun to go back to the earliest recordings where the composer may have lent a bit of a hand. With Pierrot for example the one with Erika Stiedry-Wagner is nice to have, despite the execrable sound, I have it on this old CD









By the way, I've been listening to _Le Marteau Sans Maître_ -- the next logical step after Pierrot!


----------



## millionrainbows

Mandryka said:


> I like the Marni Nixon recording very much, but I suspect that flamencosketches may find the vocals a bit silly.


Yes, I listened to the MP3 samples, and Marni Nixon is over-the-top expressive, or even dramatic. Perhaps a more neutral performance might suit him, like the Boulez/Christine Schafer, which i found surprisinly unsatisfying for being too "clinical."



As far as those Schoenberg Vinyl boxes, I still have the LPs, which I should transfer to CD. I'm a BIG Bethany Beardslee fan. Also, I remember in one of those Craft/Columbia boxes an AMAZING version of Herzgewächse!

_Herzgewächse (German: "Foliage of the Heart"), Op. 20, is a composition by Austrian composer Arnold Schoenberg scored for coloratura soprano, celesta, harmonium, and harp. The text is taken from a poem of the same name by Maurice Maeterlinck. The duration of the work is approximately three-and-a-half minutes, making it the shortest of Schoenberg's works with an opus number. The work is also notable for the extreme demands made on the singer which at one point has to ascend to a high F (pianissimo), nearly two-and-a-half octaves above middle C.

_You gotta hear this version before you die:

​


----------



## flamencosketches

Been enjoying the String Trio recently, as well as the Violin Concerto and solo piano music, both of which I've mentioned before. I am also starting to dip my toes into his Lieder. I purchased Glenn Gould's 4CD set of Schoenberg's complete solo piano music along with two discs of Lieder with various singers. Everything I've heard is phenomenal. Next to Bach, Gould really shone in Schoenberg more than any other composer. As for the Lieder themselves, was Schoenberg the Schubert of the 20th century? 

I am working through Schoenberg's music slowly, but he has been one hell of a find for me. It's a full blown obsession now; his music is a vast treasure trove. So many layers, so much rich emotionality; moreover, so much color.

As for Pierrot, which we were discussing over the past few posts, I have been enjoying Sinopoli with Dresden. I believe Luisa Castellani is the "singer", if you can call that singing. Though the vocals have not quite grown on me, the music really is phenomenal. 

Well then, has anyone else been enjoying Schoenberg lately? What works, what period of his career?


----------



## flamencosketches

violadude said:


> For Schoenberg's early style..think "progressive Strauss + Brahms"
> 
> For his atonal period...think dark psychological depths being plunged
> 
> For his twelve tone period...think stravinky-ish neo-classicism filtered through a heavy Germanic palette
> 
> For his late period...think, like, all those other qualities earlier + Jewish spiritualism.


I would like to thank you for this post Violadude (if you come back around to see this). You really helped me in exploring Schoenberg's music. :cheers:

What other great composers exist out there with 4+ distinct, mature periods of composition? Each of them hugely worthwhile. Amazing.


----------



## Flutter

flamencosketches said:


> Been enjoying the String Trio recently, as well as the Violin Concerto and solo piano music, both of which I've mentioned before.


I love those, they're so enjoyable. :kiss:

(IMO I'm shocked that he wrote something like the String Trio, as it seems far more closer to Ligeti or Xenakis than Schoenberg's usual style, it's a gem for sure :tiphat: )


----------



## paulbest

Janspe said:


> I've been really into Schoenberg's piano music recently, especially Op. 25. Too bad he didn't write more for the instrument... Nevertheless, his contributions are immensely important! I might attempt to learn the suite at some point, although I don't know if I dare touch it, it's so good.
> 
> Pollini and Uchida have been my go-to Schoenberg pianists - Gould is an interesting one too! - but I'm now listening to Florent Boffard's recordings and they are pretty impressive.


I read Hill's comment on my Naxos release, says,,,,well read below. 
I prefer Hill over any other record,
Definitive?
Well that's your call.

https://www.gramophone.co.uk/review/bergschoenbergwebern-piano-works

.


----------



## flamencosketches

^ I'm not familiar with Peter Hill, but I am open to expanding my collection of Berg, Webern, and especially Schoenberg piano works. 

@Flutter, I hear you. It sounds almost Bartókian to me. Was Schoenberg familiar with Bartók at all, I wonder.


----------



## Flutter

flamencosketches said:


> @Flutter, I hear you. It sounds almost Bartókian to me. Was Schoenberg familiar with Bartók at all, I wonder.


I can't remember, I'll have to do some research. I however do know historically, that Bartok was familiar with Berg (who influenced Bartok's groundbreaking Third String Quartet)


----------



## flamencosketches

So I've heard, the comparatively ultra-modern 3rd and 4th SQs by Bartók were both heavily influenced by Berg's Lyric Suite. And it shows. I just have a feeling the influence came full circle with Schoenberg's String Trio. Composed, incidentally, not long after Bartók's death (1946). Perhaps not, but I wonder where else Schoenberg might have been influenced with this revolutionary work.


----------



## flamencosketches

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, I listened to the MP3 samples, and Marni Nixon is over-the-top expressive, or even dramatic. Perhaps a more neutral performance might suit him, like the Boulez/Christine Schafer, which i found surprisinly unsatisfying for being too "clinical."
> 
> 
> 
> As far as those Schoenberg Vinyl boxes, I still have the LPs, which I should transfer to CD. I'm a BIG Bethany Beardslee fan. Also, I remember in one of those Craft/Columbia boxes an AMAZING version of Herzgewächse!
> 
> _Herzgewächse (German: "Foliage of the Heart"), Op. 20, is a composition by Austrian composer Arnold Schoenberg scored for coloratura soprano, celesta, harmonium, and harp. The text is taken from a poem of the same name by Maurice Maeterlinck. The duration of the work is approximately three-and-a-half minutes, making it the shortest of Schoenberg's works with an opus number. The work is also notable for the extreme demands made on the singer which at one point has to ascend to a high F (pianissimo), nearly two-and-a-half octaves above middle C.
> 
> _You gotta hear this version before you die:
> 
> ​


Clinical indeed! But I like it. I really like her vocals here. Still, though, I think I prefer Sinopoli's with Castellani.


----------



## Mandryka

flamencosketches said:


> So I've heard, the comparatively ultra-modern 3rd and 4th SQs by Bartók were both heavily influenced by Berg's Lyric Suite. And it shows. I just have a feeling the influence came full circle with Schoenberg's String Trio. Composed, incidentally, not long after Bartók's death (1946). Perhaps not, but I wonder where else Schoenberg might have been influenced with this revolutionary work.


Which performance of the trio are you listening to?

It's a strange piece of music, with those "episodes" It took me a long time to appreciate it.

Re Bartok, I don't see the 5th as less modern than the 3rd and 4th. The sixth is the strange one, in some ways it resembles the Schoenberg trio, mestos rather than episodes.

Were both the Schoenberg Trio and Bartok 6 written in response to serious illness? I can't remember the details.

I've just started listening to this, they make a distinctive sound, and they manage to make sense of the episodes, which is a bit of a _pons asinorum _


----------



## philoctetes

From off the beaten path, and recommended too...



















For the (awesome) string quartets, the Arditti and Leipzig, plus the old LaSalle box with the Zemlinsky, The Gringoltz on BIS is a bit on the stern side. I need to hear more of the Diotima and Schoenberg Quartets. The Audite box includes a fine early #2 with the Vegh and Suzanne Danco.










I wish the Artis had recorded a cycle for Nimbus because their Zemlinsky is so good. Don't ignore Zemlinsky if you like the 2nd School, though he went more in the direction of Strauss.


----------



## philoctetes

starthrower said:


> I have the Asasello Quartett, and the Schoenberg Quartet 5 disc set. I'm happy with these.


Never heard of Asasello before - listening to their Marmarai disc on Spotify - thanks!


----------



## flamencosketches

@mandryka, I have been listening to the LaSalle Quartet (-1) version that is coupled with Verklärte Nacht on the DG "20th Century Classics" release. Very good performance, IMO, but I have not heard any others. Incidentally, I am listening to Bartók No.5 right now. I couldn't truly say that this is any less modern than 3 or 4. It also may be his best, though that's a tough call to make!


----------



## millionrainbows

I'm starting to discover the softer, more accessible aspects of the String Trio. I think the opening salvo is just a bunch of expressionist "stunts."


----------



## Mandryka

flamencosketches said:


> @mandryka, I have been listening to the LaSalle Quartet (-1) version that is coupled with Verklärte Nacht on the DG "20th Century Classics" release. Very good performance, IMO, but I have not heard any others. Incidentally, I am listening to Bartók No.5 right now. I couldn't truly say that this is any less modern than 3 or 4. It also may be his best, though that's a tough call to make!


I know someone else who says it's his favourite -- I mean Bartok 5. My favourite is 3, but that's really because I love a performance, an old one, from The New Music String Quartet. I can't see if it's going to be released on this box, which will be an essential thing for me to hear I think.


----------



## Mandryka

millionrainbows said:


> I'm starting to discover the softer, more accessible aspects of the String Trio. I think the opening salvo is just a bunch of expressionist "stunts."


It's not the spikiness that's a problem to me, is somehow communicating some sort of form, structure, logic in the long episodes.

I think there's a whole hidden programme to it to do with him being diagnosed with a dickey heart.


----------



## flamencosketches

4 and 5 for me, though 3 is incredible too. 6 I haven't really "gotten" yet. The first 2 also deserve more credit. 

Anyway, back to the subject at hand – does anyone know what Schoenberg thought of Bartók?


----------



## Mandryka

flamencosketches said:


> does anyone know what Schoenberg thought of Bartók?


I can't find anything interesting. Nothing more than in Budapest Schoenberg programmed some of Bartok's music.


----------



## Sid James

I remember reading a less than complimentary opinion by Schoenberg of Bartok, basically that he was dressing up primitive peasant music to make it look like serious music. I think I read it in Harold C. Schonberg’s Lives of the Great Composers. Quite a sting, but not as memorable as “Der kleine Modernsky” that was levelled at Igor.


----------



## flamencosketches

Ah, I see. Safe to assume Schoenberg, then, was no different from any other composer in his disregard for his contemporaries...? I have read less than flattering things that he has said about his own students, especially Berg, so I would hate to see his opinion of the composers of rivaling schools :lol:

I would like to read that "kleine Modernsky" quote about Stravinsky. Where is that from?


----------



## flamencosketches

Has anyone heard Schoenberg's 1st string quartet? It is a huge work, intimidating.


----------



## millionrainbows

flamencosketches said:


> Ah, I see. Safe to assume Schoenberg, then, was no different from any other composer in his disregard for his contemporaries...? I have read less than flattering things that he has said about his own students, especially Berg, so I would hate to see his opinion of the composers of rivaling schools :lol:
> 
> I would like to read that "kleine Modernsky" quote about Stravinsky. Where is that from?


In his "Society for Private Musical Performances ," Schoenberg included Reger, Debussy, Webern, J. Strauss, among others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Private_Musical_Performances


----------



## flamencosketches

J as in Johann Strauss? Can't say I'm terribly surprised that Schoenberg was a fan of his. Alban Berg wrote a transcription of Strauss' Wein, Weib und Gesang. Outside of that, cool to note that he used to dig Debussy. Two towering masters of their time.


----------



## Sid James

flamencosketches said:


> Ah, I see. Safe to assume Schoenberg, then, was no different from any other composer in his disregard for his contemporaries...
> 
> I would like to read that "kleine Modernsky" quote about Stravinsky. Where is that from?


Schoenberg comes across as struggling to reconcile his respect of tradition with his need to break away from it: "I am a conservative who was forced to become a radical." I think this is part of the reason for his bitterness towards other composers. He saw them as being compromised while he went the whole hog.

I would recommend Meredith Oakes' short book _Mr Modernsky: how Stravinsky survived Schoenberg_ if you're interested in the ideological brouhaha between Arnie and Igor, and its fallout until recently. It's been a few years since I read it but basically Schoenberg was saying that Stravinsky wasn't the real deal, he was modernist lite. I'd come across the quote in other sources before reading the Oakes. I found it to be an informative, well written and entertaining read.


----------



## millionrainbows

flamencosketches said:


> J as in Johann Strauss? Can't say I'm terribly surprised that Schoenberg was a fan of his. Alban Berg wrote a transcription of Strauss' Wein, Weib und Gesang. Outside of that, cool to note that he used to dig Debussy. Two towering masters of their time.


Here are the arrangements.


----------



## flamencosketches

Very interesting! To what extent do these arrangements exhibit the touchstones of the composer-arrangers in question, though? In other words, are they more Strauss or more Berg/Schoenberg etc?

For example, Webern's arrangement of the Bach Ricercar for 6 Voices, is pure Webern with just a little Bach. In any case Bach himself certainly would never in a million years have wrote it like that.


----------



## philoctetes

I like this one, KenOC aka "the Modernist" turned me on to it 










Here is another that grazes a nearby pasture










Also, the CD by the Boston Chamber Players,. which I don't have, but some is included in the DG Berg box.










Schoenberg's Vienna parties were the source for a lot of this stuff, and often included harmonium, something I seek out in these recordings.

When I saw the Vienna Phil at Weill Hall, they encored with the J Strauss 10-minute uber-waltz. The basses were dancing as they played, delightfully...


----------



## Janspe

flamencosketches said:


> Has anyone heard Schoenberg's 1st string quartet? It is a huge work, intimidating.


It is indeed a massive work, a towering masterpiece if there ever was one. I'm not as familiar with it as with many other Schoenberg scores, but I've heard it a few times and keep falling more deeply in love with it.

The D major quartet (not counted among the four numbered ones) from a few years before the 1st is definitely worth exploring as well!


----------



## millionrainbows

flamencosketches said:


> Very interesting! To what extent do these arrangements exhibit the touchstones of the composer-arrangers in question, though? In other words, are they more Strauss or more Berg/Schoenberg etc?
> 
> For example, Webern's arrangement of the Bach Ricercar for 6 Voices, is pure Webern with just a little Bach. In any case Bach himself certainly would never in a million years have wrote it like that.


In the Webern, you can hear it in the orchestration, sparse in places, and the way he sometimes breaks the melody line and shares it with other instruments. He seems concerned with creating coloristic effects with instruments. The same way he handled the Bach transcriptions, and in Passacaglia.


----------



## millionrainbows

@philocetes, what was that first CD you pictured? It's too little to read. I have the Linos Ensemble, really great stuff. The DG title looks interesting, too.

I agree about the harmonium; it sounds like he used it when he needed sustained woodwind or brass parts.


----------



## flamencosketches

Erwartung. Written in an almost totally athematic style that the composer quickly abandoned (the only similar work, as far as I can tell, is the 5 Orchestral Pieces), the end result is one of his great achievements... or is it? Is it a masterpiece or is it completely unlistenable?

I find it difficult, but it is one of the great works of expressionism in music, and when it's good it's really good. I can't find the libretto and have no idea what it's about. The music is intense and sometimes beautiful, but damn near impossible to follow.

Any fans?


----------



## millionrainbows

That CD posted by philocetes is The Arditti Quartet.


----------



## flamencosketches

Any love for Schoenberg's Cello Concerto after G.M. Monn? It's an unusual, tonal late work. Quite beautiful, yet completely unlike any of his other music.






I rarely hear of this being discussed.


----------



## Mandryka

flamencosketches said:


> Erwartung. Written in an almost totally athematic style that the composer quickly abandoned (the only similar work, as far as I can tell, is the 5 Orchestral Pieces), the end result is one of his great achievements... or is it? Is it a masterpiece or is it completely unlistenable?
> 
> I find it difficult, but it is one of the great works of expressionism in music, and when it's good it's really good. I can't find the libretto and have no idea what it's about. The music is intense and sometimes beautiful, but damn near impossible to follow.
> 
> Any fans?


Yes, and I'd have thought that anyone who appreciates Richard Strauss would appreciate this.


----------



## flamencosketches

Mandryka said:


> Yes, and I'd have thought that anyone who appreciates Richard Strauss would appreciate this.


I wouldn't quite say that. The almost total athematicism of Erwartung contrasts with Strauss' use of character motifs even in the more modern operas Elektra and Salome. The harmonic language is pushed even farther into uncharted territory, but it's a logical progression and not terribly hard to follow. Erwartung and, say, Elektra are great for slightly different reasons.


----------



## Mandryka

It’s strange, the relationship between harmony and expression. If someone tries to get extreme emotion out of a Chopin sonata - the pianist Natan Brand is an example - it comes across as affected to me. Yet as the harmony becomes more chromatic, extreme emotion sounds more mature.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mandryka said:


> It's strange, the relationship between harmony and expression. If someone tries to get extreme emotion out of a Chopin sonata - the pianist Natan Brand is an example - it comes across as affected to me. Yet as the harmony becomes more chromatic, extreme emotion sounds more mature.


I listened to Natan Brand, and I like it! Very much! Thanks for the mention.


----------



## Mandryka

millionrainbows said:


> I listened to Natan Brand, and I like it! Very much! Thanks for the mention.


Yes he's very special, there's a back story - AIDS death I think, I can't remember the details, I always imagine him flicking his head back in a gesture of romantic ecstasy as he plays.


----------



## paulbest

flamencosketches said:


> Erwartung. Written in an almost totally athematic style that the composer quickly abandoned (the only similar work, as far as I can tell, is the 5 Orchestral Pieces), the end result is one of his great achievements... or is it? Is it a masterpiece or is it completely unlistenable?
> 
> I find it difficult, but it is one of the great works of expressionism in music, and when it's good it's really good. I can't find the libretto and have no idea what it's about. The music is intense and sometimes beautiful, but damn near impossible to follow.
> 
> Any fans?


Yes I love this historic performance

Dorothy Dow has a less operatic style voice here and presents the work as more theatric, which is what I like about it,,,not to mention the NYPO is really good in Schoenberg in this recording.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mandryka said:


> Yes he's very special, there's a back story - AIDS death I think, I can't remember the details, I always imagine him flicking his head back in a gesture of romantic ecstasy as he plays.


The same thing with Paul Jacobs.


----------



## millionrainbows

philoctetes said:


> From off the beaten path, and recommended too...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the (awesome) string quartets, the Arditti and Leipzig, plus the old LaSalle box with the Zemlinsky, The Gringoltz on BIS is a bit on the stern side. I need to hear more of the Diotima and Schoenberg Quartets. The Audite box includes a fine early #2 with the Vegh and Suzanne Danco.
> 
> I wish the Artis had recorded a cycle for Nimbus because their Zemlinsky is so good. Don't ignore Zemlinsky if you like the 2nd School, though he went more in the direction of Strauss.


philocetes, I saw this and went to the Berkshire site and ordered it. It looks like a nifty box of older recordings.


----------



## Larkenfield

paulbest said:


> Yes I love this historic performance
> 
> Dorothy Dow has a less operatic style voice here and presents the work as more theatric, which is what I like about it,,,not to mention the NYPO is really good in Schoenberg in this recording.


Yes, I like it much better as theater too, otherwise, it can come across as too dark, creepy, disquieting and disturbing.


----------



## paulbest

Just listen to the NY solists , would you, UNREAL

Dorothy Dow just sparkles with gorgeous intonations, proper phrasing of this extremely dif to-get-right Lieder. 
One thing about Schoenberg , well many things actually, He is very enjoyable even in his lesser known/minor works, his writing is extremely challenging for the artsist, which the listener hardly takes into account,,,and lets see,,,oh back to 1st point,,,he'll never let you down, provided the perf is up to the level of the music. . 
Reminds me of Henze works.


----------



## Janspe

Found some of Hans Rosbaud's Schoenberg recordings on Spotify and have been exploring them for some time now. Today I listened to _Von heute auf morgen_ (Op. 32), the _Variations for Orchestra_ (Op. 31) and _Ode to Napoleon Buonaparte_, Op. 41. The latter was narrated in German, a curious change for the English I'm so used to.

Loving Schoenberg a lot at the moment. Listened to the 4th string quartet a few days ago and it was simply amazing. Can't wait to hear _Gurre-Lieder_ live in August...


----------



## flamencosketches

Janspe said:


> Found some of Hans Rosbaud's Schoenberg recordings on Spotify and have been exploring them for some time now. Today I listened to _Von heute auf morgen_ (Op. 32), the _Variations for Orchestra_ (Op. 31) and _Ode to Napoleon Buonaparte_, Op. 41. The latter was narrated in German, a curious change for the English I'm so used to.
> 
> Loving Schoenberg a lot at the moment. Listened to the 4th string quartet a few days ago and it was simply amazing. Can't wait to hear _Gurre-Lieder_ live in August...


Gurre-Lieder live! That's going to be awesome. In Helsinki?

I have not been listening to any Schoenberg lately, may need to change that.


----------



## Janspe

flamencosketches said:


> Gurre-Lieder live! That's going to be awesome. In Helsinki?


Yeah, the Helsinki Philharmonic Orhcestra under its chief conductor Susanna Mälkki. They're doing it as part of this year's Helsinki Festival - the other major orchestra, the Finnish Radio Symphony Orchestra, is doing Schumann's _Szenen aus Goethes Faust_. Exciting!



flamencosketches said:


> I have not been listening to any Schoenberg lately, may need to change that.


Good idea. May I suggest the wonderful _Piano Concerto_, or the astonishing _Suite for Piano_? The _Serenade_ Op. 24 and the _Suite_ Op. 29 are works that I've been thinking about revisiting soon as well. So much to explore in Schoenberg's output. I've been away from _Moses und Aron_ for too long...


----------



## flamencosketches

Janspe said:


> Yeah, the Helsinki Philharmonic Orhcestra under its chief conductor Susanna Mälkki. They're doing it as part of this year's Helsinki Festival - the other major orchestra, the Finnish Radio Symphony Orchestra, is doing Schumann's _Szenen aus Goethes Faust_. Exciting!
> 
> Good idea. May I suggest the wonderful _Piano Concerto_, or the astonishing _Suite for Piano_? The _Serenade_ Op. 24 and the _Suite_ Op. 29 are works that I've been thinking about revisiting soon as well. So much to explore in Schoenberg's output. I've been away from _Moses und Aron_ for too long...


I love both the Concerto and Suite for piano. Very good call, I'll put on the concerto once I'm done with the Brahms I'm listening to (Paganini Variations with some Lieder queued up). Only remaining question is Mitsuko Uchida or Glenn Gould? 

I remember Mandryka enjoyed the Rosbaud recording of the Serenade op.24, have you heard that one? I'm going to finally get around to checking that out in the near future too. VERY strange work, and I can't say I understand what he was going for here. I think a new recording might help elucidate things; I have only heard the Boulez/Ensemble Intercontemporain, and I'm not crazy about Boulez's Schoenberg.

Enjoy those concerts, seriously! I have not heard the Faust-Szenen, and that's another one I may need to check out.


----------



## millionrainbows

flamencosketches said:


> I remember Mandryka enjoyed the Rosbaud recording of the Serenade op.24, have you heard that one? I'm going to finally get around to checking that out in the near future too. VERY strange work, and I can't say I understand what he was going for here. I think a new recording might help elucidate things; I have only heard the Boulez/Ensemble Intercontemporain, and I'm not crazy about Boulez's Schoenberg.


The Serenade was composed when Schoenberg was first developing 12-tone, and he was unsure of what form it should take. So he modeled it after Baroque dance forms. Does that lead to an answer?


----------



## flamencosketches

millionrainbows said:


> The Serenade was composed when Schoenberg was first developing 12-tone, and he was unsure of what form it should take. So he modeled it after Baroque dance forms. Does that lead to an answer?


I understand that much, but I was speaking more on a level of intuitive understanding of the music rather than the background behind it (though of course that's the first step). I think it will just take a recording with some more clarity of parts. The Boulez/Intercontemporain is kind of a mess to my ears. Frankly, I'm not really convinced by Boulez's Schoenberg; he made some pretty good recordings of the choral works, but I'm not sure he understands the composer terribly well. Perhaps his writings on the matter have tainted my ears.


----------



## millionrainbows

flamencosketches said:


> I understand that much, but I was speaking more on a level of intuitive understanding of the music rather than the background behind it (though of course that's the first step). I think it will just take a recording with some more clarity of parts. The Boulez/Intercontemporain is kind of a mess to my ears. Frankly, I'm not really convinced by Boulez's Schoenberg; he made some pretty good recordings of the choral works, but I'm not sure he understands the composer terribly well. Perhaps his writings on the matter have tainted my ears.


Knowing that, listening to the phrasing he's using, it seems simplistic. Rhythmically simplistic. Like Baroque dance music.


----------



## Mandryka

Just found this.


----------



## flamencosketches

Well then, how is it? From 1935?!


----------



## Mandryka

It's



> Chamber Symphony No. 1
> Radio Sinfonie-Orchester Zürich
> rec. Zurich (Private test recording), 24 April 1960
> 
> Verklärte Nacht
> Concertgebouworkest
> rec. live Amsterdam, 5 July 1955
> 
> Quartet Concerto (1933)
> (after Handel: Concerto grosso Op. 6 No. 7)
> Kolisch Quartet
> Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra
> rec. live, 6 0r 7 January 1938
> 
> Brahms: Piano Quartet in G minor, Op.25 (orch. Schoenberg)
> Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra
> rec. live, 7 May 1938 (world premiere)


Klemperer knew what he was doing with expressionist music, it's mahlerian and passionate and thrilling. Presumably Klemperer had discussed the music with the composer.

The Kolich quartet thing isn't listenable, the sound's so bad, and the Brahms isn't much better.


----------



## millionrainbows

flamencosketches said:


> Well then, how is it? From 1935?!


Slow. :lol: ,,,,,,,


----------



## flamencosketches

Is it me, or is Pierre Boulez a mediocre conductor of Schoenberg...? Now that I'm thinking about it, I'm seldom terribly impressed with his recordings of Schoenberg's works.

The one exception that comes to mind is the incredible recording that Boulez and the Cleveland Orchestra made of the piano concerto with Mitsuko Uchida, but we can't give him all the credit there. 

Maybe I'm completely in the wrong here. Does anyone want to show me a great Boulez recording of Schoenberg that proves how wrong I am?


----------



## flamencosketches

millionrainbows said:


> Knowing that, listening to the phrasing he's using, it seems simplistic. Rhythmically simplistic. Like Baroque dance music.


I've come around a bit on the Serenade. I think the problem was I didn't like the Boulez/Intercontemporain recording. I've been listening to that Rosbaud radio recording from the '50s and the textures are much more clear.


----------



## paulbest

should I purchase the Vol 1 and Vol 2
Craft?
I have both in my amazon box,
'I know Craft takes a more romanticized approach , which may not be <exactly> what I am looking for , as I have many others which do offer exceptional performances, Boulez /Sony releases.
But I want some of the vocal works and especially the 3 SQ's offered in the 2 sets. 
Even though I just bought the Schoenberg SQ /Chandos release,,i am looking for other SQ performances. 
AS I can not find any YT uploads of the SQ/s from the Fred Sherry SQ/Craft sets, I am taking a chance.

Opinions please.


----------



## flamencosketches

paulbest said:


> should I purchase the Vol 1 and Vol 2
> Craft?
> I have both in my amazon box,
> 'I know Craft takes a more romanticized approach , which may not be <exactly> what I am looking for , as I have many others which do offer exceptional performances, Boulez /Sony releases.
> But I want some of the vocal works and especially the 3 SQ's offered in the 2 sets.
> Even though I just bought the Schoenberg SQ /Chandos release,,i am looking for other SQ performances.
> AS I can not find any YT uploads of the SQ/s from the Fred Sherry SQ/Craft sets, I am taking a chance.
> 
> Opinions please.


I like Craft a lot better than Boulez in Schoenberg. Craft I would say is just as much an unforgiving modernist as Boulez. Hey, can you link these recordings? I don't think I'm familiar with the volumes you're talking about.

Edit: If you're talking about those box sets with reissues of Naxos CDs, those look totally worth it! Do it!  But make sure you pay off some of that amazon card first :lol:


----------



## paulbest

No
after comparing 
Variations , 2nd section, 1 minute piece. I deleted both Craft boxe sets from my amazon cart.The Boulez is superior. 
I will have to order the Naxos SQ/Fred Sherry SQ/Craft Edition singles of the 3/4 SQs, and the sq1 on another single. So I thought, I am spending $30+ for those 2,,,if I get box box sets for $100 I get everything else included. 
I do not want *everything else*,m The performances are not how I want Schoenberg.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

flamencosketches said:


> Maybe I'm completely in the wrong here. Does anyone want to show me a great Boulez recording of Schoenberg that proves how wrong I am?


His _Pierrot Lunaire_ with Christine Schäfer is a favourite of mine. As with the Uchida recording of the Piano Concerto, this pairs Boulez with another artist, and a great deal of credit is due to Schäfer herself.


----------



## flamencosketches

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> His _Pierrot Lunaire_ with Christine Schäfer is a favourite of mine. As with the Uchida recording of the Piano Concerto, this pairs Boulez with another artist, and a great deal of credit is due to Schäfer herself.


Interesting, thank you. I'll definitely have to check this one out. Boulez's recording of his own Pli Selon Pli with Ms. Schäfer is very good.


----------



## Janspe

I decided to listen to the classic LaSalle recording of the string quartets since I've never given their effort that much attention, for whatever reason. Two quartets done, three to go!

I think it's essentially important to start the exploration of Schoenberg's quartet works from the early D major piece, since it really makes the listener see where the composer is coming from. The D minor (Op. 7) is just so bloody intense, there's _no way_ that could be anyone's first string quartet...

I like the D major well enough, but I absolutely _adore_ the monster that follows it - it's a masterpiece, well and truly. Such an eventful piece, with plenty of contrast; it's as though a programmatic narrative ran through it that I can almost catch. It's true that Schoenberg had some ideas about the underlying meaning of the work (as seen from his sketches) but he saw them fit only for private consideration, and I wish to respect that.

But my _god_, what a piece. One of those works that will stay with me for the rest of my life for sure!

Can't wait to listen to the rest of the quartets - I think I was longing to return to these works subconsciously more than I realized.


----------



## flamencosketches

I listened to the D minor quartet once last week. It is a phenomenal work. It's pretty amazing how many great early works Schoenberg wrote before even really immersing himself in the atonality that he would become known for, let alone the 12-tone technique. I've said this before, but it really amazes me how Schoenberg has had four periods of full maturity, with masterworks coming from each. He really was always pushing his craft to the limit like no other composer ever had.

Anyway, thanks for the reminder. I'll have to listen to it again this week. The recording I have is of the New Vienna String Quartet, but I want to check out the LaSalle now. I love their recording of Verklärte Nacht.


----------



## philoctetes

Just received a copy of the Asasello Quartet recordings... I like their sound already... recerche... they order the pieces backwards from 4 to 1 which I think I will like...


----------



## starthrower

philoctetes said:


> Just received a copy of the Asasello Quartet recordings... I like their sound already... recerche... they order the pieces backwards from 4 to 1 which I think I will like...


I bought it a couple years ago. It's a great set. I like it more than the seasoned Schoenberg Quartet ensemble playing these pieces. I like them better on Webern, and Szymanowski.


----------



## philoctetes

starthrower said:


> I bought it a couple years ago. It's a great set. I like it more than the seasoned Schoenberg Quartet ensemble playing these pieces. I like them better on Webern, and Szymanowski.


Could be that you get credit for mentioning them before and I checked it out, so thanks for that. They have some other interesting CDs too.


----------



## starthrower

philoctetes said:


> They have some other interesting CDs too.


Yeah, the new Matrix In Persian Blue looks interesting. I'm not familiar with composer Robert Groslot, but they've devoted an entire disc to his music.


----------



## millionrainbows

starthrower said:


> I bought it a couple years ago. It's a great set. I like it more than the seasoned Schoenberg Quartet ensemble playing these pieces. I like them better on Webern, and Szymanowski.


Me too, now. Gonna order it. Once again, thanx starthrower.


----------



## starthrower

I just played disc 5 of the Schoenberg string set on Chandos. Smooth as silk on the more traditional pieces. I'll have go through the rest of this set.


----------



## Janspe

2nd quartet done with the LaSalle Quartet! I was quite pleased with the performance, and Margaret Price was very good as the soprano.

This is a work that has remained an enigma for me ever since I heard it, and I'm not sure if that is ever going to change. The folk song quotations in the second movement are bizarre, and George's poetry remains a tough nut to crack for me - even though my German is pretty much fluent; I just struggle to interpret the texts! However, I'm very fond of the work in any case. It's such a pleasure to listen to, and the last two movements will always remain intriguing to me.

_Ich fühle wie ich über letzter Wolke
in einem Meer kristallnen Glanzes schwimme -
Ich bin ein Funke nur vom heiligen Feuer
Ich bin ein Dröhnen nur der heiligen Stimme._

The last two quartets are going to be a piece of cake after this one! Later works of Schoenberg have always had a place very close to my heart.

I'm feeling quite emotional over this little project of going through the quartets again. I just love this music so much, it's such an important part of my life. How _lucky_ am I to be able to do this right here at home with little to no effort? One should never forget to be grateful about these things!


----------



## millionrainbows

Man, I've gotta get that _Asasello Quartet _set. Not only does it sound fantastic sonically, close-miked as I like it, but the execution brings new meaning to the music. I can hear all this just by listening to the short samples.


----------



## millionrainbows

starthrower said:


> I just played disc 5 of the Schoenberg string set on Chandos. Smooth as silk on the more traditional pieces. I'll have go through the rest of this set.


I assume you are referring to The Schoenberg Quartet. Yes, it is silky and full-bodied. I wish they'd miked it closer.


----------



## starthrower

They do have a great sound. To my ears they obtain the warmest, richest, most beautiful sound of any quartet I've listened to so far.


----------



## paulbest

millionrainbows said:


> I assume you are referring to The Schoenberg Quartet. Yes, it is silky and full-bodied. I wish they'd miked it closer.
> 
> View attachment 122290


My set just arrived, its on the comp cd player as i type. 
Certainly lives up to its LEGENDARY status, 
Broke down and paid the asking $65,,,ain't gonna find it under $50,,,well worth over $100.
I will explain,. 
CD 5 is dull/boring. All 3 works are not interesting at all. , So you actually only get 4 cds with chamber, not 5, OK, thats THAT. Now on to the other 4 cds. 
All top tier, masterpieces. and all performed according to this Legendary group, which has established a new standard. Which i should say is near equal and close to/or surpasses the LATEST Craft/Schoenberg Project/Naxos/1990's. , its not so easy to say,,its a matter of preference. I am speaking of THE NEW Craft Project, issued on various single NAXOS releases,,all recorded in the 1990's. <<<Not Craft's early Schoenberg Project which is good, but not on the same level as this Naxos>>
OK both essential. Now on to a few notes of the 4 cd set from Chandos. 
What makes this set so important to own , is
2 arrangements by the violist, Henk Guittart, who arranged Schoenberg's 6 pieces for piano for SQ, it is a 5 minute work, STUNNING 5 minutes, Same cd 4 has the great violist arranging yet another of Schoenberg's works, quintet for various instruments op26, it is a 40 minute performance , and again a STUNNING ABSOLUTE MUST HAVE. Must have = Score quality + performance quality.
So you give up 1 cd(CD5) , yet gain 2 masterpieces which you will not get on any other set. 
@ $65 makes this 4 cd set a bargain. 
I pretty much said these same things on my amazon *review*.


----------



## starthrower

> CD 5 is dull/boring. All 3 works are not interesting at all.


Maybe not to you. But to the rest of the world it's a 5 disc set. And it's on sale for 42.75 at Presto.
https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/products/7922987--schoenberg-complete-works-for-strings


----------



## flamencosketches

starthrower said:


> Maybe not to you. But to the rest of the world it's a 5 disc set. And it's on sale for 42.75 at Presto.
> https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/products/7922987--schoenberg-complete-works-for-strings


Wow, this really is an excellent sounding quartet... damn it, Presto, why must you tempt me.


----------



## starthrower

flamencosketches said:


> Wow, this really is an excellent sounding quartet... damn it, Presto, why must you tempt me.


Check out their Webern disc, and the Szymanoswki/Janacek CD.


----------



## Janspe

I'm going to hear my first-ever live _Gurre-Lieder_ here in Helsinki exactly one week from today, and I couldn't be more excited! To calm myself down a little bit I decided to listen to the work one last time before the concert:

Pierre Boulez conducting the BBC Symphony Orchestra and the BBC Symphony Chorus
Jess Thomas (Waldemar)
Marieta Napier (Tove)
Yvonne Minton (Wood Dove)
Siegmund Nimsgern (Peasant)
Kenneth Bowen (Klaus the Jester)
Günter Reich (Narrator)









There are recordings of the work I like more than Boulez's, but I felt like I owed him this one: it is because of him (among others, obviously, but mostly him) that my deep love for Schoenberg's music developed in the first place.

I _cannot wait_ for the 16th...


----------



## starthrower




----------



## Janspe

I'm happy to report back from the _Gurre-Lieder_ concert I attended last Friday! It was a wonderful experience, even though certain aspects of the performance weren't exactly to my liking. I was still glowing from joy the next morning... This work is definitely one that benefits from an excellent live interpretation. The hall was absolutely packed and the reception was enthusiastic. I wish they will do _Die Jakobsleiter_ or other large-scale Schoenberg masterpieces in the near future.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Janspe said:


> I'm happy to report back from the _Gurre-Lieder_ concert I attended last Friday! It was a wonderful experience, even though certain aspects of the performance weren't exactly to my liking. I was still glowing from joy the next morning... This work is definitely one that benefits from an excellent live interpretation. The hall was absolutely packed and the reception was enthusiastic. I wish they will do _Die Jakobsleiter_ or other large-scale Schoenberg masterpieces in the near future.


I'm glad you enjoyed it. As for _Die Jakobsleiter_, it's regrettable that Schoenberg failed to complete it.


----------



## millionrainbows

ON ORDER: Schoenberg Quartets, Asasello Quartet. Got it for $16.oo. Hurray, I can't wait to hear the close-miked directness, clarity, and intelligence, backwards!









From a customer review: "I also want to mention the sound engineering, which, for a change has given us a soundscape appropriate for chamber music: nice and close, loads of sound, lots of detail--and basically dry, without that ridiculous resonance that ruins so many recordings of small ensembles. Bravo to Deutschlandfunk and Genuin!"


----------



## Mandryka

millionrainbows said:


> ON ORDER: Schoenberg Quartets, Asasello Quartet. Got it for $16.oo. Hurray, I can't wait to hear the close-miked directness, clarity, and intelligence, backwards!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From a customer review: "I also want to mention the sound engineering, which, for a change has given us a soundscape appropriate for chamber music: nice and close, loads of sound, lots of detail--and basically dry, without that ridiculous resonance that ruins so many recordings of small ensembles. Bravo to Deutschlandfunk and Genuin!"


Thanks, it's so badly tagged on spotify and qobuz that I didn't realise the music on it was by Schoenberg, I'm listening to the 4th now. The booklet is worth looking at I think -- I see they dedicate this one to the Kolisch Quartet, I might go back to that performance later on/


----------



## philoctetes

re Asasello: I also got their Marmarai from Berkshire and their Schnittke is a budget mp3 on Amazoo


----------



## Mandryka

I thought that Asassello in Qt 3 was particularly enjoyable.


----------



## philoctetes

Asasello's #1 is the first to make me appreciate it. Before I'd considered it too early to matter.


----------



## millionrainbows

It arrived yesterday, and what a treat! Right now I'm listening to No.4, and the lines/counterpoint are very clear and comprehensible. They are all on the same page, everywhere, and I get the sense that they are "one mind."


----------



## CnC Bartok

"CD 5 is dull/boring. All 3 works are not interesting at all."

More guff.

While the earliest quartet is not echt-Schoenberg, and the Concerto for String Quartet an arrangement (!!) of a Handel Concerto grosso, neither is insignificant in his development. Just read how Schoenberg approached the Handel to appreciate what he was trying to get over.

While I'd struggle to explain why Chamber Symphony No.1 is in this boxed set, this is one of his first masterpieces, I'd find it hard to understand any opinion to the contrary, I'm afraid....not interesting at all? Maybe not, to those whose ears are closed.

That Asasello Qt set looks sorely tempting.....just purchased for £13-ish!


----------



## CnC Bartok

elgars ghost said:


> I'm glad you enjoyed it. As for _Die Jakobsleiter_, it's regrettable that Schoenberg failed to complete it.


Absolutely! A stupendous piece. There's a stunning recording of it in the newly-released Michael Gielen box, knocks spots off both the Nagano and Boulez recordings, the only other performances I know.


----------



## starthrower

CnC Bartok said:


> Absolutely! A stupendous piece. There's a stunning recording of it in the newly-released Michael Gielen box, knocks spots off both the Nagano and Boulez recordings, the only other performances I know.


Thanks for the reminder! That Gielen set is going on my Christmas list.


----------



## elgar's ghost

CnC Bartok said:


> Absolutely! A stupendous piece. There's a stunning recording of it in the newly-released Michael Gielen box, knocks spots off both the Nagano and Boulez recordings, the only other performances I know.


The one I have is on the Auvidis/Naïve label, with Siegfried Lorenz (as Gabriel) and the Tokyo SO conducted by Kazuyoshi Akiyama, recorded at Suntory Hall in 1997. I haven't heard the recordings by Boulez or Gielen so I can't say how good it is in comparison. I've recently reacquainted myself with Gielen's recordings of _Moses und Aron_ and _Von heute auf morgen_ and enjoyed both.


----------



## CnC Bartok

elgars ghost said:


> The one I have is on the Auvidis/Naïve label, with Siegfried Lorenz (as Gabriel) and the Tokyo SO conducted by Kazuyoshi Akiyama, recorded at Suntory Hall in 1997. I haven't heard the recordings by Boulez or Gielen so I can't say how good it is in comparison. I've recently reacquainted myself with Gielen's recordings of _Moses und Aron_ and _Von heute auf morgen_ and enjoyed both.


Gielen's Moses is a gem, everything is so clear in it, despite the oldish recording. I have struggled to get much enjoyment out of the other opera, though. It doesn't have the hallmarks of a masterpiece  Maybe it needs another listen, though...


----------



## elgar's ghost

Yes, _Von heute auf morgen_ is something of a square peg in a round hole as far as Schoenberg's output as a whole is concerned and I can't ever see it getting much love. The review on Amazon by Christopher Forbes is worth reading and this line from it pretty much sums it up for me:

_'It's as if a poor man's Noel Coward play were being viewed through a funhouse mirror...'_ :lol:


----------



## CnC Bartok

elgars ghost said:


> Yes, _Von heute auf morgen_ is something of a square peg in a round hole as far as Schoenberg's output as a whole is concerned and I can't ever see it getting much love. The review on Amazon by Christopher Forbes is worth reading and this line from it pretty much sums it up for me:
> 
> _'It's as if a poor man's Noel Coward play were being viewed through a funhouse mirror...'_ :lol:


Saw that, induced a guffaw here too!


----------



## flamencosketches

There is a pretty funny discussion around that piece in Alex Ross’ book The Rest is Noise, during his chapter on Berlin in the ‘20s. Basically, it seems like Schoenberg’s reaction to his contemporaries, especially Weill, who was significantly more popular and successful at the time. Certainly an odd piece in his body of work.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Schoenberg was apparently quite pleased with it - perhaps he came to envisage it as _Moses und Aron_'s playful equivalent. Maybe Schoenberg tried too hard here to cut it with the likes of Hindemith and Weill in the _zeitoper_ stakes - on the other hand, the banality of the plot could almost convince me that he was having a sly pop at the genre.


----------



## flamencosketches

It seems not too many recordings exist of Schoenberg's Lieder. I consider his Lieder to be first rate, and I consider the genre one of his greatest skills. Pierrot Lunaire and Gurre-Lieder are undoubtedly two of the greatest song cycles of all time. That being said, I'm having trouble finding alternatives to the Glenn Gould recordings of Schoenberg's early Lieder, with Helen Vanni, Ellen Faull, and Donald Gramm. Is there anything else out there?

There's this:










... but I can see that our former member Paul Best has given it a scathing review on Amazon... :lol: ... any opinions? Any other recordings?


----------



## starthrower

Seeing as I didn't agree with Mr. Best on a number of things, I don't trust his review. Here's a performance I like. This was released on an Erato CD but I don't know if it's available on any re-issues?


----------



## haydnguy

I bought this CD 11 years ago and is one of my most cherished CD's. I must have bought it because of the glowing reviews but you often see those. When I listened it was so good. The 3 reviewers of this all say it's the best one on the market by far. I would be willing to wager it still is. However, at $189.00 you don't want it. I have looked on Youtube and didn't find it but I may have missed it because I didn't look very long. If you find it at a reasonable price, buy it.


----------



## philoctetes

haydnguy said:


> I bought this CD 11 years ago and is one of my most cherished CD's. I must have bought it because of the glowing reviews but you often see those. When I listened it was so good. The 3 reviewers of this all say it's the best one on the market by far. I would be willing to wager it still is. However, at $189.00 you don't want it. I have looked on Youtube and didn't find it but I may have missed it because I didn't look very long. If you find it at a reasonable price, buy it.


I once owned that myself. Very Bavarian.


----------



## haydnguy

philoctetes said:


> I once owned that myself. Very Bavarian.


I had to look up to see what you meant. I take it you didn't like it? What version do you prefer (if you do).


----------



## starthrower

flamencosketches said:


> It seems not too many recordings exist of Schoenberg's Lieder. I consider his Lieder to be first rate, and I consider the genre one of his greatest skills. Pierrot Lunaire and Gurre-Lieder are undoubtedly two of the greatest song cycles of all time. That being said, I'm having trouble finding alternatives to the Glenn Gould recordings of Schoenberg's early Lieder, with Helen Vanni, Ellen Faull, and Donald Gramm. Is there anything else out there?
> 
> There's this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... but I can see that our former member Paul Best has given it a scathing review on Amazon... :lol: ... any opinions? Any other recordings?


I own that Capriccio set. But I haven't gotten around to listening to it closely. I pulled it out last night and I'll listen to some of it.


----------



## flamencosketches

Let me know what you think. For the price it looks like a must. 

I’m eagerly awaiting the Sinopoli box. I’m starting to realize I have far too little Schoenberg in my library. I also ordered the earlier Boulez Pierrot Lunaire, on Sony. I really want the Schäfer recording on Sony but the price was kinda high, I’ll wait until I can find it locally.


----------



## starthrower

i like the Boulez Pierrot Lunaire. I think that whole CD is great! I have the Gould set but I'm not that crazy about some of the vocal pieces.


----------



## philoctetes

haydnguy said:


> I had to look up to see what you meant. I take it you didn't like it? What version do you prefer (if you do).


Well I've been to Munich twice and that's enough for me. But actually I think that's an appropriate sound for that music and distinctive as well. But earlier, large-scale Schoenberg is not my thing so I kinda skip G-lieder completely. I've already posted most of my favorites here so I'm dry on recs. The latest was the Assasello Quartet.


----------



## philoctetes

I will probably get the Gielen set if my resistance breaks down before it goes out of print...


----------



## starthrower

It's already out of print but I decided to grab a copy before they got too expensive. 13 dollars for the 4 disc set at Amazon.


----------



## philoctetes

starthrower said:


> It's already out of print but I decided to grab a copy before they got too expensive. 13 dollars for the 4 disc set at Amazon.


Are you talking about Gielen? I'm looking at a 12 CD set for $40. Includes the G-lieder too.

@flamenco not sure if I posted this one before... op. 8 is hard to find...


----------



## philoctetes

Ya know, I have passed on the Capriccio 4CD set for years... it's always been cheap and was even listed on Berkshire for awhile... Barainsky is a bit rough IMO and I suspect the set - all with piano - has more value in completeness than listenability... let me know if I'm wrong after you've all heard it...


----------



## starthrower

No, I meant the Glenn Gould. I'm gonna wait until Presto has their box set sale to see what the price on the Gielen will be. I think it starts in late November. And they have great deals every year for 2 months.


----------



## starthrower

Another good thing to do is sign up on JPC's mailing list. They have some phenomenal deals on various releases. I got the Gielen Mahler box for 20 dollars last winter. Every other retailer was selling it for 60-70 dollars.


----------



## starthrower

philoctetes said:


> Ya know, I have passed on the Capriccio 4CD set for years... it's always been cheap and was even listed on Berkshire for awhile... Barainsky is a bit rough IMO and I suspect the set - all with piano - has more value in completeness than listenability... let me know if I'm wrong after you've all heard it...


Honestly, I prefer a more varied set. I like the orchestral music. If you want a diverse set for cheap there's the Boulez eleven CD set on Sony.


----------



## philoctetes

starthrower said:


> Another good thing to do is sign up on JPC's mailing list. They have some phenomenal deals on various releases. I got the Gielen Mahler box for 20 dollars last winter. Every other retailer was selling it for 60-70 dollars.


I ordered the Bruggen Rameau box, before it was available in US, from JPC and received an email in German or Dutch. Apparently it was an order cancellation. My card was never charged and no box ever appeared.

Whenever I order from Presto something arrives broken.


----------



## flamencosketches

starthrower said:


> Another good thing to do is sign up on JPC's mailing list. They have some phenomenal deals on various releases. I got the Gielen Mahler box for 20 dollars last winter. Every other retailer was selling it for 60-70 dollars.


This is a great idea. I can't believe how cheap their CDs are, and they have soo much great stuff. I can't understand their site at all though, so weak is my German.

Speaking of JPC, has anyone heard this CPO release of Michael Gielen conducting Schoenberg's Von Heute auf Morgen?










Is this an unfairly maligned masterpiece? or was he out of his element here, resulting in a work best forgotten? I've heard about 5 minutes of it and thought it wasn't bad, though the plot is just silly, clearly he (and his wife, the librettist) was going for something Weill-Brechtian...?


----------



## starthrower

philoctetes said:


> I ordered the Bruggen Rameau box, before it was available in US, from JPC and received an email in German or Dutch. Apparently it was an order cancellation. My card was never charged and no box ever appeared.
> 
> Whenever I order from Presto something arrives broken.


Never had a problem with Presto. Everything I ordered was packed well in bubble wrap. I usually wait until I have a big enough order that they have to use a box. Padded envelopes coming from Europe aren't as safe. I've ordered a couple times from JPC with no problem.


----------



## starthrower

flamencosketches said:


> This is a great idea. I can't believe how cheap their CDs are, and they have soo much great stuff. I can't understand their site at all though, so weak is my German.


If you scroll to the bottom of their homepage you'll see a Switch To English link. It doesn't change everything to English but it makes it a little easier.


----------



## starthrower

Gielen Edition Vol 8 Schoenberg Berg Webern

Under 30 dollars

https://www.importcds.com/michael-gielen-edition-8/747313906383


----------



## haydnguy

I just had a nightmare flashback. I read the first 5 pages of this thread and vividly recall why I left TC 10 years ago. I had just started listening to classical music and had to read all that. 

"If you say you like wheat bread you must be able to justify it!" (Of course they were talking about music.) 

At any rate, onward. (That Gielen looks good.)


----------



## CnC Bartok

philoctetes said:


> I will probably get the Gielen set if my resistance breaks down before it goes out of print...


Buy it!!!! That's an executive command. It's seriously good, including the Gurrelieder. But he also makes the best case I've heard for Jacob's Ladder, and makes the Chamber Symphonies sound more like symphonies, which I suppose one could argue they indeed are.

That said, I still reckon his best Schoenberg is his Moses und Aron from the 70s, originally on Philips....


----------



## philoctetes

CnC Bartok said:


> Buy it!!!! That's an executive command. It's seriously good, including the Gurrelieder. But he also makes the best case I've heard for Jacob's Ladder, and makes the Chamber Symphonies sound more like symphonies, which I suppose one could argue they indeed are.
> 
> That said, I still reckon his best Schoenberg is his Moses und Aron from the 70s, originally on Philips....


Done... Right now I'm listening to Ferras shred the Berg on Spotify and that tipped me over... can't pass it up for $36


----------



## starthrower

I don't really need anymore 2nd Viennese recordings but the Gielen has me interested. It'll be something different than Boulez.


----------



## flamencosketches

starthrower said:


> I don't really need anymore 2nd Viennese recordings but the Gielen has me interested. It'll be something different than Boulez.


I just ordered the Sinopoli box, but at that price I'm certainly tempted on the Gielen... first though I want a good set of the Schoenberg quartets!


----------



## starthrower

I'd consider the Asasello Quartet for the Schoenberg string quartets. The Sinopoli set is a bit too brief, so I think I'll spend the extra bucks for the Gielen.


----------



## philoctetes

starthrower said:


> I don't really need anymore 2nd Viennese recordings but the Gielen has me interested. It'll be something different than Boulez.


I too have a lot of VS2 but I've resisted the Boulez Schoenberg box (I like Boulez with Berg more)... while waiting for something like this Gielen to come along... a great conductor who I have little collected... like neither Boulez nor Karajan makes it even better...


----------



## philoctetes

the Asassello is my new fave but the Leipzig is still pretty good... and II believe that creepy guy wasn't a member then...


----------



## flamencosketches

philoctetes said:


> the Asassello is my new fave but the Leipzig is still pretty good... and II believe that creepy guy wasn't a member then...


I think I'll get the Asasello while it's still cheap-ish. It sounds great. What I really want is the Schoenberg Quartet but it ain't cheap.

Any opinions on the Lasalle box with Berg, Webern and Zemlinsky quartets included? On DG I believe.


----------



## 89Koechel

flamenco - Just wanted to say, my friend ... that you're still one of the very-FEW who shows any, true interest of the Schoenberg legacy, anymore. Your continued, assiduous interest in this somewhat-DOUR (but original) composer ... in the years when composers were trying, so-diligently, to surpass the previous legacies of Wagner, Debussy, and other predecessors. ... After a number of decades of listening to Arnold S, Anton v W and Mr. Berg, I'm still trying to put-together a complete opinion of ALL of their efforts, and we can be glad that there've been, over the last, few decades a genuine NUMBER of recordings (and/or performances) that give us a true "trunk" (so to speak) or substance of what these men were trying to DEVISE, back then.


----------



## starthrower

flamencosketches said:


> I think I'll get the Asasello while it's still cheap-ish. It sounds great. What I really want is the Schoenberg Quartet but it ain't cheap.


This is best price you're going to find on the Schoenberg Quartet box. On sale for one more week.
https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/products/7922987--schoenberg-complete-works-for-strings


----------



## CnC Bartok

I got the Asasello set recently, and am enjoying it. I was happy with the Fred Sherry readings, dotted around the Naxos releases, but there's a freshness and lack of pre-conceived ideas in these newer readings.

Incidentally, the Gielen box has the chamber orchestra arrangement of the 2nd Quartet, I assume done by the composer himself? The argument made is that few people attend chamber concerts, so this might reach a wider audience. Not entirely convinced myself that the orchestral version is necessary, though......


----------



## starthrower

I agree! I'd rather listen to the quartet. And yes, the Asasello set is great. And cheaper than than the Chandos box.


----------



## millionrainbows

starthrower said:


> This is best price you're going to find on the Schoenberg Quartet box. On sale for one more week.
> https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/products/7922987--schoenberg-complete-works-for-strings


$43.00, that IS cheap. I have it, and there is slightly too much ambience for me, but the sumptuous sounds of the instruments compensate.

Fred Sherry on Naxos? Those must be the Robert Craft series, orig. on KOCH.



flamencosketches said:


> Any opinions on the Lasalle box with Berg, Webern and Zemlinsky quartets included? On DG I believe.




I only have the original LaSalle release.










flamenco had mentioned lieder, and this 2-CD has almost a full CD's worth of Schoenberg, Webern, and Berg lieder.


----------



## millionrainbows

I'm collecting piano reductions of Schoenberg's orchestral works, too. Worthy of note:


----------



## flamencosketches

I'm listening to a great recording of Pierrot Lunaire:









I'm a convert, I like Pierrot Lunaire now. I like it a lot! Still a damned challenging work, but worthy of any effort expended. An expressionist masterpiece.



millionrainbows said:


> I'm collecting piano reductions of Schoenberg's orchestral works, too. Worthy of note:
> 
> View attachment 124487
> View attachment 124488
> View attachment 124489
> View attachment 124491
> View attachment 124492


None of those attachments work. Too bad, I'm interested!

I'm thinking of buying Peter Hill performing klavierstücke of the Neue Wiener Schule on Naxos. Any fans here? It sounds really good.


----------



## flamencosketches

89Koechel said:


> flamenco - Just wanted to say, my friend ... that you're still one of the very-FEW who shows any, true interest of the Schoenberg legacy, anymore. Your continued, assiduous interest in this somewhat-DOUR (but original) composer ... in the years when composers were trying, so-diligently, to surpass the previous legacies of Wagner, Debussy, and other predecessors. ... After a number of decades of listening to Arnold S, Anton v W and Mr. Berg, I'm still trying to put-together a complete opinion of ALL of their efforts, and we can be glad that there've been, over the last, few decades a genuine NUMBER of recordings (and/or performances) that give us a true "trunk" (so to speak) or substance of what these men were trying to DEVISE, back then.


There's at least a few of us here, my friend! I have to thank Mandryka, starthrower, millionrainbows and all the good people of this thread for putting me onto a lot of great Schoenberg music and otherwise. I'm glad that a multitude of recordings exists for my generation to devour, the few of us that are interested, at least.

All I'm trying to do is make sense of a challenging, and fascinating, artist. I am a card-carrying Webernian, but his teacher is a composer that may never cease to challenge me, I think. For that matter, I am still trying to make sense of Berg too. I love a few of his works, but still am not 100% sure what he is all about. It doesn't help that I am not much of an opera man.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Millions - those Fred Sherry quartet recordings were done in 2012, 2005, 2007, 2009 respectively, if that makes them the same as you indicated. Indeed, they're included in the Robert Craft series, now on Naxos.


----------



## flamencosketches

The Robert Craft Naxos series is actually really good. Does anyone have this?










I might get it. Torn between this and the Simon Rattle 2CD that contains the op.31 variations.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Do get them. You could argue that Craft takes a middle road with Schoenberg, with the cold analytical approach of Boulez on one hand, and a more lyrical manner, like Sinopoli or Karajan takes. Rattle too, come to think of it. Oddly, Gielen is actually closer to the latter as well, as far as I would suggest.

I am not sure how "inspired" Craft is, but he's solid and honest at his worst!


----------



## flamencosketches

CnC Bartok said:


> Do get them. You could argue that Craft takes a middle road with Schoenberg, with the cold analytical approach of Boulez on one hand, and a more lyrical manner, like Sinopoli or Karajan takes. Rattle too, come to think of it. Oddly, Gielen is actually closer to the latter as well, as far as I would suggest.
> 
> I am not sure how "inspired" Craft is, but he's solid and honest at his worst!


I have another CD in the series, with the 5 Orchestral Pieces, the Cello Concerto after Monn, and his Brahms Piano Quartet orchestration. It's really great through and through. It's my favorite of the few recordings I've heard of the 5 Orchestral Pieces. I think he's certainly inspired with this music. Frankly I don't know much about Gielen (or indeed Rattle), at all. Sometimes I wonder if there is any conductor who truly "gets" Schoenberg, through and through. I feel like no one could possibly get all of it right.


----------



## CnC Bartok

^^^ That last point is probably true of all great composers, surely?

We should throw David Atherton into the mix too. The recordings he did with the London Sinfonietta in the early 70s of Schoenberg's mainly smaller-scale works were excellent, God knows why they aren't properly available on CD. He's probably closer to the Boulez end of the spectrum, but with a tantalising hint of warmth!

I've got the whole Craft survey on Naxos, a real shame it was never finished. I reckon he's better on the vocal and choral pieces than with the big statement works (which would include the 5 Orchestral Pieces), and essential for the arrangements like the Monn and Handel Concertos. I just wish he had done Moses and Jakobsleiter, both of which would surely have been his cup of tea......


----------



## flamencosketches

CnC Bartok said:


> ^^^ That last point is probably true of all great composers, surely?


Yes, I think you're probably right. Perhaps more true of Schoenberg than some others, just on account of his extremely varied and diverse music. I think one could probably apply the same rubric and approach to conducting from one Haydn symphony to another. This might not be quite so easy going from Gurre-Lieder to, say, the Serenade.


----------



## millionrainbows

Return to the Valley of "I'm collecting piano reductions of Schoenberg's orchestral works, too. Worthy of note:"


----------



## millionrainbows

Son of Return to the Valley of "I'm collecting piano reductions of Schoenberg's orchestral works, too. Worthy of note:"


----------



## starthrower

I've listened to three recordings of the 5 Pieces for Orchestra including Dorati, Rattle, and Boulez. Pierre's is the one I don't care for. I like Rattle's Erwartung as well.


----------



## millionrainbows

> I'm thinking of buying Peter Hill performing klavierstücke of the Neue Wiener Schule on Naxos. Any fans here? It sounds really good.


I like him on all the Messiaen piano works; I have them all. I would think his new weiner stuff was good.

I must be an old-timer, because I have all the Robert Craft Schoenberg on Koch, not Naxos. Also, I trusted Craft from his older Columbia Masterworks vinyl, most of it still unreleased on CD. His Five Pieces on LP is still the definitive version for me.

I've grown fonder of the Variations for Orchestra, op. 31, and the Four Orchestral Songs, op.22.


----------



## haydnguy

I have 3 CD's with Robert Craft (Listed below). I put the rear cover of the "Six Songs" to show what was on that one. I don't remember what each sound like but I remember I thought they were good. (That was in my early days of listening.)

Schoenberg - Violin Concerto, A Survivor From Warsaw

Schoenberg - Pelleas Et Melisande, Erwartung

Schoenberg - Six Songs for Soprano and Orchestra


----------



## millionrainbows

starthrower said:


> I've listened to three recordings of the 5 Pieces for Orchestra including Dorati, Rattle, and Boulez. Pierre's is the one I don't care for. I like Rattle's Erwartung as well.


As far as _Five Pieces,_ I'm always looking for a version to equal Craft's Columbia LP recording. So far, James Levine comes close, although it is much slower. I guess what I'm searching for is the clarity, and good engineering of the Columbia recording. I think they used more spot-mikes to bring out certain aspects. There's a part in Vergangenes around 3:50 where the woodwinds sound like fluttering dry leaves; Levine gets it, but Craft's LP version had this part much louder. It's easy to miss this part.

This leads me to believe that orchestral recordings need to use more microphones, and more mixing, to bring out certain parts. Remember, Frank Zappa used _a lot_ of PCM mics on his orchestral recording, and used processing in the mix.


----------



## millionrainbows

These two CD issues are the only fragments of the Craft/Columbia LP recordings that have been released, vol. 7 and vol. 4. Both were 2-LP sets in shallow boxes, and both CD reissues are 2-CD sets.















Both vol. 4 and vol. 7 are listed now as Glenn Gould titles (Glenn Gould Jubilee series).

Volume 7 on top: note that Robert Craft is not present on these recordings. Robert Craft himself may be the one who is stopping the reissue of the remainder of the Columbia recordings.

Note that the_ back_ cover of the volume 7 CD is a misprint;









the correct personnel is shown inside the CD booklet, as it appeared on the LP:


----------



## millionrainbows

Phyllis Bryn-Julson and Ursula Oppens; both excellent musicians.


----------



## flamencosketches

This is a monumental performance. I take back all the flak I said about Pierre Boulez conducting Schoenberg a few pages back. Anyone who can deliver this is a master. Of course, the highlight of it all is the late Jessye Norman. Really gripping stuff. I implore everyone who reads this post to listen to this today in memory of Ms. Norman. If the link doesn't work, I'm talking about the Lied der Waldtaube with Pierre Boulez & the Ensemble Intercontemporain.


----------



## starthrower

^^^
I have the box set. The only interpretation I don't like is the 5 Pieces for Orchestra. The rest is fine. The individual CDs with the art work and booklets are a lot nicer. I have a few.


----------



## flamencosketches

starthrower said:


> ^^^
> I have the box set. The only interpretation I don't like is the 5 Pieces for Orchestra. The rest is fine. The individual CDs with the art work and booklets are a lot nicer. I have a few.


The individual CD is the one I have, it also includes an excellent Pierrot Lunaire, and then Erwartung, which I have not heard yet. The Lied der Waldtaube was a welcome surprise. It's a beautiful work.

Does anyone know whether it was arranged for chamber orchestra by Schoenberg himself, and if so, when?


----------



## starthrower

I don't know anything about that piece but I agree it's a beauty. I'll have to check the liners.


----------



## flamencosketches

starthrower said:


> I don't know anything about that piece but I agree it's a beauty. I'll have to check the liners.


It's a chamber orchestra arrangement of the Wood Dove's song from Gurre-Lieder, "Tauben von Gurre". It's mesmerizing. It really showcases the young Schoenberg's immense talent for orchestration and harmony.


----------



## philoctetes

flamencosketches said:


> It's a chamber orchestra arrangement of the Wood Dove's song from Gurre-Lieder, "Tauben von Gurre". It's mesmerizing. It really showcases the young Schoenberg's immense talent for orchestration and harmony.


Just dipping into Gielen and hearing lovely things as expected. I've resisted that Boulez box and now you say these things. The agony of resistance may be too much to bear if you keep this up... ergh... 

One thing I advise - I never liked that Levine DG disc - it came out in the early CD days and the dynamics are far too extreme especially in the Webern most of the music is inaudible except the momentary peaks... I just don't like that kind of sound - in comparison Dorati or Karajan can be heard quite easily...


----------



## flamencosketches

philoctetes said:


> Just dipping into Gielen and hearing lovely things as expected. I've resisted that Boulez box and now you say these things. The agony of resistance may be too much to bear if you keep this up... ergh...
> 
> One thing I advise - I never liked that Levine DG disc - it came out in the early CD days and the dynamics are far too extreme especially in the Webern most of the music is inaudible except the momentary peaks... I just don't like that kind of sound - in comparison Dorati or Karajan can be heard quite easily...


I may just go on collecting individual discs, the box release of the Boulez recordings includes no booklet, I believe.


----------



## starthrower

flamencosketches said:


> I may just go on collecting individual discs, the box release of the Boulez recordings includes no booklet, I believe.


None of those cheap Sony/RCA boxes have any notes. I bought the Boulez box for just a couple titles I was lacking because it was cheaper and easier than tracking down the individual CDs. It's a shame Sony re-issued the Ligeti box in this form because I find the booklet to be highly valuable.

Well I've got to give Gurre-Lieder a fresh listen. It's been a couple years.


----------



## flamencosketches

starthrower said:


> None of those cheap Sony/RCA boxes have any notes. I bought the Boulez box for just a couple titles I was lacking because it was cheaper and easier than tracking down the individual CDs. It's a shame Sony re-issued the Ligeti box in this form because I find the booklet to be highly valuable.
> 
> Well I've got to give Gurre-Lieder a fresh listen. It's been a couple years.


I don't have a full recording of it, but I intend to listen to it as soon as I get the Sinopoli box in the mail. I have a feeling his Gurre-Lieder is going to be really good.


----------



## starthrower




----------



## starthrower

Chailly's Gurrelieder

[video]https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_l8ppD0hTIo7HMfTOHGUrb31ON6ZC K1bKo[/video]


----------



## millionrainbows

flamencosketches said:


> I may just go on collecting individual discs, the box release of the Boulez recordings includes no booklet, I believe.





starthrower said:


> None of those *cheap* Sony/RCA boxes have any notes. I bought the Boulez box for just a couple titles I was lacking because it was cheaper and easier than tracking down the individual CDs. It's a shame Sony re-issued the Ligeti box in this form because I find the booklet to be highly valuable.











Something I myself consider in buying these boxes is the mastering. I can hear differences in such things, and this is what drives my decision. Notice at the bottom of the Rosen box the logo for 24-bit mastering. I might even get the Sony Complete Webern again, for that very reason. Besides, they're *cheap,* and may go out of print with the current decline of CD sales.

Of course, I have a PS Audio Direct Stream Memory Player, so it might be more apparent to me.


----------



## starthrower

I thought about picking up that Rosen box. I'll get a few sets during Presto's box set sale at the end of the year. For anybody who likes Gurrelieder, I encourage you to listen to the Chailly recording I uploaded. This one is superb, imo.


----------



## flamencosketches

millionrainbows said:


> View attachment 124880
> 
> 
> Something I myself consider in buying these boxes is the mastering. I can hear differences in such things, and this is what drives my decision. Notice at the bottom of the Rosen box the logo for 24-bit mastering. I might even get the Sony Complete Webern again, for that very reason. Besides, they're *cheap,* and may go out of print with the current decline of CD sales.
> 
> Of course, I have a PS Audio Direct Stream Memory Player, so it might be more apparent to me.


Well, you've sold me. I'll pick up a copy posthaste. :lol: I really am curious about the Schoenberg, Stravinsky and Carter included too.

Personally, I love the master of the Webern 3CD that I have. It's one of the best sounding sets in my library. But an alternative wouldn't hurt, I guess.


----------



## millionrainbows

flamencosketches said:


> Well, you've sold me. I'll pick up a copy posthaste. :lol: I really am curious about the Schoenberg, Stravinsky and Carter included too.
> 
> Personally, I love the master of the Webern 3CD that I have. It's one of the best sounding sets in my library. But an alternative wouldn't hurt, I guess.


If you've got the Sony 3-CD, that's where the Rosen box CD 4 comes from, I believe. Anyway, many people claim they do not hear mastering differences, and this is understandable, since it is very subtle even on a good system. I doubt that any difference could be heard through headphones, unless they are very high-end.
But the fact remains that the Sony box was mastered in 20-bit in 1991, and this Rosen box is 24-bit, mastered in 2017. I think CD mastering has made some improvement in that span of time.


----------



## starthrower

I remember Zappa saying he didn't like some of those Boulez/Webern recordings because they didn't use a recording space with the proper room acoustics. Wish I could find the interview.

You're just kidding yourself thinking you can tell the difference between 20 bit and 24 bit. The difference can't be detected by human hearing. It's a way for record companies to sell you the same music again.

https://www.mojo-audio.com/blog/the-24bit-delusion/


----------



## philoctetes

I just skimmed down to the summary:

"When people claim to hear differences between 16-bit, 20-bit, and 24-bit recordings, it is not the difference between the bit depths that they are hearing, but rather the difference in the quality of the digital mastering. The fact is that even most so-called 24-bit recordings are mastered with less than the 96dB dynamic range of a 16-bit recording (and wisely so)."

Says most of what one needs to know. The extra bits are for the remastering process - for example, multiply a 16-bit number by 2 and it's now a 17-bit number, do it again, and 18 bits are required to preserve precision, so after 4 times you've reached the 20-bit limit. A highly processed signal with no room for overflow can get clipped and that's not going to sound good. 

To use 24 bits, say that 8 consecutive samples are windowed for processing. A filter adding up those 8 16-bit numbers outputs a 24-bit number. That's without multiplying any of those samples with coefficients. So going from 20 to 24 bits increases the window size from 4 to 8 samples, certainly a big deal to a sound engineer.

The final result always has to be renormalized down to 16 bits, typically requiring division (dropping the least significant bits until there are 16 remaining.)

The section on noise is interesting but SNR and resolution are not the same thing.


----------



## starthrower

I'm just interested in the music. If a CD I own sounds good to me I'm not going to buy a "new improved" version just because it's on the market.


----------



## millionrainbows

I found a good copy of the Led Zeppelin 4-CD box (1990) for $20, so I got it.

I noticed almost the moment I put it on (during Whole Lotta Love) that it sounded harsher and more biting than my newest remasters of the same songs (on the Jimmy Page remasters) which I got at Wal-Mart for $11.99 or something. Whatever it is they're doing, it sounds better. 



starthrower said:


> I'm just interested in the music. If a CD I own sounds good to me I'm not going to buy a "new improved" version just because it's on the market.


But how will you know unless you hear it?
I have to go with what sounds better. If a remastered CD sounds better to me, I'm not going to settle for the old "crappy-sounding" mastering just because I'm not supposed to be able to hear any difference. If I hear it, I'm paying the $11.99, even if I have to go into Wal-Mart to get it cheap.
Unfortunately, this involves spending money in a gamble to find out, but as I said, CD prices are dirt-cheap these days. I guess I have faith in Jimmy Page's ability to remaster his own music to his satisfaction. 
I'm a "believer" in many of the remasters out there.
For example, who does not have the new Beatle remasters? They sound much better than the old 1980s versions.
The Charles Rosen 4-CD box goes for $15.00 new on Amazon; that's less than $5 per disc. To me, that's worth the gamble.


----------



## starthrower

Since you mentioned it, I like the old LZ CDs. I bought one recent remaster and it's bright and compressed. No more remasters for me. Classical music is another story. But in my experience Sony does a pretty good job. DG is hit and miss. Decca is usually pretty good with CD sound.


----------



## millionrainbows

Comparing "Whole Lotta Love" from the 4-CD box set (1990) to the 2014 Deluxe 2-CD Jimmy Page remaster (2014), I noticed no compression; I noticed a smoothing-out of the harsh edge of the 1990, and also a very subtle resolution effect, where the instruments sound more detailed and seem to "exist in their own space" in the mix. Well worth $11.95.


----------



## starthrower

philoctetes said:


> Just dipping into Gielen and hearing lovely things as expected.


I found the 12 CD Gielen set for 31 dollars + free shp. Couldn't pass it up. It's 35 if you want to go with Amazon.
https://www.deepdiscount.com/berg-michael-gielen-edition-8/747313906383
https://www.amazon.com/RADIOSINFONI...usic&sprefix=michael+gielen+ed,aps,157&sr=1-1


----------



## CnC Bartok

^^^ That Gielen box is a gold mine!


----------



## starthrower

CnC Bartok said:


> ^^^ That Gielen box is a gold mine!


Sounded very interesting from the samples. I think it will be a good alternative box to the Boulez set I have.


----------



## millionrainbows

I've joined the frenzy, and have also ordered the Gielen box. Thanks to star thrower for the link. My first order, and I got an additional 10% off.


----------



## flamencosketches

Argh, I just got the Sinopoli box but this Gielen box looks great too. Probably going to pass on this one for now...


----------



## starthrower

How do you like the Sinopoli?


----------



## CnC Bartok

starthrower said:


> How do you like the Sinopoli?


Responding for myself, I have been enjoying the Sinopoli 2nd VS set, it's certainly not run-of-the-mill! Sinopoli puts a lot os passion into the music, so it can sound quite turbulent and quite exciting/excited. Gurrelieder is very good here, but I reckon his approach (a bit like Karajan, without the "lush perfection" (sic)) works best in the Berg pieces, and he gives the Webern pieces a different kind of liveliness than many others I have heard. Romantic Webern? Well ok, not necessarily the authentic approach! But it works fine, even if it underplays the revolutionary aspects of the music of all three composers. I didn't enjoy many of the other vocal works, beyond Gurrelieder. Odd balances, woolly words....

Gielen on the other hand makes every detail really clear, without sounding like he's involved in a public autopsy of the music. And yet this is properly human music, it's primarily concerned with human emotions and humanity in general, this is definitely not underplayed by him, something I'd occasionally suspect Boulez of trying to do....


----------



## philoctetes

CnC Bartok said:


> Gielen on the other hand makes every detail really clear, without sounding like he's involved in a public autopsy of the music. And yet this is properly human music, it's primarily concerned with human emotions and humanity in general, this is definitely not underplayed by him, something I'd occasionally suspect Boulez of trying to do....


I first noticed this with Gielen's Lyric Symphony by Zemlinsky. One of the great CD bargains out there that also includes some Berg. He exposes details without impeding or thinning. He gets the ideal balance between Boulez and the heavyweights like Karajan.


----------



## starthrower

I have the Karajan orchestral Verklarte Nacht but I never listen to it. He makes it sound like molasses. Looking forward to the Gielen set.


----------



## CnC Bartok

starthrower said:


> I have the Karajan orchestral Verklarte Nacht but I never listen to it. *He makes it sound like molasses*. Looking forward to the Gielen set.


Zemlinsky said of Verklarte Nacht: "it sounds as though you have taken a still-wet version of the 'Tristan' score and smeared it."

With water, one assumes, not sugar syrup!


----------



## starthrower

I have Zemlinsky's non symphonic orchestral works on a nice EMI 3-fer set conducted by James Conlon. Good stuff! Later I bought his Symphony CD but didn't like it as much.


----------



## CnC Bartok

starthrower said:


> I have Zemlinsky's non symphonic orchestral works on a nice EMI 3-fer set conducted by James Conlon. Good stuff! Later I bought his Symphony CD but didn't like it as much.


I have to be honest and say I have struggled to get much out of Zemlinsky so far, and have not really persevered either. Mein Schlecht, alas. I felt conned when I was told the Lyric Symphony was "another Lied von der Erde", and it frankly isn't.

I have enjoyed some composers who might be considered similar to AZ, like Diepenbrock, Schmidt and Schreker, perhaps I ought to have another go, and I have several discs from James Conlon, rate him pretty highly, so he may be a good way in? Any pieces other than the Lyric you'd say you've particularly liked, the two other Symphonies aside?


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> I have Zemlinsky's non symphonic orchestral works on a nice EMI 3-fer set conducted by James Conlon. Good stuff! Later I bought his Symphony CD but didn't like it as much.


I find the Conlon recordings of Zemlinsky Orchestral music to be marred by very unengaging audio engineering, which seems to diffuse all of the drama in the music. I seem to recall the Conlon recording of the Sinfonietta falling flat, while the Dausgaard recording on Chandos being a revelation. Chailly recordings are also recommended, as are Zemlinsky string quartets.


----------



## starthrower

The Lyric Symphony wasn't one of the pieces I really liked. I liked the first disc in that set starting with the Mermaid. I know it's available separately on a single EMI disc.

For my money another Viennese composer Ernst Krenek is more modern and interesting that Zemlinsky. JPC has a number of his discs on sale. The chamber orchestra disc on the Toccata label is great, and they are selling it cheap. His string quartets on Capriccio by the Petersen Quartet are also highly recommended.


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> The Lyric Symphony wasn't one of the pieces I really liked. I liked the first disc in that set starting with the Mermaid. I know it's available separately on a single EMI disc.
> 
> For my money another Viennese composer Ernst Krenek is more modern and interesting that Zemlinsky. JPC has a number of his discs on sale. The chamber orchestra disc on the Toccata label is great, and they are selling it cheap. His string quartets on Capriccio by the Petersen Quartet are also highly recommended.


I vaguely recall enjoying Krenek (at first I was confusing him with Toch, who I like less). Anyway, if you haven't listened, I think the Sinfonietta is one of Zemlinsky's best pieces.


----------



## starthrower

I pretty much enjoy most of the Second Viennese School composers. I have symphonies, piano music, and quartets by Egon Wellesz as well.


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> I pretty much enjoy most of the Second Viennese School composers. I have symphonies, piano music, and quartets by Egon Wellesz as well.


Wellesz is a favorite of mine as well. If you like Wellesz you will probably like Frankel symphonies. Also Henk Badings (cpo series, probably in limbo).


----------



## starthrower

Somebody mention Ernst Toch, and I like him too. I have the symphonies on CPO. And I discovered another CPO disc with an interesting vocal work, Die Chinesische Flöte. I've been waiting for CPO to box his out of print string quartet CDs.


----------



## flamencosketches

@Star, the Sinopoli set is good. Very lush, yet detail-oriented performances. The Gurrelieder is amazing but I haven't heard the whole thing. And I really enjoy the Webern disc. His might be the definitive Im Sommerwind and the later, more "Webernian" pieces are great too. I really like his recording of the Symphony op.21 and the Variations op.30. I haven't listened to much of the Berg yet.


----------



## millionrainbows

flamencosketches said:


> @Star, the Sinopoli set is good. Very lush, yet detail-oriented performances. The Gurrelieder is amazing but I haven't heard the whole thing. And I really enjoy the Webern disc. His might be the definitive Im Sommerwind and the later, more "Webernian" pieces are great too. I really like his recording of the Symphony op.21 and the Variations op.30. I haven't listened to much of the Berg yet.


I've got Sinopoli's Webern as a single disc, and I agree; it's one of my most valued recordings of Webern.













Seeing as the 8-CD box is only $14.95, I'll have to get it.​
​


----------



## flamencosketches

millionrainbows said:


> I've got Sinopoli's Webern as a single disc, and I agree; it's one of my most valued recordings of Webern.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing as the 8-CD box is only $14.95, I'll have to get it.​
> ​


I couldn't pass it up at the price.


----------



## starthrower

I think I mentioned this several pages back, but Chailly's Gurrelieder is one of the most vivid recordings I've encountered. It's on YouTube if anyone wants to give it a listen.


----------



## philoctetes

CnC Bartok said:


> I felt conned when I was told the Lyric Symphony was "another Lied von der Erde", and it frankly isn't.


I consider this a good thing. Mahler did not own "orientalism" and Das Lied is not IMO the last word on that phase or vocal symphonies either. Once past the expectations it stands as a good piece of music in it's own way. The earlier Zemlinsky, the numbered symphonies and the Mermaid, are not so distinguished.

Zemlinsky became unique in his late phase - the LS, the Chalk Circle, string quartets 3 and 4,various lieder - but not good enough to win a large audience. I compare him to Strauss or Berg, more favorably than Mahler. More exposure in the last 20 years has been good for his rep, but recordings like Conlon's could be improved upon.


----------



## Blancrocher

I heard and enjoyed the Quatuor Diotima's 2nd-Viennese cycle on Spotify, being particularly interested in the Schoenberg performances. If it weren't so pricey at the moment, I'd probably buy it as an alternative to my old LaSalle disks, which don't get many plays these days.


----------



## millionrainbows

I'm listening to the Gielen box, Edition 8, which arrived yesterday. Now, it's Pelleas und Mellisande (1902-1903). The sound is very good, the orchestra is very good, and Gielen obviously is devoted to this music.


----------



## starthrower

I received my copy as well. I haven't listened to any of it yet but I was perusing the booklet last night and it's full of Gielen's commentary which I will read more completely in the days to come.

Update: I'm listening to the first Pelleas recorded in 1973. Wow! This sounds superb! I appreciate the fact that they printed all of the track and recording info on each CD sleeve so flipping through the booklet isn't necessary.


----------



## 89Koechel

Well, wanted to say thanks, AGAIN, to flamenco, starthrower, Blancrocher, million and others for keeping this thread ALIVE, and active. To be honest, it's sometimes a bit difficult to "warm-up", so to speak, to Schoenberg ... or even Berg ... and of course, Mr. von Webern (and his aphorisms). ... The Berg Violin Concerto MAINTAINS it's strength and appeal, to me ... and Schoenberg has many examples .... Moses und Aron, some/many of the chamber works, Gurrelieder, and those FIVE PIECES FOR ORCHESTRA, that keep his legacy alive. I still think (and am sure that others have expressed this opinion, before) that Arnold and the Viennese 3 were trying, somehow, to construct a music that could ESCAPE could be different from Wagner, or maybe Debussy/Ravel, or others of a certain transitional period. We're still assessing the potential success/failure of that attempt, in the light of retrospect ... or our 20/20 vision, maybe, in hindsight. Anyway, thanks for the many, succinct posts on the subject!


----------



## starthrower

I have no problem listening to the music of the Second Viennese School. Some listeners may fail to enjoy much of it but I don't think that's a legitimate reason for considering that the music is a failure in its compositional framework. To my ears the music of Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern is highly expressive and it communicates to this listener. There's plenty of tonal music that doesn't speak to me as a listener but that says nothing about the compositions, but only my particular taste or ability to enjoy it.


----------



## millionrainbows

...and even if Schoenberg hadn't used the 12-tone system, I'm sure that he, Berg, and Webern would be remembered for their contributions to the Late-Romantic music tradition. Also, Schoenberg's textbook on harmony, the Harmonielehre, would establish him as a major music theorist.


----------



## millionrainbows

(also partially reproduced in Current Listening)

String Trios: Goeyvaerts String Trio (Challenge Classics 2010). I recommend this. I've always had a difficulty with Schoenberg's String Trio Op. 45, and now I know why, or at least I think I do. It's half noise/sound and half music, in contrasting sections. 

Somehow, the Goeyvaerts String Trio makes this clear, and the programming of the CD helps, too: Hearing Schnittke's String Trio (1985), it sounds absolutely tonal next to Schoenberg. Somehow the contrast clarifies it, so kudos for intelligent programming. The Webern String Trio Op. 20 is played very nicely, too. The recording is excellent.

But this represents for me a new breakthrough, a new understanding of the String Trio Op. 45; that Schoenberg was, by this time (post-war 1945) concerned with more than the usual musical elements of pitch, rhythm, and phrasing; he was starting to use music as a descriptive element of pure sound, divorced from syntax.

From WIK, we read: 

During the 1920s and 1930s, electronic instruments were introduced and the first compositions for electronic instruments were made. By the 1940s, magnetic audio tape allowed musicians to tape sounds and then modify them by changing the tape speed or direction, leading to the development of electroacoustic tape music in the 1940s, in Egypt and France. Musique concrète, created in Paris in 1948, was based on editing together recorded fragments of natural and industrial sounds. Music produced solely from electronic generators was first produced in Germany in 1953.

Schoenberg didn't pass until 1951, and it's very possible that he was very aware of what was going on in the areas of cinema and electronics, and sound in general.

Schoenberg himself said that his String Trio Op. 45 was based on his experiences in hospital, and teased us with the statement that it is indeed descriptive of this experience, right down to the injection that he received.

Knowing this, it's now easier for me to approach this formerly "difficult" and confounding work. In fact, it may become one of my favorites, now that I know that there is no exclusive syntax of pitch, theme, rhythm, or "theme" to decipher; I can largely listen to it now as "just sound," as Morton Feldman said about his own music.


----------



## flamencosketches

^I can't say that I'm following everything you just said, but I would agree that Schoenberg's String Trio is one of his most revolutionary works, and probably one of his best chamber works. I have the LaSalle paired with Verklarte Nacht and it's a great pairing, the first of his chamber masterpieces and the last. The CD you mention sounds great! I will have to get my hands on it.

I have not been really listening to Schoenberg lately. I got this CD a few weeks ago but haven't spent much time with it yet...:










The Bach stuff is awesome. Proof that Bach was a hot-blooded Romantic like the rest of us. The Variations are very good too. The liner notes suggests that it's his largest scale orchestral work. (I'm assuming they are speaking strictly of the 12-tone period.) Again I have not spent as much time with this CD as I'd like to. I haven't heard the Serenade here yet at all. For that work, I really like the Rosbaud SWF recording from 1958. (Pretty daring programming for a radio orchestra of the time, no?)

Anyway, I'll have to make it a point to listen to a bit of Schoenberg today. Maybe that Serenade.


----------



## millionrainbows

flamencosketches said:


> I have not been really listening to Schoenberg lately. I got this CD a few weeks ago but haven't spent much time with it yet...:


The Orchestral Variations Op. 31 has grown to be one of my favorite Schoenberg works. It's very abstract, and to me it seems to be exploring the harmonic/vertical aspects of the 12-tone method. Since it's not so much counterpoint, it makes it seem like some ultra-modern version of harmony. Also, there must be somewhat of a "chance" element to using 12-tone this way, since it seems to be a linear process; even if that's wrong, how much could you plan-out a tone row to yield harmonic results to give enough variety? Maybe the secret lies in all those row transpositions and permutations. Maybe harmony is simpler than we realize. But I ramble...


----------



## starthrower

I'm listening to more of the Gielen set. An exciting performance of the Five Pieces For Orchestra recorded live. The string quartet no.2, and Variations for Orchestra are also live.


----------



## flamencosketches

starthrower said:


> I'm listening to more of the Gielen set. An exciting performance of the Five Pieces For Orchestra recorded live. The string quartet no.2, and Variations for Orchestra are also live.


String Quartet No.2? Is it a string orchestra arrangement?

I listened to and really enjoyed the Variations earlier, Craft/Philharmonia. It's very sumptuous for what it is. I often hear atonal, highly chromatic, and 12-tone music as being an explosion of color; this is not that, exactly, but more of a subtle and tasteful swirl of impressions. It really may be more about harmony than counterpoint, as Million suggests, which I suppose would make it somewhat unique among Schoenberg's works.

Excuse my theoretical illiteracy. This brings up a further question: Does one need to understand the intricate workings of the 12-tone technique (inversions, retrogrades, retrograde-inversions and all that jazz) to really appreciate Schoenberg's music? How much of the music exists solely on an intellectual level, and how much is just "there in the air" to be heard and enjoyed...? If the ratio weighs more heavily toward the former, this might explain why I find Schoenberg so much more challenging than some of the other 12-tone composers like Webern, Berg, and Boulez, all of which are more immediate to me than Schoenberg.


----------



## starthrower

Yeah, a string orchestra arrangement and the soprano vocalist is fantastic! Her name is Slavka Tashkova. Recorded in 1975. She's also on that Nono DG album with Pollini. I don't need to understand how this music was constructed on a theoretical level. Music is about feelings, emotion, and imagination. I love the highly expressive bursts of energy and dynamics in this kind of music.


----------



## millionrainbows

flamencosketches said:


> Does one need to understand the intricate workings of the 12-tone technique (inversions, retrogrades, retrograde-inversions and all that jazz) to really appreciate Schoenberg's music?


It's really not all that complicated, but it does require that you think. We all learned arithmetic in school, didn't we? I can count to 12; does that make me a genius?


----------



## millionrainbows

starthrower said:


> I don't need to understand how this music was constructed on a theoretical level. Music is about feelings, emotion, and imagination. I love the highly expressive bursts of energy and dynamics in this kind of music.


But what if you are confronted with music that is not concerned with those things? What do you do then?


----------



## starthrower

I just listen to it. Even if I were to study the compositional techniques of musical construction it will not unlock the mystery of imagination. Only logical choices for developing germs of ideas that composers brew up in their brains.

Does a patient need to understand what the surgeon knows in order to benefit from surgery? The answer is no. If I study creative writing will I understand the genius of Dostoevsky or the mystery of Kafka? I can read their works without taking graduate literary courses.


----------



## millionrainbows

If music is about feelings, emotion, and imagination, then what if you are confronted with music that is not concerned with those things? What do you do then?



starthrower said:


> I just listen to it. Even if I were to study the compositional techniques of musical construction it will not unlock the mystery of imagination. Only logical choices for developing germs of ideas that composers brew up in their brains...Does a patient need to understand what the surgeon knows in order to benefit from surgery? The answer is no. If I study creative writing will I understand the genius of Dostoevsky or the mystery of Kafka? I can read their works without taking graduate literary courses.


Excellent! It sounds like you are ready for the music of John Cage! :lol:


----------



## starthrower

millionrainbows said:


> It sounds like you are ready for the music of John Cage! :lol:


I find Cage kinda boring.


----------



## millionrainbows

starthrower said:


> I find Cage kinda boring.


So you admit it; you _do_ have a brain!


----------



## starthrower

millionrainbows said:


> So you admit it; you _do_ have a brain!


Everything is in flux so you gotta hit it at the right time.


----------



## Dirge

I've been revisiting my favorite (and borderline favorite) works and recordings of Arnold Schoenberg …

*Chamber Symphony No. 1, Op. 9* (1906)
:: Orpheus Chamber Orchestra [DG '89]




The performance is a _wee_ bit fast and neutral/generalized in character (in that conductorless way that orchestras without conductors are wont to be), but it's so damn well played that it still strikes me as the most compelling account of the Chamber Symphony that I've heard on record, one that embraces the work's busy/hyperactive nature (sounding like Richard Strauss on an acid bender) rather than trying to temper it.

*Friede auf Erden, Op. 13* (1907)
:: Ericson/Rundfunkchor Stockholm [EMI '71]
This strong, resolute, ever-advancing performance has a compelling sense of inevitability about it, and Ericson builds climaxes with great dramatic instincts and a Greek sculptor's sense of proportion. There are more detailed/analytical/fussy accounts of the work to be had, but they lack the cumulative impact and sense of communion and common purpose of this one-Peace on Earth, indeed.

*String Quartet No. 2 in F-sharp minor, Op. 10* (1907/08)
:: Price, LaSalle Quartet [DG '69]




Margaret Price is far and away my favorite vocalist in this work, getting its Late Romantic-Early Modern Expressionist balance just right to my ears. The LaSalle Quartet is perhaps a bit too streamlined and modern by comparison, but singer and quartet are quite complementary in their modestly contrasting ways. The group takes the first movement too quickly, but that's the only aspect of the performance that I can't quite get used to.

*Three Piano Pieces, Op. 11* (1909)
:: Arrau [BBC, live '59] ica/BBC Legends




Claudio Arrau and Arnold Schoenberg-I'm pretty damn sure that I've never put them together in the same thought before, but clearly I should have, as this is the most compelling account that I've heard of any of Schoenberg's piano music. Like Pollini [DG '74], Arrau takes the music at a fairly good clip, but Arrau's playing has a certain gravitas, majesty even, that Pollini's and others' doesn't, and he conveys the music with an uncommonly strong sense of dramatic narrative, generating much tension, suspense, and drama while craftily building climaxes. Pollini does well in those respects given his more pointillistic approach, but the music still has an avant-garde air about it in his hands, whereas it comes across as established/standard repertoire in Arrau's hands-no atonal experimentation, just music-making. Arrau has the great advantage of being recording live in recital-which always brings out the best in him-during his absolute prime (from the early/mid 1950s to the early 1960s in my estimation).

*Five Pieces for Orchestra, Op. 16* (1909)
:: Kubelik, CSO [Mercury '53]




This performance combines tremendous orchestral power with tremendous orchestral control in a beautifully coordinated contrapuntal choreography that's finely detailed without a hint of fussiness or analytical highlighting (of the kind often associated with Boulez). As I hear it, Kubelik/CSO does for Five Pieces for Orchestra what Arrau does for Three Piano Pieces.

*Erwartung, Op. 17* (1909)
:: Silja, Craft/Philharmonia [Koch '00] Naxos
If Silja is moderately hysterical in her earlier recording with Dohnányi and the VPO [Decca '79], she's severely hysterical 21 years on with Craft and the Philharmonia, adopting a more hyper-active and -volatile (and correspondingly less smooth and lyrical) manner that leaves not even the tiniest Expressionist stone unturned. For their part, Craft and the Philharmonia provide a vivid, scrupulously detailed orchestral setting for Silja to act out her hysteria, and all is captured in clean, clear, detailed sound that is, for better or worse, a touch cool and analytical.

*Pierrot lunaire, Op. 21* (1912)
:: DeGaetani, Weisberg/Contemporary Chamber Ensemble [Nonesuch '70]




I flirt with new recordings of _Pierrot lunaire_ from time to time, but I always end up returning home to this one at the end of the listening day. DeGaetani's portrayal is more multifaceted, intricately wrought, subtly shaded, and just plain sophisticated than anyone else's, generating melodrama and a quirkily tense and moonstruck atmosphere with great expressive economy and efficiency. Her sprechstimme is lyrical without devolving into singing, and she always sounds as if she's telling a story to you the listener (rather than simply emoting), which I think is the great underlying strength of her performance-think of her as an atonal Expressionist Scheherazade. Weisberg and company are well-matched partners, deftly setting the scene and establishing the atmosphere while still complementing DeGaetani. It's not an especially bold, dynamic, and volatile performance, but it's shrewdly pointed and contrasted and makes a strong impact in its more insidious and cumulative way.

*Wind Quintet, Op. 26* (1924)
:: Phoenix Ensemble [Albany '12]




The Wind Quintet is not really a favorite of mine, and at 36 minutes it certainly outstays its welcome, but I listen to it more than I like it for some reason. This brisk, invigorating, colorful performance is rather aggressively recorded, with tight miking and little acoustic blending. The Phoenix Ensemble stands up well to the close scrutiny, but the listening experience is more bracing than comfortable.

*Variations for Orchestra, Op. 31* (1926-28)
:: Scherchen/BRSO [live '53] Tahra
Scherchen leads a gritty, intense, unflaggingly focused and concentrated performance that manages, despite the dearth of tonal beauty (you'll not mistake this for Mehta/LAPO [Decca '68] or Karajan/BPO [DG '74]) and the early mono sound, to be not only the most compelling but the most atmospheric that I know.

_*Moses und Aron*_ ~ Act II, scene 3: "Der Tanz um das goldenen Kalb" (1930/32)
:: Scherchen/Chor and Orchester des Landestheaters Darmstadt [Darmstadt, live '51] Tahra
Scherchen here conducts the world premiere of the most famous and substantial scene (plus a bit more) from the opera, and the performance is as highly charged and frisson-filled as it could possibly be despite some unstable, even wobbly, execution-there's a palpable sense of occasion and going for the gusto that simply isn't found in any other recorded account. For a recording of the "complete" incomplete opera, I turn to Kegel/RSO Leipzig [Eterna '78], but Scherchen's "Golden Calf" premiere is the ultimate one-off _Moses und Aron_ listening experience.

*String Trio, Op. 45* (1946)
:: members of the Juilliard Quartet [Columbia '66]




Even by the Juilliard's severe, intensely wrought standards of the 1960s, this is an uncommonly severe, intensely wrought performance, sounding as if it were etched in stone rather than tape-recorded. It's slow, but Mann and his two cohorts don't blink once the whole damn time, as the playing could hardly be more focused and concentrated. On the downside, they steamroll the lilt out of the lilting Viennese passages and otherwise force the music to comply to their collective will. Still, the performance is so single-minded and uncompromising that it demands to be heard. For a more flexible and well-rounded alternative featuring actual chamber music-like give-and-take, I favor the Santa Fe Chamber Music Festival [Nonesuch '81], but it's still trapped on LP and cassette tape (along with an equally outstanding account of _Verkärte Nacht_), having yet to be released in digital format. Trio Zimmermann [BIS '16] play the bejesus out of the trio, and its account ought to be my favorite, but for reasons that even Sigmund Freud on a good day couldn't explain, I prefer the Juilliard and Santa Fe accounts.

*A Survivor from Warsaw, Op. 46* (1947)
:: Reich, Boulez/BBC SO & Chorus [CBS/Sony '76]




Günter Reich gives a painfully and powerfully direct narration of gut-wrenching intensity, and Boulez and the BBC forces match him. It's tough to beat _A Survivor from Warsaw_ for raw emotional impact, especially via such a great performance.


----------



## starthrower

Excellent post, Dirge!


----------



## Mandryka

Dirge said:


> I've been revisiting my favorite (and borderline favorite) works and recordings of Arnold Schoenberg …
> 
> *Chamber Symphony No. 1, Op. 9* (1906)
> :: Orpheus Chamber Orchestra [DG '89]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The performance is a _wee_ bit fast and neutral/generalized in character (in that conductorless way that orchestras without conductors are wont to be), but it's so damn well played that it still strikes me as the most compelling account of the Chamber Symphony that I've heard on record, one that embraces the work's busy/hyperactive nature (sounding like Richard Strauss on an acid bender) rather than trying to temper it.
> 
> *Friede auf Erden, Op. 13* (1907)
> :: Ericson/Rundfunkchor Stockholm [EMI '71]
> This strong, resolute, ever-advancing performance has a compelling sense of inevitability about it, and Ericson builds climaxes with great dramatic instincts and a Greek sculptor's sense of proportion. There are more detailed/analytical/fussy accounts of the work to be had, but they lack the cumulative impact and sense of communion and common purpose of this one-Peace on Earth, indeed.
> 
> *String Quartet No. 2 in F-sharp minor, Op. 10* (1907/08)
> :: Price, LaSalle Quartet [DG '69]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Margaret Price is far and away my favorite vocalist in this work, getting its Late Romantic-Early Modern Expressionist balance just right to my ears. The LaSalle Quartet is perhaps a bit too streamlined and modern by comparison, but singer and quartet are quite complementary in their modestly contrasting ways. The group takes the first movement too quickly, but that's the only aspect of the performance that I can't quite get used to.
> 
> *Three Piano Pieces, Op. 11* (1909)
> :: Arrau [BBC, live '59] ica/BBC Legends
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudio Arrau and Arnold Schoenberg-I'm pretty damn sure that I've never put them together in the same thought before, but clearly I should have, as this is the most compelling account that I've heard of any of Schoenberg's piano music. Like Pollini [DG '74], Arrau takes the music at a fairly good clip, but Arrau's playing has a certain gravitas, majesty even, that Pollini's and others' doesn't, and he conveys the music with an uncommonly strong sense of dramatic narrative, generating much tension, suspense, and drama while craftily building climaxes. Pollini does well in those respects given his more pointillistic approach, but the music still has an avant-garde air about it in his hands, whereas it comes across as established/standard repertoire in Arrau's hands-no atonal experimentation, just music-making. Arrau has the great advantage of being recording live in recital-which always brings out the best in him-during his absolute prime (from the early/mid 1950s to the early 1960s in my estimation).
> 
> *Five Pieces for Orchestra, Op. 16* (1909)
> :: Kubelik, CSO [Mercury '53]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This performance combines tremendous orchestral power with tremendous orchestral control in a beautifully coordinated contrapuntal choreography that's finely detailed without a hint of fussiness or analytical highlighting (of the kind often associated with Boulez). As I hear it, Kubelik/CSO does for Five Pieces for Orchestra what Arrau does for Three Piano Pieces.
> 
> *Erwartung, Op. 17* (1909)
> :: Silja, Craft/Philharmonia [Koch '00] Naxos
> If Silja is moderately hysterical in her earlier recording with Dohnányi and the VPO [Decca '79], she's severely hysterical 21 years on with Craft and the Philharmonia, adopting a more hyper-active and -volatile (and correspondingly less smooth and lyrical) manner that leaves not even the tiniest Expressionist stone unturned. For their part, Craft and the Philharmonia provide a vivid, scrupulously detailed orchestral setting for Silja to act out her hysteria, and all is captured in clean, clear, detailed sound that is, for better or worse, a touch cool and analytical.
> 
> *Pierrot lunaire, Op. 21* (1912)
> :: DeGaetani, Weisberg/Contemporary Chamber Ensemble [Nonesuch '70]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I flirt with new recordings of _Pierrot lunaire_ from time to time, but I always end up returning home to this one at the end of the listening day. DeGaetani's portrayal is more multifaceted, intricately wrought, subtly shaded, and just plain sophisticated than anyone else's, generating melodrama and a quirkily tense and moonstruck atmosphere with great expressive economy and efficiency. Her sprechstimme is lyrical without devolving into singing, and she always sounds as if she's telling a story to you the listener (rather than simply emoting), which I think is the great underlying strength of her performance-think of her as an atonal Expressionist Scheherazade. Weisberg and company are well-matched partners, deftly setting the scene and establishing the atmosphere while still complementing DeGaetani. It's not an especially bold, dynamic, and volatile performance, but it's shrewdly pointed and contrasted and makes a strong impact in its more insidious and cumulative way.
> 
> *Wind Quintet, Op. 26* (1924)
> :: Phoenix Ensemble [Albany '12]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Wind Quintet is not really a favorite of mine, and at 36 minutes it certainly outstays its welcome, but I listen to it more than I like it for some reason. This brisk, invigorating, colorful performance is rather aggressively recorded, with tight miking and little acoustic blending. The Phoenix Ensemble stands up well to the close scrutiny, but the listening experience is more bracing than comfortable.
> 
> *Variations for Orchestra, Op. 31* (1926-28)
> :: Scherchen/BRSO [live '53] Tahra
> Scherchen leads a gritty, intense, unflaggingly focused and concentrated performance that manages, despite the dearth of tonal beauty (you'll not mistake this for Mehta/LAPO [Decca '68] or Karajan/BPO [DG '74]) and the early mono sound, to be not only the most compelling but the most atmospheric that I know.
> 
> _*Moses und Aron*_ ~ Act II, scene 3: "Der Tanz um das goldenen Kalb" (1930/32)
> :: Scherchen/Chor and Orchester des Landestheaters Darmstadt [Darmstadt, live '51] Tahra
> Scherchen here conducts the world premiere of the most famous and substantial scene (plus a bit more) from the opera, and the performance is as highly charged and frisson-filled as it could possibly be despite some unstable, even wobbly, execution-there's a palpable sense of occasion and going for the gusto that simply isn't found in any other recorded account. For a recording of the "complete" incomplete opera, I turn to Kegel/RSO Leipzig [Eterna '78], but Scherchen's "Golden Calf" premiere is the ultimate one-off _Moses und Aron_ listening experience.
> 
> *String Trio, Op. 45* (1946)
> :: members of the Juilliard Quartet [Columbia '66]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even by the Juilliard's severe, intensely wrought standards of the 1960s, this is an uncommonly severe, intensely wrought performance, sounding as if it were etched in stone rather than tape-recorded. It's slow, but Mann and his two cohorts don't blink once the whole damn time, as the playing could hardly be more focused and concentrated. On the downside, they steamroll the lilt out of the lilting Viennese passages and otherwise force the music to comply to their collective will. Still, the performance is so single-minded and uncompromising that it demands to be heard. For a more flexible and well-rounded alternative featuring actual chamber music-like give-and-take, I favor the Santa Fe Chamber Music Festival [Nonesuch '81], but it's still trapped on LP and cassette tape (along with an equally outstanding account of _Verkärte Nacht_), having yet to be released in digital format. Trio Zimmermann [BIS '16] play the bejesus out of the trio, and its account ought to be my favorite, but for reasons that even Sigmund Freud on a good day couldn't explain, I prefer the Juilliard and Santa Fe accounts.
> 
> *A Survivor from Warsaw, Op. 46* (1947)
> :: Reich, Boulez/BBC SO & Chorus [CBS/Sony '76]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Günter Reich gives a painfully and powerfully direct narration of gut-wrenching intensity, and Boulez and the BBC forces match him. It's tough to beat _A Survivor from Warsaw_ for raw emotional impact, especially via such a great performance.


I shall have to try to hear The Santa Fe Chamber Music Festival recording of op 45.

It would be nice to know what prompted Arrau to play op 11 -- especially given that he didn't record late Brahms.


----------



## Mandryka

I've now heard The Santa Fe Chamber Music Festival recording of op 45 -- it is indeed excellent (an not surprising given the quality if the performers!) Thanks for pointing it out.


----------



## Janspe

Haven't posted anything in a while because of my incredibly busy early 2020, but here's something for any Schoenberg fan to consider:









I've been waiting for Faust's recording of the Schoenberg concerto to appear for years, ever since I fell in love with her amazingly raw account of the Berg concerto with Abbado. I was expecting her reading to reveal new sides of this enigmatic work and I wasn't disappointed. It's _very_ different in comparison to the (arguably) most famous interpretation of the work by Hilary Hahn - which was done with the same orchestra! Really happy to see this piece getting more and more recognition in the Schoenberg discography.

The coupling is a completetly satisfying _Verklärte Nacht_ in its original sextet version, but I already know dozens of good versions of the piece so it wasn't as essential a discovery this time. The concerto is a total winner though. Let's give it a lot of love!


----------



## millionrainbows

I think what is most upsetting about the atonal Schoenberg is that he changed "musical meaning." Up until this time, musical ideas emerged from a shared "paradigm" of musical meaning which had developed over a few centuries. Good or bad, music had to share this common syntactical "idea" of what music was supposed to mean.

When Schoenberg exchanged tonality's 'syntax of meaning' into his serial method, listeners were suddenly confronted with music which no longer fit into their paradigm of music.

Thus, we see that much music is driven by a 'gestalt idea' of what music is supposed to mean.


----------



## Janspe

Revisiting what I would call Schoenberg's magnum opus: _Moses und Aron_. I've always been a big fan of this marvelous score, though on my first listen-through I was pretty bewildered by it. I'm familiar with both of the Boulez recordings (the later one being my go-to intepretation) and also the Solti one (a very good take) - today I'm plunging straight into the score's earliest history with Rosbaud's recording. How exciting!


----------



## millionrainbows

String Trio, Op. 45 (1946), RIAS recording, 1957 (mono). Taken from this boxed set of important historical performances.


----------



## Gargamel

As for accidentals, why does Schoenberg/Berg/Webern include naturals, or why are they included in newer prints? It makes no sense. With newer music, accidentals only apply to the notes that they immediately precede, without exceptions. It makes reading the notes alot easier.


----------



## Knorf

millionrainbows said:


> I think what is most upsetting about the atonal Schoenberg is that he changed "musical meaning." Up until this time, musical ideas emerged from a shared "paradigm" of musical meaning which had developed over a few centuries. Good or bad, music had to share this common syntactical "idea" of what music was supposed to mean.


I know you're not trying to be negative or contrary in saying this, but the actually fact is that there was _far_ less agreement about what "good" music was than your statement suggests, even within just the German-speaking musical world. And, let's be honest, even then, for all its transcendence, German music represents only a tiny fraction of what was happening in the entire world. An enormous amount of music from that time, but not just that time, and from outside that tiny imperialistic Euopean bubble, blasts any attempt at a unifying paradigm of specifying what good music is into tiny little itty-bitty shreds.



> When Schoenberg exchanged tonality's 'syntax of meaning' into his serial method, listeners were suddenly confronted with music which no longer fit into their paradigm of music.


In fact, Schönberg's twelve-tone music is _more_ syntactically conventional from a western European perspective, much more, than his previous, freely post-tonal music was.



> Thus, we see that much music is driven by a 'gestalt idea' of what music is supposed to mean.


Honestly, I'm a professional musician of 32 years experience, a highly trained composer with a doctorate in music, have taught music major-level theory, composition, and history at the university level (with tenure) for 25 years, am well-read in a large variety of the philosophy of art and music, and I have absolutely no idea what _this sentence_ means.


----------



## Knorf

Gargamel said:


> As for accidentals, why does Schoenberg/Berg/Webern include naturals, or why are they included in newer prints? It makes no sense. With newer music, accidentals only apply to the notes that they immediately precede, without exceptions. It makes reading the notes alot easier.


Composing such highly chromatic music, for which no key signature is appropriate, was quite novel at the time, and it took a while to establish conventions. An even much more deplorable convention was the adoption of "Scores in C," which run contrary to the entire purpose of what a score is for.


----------



## Gargamel

Knorf said:


> Composing such highly chromatic music, for which no key signature is appropriate, was quite novel at the time, and it took a while to establish conventions. An even much more deplorable convention was the adoption of "Scores in C," which run contrary to the entire purpose of what a score is for.


Yeah, but these were very smart guys. Such a no-brainer idea as leaving out naturals was hardly unthinkable back then. (Although, they'd have had to add a few more sharps and flats which they *did* leave out as per old convention, however I would find the scores much easier to read just without the naturals.)

(Well, I guess you could basically represent some of Berg's music with key signatures, albeit quite frequently changing ones, as his music only tends to avoid or mis-chromatize *strong* tonal functions; Alwa's theme etc.)



> Even very smart guys don't think of everything.


Not even three smart guys?


----------



## Knorf

Even very smart guys don't think of everything.


----------



## millionrainbows

_Thus, we see that much (understanding of) music is driven by a 'gestalt idea' (attitude) of what music is supposed to mean.

_



Knorf said:


> Honestly, I'm a professional musician of 32 years experience, a highly trained composer with a doctorate in music, have taught music major-level theory, composition, and history at the university level (with tenure) for 25 years, am well-read in a large variety of the philosophy of art and music, and I have absolutely no idea what _this sentence_ means.


If you can't understand the general populace's attitude and adherence to a gestalt idea of what music is "supposed" to be, which is the source of most criticism & myths about atonal music, then your credentials have removed you completely to a rarified atmosphere.


----------



## Mandryka

1. Why did Boulez diss Schoenberg? Was he right? Discuss.

Or

2. Why did Adorno praise Schoenberg? Was he right? Discuss.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mandryka said:


> 1. Why did Boulez diss Schoenberg? Was he right? Discuss.


I don't think there is a "right" answer. Boulez said what he did (Schoenberg est morte) because he had an agenda to move music forward into a new future which discarded all ties to earlier tradition. 
Schoenberg, of course, is what he is, a "conservative who was forced to be a radical" as he himself saw it.
I don't think Boulez ultimately dissed Schoenberg in a permanent sense. After all, look at how many recordings there are by Boulez of Schoenberg.
But the fact is, Schoenberg's 12-tone method is the prototype for modernist and serial thought. Boulez had an agenda to move music "forward" using the 12-tone model as a starting point. He wanted to do away with the Brahmsian phrasing of Schoenberg, and to get rid of all the traditional baggage.
Boulez dissed Schoenberg as part of his campaign of modernism, which is quite amazing to think that a composer/conductor could have such an agenda and attempt to influence the direction of music; but look at IRCAM and the French government's backing, and it is a reality.

As far as Adorno goes, he might have been right in supporting Schoenberg, but his views on popular music and his comments on jazz in particular (bordering on racism) cause me to take him less seriously than I might otherwise. His criticism of popular music and mass media were based on fear of State propaganda and control of the masses that he saw in Germany.


----------



## Mandryka

I want to listen again to the two composers where they're most directly comparable - Pierrot and Marteau

Adorno liked very much some pieces by Schoenberg, notably Erwartung, because he felt that the form was not imposed by conventions (sonata, variations etc) but by something internal, natural. It's in his _Musique Informelle. _


----------



## Gargamel

millionrainbows said:


> As far as Adorno goes, he might have been right in supporting Schoenberg, but his views on popular music and his comments on jazz in particular (bordering on racism) cause me to take him less seriously than I might otherwise. His criticism of popular music and mass media were based on fear of State propaganda and control of the masses that he saw in Germany.


I think his critique was of the widespread pretense within the cultural industry that products are individualist, and critique of fellow-consumers who cannot see through the pretense therefore remain unconscious of their own alienation, thus being "objects" instead of "subjects".

_"The differences among cultural goods make them appear different, but they are in fact just variations on the same theme. He wrote that "the same thing is offered to everybody by the standardized production of consumption goods" but this is concealed under "the manipulation of taste and the official culture's pretense of individualism".[71] By doing so, the culture industry appeals to every single consumer in a unique and personalized way, all while maintaining minimal costs and effort on their behalf. Consumers purchase the illusion that every commodity or product is tailored to the individual's personal preference, by incorporating subtle modifications or inexpensive "add-ons" in order to keep the consumer returning for new purchases, and therefore more revenue for the corporation system."_

For critics such as Adorno and Boulez, Schoenberg's free atonal pieces represent liberation (possibly Hegel's "aufzug", or "sublation") from pre-conditioned forms, whereas his later works may have been seen as step back. Adorno however esteemed the 12-tone system itself as something that could not be dissolved _per se_ into the culture industry, consciousness of the alienation, but I recall also he had reservations about the 12-tone system. He also wrote about Webern but that bit is wholly unintelligible to me. (Did Adorno or Boulez ever know each other? There's a monologue on Youtube where Milton Babbitt had a few run-ins with Adorno and Babbitt didn't have nice words to say about him.)


----------



## Gargamel

Knorf said:


> Even very smart guys don't think of everything.


I think there's just something you're refusing to see in notation of the Second Viennese school. For instance, they use lots of sharps for B's and E's, instead of enharmonically just writing it C natural / F natural.


----------



## millionrainbows

One good rule of thumb is to use sharps when the line is ascending, and flats when it's descending. Of course there are the usual diatonic glitches of B and F, so I would use C down to B (instead of Cb), and E up to F (instead of E#). Use your common sense, in other words.


----------



## violadude

Video I made about 12 tone music and Schoenberg....just gonna leave this here...


----------



## Knorf

Gargamel said:


> I think there's just something you're refusing to see in notation of the Second Viennese school. For instance, they use lots of sharps for B's and E's, instead of enharmonically just writing it C natural / F natural.


I'm not "refusing to see" anything. What I'm refusing to do is second-guess Schoenberg without more _evidence_.

Show me an example, and maybe I'll have a comment about why it's a B-sharp or E-sharp. Very likely it's nothing about actual tonal-functional significant or motion and rather just about simplifying intervallic relationships. In the end, it's because our notation system wasn't developed to support 12-tone equal temperament.


----------



## Knorf

millionrainbows said:


> If you can't understand the general populace's attitude and adherence to a gestalt idea of what music is "supposed" to be, which is the source of most criticism & myths about atonal music, then your credentials have removed you completely to a rarified atmosphere.


Please don't make assumptions about what I can or can't understand. Rather confront assumptions about whether what you've written is communicating something useful or clear.

But I get now what you meant, or at least should have meant. It's human nature for people to normalize their own experiences and the preferences they derive from those experiences, and to assume the universality of same, sometimes to the extreme of committing violent acts over resulting disagreements. It's a failure to accept differences: a maladaptation of a once important survival trait.

I still find this sentence to be highly problematic: "...the general populace's attitude and adherence to a gestalt idea of what music is 'supposed' to be..." The use of the term _gestalt idea_ appears to me to be misplaced (to say the least) in this context.


----------



## Torkelburger

violadude said:


> Video I made about 12 tone music and Schoenberg....just gonna leave this here...


Kudos for making something like this, violadude. There is just the usual problem, however:

You state:

"Each note is used in the piece in the order chosen by the composer." [when the tone row was created]

And then:

"IOW, 'theoretically' if you write an F sharp in the piece, you wouldn't write another F sharp in the piece until all of the rest of the notes in the row were written down."

This is factually incorrect and a non-sequitur. It does not matter that you are insinuating "scare quotes" and stressing "theoretically". There is no theoretical sense, or any sense at all, in which that statement is true. None whatsoever...unless...the only "sense" is the sense that it is a popular "myth" which people insist on spreading widely on the internet, unfortunately fueling the haters into thinking it is a limited/restricted, paint-by-numbers system with no sense of imagination or use of ear when composing.

Just about every single 12-tone piece Schoenberg wrote breaks that "rule" *by the first page alone*.

Have you read his book _Style and Idea_, but in particular, the article/essay "Composition with Twelve Tones" in it in which Schoenberg first laid out in no uncertain terms the 12-tone technique? Nowhere in the article nor the entire book does he ever mention the "myth" you are espousing.

Not repeating a note is true in one, and only one, instance. And that is the generation of the row itself.

When writing the music itself, I can repeat a note or group of notes, before sounding the rest of the row as many times as I deem necessary, even a hundred times or more if I so choose. It doesn't matter. It is still 12-tone technique as described by Schoenberg (and used by him in practice).

Just take 3 pieces here, (but I can go through his entire 12 tone catalogue if you'd like as there are thousands of examples):

Note the repeated repetition of single notes and groups of notes over and over in different instruments and pitches right at the beginning bars 1 through 18. And note how C# and D in the cello was as an accompaniment figure in bar 11 and then less than 12 notes later, the cellos play the melody with C# and D in another octave in the same bar.






Check out the Intermezzo below at 4:37. The breaking of the myth is quite obvious. And not just in an ostinato sense. If you look at the very beginning of the piece, where it is linear writing, just right from the first bar the F and C flat are repeated just one bar later after only 5 and 9 notes have sounded, respectively.






And this one is pretty obvious to anyone. Right at the start. Mvt I, bar 1.


----------



## starthrower

violadude said:


> Video I made about 12 tone music and Schoenberg....just gonna leave this here...


Dude! Nice to see you in video teaching mode again! I didn't recognize you as you've grown up into a man over the years but I do recognize your voice. Glad you're still here at TC!


----------



## violadude

Torkelburger said:


> Kudos for making something like this, violadude. There is just the usual problem, however:
> 
> You state:
> 
> "Each note is used in the piece in the order chosen by the composer." [when the tone row was created]
> 
> And then:
> 
> "IOW, 'theoretically' if you write an F sharp in the piece, you wouldn't write another F sharp in the piece until all of the rest of the notes in the row were written down."
> 
> This is factually incorrect and a non-sequitur. It does not matter that you are insinuating "scare quotes" and stressing "theoretically". There is no theoretical sense, or any sense at all, in which that statement is true. None whatsoever...unless...the only "sense" is the sense that it is a popular "myth" which people insist on spreading widely on the internet, unfortunately fueling the haters into thinking it is a limited/restricted, paint-by-numbers system with no sense of imagination or use of ear when composing.
> 
> Just about every single 12-tone piece Schoenberg wrote breaks that "rule" *by the first page alone*.
> 
> Have you read his book _Style and Idea_, but in particular, the article/essay "Composition with Twelve Tones" in it in which Schoenberg first laid out in no uncertain terms the 12-tone technique? Nowhere in the article nor the entire book does he ever mention the "myth" you are espousing.
> 
> Not repeating a note is true in one, and only one, instance. And that is the generation of the row itself.
> 
> When writing the music itself, I can repeat a note or group of notes, before sounding the rest of the row as many times as I deem necessary, even a hundred times or more if I so choose. It doesn't matter. It is still 12-tone technique as described by Schoenberg (and used by him in practice).
> 
> Just take 3 pieces here, (but I can go through his entire 12 tone catalogue if you'd like as there are thousands of examples):
> 
> Note the repeated repetition of single notes and groups of notes over and over in different instruments and pitches right at the beginning bars 1 through 18. And note how C# and D in the cello was as an accompaniment figure in bar 11 and then less than 12 notes later, the cellos play the melody with C# and D in another octave in the same bar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check out the Intermezzo below at 4:37. The breaking of the myth is quite obvious. And not just in an ostinato sense. If you look at the very beginning of the piece, where it is linear writing, just right from the first bar the F and C flat are repeated just one bar later after only 5 and 9 notes have sounded, respectively.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this one is pretty obvious to anyone. Right at the start. Mvt I, bar 1.


Thank you for watching! I understand what you're saying and I agree. I think I was trying to say something similar in the video, but it's good to know that the idea didn't come clear enough. That's the kind of feedback I was hoping for.

I guess I was thinking I should start with what's commonly understood and my statements at the end of the video about "music existing in practice and not in theory" was my attempt at an easy to understand way of explaining summing up the idea that you're getting at but I'll do a better job of explaining it in my next video on the subject! Thank you!


----------



## violadude

starthrower said:


> Dude! Nice to see you in video teaching mode again! I didn't recognize you as you've grown up into a man over the years but I do recognize your voice. Glad you're still here at TC!


Thanks, Starthrower. Ya I still lurk around from time to time. Really putting some serious effort into growing a youtube channel now because I'm sick of my retail job


----------



## starthrower

violadude said:


> Thanks, Starthrower. Ya I still lurk around from time to time. Really putting some serious effort into growing a youtube channel now because I'm sick of my retail job


That would be very cool! I follow a number of YT channels like Adam Neely, Rick Beato, and Thomas Little's Classical Nerd. Keep us posted.


----------



## Torkelburger

violadude said:


> Thank you for watching! I understand what you're saying and I agree. I think I was trying to say something similar in the video, but it's good to know that the idea didn't come clear enough. That's the kind of feedback I was hoping for.
> 
> I guess I was thinking I should start with what's commonly understood and my statements at the end of the video about "music existing in practice and not in theory" was my attempt at an easy to understand way of explaining summing up the idea that you're getting at but I'll do a better job of explaining it in my next video on the subject! Thank you!


Cool! I look forward to seeing more! It will be nice to have some new videos to use to support our arguments on the forum here. Hopefully save some typing. I think people are growing tired of the Andreyev links.

Yeah, I remembered you wrote music of high quality (from the Today's Composers forum), and you recognized music of high quality...and I remembered you have a degree from a reputable university...I probably should have asked for clarification. A proper lesson on the proper technique is much-needed. So much misinformation out there. Thanks so much for doing this for all of us to use.


----------



## trazom

violadude said:


> Thanks, Starthrower. Ya I still lurk around from time to time. Really putting some serious effort into growing a youtube channel now because I'm sick of my retail job


I subscribed, and shared your link with some people who used to post more frequently on TC back in the day, especially one who I am sure has a lot to contribute to your video on Schoenberg. Hope everything works out for you!


----------



## Neo Romanza

You're such a breath of fresh air compared to David Hurwitz, Violadude.  I'll have to subscribe to your channel as I like what you're doing. There are some others that do some interesting videos namely Samuel Andreyev and David Bruce. If you haven't checked out either one of these composer's channels then please do so.

Samuel Andreyev:

https://www.youtube.com/user/temporalfissure

David Bruce:

https://www.youtube.com/c/DBruce


----------



## 89Koechel

violadude - Just for the "record", thanks for those musically-annotated EXAMPLES, in the 18:23 post! To me, it's still interesting how Arnold S constructed his delineations of certain instruments, in certain of "his musics", of the past, to try to achieve a certain END, to his fairly-radical MEANS. ... Well, I still have a volume, bought in my college days - "Twentieth-Century Music: An Introduction", by Eric Salzman, and it has, in Chapter 10, numerous, annotated/musical examples, esp. in the Piano Piece, Op. 33a. Well, the entire consideration, by Salzman, is WELL-worth reading, and he has some exceptional insights into the "Viennese School"/Schoenberg, Webern & Berg of the time. OK, enough for now, and maybe we'll find more ways to enjoy the Viennese Three, and their obvious attempts to make MORE, than what Debussy, Wagner had to offer - eh?


----------



## JackRance

Torkelburger said:


> Kudos for making something like this, violadude. There is just the usual problem, however:
> 
> You state:
> 
> "Each note is used in the piece in the order chosen by the composer." [when the tone row was created]
> 
> And then:
> 
> "IOW, 'theoretically' if you write an F sharp in the piece, you wouldn't write another F sharp in the piece until all of the rest of the notes in the row were written down."
> 
> This is factually incorrect and a non-sequitur. It does not matter that you are insinuating "scare quotes" and stressing "theoretically". There is no theoretical sense, or any sense at all, in which that statement is true. None whatsoever...unless...the only "sense" is the sense that it is a popular "myth" which people insist on spreading widely on the internet, unfortunately fueling the haters into thinking it is a limited/restricted, paint-by-numbers system with no sense of imagination or use of ear when composing.
> 
> Just about every single 12-tone piece Schoenberg wrote breaks that "rule" *by the first page alone*.
> 
> Have you read his book _Style and Idea_, but in particular, the article/essay "Composition with Twelve Tones" in it in which Schoenberg first laid out in no uncertain terms the 12-tone technique? Nowhere in the article nor the entire book does he ever mention the "myth" you are espousing.
> 
> Not repeating a note is true in one, and only one, instance. And that is the generation of the row itself.
> 
> When writing the music itself, I can repeat a note or group of notes, before sounding the rest of the row as many times as I deem necessary, even a hundred times or more if I so choose. It doesn't matter. It is still 12-tone technique as described by Schoenberg (and used by him in practice).
> 
> Just take 3 pieces here, (but I can go through his entire 12 tone catalogue if you'd like as there are thousands of examples):
> 
> Note the repeated repetition of single notes and groups of notes over and over in different instruments and pitches right at the beginning bars 1 through 18. And note how C# and D in the cello was as an accompaniment figure in bar 11 and then less than 12 notes later, the cellos play the melody with C# and D in another octave in the same bar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check out the Intermezzo below at 4:37. The breaking of the myth is quite obvious. And not just in an ostinato sense. If you look at the very beginning of the piece, where it is linear writing, just right from the first bar the F and C flat are repeated just one bar later after only 5 and 9 notes have sounded, respectively.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this one is pretty obvious to anyone. Right at the start. Mvt I, bar 1.


There's a difference between atonal and dodecaphonic music. He explained the dodecaphonic one.


----------



## Torkelburger

JackRance said:


> There's a difference between atonal and dodecaphonic music. He explained the dodecaphonic one.


Please learn to read. My entire post was about dodecaphonic music and had absolutely nothing to do with Schoenbergian atonality.


----------



## Janspe

I went to a live (!) concert tonight in Helsinki - only for the second time this year. The reason: Schoenberg's piano concerto in the programme! The concert was supposed to have Uchida as the soloist but she had to cancel, unfortunately. What a shame, I've wanted to see her live for years now and especially in this work, which she recorded so magnificently with Boulez. But I can't really complain since the replacement was Pierre-Laurent Aimard!

He played very differently from Uchida and Pollini, and I heard a lot of things in the piano part I've never noticed before, especially in the first movement. Not sure if it was the most convincing reading I've ever heard, but it was absolutely played with great gusto and dedication - some parts had much more _punch_ to them than I've heard in Uchida's recording, for example. What a treat to hear this masterpiece live! I really think it's one of the very greatest piano concertos ever written. Aimard's two Kurtág encores went really well with the piece.

Mind you, the rest of the concert was very good as well: the Szymanowski Op. 12 _Overture_ and Dvořák's 8th symphony. I can't describe how good it felt to hear all this music live again after so long. The symphony made me tear up more than once...

I really want to hear the concerto for violin live as well - something I never managed to do so far!


----------



## Knorf

Sounds like an awesome concert!


----------



## kinzopiano

Herzeleide said:


> Some African music is almost exclusively rhythmic, hence they're brought up with a much greater intuition of complex rhythms than Westerners are, but not of the Western tonal system. The idea that the dominant seventh should lead to the tonic would be totally foreign to them, as would their intricate rhythmic pattern be to someone conditioned by the Western tonal system.
> 
> Also, Indian, Oriental musics etc. are not 'tonal'; they're *modal*. Some Hindustani ragas don't even feature the perfect fifth above the home note of the mode. They're also not fixed pitch (the home note of the mode is decided by the singer) and obviously not confined to the equal temperament.
> 
> This last point is crucial. Tonality was born on the premise of equal temperament. Music before in the western tradition was *modal*, or in the seventeenth century in a state of evolved modality that was on the brink of tonality.
> 
> Bear in mind that the meaning of *modal* means that the music is primarily linear - Medieval and Renaissance polyphony was conceived linearally, and 'harmony' simply does not exist in various Eastern and Oriental musics - the two highly developed facets are linear melody and rhythm.


African music is a hallmark of rhythm. This can be seen in the works of Akin Euba, the African musicologist who propound the theory of African pianism. please see link below for excert of some of his piano work as this is a pure atonal music composition.


----------



## Sid James

*Schoenberg revisited - Visions by moonlight* (Part 1 of 3)

_"If we consider the expression on Schoenberg's face - both in his self-portraits and in photographs - we who did not know him can surmise that part of the intensity one senses in it comes from this furious inner activity, a constant branching out of musical associations, in which small shoots gradually grow into a tree."_
- Allen Shawn.

*Verklarte Nacht (Transfigured Night), Op. 4* (1899, version for string orchestra 1917)

*Transfigured Night* is an absorbing work on so many levels – as a chamber work which is also a tone poem, as a brilliantly worked out contrapuntal web of ideas, as a conversation performed by instruments.

Schoenberg first came across Richard Dehmel’s erotically charged poetry while working on some song settings. The poem about a couple walking in the night seemed to connect with the intensity and passion of the young composer.

The music is a seamless blend of themes arising out of the music heard at the beginning, which represents the steps of the couple. Between that and the ending, with its brilliant evocation of the stars coming out, the music has spontaneity, delicacy, searching, and much else.

The original sextet version was premiered in 1902. Some of the Viennese audience showed hostility - there were a few fistfights - but from others came appreciation. Gustav Mahler was among the latter.


Video: _Pillar of Fire_, Antony Tudor’s production of _Transfigured Night_ as a ballet, is the most famous choreographed version of the piece. It was originally produced in the 1940’s. The costumes and set design are reminiscent of the paintings of Edvard Munch.







_“I think I am approaching a new kind of expression. The sounds become an almost too animal and immediate expression of sensual and spiritual emotions.” _
– Schoenberg.

*Pierrot Lunaire, Op. 21* (1912)

When I first heard _Transfigured Night_, I thought it was too earnest and heavy. In contrast, my first reaction to *Pierrot Lunaire* was of complete bafflement. Apart from the fragmentation of melody and sudden changes in mood and tempo, I thought it was too bizarre and creepy. Veering from charming to psychopathic, the singer sounded like a mix between a femme fatale and some demented master of ceremonies.

Subsequently, I was able to come to terms with it, and what helped was being able to attend a live performance that included choreography and lighting. I vividly remember when the dancer pulled out a red ribbon, which illustrated blood as mentioned in the text.

A lot of the thematic material arises from the seven note piano tune heard at the start, but the piece is as much about disintegration as it is about unity. I could only hear it distinctly in a couple of the songs (numbers 15 and 21). The constant tension between suggestions of what’s familiar and pushing it to the verge of breaking down puts the listener in a constant state of chaos. When we listen to Pierrot, we’re not hearing an illustration of the unconscious, we’re experiencing it.

Nowadays, I’m still somewhat challenged by this piece, but I’m not so repelled by it. The moonlit quality and nightmarish visions, in turns delicate and brutal, draw me in. I realise that the sense of ambiguity and unease, even horror, is normal in terms of what Schoenberg set out to convey.

The recordings I listened to:

_Transfigured Night_ - English CO/Daniel Barenboim, EMI 3 71492 2

_Pierrot Lunaire_ - Christine Schafer, vocalist/Ensemble InterContemporain/Pierre Boulez, DGG 457 630-2

Source:

Shawn, A., _Arnold Schoenberg’s Journey_, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, 2002.


----------



## Sid James

*Schoenberg revisited – Arranger/arranged* (Part 2 of 3)

_“I only had to transfer this sound to the orchestra, and I did nothing else.”_
- Schoenberg, in a letter about his Brahms orchestration, 1939.

*Brahms (orch. Schoenberg) Piano Quartet No. 1, for large orchestra* (1937)

Schoenberg made this *orchestration of* *Brahms’ Piano Quartet*, a piece he had played many times, as a response to a request by Otto Klemperer. Both of them had fled Europe and where living in Los Angeles, and Klemperer needed something special to cap off a Brahms season he was conducting with the city orchestra.

In creating the orchestration, Schoenberg said he aimed to “remain strictly in the style of Brahms and not to go farther than he himself would have gone if he lived today.” To this end, Schoenberg used a larger orchestra, with added clarinets (both E-flat and bass) and an extended percussion section. The clarinets bring to mind the sound of gypsy bands, and are especially prominent in the second movement, where they impart a mournful feel reminiscent of Brahms’ clarinet pieces. The percussion and brass – especially the xylophone and trombones – are used to great effect in the finale, which in in itself is a brilliant showpiece.

I listen to this orchestration more than any of the Brahms symphonies. I think it’s just as effective as Ravel’s orchestration of _Pictures at an Exhibition_. While Schoenberg took a less idiomatic approach, aspects of his score sound pretty much like the original would. I think he got the Brahms bass-heavy string sound down perfectly.

Video: Nuria Schoenberg Nono, the composer’s daughter, takes us on a tour of the reconstruction of his Los Angeles study which includes numerous items that he made.






_“After I had finished composing the chamber symphony...I believed that I had now found my own personal compositional style and expected that all problems would be solved… so that a way out of the confusing problems that we young composers face through the harmonic, formal, orchestral and emotional innovations of Richard Wagner.”_
- Schoenberg, 1937.

*Chamber Symphony No. 1 for fifteen solo instruments, Op. 9* (1906), _arranged by Anton Webern for violin, flute, clarinet, cello and piano_ (1921-22)

Schoenberg's *Chamber Symphony No. 1 * is a kaleidoscope of themes, constantly changing and evolving (in his analysis, Alban Berg identified 19 in total).

The work can be divided into the four or five movements (depending on who is counting) that correspond to the traditional symphony. Schoenberg was fascinated by works which compressed a musical argument into a single movement. He owned and studied scores of Beethoven’s _Grosse Fuge_, Schubert’s _Wanderer Fantasy_ and Liszt’s _Sonata in B minor_. These became the models for the chamber symphony.

As with most of Schoenberg’s works, I've found this piece hard to grasp. I can make out a group of three related themes which emerge at the start – one strident, sort of galloping, another sentimental and flowing, and a third one which is resigned and moody. The restatement of these in the middle of the piece is a pivotal moment, and acts like a release of tension. The third (or slow) movement has a mysterious, floating, even impressionistic quality to it. The more vigorous rhythms in this work remind me of some neoclassical pieces (by Stravinsky, and especially Hindemith).

Having become accustomed to the hostility of audiences to his music, Schoenberg came up with the idea of inviting them to open rehearsals of this piece. He wanted them to get an idea of how the individual voices separate and combine throughout. Even though the first of these caused the usual commotion, the subsequent rehearsals went more smoothly. Schoenberg had won over many skeptics, and the last performance was such a success that the work was immediately encored in full.

*Webern’s arrangement *was probably composed so that Schoenberg could perform this piece on the same bill as _Pierrot Lunaire, _which he took on tour. Its textures bring to mind Brahms’ chamber music. By comparison, Schoenberg’s original sounds lush and, in the louder parts, even abrasive. Later, in 1936, Schoenberg made a version for full orchestra.

The recordings I listened to:

_Brahms orchestration _- City of Birmingham SO/Simon Rattle, EMI 3714922

_Chamber Symphony _

Boston Symphony Chamber Players, Eloquence 4803300 (arr. Webern)
Birmingham Contemporary Music Group/Simon Rattle, EMI 3714922 (original version)

Sources:

_Articles on the Brahms orchestration and Chamber Symphony No. 1 at Arnold Schonberg Center_:





__





Johannes Brahms: Klavierquartett op. 25






www.schoenberg.at









__





Werke Einzelansicht






archive.schoenberg.at









__





Kammersymphonie op. 9 & 9b






www.schoenberg.at





_Brahms via Schoenberg: The Piano Quartet in G Minor by Kevin McBrien_ (2019)









Brahms via Schoenberg: The Piano Quartet in G minor


Despite his inseparable association as the creator of twelve-tone composition, Arnold Schoenberg held a deep affinity for music of the past. His early pieces, such as Guerre-Lieder and Ve…




kevinmcbrien.com





Shawn, A., _Arnold Schoenberg’s Journey_, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, 2002.


----------



## mikeh375

^^ what a fascinating little video Sid, I had no idea Schoenberg was so inventive outside of music. I knew he was a reasonable painter though and saw a self-portrait of his years ago at an exhibition in London. Of note too in that exhibition was Mahler's death mask.


----------



## Sid James

mikeh375 said:


> ^^ what a fascinating little video Sid, I had no idea Schoenberg was so inventive outside of music. I knew he was a reasonable painter though and saw a self-portrait of his years ago at an exhibition in London. Of note too in that exhibition was Mahler's death mask.


I was the same, I knew that he painted, but I didn't know about his inventions. You might also enjoy watching the video below. Schoenberg's sons, Ronald and Laurence, talk to Esa-Pekka Salonen about their father. They cover his passions besides music, including teaching and inventing things. At around the 7:30 mark, Laurence mentions that in 1909, Schoenberg put in a patent for a typewriter of music scores.

I think that prior to mass production, previous generations where adept at making things out of necessity. It was cheaper to make things yourself. Schoenberg went beyond this, because he was always looking for ways to solve problems. The same combination of intellectual rigor and creativity is found in his music.


----------



## Sid James

*Schoenberg revisited – In America* (Part 3 of 3)

_“The 1930’s were a great decade for violin concertos: Stravinsky’s dates from 1931; Berg’s, his final work, from 1935; Bartok’s Second Violin Concerto from 1938. Schoenberg’s deserves to be seen in the context of these – a violin concerto as passionately emotional and hauntingly beautiful as any of them. Nevertheless, its formidable technical difficulties for the soloist, coupled with its autumnal, Brahmsian gravity, have made it seem remote and formal to some listeners, more a picture of a great piece than a great piece. Its technical consistency – the entire piece is built seemingly effortlessly from one row – has almost seemed to act against it, inviting the criticism of “academicism.” The strain and inevitable rough edges in performances up until now have choked its song and made it seem severe, tarnishing its natural radiance. Recent performances have begun to catch up with the glory of the music itself.” - _Allen Shawn.

*Violin Concerto, Op. 36* (1934-36)

This has been yet another work by Schoenberg which confounded and intrigued me at the same time. I learnt to read it backwards, because the final movement combines the ideas heard throughout the piece. To an extent, I still conflate the first two movements, which feature ideas ranging from ruminative, even alienating, to animated. The spirit of the dance, which illuminates some of the harsher passages, is never far away. These are joined by menacing, even militaristic, elements in the final movement. There is colourful, and at times violent, writing for percussion. At one point it’s as if the violin is thrashed about by a snare drum. The outcome of this battle is ambiguous.

Hilary Hahn says that the concerto had an uneasy start because Schoenberg was like a musical pioneer “probing into uncharted realms of musical expression.” He originally wrote the concerto with Jascha Heifetz in mind, but the violinist returned the score, saying that to play it he would need to grow a sixth finger. Eventually, it was taken up by Louis Krasner, who had premiered Berg’s concerto. Leopold Stokowski, an important promoter of new music in the USA, conducted the Philadelphia Orchestra in that initial performance of 1940.

Video: _“They lined us up against a wall. We were standing against the wall and what do Jews do when they gonna be executed? What do they say? Shema Ysrael.”_ Survivors of the Warsaw ghetto tell their stories.






_“Now, what the text of the survivor means to me: it means at first a warning to all Jews, never to forget what has been done to us, never to forget that even people who did not do it themselves, agreed with them and many of them found it necessary to treat us this way. We should never forget this, even such things have not been done in the manner in which I describe in the Survivor. This does not matter. The main thing is that I saw it in my imagination.” - _Schoenberg in a letter, 1948.

*A Survivor from Warsaw for narrator, men’s chorus and orchestra, Op. 46* (1947)

Movies like _The Pianist_, directed by Roman Polanski, have more recently told stories of the most horrifying events of the Holocuast. Schoenberg’s _A Survivor from Warsaw_ was among the first artistic responses to the mass murder of Jews in Europe, which included some of his relatives.

I first came across the piece in the 1990’s, on Simon Rattle’s _Leaving Home_ television series on 20th century music. I still feel some of the same shock now as I did then, particularly when hearing the rants by the German soldier. The voices of the survivor and the soldier are spoken by the single narrator, as the musical accompaniment reflects that shadowy world between consciousness and unconsciousness. As listeners, we’re participants rather than merely observers. There have been many comments about the cinematic quality of this piece, because it so dramatically recreates the moment.

The piece originated in two commissions: one by the choreographer Corinne Cochem, who simply sought an arrangement of a Jewish song; the other from the Koussevitzky Foundation, which asked for a concert work to be performed within six weeks. Schoenberg completed the work in two weeks in August, 1947.

Initial performances had a mixed reception. Some critics said that Schoenberg had gone down the path of populism. The subject matter itself was controversial, because memories of the war where still raw. In the German language premieres in Vienna and Darmstadt the text was watered down, for example the word for gas chamber (_gaskammer_) was omitted.


The recordings I listened to:

_Violin Concerto_ – Hilary Hahn, violin/Swedish Radio SO/Esa-Pekka Salonen, DGG 4777346

_Survivor from Warsaw_ – Noam Sherriff, narrator/Rundfunkchor and Staats und Domchor, Berlin/Lucerne SO/John Axelrod, Nimbus NI5807

Sources:

Articles on _Violin Concerto_ and _Survivor from Warsaw_ at Arnold Schonberg Center:



Concerto for Violin and Orchestra op. 36





A Survivor from Warsaw op. 46



Joy Calico, _Arnold Schoenberg’s ‘A Survivor from Warsaw’ in Postwar Europe_, lecture at University of Toronto, 2019.






Shawn, A., _Arnold Schoenberg’s Journey_, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, 2002.


----------



## mikeh375

Sid James said:


> I was the same, I knew that he painted, but I didn't know about his inventions. You might also enjoy watching the video below. Schoenberg's sons, Ronald and Laurence, talk to Esa-Pekka Salonen about their father. They cover his passions besides music, including teaching and inventing things. At around the 7:30 mark, Laurence mentions that in 1909, Schoenberg put in a patent for a typewriter of music scores.
> 
> I think that prior to mass production, previous generations where adept at making things out of necessity. It was cheaper to make things yourself. Schoenberg went beyond this, because he was always looking for ways to solve problems. The same combination of intellectual rigor and creativity is found in his music.


I was surprised to see how young his boys looked. I wonder if he got his chalk stave maker idea from Stravinsky who as you probably know developed a rolling stamp for creating staves on paper.
I found it interesting that he insisted on his students being versed in CPT before taking on his 12t system. I have always thought that a grounding in the basics can do no harm even to those who wish to go way beyond even 12t writing. It's fair to say however that given the aesthetics that have developed in the last 50 years or so, mastery of CPT is not so much a requirement anymore depending on where in sound a composer may want to explore.
As a result of reading your posts Sid, I listened to GurreLieder the other day as it happened to pop up on my YT home page. I hadn't listened to that in years and although not serial or atonal, it's a wonderful validation of the technical and expressive reach he might have wished for in his students.


----------



## starthrower




----------



## Lisztianwagner

Schönberg has become one of my favourite composers since I started revisiting his works some months ago. I find his music astounding, very thrilling, introspective and beautifully mesmerizing, of a brilliant inventiveness; in his compositions, the contrapuntal weaving is elaborated and continuously transformed to create a dense, complex structure, which is not always simple to orient in with so changing melodic lines, but nonetheless the textures are logical and rigorous, as they stand out accurately and they are developed with rhythmic flexibility and unpredictability; there's a wide variety of timbres and colours (both orchestral and vocal), that gives the impression to have a huge amount of expressive possibilities to use, but also a masterful use of dissonances and harmonic contrasts to evoke haunting atmospheres, full of tension and strong emotions, that really capture and seem to be able to bring out all the powerful feelings hidden in the inner being. 
I think another quality of many Schönberg's works (for example, _Five Pieces for Orchestra,_ _A Survivor from Warsaw_ and the solo piano works) is their conciseness to concentrate the poetical inspiration and the expressiveness into a brief, but meaningful shape, resulting very suggestive anyway.


----------



## Lisztianwagner

About Schoenberg's _Von Heute auf Morgen,_ which I've recently listened for the first time: I really appreciated it, it isn’t one of his most famous works (a bit unfairly in my opinion), but it is an absolutely remarkable composition, very thrilling and intriguing, especially for what concerns the music and the use of the voices. Indeed, the libretto is simple, not particularly profound, witty and moved, though it is based on a quite interesting argument like the relationship between outwardnes and inwardness, appearance and substance, what is supposed to be modern that often reveals itself, in several aspects of life, merely ephemeral and frail, literally passing from today to tomorrow, and so it can be seen as a sort of ironic critics of some social tendencies; but nonetheless it is masterfully completed and deepened by the music. In fact, if the text has a light-hearted tone, the music is more complex, absolutely beautiful, suggestive and captivating, as well as immediately recognizable as schönbergian in its density of the contrapuntal lines, where all the sections, following the developments of the series (it was the first opera composed with the dodecaphonic method), are brilliantly combined and juxtaposed in continuous transformations to elaborate thick, but clear and solid textures; in the great variety of the timbres and orchestral colours, that gives the impression to have a huge amount of expressive possibilities to use, but also in the use of dissonances and harmonic contrasts to evoke haunting atmospheres, full of tensions and strong emotions, creating in this way a musical weaving which goes beyond and deeper than what the action simply shows and what is simply said; indeed in this opera, Schönberg’s music, in its rhythmic flexibility, breaking and moving the inner plot, in its flowing on vivid colours and timbral inventiveness, seems to be really able to express the unconscious and to bring out the deep, true feelings hidden inside the characters, who reveal through the melodies much more than what they actually do on the stage. 
Anyway, at the same time, this component puzzles me a little, if it is thought that, in the intention of the composer, the opera should be a comedy, but if I hadn’t known it, I would have never called it a comic opera; honestly the mood sounds anything but light, on the contrary, it sounds serious and anxious; shrewd and humorous in the parodies created, but a bit too sharp and dissonant for what should be a comedy that Schönberg himself described as a cheerful to funny, sometimes comic opera (_"Es ist eine heitere bis lustige, manchmal sogar - Ich hoffe wenigstens - komische Oper."_) The comic element sounds to lie in the structure, because of the semblances of closed-form piece, recitative and arioso passages, rhythms and melodies as stretched as possible into a linear outline, parodies of waltz, jazz and the wagnerian tenor, more than in the tense, deep atmosphere created by the dodecaphonic music; as a matter of fact, I have the impression that the free use of dissonances, sometimes very raw, can hardly help to describe a light mood; on the contrary, maybe a satirical, shrewdly parodic intent. 

Is that because the twelve-tone method can't fit comedy or it was comedy which wasn't exactly Schönberg's thing?


----------



## SanAntone

*Schoenberg :: The Schoenberg Quartet - Music for Strings*










Fantastic set of recordings.


----------



## Lisztianwagner

SanAntone said:


> *Schoenberg :: The Schoenberg Quartet - Music for Strings*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fantastic set of recordings.


I absolutely agree, I have it and it's a marvelous set, extremely well played and very interesting also for the solo strings arrangements (like the Wind Quintet, for example) included.


----------



## Neo Romanza

SanAntone said:


> *Schoenberg :: The Schoenberg Quartet - Music for Strings*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fantastic set of recordings.


I happen to think quite highly of the Leipziger Streichquartett in this repertoire, too.


----------



## Neo Romanza

A follow-up to my previous post, @SanAntone is certainly right in their appraisal of the Schoenberg Quartet's cycle. Just wanted to reiterate that I wasn't discounting or knocking this member's praise for their set. It's fabulous.


----------



## SanAntone

Neo Romanza said:


> A follow-up to my previous post, @SanAntone is certainly right in their appraisal of the Schoenberg Quartet's cycle. Just wanted to reiterate that I wasn't discounting or knocking this member's praise for their set. It's fabulous.


And I also think highly of the Leipziger Streichquartett. Their performance of the entire second Viennese school is among the best.


----------



## Lisztianwagner

I haven't listened to the recording of the Leipziger Streichquartett, though I've read praises about that; I would like to listen to it sooner or later, to compare it to the Schoenberg Quartet set, which is my favourite. I think other excellent performances are the Lasalle Quartet, the Diotima Quartet and the New Vienna Quartet.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Lisztianwagner said:


> I haven't listened to the recording of the Leipziger Streichquartett, though I've read praises about that; I would like to listen to it sooner or later, to compare it to the Schoenberg Quartet set, which is my favourite. I think other excellent performances are the Lasalle Quartet, the Diotima Quartet and the New Vienna Quartet.


Of the cycles you mentioned, I didn't much care for the Quatuor Diotima recordings. I found them perfectly acceptable technically, but the emotion seems to take a backseat in their interpretations. It just wasn't for me. Leipziger and Schoenberg seems to be the ones I continue to come back to but I'd love hear the Arditti and Pražák cycles at some point.


----------



## Lisztianwagner

Neo Romanza said:


> Of the cycles you mentioned, I didn't much care for the Quatuor Diotima recordings. I found them perfectly acceptable technically, but the emotion seems to take a backseat in their interpretations. It just wasn't for me. Leipziger and Schoenberg seems to be the ones I continue to come back to but I'd love hear the Arditti and Pražák cycles at some point.


Really? Hmm, I listened to their Schönberg/Berg/Webern set on Näive Classique and I didn't have that impression, the performances were technically convincing, but also of a haunting atmosphere. But I agree the Schoenberg Quartet sounds far more compelling and powerfully mesmerizing, their recordings express more tension and suggestion force.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Lisztianwagner said:


> Really? Hmm, I listened to their Schönberg/Berg/Webern set on Näive Classique and I didn't have that impression, the performances were technically convincing, but also of a haunting atmosphere. But I agree the Schoenberg Quartet sounds far more compelling and powerfully mesmerizing, their recordings express more tension and suggestion force.


I'll have to go back and re-listen, but those were basically my "mental notes" about their performances in general. Honestly, though, with the Leipziger Streichquartett and Schoenberg Quartet cycles already ripped to my computer, I've got enough Arnie SQ performances to enough at the moment. I will say I would like to check out the Gringolts Quartet cycle on BIS. I've read great things about these performances. I own several recordings from this quartet and they're fantastic.


----------



## Lisztianwagner

Neo Romanza said:


> I'll have to go back and re-listen, but there were basically my "mental notes" about their performances in general. Honestly, though, with the Leipziger Streichquartett and Schoenberg Quartet cycles already ripped to my computer, I've got enough Arnie SQ performances to enough at the moment. I will say I would like to check out the Gringolts Quartet cycle on BIS. I've read great things about these performances. I own several recordings from this quartet and they're fantastic.


I understand, no problem; in my opinion, the DQ performances are terribly fine and beautifully played, but not unparalleled, and there are other recordings which can more deeply strike fire from the heart; there is certainly no shortage of choice. I wanted to have a listen to the Diotima Quartet cycle, apart from the curiosity to test a new recording, because it also included _Presto in C major_ and _Scherzo in F Major_, (still early Romantic Schönberg, but I didn't know them), quite charming pieces.
Really? Great to hear that; I have no recordings by the Gringolts Quartet, but I've seen their Schönberg performances are uploaded on youtube; I may try them if the GQ is such a good ensemble as you tell.


----------

